Narrative:

I was captain of an medium large transport ord lgb under IFR flight plan. Aircraft and digital flight guidance were all excellent condition co-pilot 60 hour in type. Coast approval cleared us for approach and told us to contact tower at becka. Tower was busy so we called at 1200 AGL on final, just as runway was coming into sight. Tower stated 'cleared to land.' 'small aircraft-Y 12 O'clock 2 miles 1000 ft.' 'also small aircraft-Z short final runway 25L.' at 1000 ft we saw small aircraft-Y coming at us as we were descending on the glide slope we saw we would pass under the small aircraft-Y. At 500-600 AGL we picked up the small aircraft-Z on a conflicting course it looked like we were going to meet at the 25L/30 intersection with a small aircraft-Y less than 500 ft above us. I studied the situation and told the co-pilot to slow to min speed. A go around would only have made the situation worse in this case. We were over the runway at 100 ft radar altitude when the small aircraft-Z cleared the intersection. With all these distractions from OM to flare I did remember the before landing checklist and to watch the new co-pilot a little. On the ground the tower operator did not seem concerned about this lack of separation. I thought filing IFR gave you some separation especially above 18000 and in a TCA or control zone. What is the minimum separation? The FAA doesn't seem to know? This was my minimum but I was trapped by the tower. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter has made follow up and ATC claims this was legal operation with the crossing small aircraft-Y but cannot get them to give a definition of legal separation between arriving IFR and local VFR in pattern. Even wrote head of flight standards in washington and they will not give answer. Feels lgb tower gives local GA priority and does not like air carrier traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BETWEEN ACR MLG AND GA SMA AT SAME TIME AS LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION BETWEEN THE MLG AND LNDG SECOND SMA.

Narrative: I WAS CAPT OF AN MLG ORD LGB UNDER IFR FLIGHT PLAN. ACFT AND DIGITAL FLIGHT GUIDANCE WERE ALL EXCELLENT CONDITION CO-PILOT 60 HR IN TYPE. COAST APPROVAL CLRED US FOR APPROACH AND TOLD US TO CONTACT TWR AT BECKA. TWR WAS BUSY SO WE CALLED AT 1200 AGL ON FINAL, JUST AS RUNWAY WAS COMING INTO SIGHT. TWR STATED 'CLRED TO LAND.' 'SMA-Y 12 O'CLOCK 2 MILES 1000 FT.' 'ALSO SMA-Z SHORT FINAL RWY 25L.' AT 1000 FT WE SAW SMA-Y COMING AT US AS WE WERE DESCENDING ON THE GLIDE SLOPE WE SAW WE WOULD PASS UNDER THE SMA-Y. AT 500-600 AGL WE PICKED UP THE SMA-Z ON A CONFLICTING COURSE IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE GOING TO MEET AT THE 25L/30 INTERSECTION WITH A SMA-Y LESS THAN 500 FT ABOVE US. I STUDIED THE SITUATION AND TOLD THE CO-PILOT TO SLOW TO MIN SPEED. A GO AROUND WOULD ONLY HAVE MADE THE SITUATION WORSE IN THIS CASE. WE WERE OVER THE RUNWAY AT 100 FT RADAR ALT WHEN THE SMA-Z CLRED THE INTERSECTION. WITH ALL THESE DISTRACTIONS FROM OM TO FLARE I DID REMEMBER THE BEFORE LANDING CHECKLIST AND TO WATCH THE NEW CO-PILOT A LITTLE. ON THE GND THE TWR OPERATOR DID NOT SEEM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS LACK OF SEPARATION. I THOUGHT FILING IFR GAVE YOU SOME SEPARATION ESPECIALLY ABOVE 18000 AND IN A TCA OR CONTROL ZONE. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM SEPARATION? THE FAA DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW? THIS WAS MY MINIMUM BUT I WAS TRAPPED BY THE TWR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER HAS MADE FOLLOW UP AND ATC CLAIMS THIS WAS LEGAL OPERATION WITH THE XING SMA-Y BUT CANNOT GET THEM TO GIVE A DEFINITION OF LEGAL SEPARATION BETWEEN ARRIVING IFR AND LOCAL VFR IN PATTERN. EVEN WROTE HEAD OF FLT STANDARDS IN WASHINGTON AND THEY WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER. FEELS LGB TWR GIVES LOCAL GA PRIORITY AND DOES NOT LIKE ACR TFC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.