Narrative:

A C172 flying the ILS approach in VFR conditions on a 5 mile final reported coming within 200 ft horizontally and 0 ft vertically from a PA46. The C172 had called inbound and was initially 2 1/2 miles south of final abeam the PA46 and indicating 60 KTS faster. The C172 was told to fly directly to the numbers and maintain maximum forward speed to ensure proper spacing. The C172 was then observed reducing speed to approximately 110 KTS and was angling towards a 5 mile final and not directly towards the numbers as instructed. The C172 was then told to remain south of final until he had the aircraft in sight and to not intercept the center line until he had the traffic. The C172 informed the tower that they had the traffic and that he was no factor. The PA46 had not contacted the tower so the controller reached out to see if the PA46 was on frequency. The PA46 said they were and the tower immediately issued a traffic advisory of the aircraft to their left and informed them that the traffic said they had them in sight. The PA46 said they were looking. The tower issued a second traffic advisory and the PA46 said they had the traffic moving to their 12 o'clock and pulling away. The tower told the PA46 to follow the traffic and cleared them to land. At no time did either pilot indicate there was a near mid air collision. The pilot of the PA46 called later to report the incident. The pilot of the PA46 made it clear when he called that he was satisfied with the air traffic service and felt the controller did what was necessary to provide separation and traffic advisories. The main reason for his call was to turn in the other pilot for 'reckless flying' and he felt that filing a near midair collision was the best way to put the incident on the other pilot's record in case of future incidents. The pilot of the C172 stated on the phone that he had the other aircraft in sight the whole time and felt that it was a 'non-incident'. A pilot deviation should be filed against the pilot of the C172 due to the fact that he did not comply with initial instructions to alter his course and increase speed. Then when he was told to remain south of final he instead joined final in close proximity to the aircraft already established on final despite having said the aircraft was 'no factor'.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Tower Controller described a NMAC claiming one of aircraft involved failed to comply with ATC instructions.

Narrative: A C172 flying the ILS approach in VFR conditions on a 5 mile final reported coming within 200 FT horizontally and 0 FT vertically from a PA46. The C172 had called inbound and was initially 2 1/2 miles south of final abeam the PA46 and indicating 60 KTS faster. The C172 was told to fly directly to the numbers and maintain maximum forward speed to ensure proper spacing. The C172 was then observed reducing speed to approximately 110 KTS and was angling towards a 5 mile final and not directly towards the numbers as instructed. The C172 was then told to remain south of final until he had the aircraft in sight and to not intercept the center line until he had the traffic. The C172 informed the Tower that they had the traffic and that he was no factor. The PA46 had not contacted the Tower so the Controller reached out to see if the PA46 was on frequency. The PA46 said they were and the Tower immediately issued a traffic advisory of the aircraft to their left and informed them that the traffic said they had them in sight. The PA46 said they were looking. The Tower issued a second traffic advisory and the PA46 said they had the traffic moving to their 12 o'clock and pulling away. The Tower told the PA46 to follow the traffic and cleared them to land. At no time did either pilot indicate there was a near mid air collision. The pilot of the PA46 called later to report the incident. The pilot of the PA46 made it clear when he called that he was satisfied with the air traffic service and felt the Controller did what was necessary to provide separation and traffic advisories. The main reason for his call was to turn in the other pilot for 'reckless flying' and he felt that filing a NMAC was the best way to put the incident on the other pilot's record in case of future incidents. The pilot of the C172 stated on the phone that he had the other aircraft in sight the whole time and felt that it was a 'non-incident'. A pilot deviation should be filed against the pilot of the C172 due to the fact that he did not comply with initial instructions to alter his course and increase speed. Then when he was told to remain south of final he instead joined final in close proximity to the aircraft already established on final despite having said the aircraft was 'no factor'.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.