Narrative:

Airport was conducting parallel landing operations to dual runways. I was vectored to intercept between IAF and intermediate fix; then cleared to track localizer to right runway.I was switched to tower frequency; with subsequent clearance for visual landing. I was still outside the intermediate fix. Since I was at glide slope intercept altitude; I flew the ILS profile; autopilot coupled.just after clearance to land; I heard ATIS information updated to information mike; which was out of time sequence; and not expected since weather was stable. Since I was already cleared to land; I did not listen to this ATIS update. Stated altimeter setting did not change. My clearance to land also included request for 'best forward speed' until FAF. I did hear other aircraft questioned if they had various aircraft 'in-sight' and affirmative acknowledgement. I also heard of other 'heavy' aircraft about 12 miles out for same runway.after the FAF; at about 600 feet AGL; I had a traffic advisory and warning from intercom system and observed TA on G500; G530 and G430 systems. First advice was <1nM; +100 feet above and perpendicular to my final approach course. I also heard my 500 feet altitude warning; expected as this point in the approach. I observed an aircraft to my 9 o'clock position in a high pitch angle attitude. The aircraft was approximately level with the perceived horizon; but the landing light beam was pointed above my aircraft. Confirmation with the TCAS system now showed +200 feet of separation. Between observance of aircraft and TCAS; I estimate it crossed overhead my position at 300-400 feet; per the TCAS reading. As the aircraft went overhead; my radar altimeter warning activated; set to 300 feet. Since my first visual impression was of a climbing aircraft; I disconnected the autopilot; but took no evasive maneuvers due to my proximity to the ground. As the TCAS reading continued to increase; and the visual picture was now going over the top; I continued the approach to a normal landing.upon exit from runway to taxiway; I confirmed that all beacon; navigation; strobe; landing and taxi lights were on during this entire event.during the event I did hear tower frequency vector the aircraft to the west and instructed them to return to approach frequency for re-sequencing. Radio 'chatter' was occurring; but I did not hear what was said during some portions of the event due to my TCAS; 500 feet; radar altitude; and minimums messages.during my taxi movement; I heard that the other parallel runway had just closed due to a disabled aircraft with a flat tire.after aircraft parking and shutdown I requested from ground frequency a phone number for ATC supervisor. The conversation with the supervisor revealed that a cessna aircraft had been originally landing on the other parallel runway; but with its closure (disabled aircraft) was on a left base leg; cleared for a visual to follow me to land. This aircraft had either misidentified which aircraft he saw; or lost sight of my position.as a side note; a company aircraft of the same type had landed immediately prior to me; and was clearing the runway. He was very visible as he cleared the active runway. At night; I don't think you could identify aircraft types visually; and I didn't hear exactly how ATC described my position; but the company aircraft on the runway may have been mistaken for me. The supervisor assured me that our crossing altitude was 500 feet separation per his radar. He did offer to file a 'near miss' report if I requested it. I declined since it seems the evasive action of the other aircraft had resolved the incursion.I did not learn if ATC radar or the other aircraft TCAS triggered the observed climb of the other aircraft.first; TCAS worked very well. At night; this may have had a very different or much closer outcome 20 years ago. TCAS was also very accurate in directing my visual scan to the aircraft. 90 degrees to the left is not the normal scan during the final approach phase of landing.second; even though it was a visual approach; having my various altitude warnings set (500 feet; radar altitude; minimums); helped keep me focused; at night; close to the ground.the aircraft approaching on the parallel runway (now closed) should have been vectored to a missed approach; rather than try to vector them in between traffic on my runway at short notice. That pilot probably had minimal time to change from a landing frame-of-mind; to identifying other aircraft and being directed to follow them (me). However; at some point he realized things were not good and he took evasive action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Pilot reported an NMAC on approach to AUS.

Narrative: Airport was conducting parallel landing operations to dual runways. I was vectored to intercept between IAF and intermediate fix; then cleared to track localizer to right runway.I was switched to tower frequency; with subsequent clearance for visual landing. I was still outside the intermediate fix. Since I was at glide slope intercept altitude; I flew the ILS profile; autopilot coupled.Just after clearance to land; I heard ATIS information updated to information Mike; which was out of time sequence; and not expected since weather was stable. Since I was already cleared to land; I did not listen to this ATIS update. Stated altimeter setting did not change. My clearance to land also included request for 'best forward speed' until FAF. I did hear other aircraft questioned if they had various aircraft 'in-sight' and affirmative acknowledgement. I also heard of other 'heavy' aircraft about 12 miles out for same runway.After the FAF; at about 600 feet AGL; I had a traffic advisory and warning from Intercom system and observed TA on G500; G530 and G430 systems. First advice was <1nM; +100 feet above and perpendicular to my final approach course. I also heard my 500 feet altitude warning; expected as this point in the approach. I observed an aircraft to my 9 o'clock position in a high pitch angle attitude. The aircraft was approximately level with the perceived horizon; but the landing light beam was pointed above my aircraft. Confirmation with the TCAS system now showed +200 feet of separation. Between observance of aircraft and TCAS; I estimate it crossed overhead my position at 300-400 feet; per the TCAS reading. As the aircraft went overhead; my radar altimeter warning activated; set to 300 feet. Since my first visual impression was of a climbing aircraft; I disconnected the autopilot; but took no evasive maneuvers due to my proximity to the ground. As the TCAS reading continued to increase; and the visual picture was now going over the top; I continued the approach to a normal landing.Upon exit from runway to taxiway; I confirmed that all beacon; navigation; strobe; landing and taxi lights were on during this entire event.During the event I did hear Tower frequency vector the aircraft to the west and instructed them to return to Approach frequency for re-sequencing. Radio 'chatter' was occurring; but I did not hear what was said during some portions of the event due to my TCAS; 500 feet; radar altitude; and minimums messages.During my taxi movement; I heard that the other parallel runway had just closed due to a disabled aircraft with a flat tire.After aircraft parking and shutdown I requested from Ground frequency a phone number for ATC supervisor. The conversation with the supervisor revealed that a Cessna aircraft had been originally landing on the other parallel runway; but with its closure (disabled aircraft) was on a left base leg; cleared for a visual to follow me to land. This aircraft had either misidentified which aircraft he saw; or lost sight of my position.As a side note; a company aircraft of the same type had landed immediately prior to me; and was clearing the runway. He was very visible as he cleared the active runway. At night; I don't think you could identify aircraft types visually; and I didn't hear exactly how ATC described my position; but the company aircraft on the runway may have been mistaken for me. The supervisor assured me that our crossing altitude was 500 feet separation per his radar. He did offer to file a 'near miss' report if I requested it. I declined since it seems the evasive action of the other aircraft had resolved the incursion.I did not learn if ATC radar or the other aircraft TCAS triggered the observed climb of the other aircraft.First; TCAS worked very well. At night; this may have had a very different or much closer outcome 20 years ago. TCAS was also very accurate in directing my visual scan to the aircraft. 90 degrees to the left is not the normal scan during the final approach phase of landing.Second; even though it was a visual approach; having my various altitude warnings set (500 feet; radar altitude; minimums); helped keep me focused; at night; close to the ground.The aircraft approaching on the parallel runway (now closed) should have been vectored to a missed approach; rather than try to vector them in between traffic on my runway at short notice. That pilot probably had minimal time to change from a landing frame-of-mind; to identifying other aircraft and being directed to follow them (me). However; at some point he realized things were not good and he took evasive action.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.