An aircraft on a visual approach overshot the final approach course and conflicted with an aircraft ...

Attributes
ACN	1351000
Time
Date	201604
Local Time Of Day	1801-2400
Place
Locale Reference	PHL.TRACON
State Reference	PA
Environment
Flight Conditions	Marginal
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Medium Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Medium Transport Low Wing 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Local
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Experience	Air Traffic Control Time Certified In Pos 1 (yrs) 10
Person 2
Function	Pilot Not Flying
Qualification	Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Events
Anomaly	Conflict NMAC Deviation - Procedural Clearance Deviation - Track / Heading All Types Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence

Narrative:

Aircraft X was on a visual approach to the right runway. Aircraft Y was on the visual approach to the left runway. About a mile out aircraft Y made a hard right turn; in what appeared to be an attempt to land on the right runway. From the tower they appeared almost directly above aircraft X. They were descending to land on top of aircraft X. At the last second they realized their mistake and made a left turn to head back to the left runway. They missed by maybe an airplane length. The weather was deteriorating rapidly; with wind-shear alerts; and heavy rain moving in. We as controllers make a request several times to stop the left parallel runway arrivals due to the weather moving in. After the near miss; they stopped the left runway arrivals.both airplanes are on separate frequencies heading towards each other to land side by side. It does not seem like the safest operation.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An aircraft on a Visual Approach overshot the final approach course and conflicted with an aircraft on approach to the parallel runway at PHL. The Tower Controller reported a NMAC. The flight crew of the deviating aircraft had the parallel traffic in sight.

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a Visual Approach to the right runway. Aircraft Y was on the Visual Approach to the left runway. About a mile out Aircraft Y made a hard right turn; in what appeared to be an attempt to land on the right runway. From the tower they appeared almost directly above Aircraft X. They were descending to land on top of Aircraft X. At the last second they realized their mistake and made a left turn to head back to the left runway. They missed by maybe an airplane length. The weather was deteriorating rapidly; with wind-shear alerts; and heavy rain moving in. We as controllers make a request several times to stop the left parallel runway arrivals due to the weather moving in. After the near miss; they stopped the left runway arrivals.Both airplanes are on separate frequencies heading towards each other to land side by side. It does not seem like the safest operation.

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.

An aircraft on a visual approach overshot the final approach course and conflicted with an aircraft on approach to the parallel runway at phl. The tower controller reported a near midair collision. The flight crew of the deviating aircraft had the parallel traffic in sight.