Air carrier first officer expresses doubt as to visual approach clearance legality where two airport...

Attributes
ACN	138020
Time
Date	199002
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	airport : eyw
State Reference	FL
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1500 msl bound upper : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : eyw tower : eyw
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other other
Route In Use	approach : visual arrival other
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	other
Make Model Name	Military Transport
Flight Phase	descent : approach landing other other
Route In Use	approach : visual arrival other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial pilot : atp pilot : flight engineer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 134 flight time total : 11943 flight time type : 528
ASRS Report	138020
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	other anomaly other other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Ambiguous
Air Traffic Incident	other other
Situations
ATC Facility	procedure or policy : unspecified
Airport	other physical facility

Narrative:

Descending into key west area, we had both key west international and navy key west in sight as well as an aircraft some distance ahead of us. As we were in downwind for runway 09 at 1500' MSL, approach stated that we had mlt traffic at approximately 12 O'clock. No distance between us and the aircraft was stated, but it appeared that the mlt had proceeded west of the eyw VOR. Captain was flying and I worked radios. I acknowledged I had the aircraft in sight and confirmed mlt was landing at navy key west and not key west international. Controller then told us to maintain visual separation from the mlt, cleared us for a visual approach to runway 09 and told us to contact tower. I asked controller before switching if mlt had started turn toward final. She indicated that he would soon. Captain made a normal short approach to runway 09. While in our turn to final, I was able to keep the mlt in sight, but I became concerned that it might appear that we were cutting him off. I had previously contacted tower, we were cleared to land and I asked controller how many miles away he showed mlt. Tower controller stated he had no radar so he did not know. As we approached final approach course, I still had mlt in sight and voiced concern to the captain as to his relative location. Captain stated he believed mlt to be no factor. We landed, taxied to ramp, secured engines prior to mlt passing overhead on his approach into navy key west, so he probably was no factor. However, a number of things concerned me. I wish the approach controller had told us the distance between us and the mlt. Perhaps I should have requested that information as well as clarification that she expected us to turn inside the mlt. I wish that she had continued the mlt wbound before turning it in for its normally long military style final approach. This is a most unusual situation wherein 2 aircraft are landing in such close proximity at 2 separate airports. If I ever encounter this type situation again, I will be certain to ascertain just where we are expected to fit into the picture.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FO EXPRESSES DOUBT AS TO VISUAL APCH CLRNC LEGALITY WHERE TWO ARPTS ARE IN CLOSE PROX TO EACH OTHER.

Narrative: DESCENDING INTO KEY WEST AREA, WE HAD BOTH KEY WEST INTL AND NAVY KEY WEST IN SIGHT AS WELL AS AN ACFT SOME DISTANCE AHEAD OF US. AS WE WERE IN DOWNWIND FOR RWY 09 AT 1500' MSL, APCH STATED THAT WE HAD MLT TFC AT APPROX 12 O'CLOCK. NO DISTANCE BETWEEN US AND THE ACFT WAS STATED, BUT IT APPEARED THAT THE MLT HAD PROCEEDED W OF THE EYW VOR. CAPT WAS FLYING AND I WORKED RADIOS. I ACKNOWLEDGED I HAD THE ACFT IN SIGHT AND CONFIRMED MLT WAS LNDG AT NAVY KEY WEST AND NOT KEY WEST INTL. CTLR THEN TOLD US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM THE MLT, CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 09 AND TOLD US TO CONTACT TWR. I ASKED CTLR BEFORE SWITCHING IF MLT HAD STARTED TURN TOWARD FINAL. SHE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD SOON. CAPT MADE A NORMAL SHORT APCH TO RWY 09. WHILE IN OUR TURN TO FINAL, I WAS ABLE TO KEEP THE MLT IN SIGHT, BUT I BECAME CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT APPEAR THAT WE WERE CUTTING HIM OFF. I HAD PREVIOUSLY CONTACTED TWR, WE WERE CLRED TO LAND AND I ASKED CTLR HOW MANY MILES AWAY HE SHOWED MLT. TWR CTLR STATED HE HAD NO RADAR SO HE DID NOT KNOW. AS WE APCHED FINAL APCH COURSE, I STILL HAD MLT IN SIGHT AND VOICED CONCERN TO THE CAPT AS TO HIS RELATIVE LOCATION. CAPT STATED HE BELIEVED MLT TO BE NO FACTOR. WE LANDED, TAXIED TO RAMP, SECURED ENGINES PRIOR TO MLT PASSING OVERHEAD ON HIS APCH INTO NAVY KEY WEST, SO HE PROBABLY WAS NO FACTOR. HOWEVER, A NUMBER OF THINGS CONCERNED ME. I WISH THE APCH CTLR HAD TOLD US THE DISTANCE BETWEEN US AND THE MLT. PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE REQUESTED THAT INFO AS WELL AS CLARIFICATION THAT SHE EXPECTED US TO TURN INSIDE THE MLT. I WISH THAT SHE HAD CONTINUED THE MLT WBOUND BEFORE TURNING IT IN FOR ITS NORMALLY LONG MIL STYLE FINAL APCH. THIS IS A MOST UNUSUAL SITUATION WHEREIN 2 ACFT ARE LNDG IN SUCH CLOSE PROX AT 2 SEPARATE ARPTS. IF I EVER ENCOUNTER THIS TYPE SITUATION AGAIN, I WILL BE CERTAIN TO ASCERTAIN JUST WHERE WE ARE EXPECTED TO FIT INTO THE PICTURE.

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

Air carrier first officer expresses doubt as to visual approach clearance legality where two airports are in close proximity to each other.