Narrative:

On downwind for landing at midway, 1000' AGL. We were cleared to land from an ILS runway 31L, circle to land runway 22L. We were abeam the approach end of runway 22L and in the landing confign, I noticed considerable traffic departing runway 22L. One aircraft was in position with several in line for takeoff. I had not been informed of any traffic ahead of us by the tower. Having been into midway before and remembering I had been asked to extend on previous occasions, I asked the copilot to confirm out landing clearance. The tower at this point stated we were cleared to land and did not mention any traffic or additional information in conjunction with our clearance. While in the turn from base to final (left turn in), another aircraft (light transport) came on the radio and questioned the tower about their clearance to land. The copilot, looking out the window at our altitude or slightly above and about 1000' (EST) saw the light transport making an evasive turn to the right. After landing we talked was in progress. We were informed the situation was about to be corrected by the tower, but the light transport pilot took action before the tower could say or give instructions. Question: if we have been cleared to land and we ask the tower for landing confirmation, is the tower required to give traffic and additional information when they restate the 'cleared to land' clearance? If additional information and traffic has been issued with a clearance to land, and in our case we do not recall any, it appears that a pilot can interpret a confirmation on the clearance to land to have 'no restrictions'. After all, a confirmation request indicates the clearance is not fully understood.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWO ACFT WERE CLEARED TO LAND WITHOUT BEING SEQUENCED PROPERLY. SECOND ACFT TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID THE FIRST ACFT.

Narrative: ON DOWNWIND FOR LNDG AT MIDWAY, 1000' AGL. WE WERE CLRED TO LAND FROM AN ILS RWY 31L, CIRCLE TO LAND RWY 22L. WE WERE ABEAM THE APCH END OF RWY 22L AND IN THE LNDG CONFIGN, I NOTICED CONSIDERABLE TFC DEPARTING RWY 22L. ONE ACFT WAS IN POS WITH SEVERAL IN LINE FOR TKOF. I HAD NOT BEEN INFORMED OF ANY TFC AHEAD OF US BY THE TWR. HAVING BEEN INTO MIDWAY BEFORE AND REMEMBERING I HAD BEEN ASKED TO EXTEND ON PREVIOUS OCCASIONS, I ASKED THE COPLT TO CONFIRM OUT LNDG CLRNC. THE TWR AT THIS POINT STATED WE WERE CLRED TO LAND AND DID NOT MENTION ANY TFC OR ADDITIONAL INFO IN CONJUNCTION WITH OUR CLRNC. WHILE IN THE TURN FROM BASE TO FINAL (L TURN IN), ANOTHER ACFT (LTT) CAME ON THE RADIO AND QUESTIONED THE TWR ABOUT THEIR CLRNC TO LAND. THE COPLT, LOOKING OUT THE WINDOW AT OUR ALT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE AND ABOUT 1000' (EST) SAW THE LTT MAKING AN EVASIVE TURN TO THE R. AFTER LNDG WE TALKED WAS IN PROGRESS. WE WERE INFORMED THE SITUATION WAS ABOUT TO BE CORRECTED BY THE TWR, BUT THE LTT PLT TOOK ACTION BEFORE THE TWR COULD SAY OR GIVE INSTRUCTIONS. QUESTION: IF WE HAVE BEEN CLRED TO LAND AND WE ASK THE TWR FOR LNDG CONFIRMATION, IS THE TWR REQUIRED TO GIVE TFC AND ADDITIONAL INFO WHEN THEY RESTATE THE 'CLRED TO LAND' CLRNC? IF ADDITIONAL INFO AND TFC HAS BEEN ISSUED WITH A CLRNC TO LAND, AND IN OUR CASE WE DO NOT RECALL ANY, IT APPEARS THAT A PLT CAN INTERPRET A CONFIRMATION ON THE CLRNC TO LAND TO HAVE 'NO RESTRICTIONS'. AFTER ALL, A CONFIRMATION REQUEST INDICATES THE CLRNC IS NOT FULLY UNDERSTOOD.

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.