Aircraft misidentifies traffic on visual approach in dfw airspace.

Attributes
ACN	412680
Time
Date	199808
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	airport : dfw
State Reference	TX
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : dfw tower : dfw
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Navigation In Use	Other Other
Flight Phase	landing other
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 130 flight time total : 7500 flight time type : 3000
ASRS Report	412680
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 1000 vertical : 4500
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

On right downwind, approach pointed out traffic at our 2 O'clock to follow. We saw traffic at 2 O'clock below us that we reported and were told to follow. On right base we contacted the tower. We were told by tower we were following wrong traffic. Tower pointed out a B757 at 11 O'clock 3/4 of a mi and below that we were to follow. Tower then assigned the B757 to land runway 18L and we landed runway 18R. I normally don't accept responsibility for visual separation in congested terminal areas. In my experience I've found that what a radar controller says is 2 O'clock and what I see are sometimes very different (due possibly to effects of wind or a turn before or after the controller reports traffic). In this case, there weren't many other aircraft in the area and I accepted the clearance to follow. I believe too much guess-work is involved in reporting traffic in sight to follow for a visual clearance. In the future, I will be hesitant to accept responsibility for visual separation in congested terminal airspace.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT MISIDENTS TFC ON VISUAL APCH IN DFW AIRSPACE.

Narrative: ON R DOWNWIND, APCH POINTED OUT TFC AT OUR 2 O'CLOCK TO FOLLOW. WE SAW TFC AT 2 O'CLOCK BELOW US THAT WE RPTED AND WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW. ON R BASE WE CONTACTED THE TWR. WE WERE TOLD BY TWR WE WERE FOLLOWING WRONG TFC. TWR POINTED OUT A B757 AT 11 O'CLOCK 3/4 OF A MI AND BELOW THAT WE WERE TO FOLLOW. TWR THEN ASSIGNED THE B757 TO LAND RWY 18L AND WE LANDED RWY 18R. I NORMALLY DON'T ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR VISUAL SEPARATION IN CONGESTED TERMINAL AREAS. IN MY EXPERIENCE I'VE FOUND THAT WHAT A RADAR CTLR SAYS IS 2 O'CLOCK AND WHAT I SEE ARE SOMETIMES VERY DIFFERENT (DUE POSSIBLY TO EFFECTS OF WIND OR A TURN BEFORE OR AFTER THE CTLR RPTS TFC). IN THIS CASE, THERE WEREN'T MANY OTHER ACFT IN THE AREA AND I ACCEPTED THE CLRNC TO FOLLOW. I BELIEVE TOO MUCH GUESS-WORK IS INVOLVED IN RPTING TFC IN SIGHT TO FOLLOW FOR A VISUAL CLRNC. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL BE HESITANT TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR VISUAL SEPARATION IN CONGESTED TERMINAL AIRSPACE.

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.