Narrative:

Aircraft #1 on descent into adq received current ATIS with visibility at 3/4 mi. Called adq tower for visibility update, was advised visibility variable 1/2 - 10+ with show showers passing through area. Received clearance from zan to descend to 10000 ft, followed by clearance to 6000 ft and via the odk VOR 10 DME arc transition to 8 DME fix on the adq localizer hold east to follow IFR traffic which was to be cleared for the odk VOR-1 runway 25 approach. This aircraft #2 which was inbound from the north to the odk VOR. Aircraft #2 requested and received a hold clearance as published on the VOR approach due to low visibility. I did not hear zan give aircraft #2 a specific transition to the odk VOR nor did I hear aircraft #2 enter hold. While I was on the odk 10 DME arc inbound to the localizer, zan gave aircraft #2 a clearance for the VOR approach. As aircraft #1 joined the adq localizer, the airport and all the area around the airport and to the south and east was in view. The VOR, woody island, was not in view. Approaching the 8 DME fix, aircraft #1 requested the location of aircraft #2, was advised by aircraft #2 they were 8 mi north of the VOR. This put them about 13 mi from runway 25 and myself 8 mi from runway 25 -- a 5 mi aircraft separation at that point. Expecting aircraft #2 to fly a transition procedure turn upon their reaching the VOR, I canceled IFR with zan and coordinated with adq tower to continue straight in VMC to runway 25. Aircraft #2 was unhappy that I went in ahead of them. Aircraft #2 stated they were cleared for an IFR approach and would have to miss approach -- they did not. I notified aircraft #2 I would keep speed up and be clear of runway 25 prior to their arrival. I do not know if aircraft #2 had to circle or do any other maneuver for spacing prior to their landing at adq. Following my arrival, I called adq tower and discussed situation with them. They were in agreement that they did not see any conflict based on aircraft #2 statement that they were 8 mi north of the VOR at the time I canceled IFR. No aircraft evasive action was required by aircraft #1 or #2. It was my belief that aircraft #2 would be turning outbound away from the airport that influenced my decision to cancel my IFR clearance and proceed inbound, this to save time and avoid holding. In review with the way events occurred it would have been better for me to have held for a few mins till it was clear what aircraft #2 was doing thus avoiding last min confusion for both aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRLINE B737-400 FLC THAT WAS SEQUENCED AS THE #2 ACFT TO ARRIVE AT ADQ CANCELED THEIR IFR FLT PLAN WITH ARTCC AND COORDINATED WITH THE TWR TO LAND BEFORE A SLOWER DC6 FREIGHT ACFT THAT HAD BEEN SEQUENCED AS #1. NO CONFLICT.

Narrative: ACFT #1 ON DSCNT INTO ADQ RECEIVED CURRENT ATIS WITH VISIBILITY AT 3/4 MI. CALLED ADQ TWR FOR VISIBILITY UPDATE, WAS ADVISED VISIBILITY VARIABLE 1/2 - 10+ WITH SHOW SHOWERS PASSING THROUGH AREA. RECEIVED CLRNC FROM ZAN TO DSND TO 10000 FT, FOLLOWED BY CLRNC TO 6000 FT AND VIA THE ODK VOR 10 DME ARC TRANSITION TO 8 DME FIX ON THE ADQ LOC HOLD E TO FOLLOW IFR TFC WHICH WAS TO BE CLRED FOR THE ODK VOR-1 RWY 25 APCH. THIS ACFT #2 WHICH WAS INBOUND FROM THE N TO THE ODK VOR. ACFT #2 REQUESTED AND RECEIVED A HOLD CLRNC AS PUBLISHED ON THE VOR APCH DUE TO LOW VISIBILITY. I DID NOT HEAR ZAN GIVE ACFT #2 A SPECIFIC TRANSITION TO THE ODK VOR NOR DID I HEAR ACFT #2 ENTER HOLD. WHILE I WAS ON THE ODK 10 DME ARC INBOUND TO THE LOC, ZAN GAVE ACFT #2 A CLRNC FOR THE VOR APCH. AS ACFT #1 JOINED THE ADQ LOC, THE ARPT AND ALL THE AREA AROUND THE ARPT AND TO THE S AND E WAS IN VIEW. THE VOR, WOODY ISLAND, WAS NOT IN VIEW. APCHING THE 8 DME FIX, ACFT #1 REQUESTED THE LOCATION OF ACFT #2, WAS ADVISED BY ACFT #2 THEY WERE 8 MI N OF THE VOR. THIS PUT THEM ABOUT 13 MI FROM RWY 25 AND MYSELF 8 MI FROM RWY 25 -- A 5 MI ACFT SEPARATION AT THAT POINT. EXPECTING ACFT #2 TO FLY A TRANSITION PROC TURN UPON THEIR REACHING THE VOR, I CANCELED IFR WITH ZAN AND COORDINATED WITH ADQ TWR TO CONTINUE STRAIGHT IN VMC TO RWY 25. ACFT #2 WAS UNHAPPY THAT I WENT IN AHEAD OF THEM. ACFT #2 STATED THEY WERE CLRED FOR AN IFR APCH AND WOULD HAVE TO MISS APCH -- THEY DID NOT. I NOTIFIED ACFT #2 I WOULD KEEP SPD UP AND BE CLR OF RWY 25 PRIOR TO THEIR ARR. I DO NOT KNOW IF ACFT #2 HAD TO CIRCLE OR DO ANY OTHER MANEUVER FOR SPACING PRIOR TO THEIR LNDG AT ADQ. FOLLOWING MY ARR, I CALLED ADQ TWR AND DISCUSSED SIT WITH THEM. THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT THAT THEY DID NOT SEE ANY CONFLICT BASED ON ACFT #2 STATEMENT THAT THEY WERE 8 MI N OF THE VOR AT THE TIME I CANCELED IFR. NO ACFT EVASIVE ACTION WAS REQUIRED BY ACFT #1 OR #2. IT WAS MY BELIEF THAT ACFT #2 WOULD BE TURNING OUTBOUND AWAY FROM THE ARPT THAT INFLUENCED MY DECISION TO CANCEL MY IFR CLRNC AND PROCEED INBOUND, THIS TO SAVE TIME AND AVOID HOLDING. IN REVIEW WITH THE WAY EVENTS OCCURRED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER FOR ME TO HAVE HELD FOR A FEW MINS TILL IT WAS CLR WHAT ACFT #2 WAS DOING THUS AVOIDING LAST MIN CONFUSION FOR BOTH ACFT.

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.