Narrative:

We were on final approach to msp airport, approaching from the west and the B757 was approaching from the northeast and we were cleared for the visual approach to runway 12L and he was cleared for the visual approach to runway 12R. We both had the airport and each other in sight. We were lined up on the ILS for glide path and localizer guidance and we saw the other aircraft closing in from the left side of our aircraft. On about 3-4 mi final I decided to level off to let the other aircraft pass underneath us on their way to lining up with runway 12R. It was nighttime and the city lights were behind the B757 and so depth perception of the closeness of that aircraft was a little distorted. When we leveled off to let him pass underneath, we got to within about 800 ft vertical separation with him. After passing him and when he was safely off to our right side, I commenced our descent to runway 12L and we had to struggle a little bit to get down in time to make a stabilized approach for the last 1000 ft. I feel that if approach control would have had us square our base leg out, we wouldn't have had to do such drastic maneuvers at that low of an altitude. I don't feel that it is really safe to have airplanes crisscross for opposite runways on a 3 mi final approach. Even though we were both on visual approachs and had visual contact with each other, the night factor made it a little difficult for depth perception and determining closure rate in order to resolve the situation sooner. We were on the last leg of a 5-LEG day that started at XD40 and we were very tired. I would have slowed my approach speed down a little bit if I would have realized how close we were to come to each other. Causal factor: having both airplanes crisscross on final for opposite runways. Contributing factors: night with city lights in the backgnd and being tired.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CL65 INITIATES EVASIVE MANEUVER FOR DSNDING, XING B757 ALIGNING ITSELF FOR A PARALLEL RWY APCH AT MSP.

Narrative: WE WERE ON FINAL APCH TO MSP ARPT, APCHING FROM THE W AND THE B757 WAS APCHING FROM THE NE AND WE WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 12L AND HE WAS CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 12R. WE BOTH HAD THE ARPT AND EACH OTHER IN SIGHT. WE WERE LINED UP ON THE ILS FOR GLIDE PATH AND LOC GUIDANCE AND WE SAW THE OTHER ACFT CLOSING IN FROM THE L SIDE OF OUR ACFT. ON ABOUT 3-4 MI FINAL I DECIDED TO LEVEL OFF TO LET THE OTHER ACFT PASS UNDERNEATH US ON THEIR WAY TO LINING UP WITH RWY 12R. IT WAS NIGHTTIME AND THE CITY LIGHTS WERE BEHIND THE B757 AND SO DEPTH PERCEPTION OF THE CLOSENESS OF THAT ACFT WAS A LITTLE DISTORTED. WHEN WE LEVELED OFF TO LET HIM PASS UNDERNEATH, WE GOT TO WITHIN ABOUT 800 FT VERT SEPARATION WITH HIM. AFTER PASSING HIM AND WHEN HE WAS SAFELY OFF TO OUR R SIDE, I COMMENCED OUR DSCNT TO RWY 12L AND WE HAD TO STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT TO GET DOWN IN TIME TO MAKE A STABILIZED APCH FOR THE LAST 1000 FT. I FEEL THAT IF APCH CTL WOULD HAVE HAD US SQUARE OUR BASE LEG OUT, WE WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO DO SUCH DRASTIC MANEUVERS AT THAT LOW OF AN ALT. I DON'T FEEL THAT IT IS REALLY SAFE TO HAVE AIRPLANES CRISSCROSS FOR OPPOSITE RWYS ON A 3 MI FINAL APCH. EVEN THOUGH WE WERE BOTH ON VISUAL APCHS AND HAD VISUAL CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER, THE NIGHT FACTOR MADE IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT FOR DEPTH PERCEPTION AND DETERMINING CLOSURE RATE IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE SIT SOONER. WE WERE ON THE LAST LEG OF A 5-LEG DAY THAT STARTED AT XD40 AND WE WERE VERY TIRED. I WOULD HAVE SLOWED MY APCH SPD DOWN A LITTLE BIT IF I WOULD HAVE REALIZED HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO COME TO EACH OTHER. CAUSAL FACTOR: HAVING BOTH AIRPLANES CRISSCROSS ON FINAL FOR OPPOSITE RWYS. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: NIGHT WITH CITY LIGHTS IN THE BACKGND AND BEING TIRED.

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.