Narrative:

ATC confusion. We were sent around from short final to runway 29 because a landing aircraft did not clear the runway in time with another aircraft cleared 'into position and hold.' the tower gave us the option to turn downwind (left) at 1500 ft and to stay with him, which we accepted. We were then told to turn base behind 'company Y' at our 9 O'clock position. As we began our turn, we were broken off the approach and told to follow another aircraft (aircraft Z) now at our 11 O'clock position. There was confusion between tower and aircraft Z as to the clearance aircraft Z was given. We continued our downwind and again were told to follow air carrier Z now at our 9 O'clock position. Air carrier Z was now behind the company Y aircraft that we were originally told to follow. As we made our turn to base, we received an urgent call asking us if we had our other company xx in sight at 12 O'clock position. We looked and acquired the traffic then immediately made a right turn back to a downwind heading. As we passed the traffic, we did receive a TCASII TA. We finally turned base and accomplished the approach on our third attempt. Apparently, the tower had forgotten that there was a company aircraft already following air carrier Z when we were told to do the same. In a subsequent telephone conversation with the tower, they indicated to me that they felt we had done nothing wrong, and that the confusion was between them and some other aircraft. They also mentioned that at times they receive very short notice as to the exact numbers and spacing of aircraft inbound from approach control. The event and an almost identical event in the military yrs ago led me to the conclusion that it is very difficult for tower controllers to integrate a sudden VFR pattern into their IFR arrs. If given the option, the best course of action following a go around seems to be a return to approach control.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATC CONFUSION REIGNED WHEN AN ACR B737-300 HAD TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS WITHIN THE TFC PATTERN FOR A NIGHT VISUAL APCH TO OAK, CA.

Narrative: ATC CONFUSION. WE WERE SENT AROUND FROM SHORT FINAL TO RWY 29 BECAUSE A LNDG ACFT DID NOT CLR THE RWY IN TIME WITH ANOTHER ACFT CLRED 'INTO POS AND HOLD.' THE TWR GAVE US THE OPTION TO TURN DOWNWIND (L) AT 1500 FT AND TO STAY WITH HIM, WHICH WE ACCEPTED. WE WERE THEN TOLD TO TURN BASE BEHIND 'COMPANY Y' AT OUR 9 O'CLOCK POS. AS WE BEGAN OUR TURN, WE WERE BROKEN OFF THE APCH AND TOLD TO FOLLOW ANOTHER ACFT (ACFT Z) NOW AT OUR 11 O'CLOCK POS. THERE WAS CONFUSION BTWN TWR AND ACFT Z AS TO THE CLRNC ACFT Z WAS GIVEN. WE CONTINUED OUR DOWNWIND AND AGAIN WERE TOLD TO FOLLOW ACR Z NOW AT OUR 9 O'CLOCK POS. ACR Z WAS NOW BEHIND THE COMPANY Y ACFT THAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY TOLD TO FOLLOW. AS WE MADE OUR TURN TO BASE, WE RECEIVED AN URGENT CALL ASKING US IF WE HAD OUR OTHER COMPANY XX IN SIGHT AT 12 O'CLOCK POS. WE LOOKED AND ACQUIRED THE TFC THEN IMMEDIATELY MADE A R TURN BACK TO A DOWNWIND HDG. AS WE PASSED THE TFC, WE DID RECEIVE A TCASII TA. WE FINALLY TURNED BASE AND ACCOMPLISHED THE APCH ON OUR THIRD ATTEMPT. APPARENTLY, THE TWR HAD FORGOTTEN THAT THERE WAS A COMPANY ACFT ALREADY FOLLOWING ACR Z WHEN WE WERE TOLD TO DO THE SAME. IN A SUBSEQUENT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE TWR, THEY INDICATED TO ME THAT THEY FELT WE HAD DONE NOTHING WRONG, AND THAT THE CONFUSION WAS BTWN THEM AND SOME OTHER ACFT. THEY ALSO MENTIONED THAT AT TIMES THEY RECEIVE VERY SHORT NOTICE AS TO THE EXACT NUMBERS AND SPACING OF ACFT INBOUND FROM APCH CTL. THE EVENT AND AN ALMOST IDENTICAL EVENT IN THE MIL YRS AGO LED ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR TWR CTLRS TO INTEGRATE A SUDDEN VFR PATTERN INTO THEIR IFR ARRS. IF GIVEN THE OPTION, THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION FOLLOWING A GAR SEEMS TO BE A RETURN TO APCH CTL.

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.