Air carrier flight crew on approach reported a NMAC with a GA aircraft doing pattern work on a different runway. Pilot flying took evasive action to avoid a collision.
Synopsis
Air carrier flight crew on approach reported a NMAC with a GA aircraft doing pattern work on a different runway. Pilot flying took evasive action to avoid a collision.
Narrative
We were on final approach course just outside the FAF for runway 30 at LGB. Tower called out traffic at our 11 o'clock within 1000 ft of our altitude. Neither the captain nor I saw the traffic; even after a second call out by tower. We kept looking. We were inside the FAF on approx. a 1 mile final; descending on the glide slope; when I saw the general aviation traffic at our 12 o'clock approx. 400 ft above us. I would estimate the lateral distance between the two of us as just several hundred feet as well. This plane was on a left downwind doing pattern work on runway 26L.As the PF; when I saw the traffic ; I pushed the nose smoothly down to go below glide slope in VMC conditions to avoid a potential collision/RA. I remained visual to the runway with 3 red / 1 white on the PAPI. We cleared the traffic and landed without incident.I feel tower could have directed the traffic to perform a 360 on the their downwind for 26L in order to not cross our path so close as we were on short final. Even in visual conditions; for whatever reason; if we needed to perform a go around we would have 100% hit the general aviation traffic just 400 ft above us. This is 100% not a safe situation and there were many things tower could have done different to avoid these two planes coming this close. The pattern on 26L was not busy so better options were: extend upwind; extend crosswind; or 360 on the downwind would have been the right call here; in my opinion. Our aircraft came within 400 ft vertically and several hundred feet laterally of a general aviation aircraft on short final.
Second reporter narrative
We were cleared for the LGB ILS 30 in visual conditions; which we acknowledged; and LGB Tower notified us of traffic at our eleven o'clock position. He indicated that the aircraft was in the pattern for 26L and that they should be no factor. The only traffic the PF (Pilot Flying) and I saw was traffic at one o'clock; so we queried about that traffic; and the Controller indicated that they were also in the pattern. I notified the Tower we had that traffic at one o'clock but could not see the one at eleven o'clock. We never heard the Controller tell us the GA aircraft had us in sight. At approximately 1.5 miles on the final; the traffic we had yet to acquire passed directly in front and 400 ft above us. The PF was stable on the glideslope with a normal descent rate; and we did not receive a TCAS RA. As we descended; the TCAS continued indicating that the aircraft was 400 ft above our position; which we could only surmise they started their descent as they were over the top of us; positioning themselves to land on 26L. No Passengers or Flight Attendants made any comments as they deplaned. I contacted the Tower to discuss the event with them when we were parked at the gate. Our concern was that the positioning of our two aircraft was only 100 ft away from declaring a near miss (which we did not declare); to which the Tower Controller agreed. He explained that their cross-over traffic while in the pattern for 26L will clear aircraft on final for Runway 30 by 500 ft. I thanked him for his explanation and then contacted Dispatch; Chief Pilot; and Operations. He supported the Tower Controller's explanation that 500 ft separation is the legal limit in our situation and has been signed off on in Class D airspace. It was also explained that if two aircraft converged at a rate that would constitute a near miss; the Tower Controller would issue the GA aircraft a turn. With both aircraft not having visual contact with each other and relying on the Controller to maintain separation; we accept unnecessary risk in an increasingly challenging and fatiguing environment. We did not see anything on the company information describing this possible situation to help us plan and mitigate this risk. The only thing in the company information was to consider sitting the Flight Attendants early upon arrival due to the high TCAS rate in the vicinity of LGB (which we did). This resulted in an extreme distraction on landing; roll out; and taxi in. This situation caught the First Officer and me totally off guard. All I could think about on my drive home was what if we executed a go-around moments before our aircraft crossed paths. I have been flying aircraft for 35 years; and this is the closest I have ever been to another aircraft in the air. It was unexpected and shocking. Aircraft passed above us at 400 ft while we were on a 1.5 mile for Runway 30.Adding to the company information describing this expectation would help our Crews plan and mitigate this risk to reduce distraction. Also; a required call from the Tower that the aircraft will be passing above our flight path at an exact altitude. Or if one or both aircraft do not have each other in sight to not allow a converging path. I do not believe that these risk decisions were made at the right level when implementing this procedure. With what is currently in place; we are accepting unnecessary risk. I do not believe the benefits outweigh the cost. Thank you for all you do. I appreciate your time and dedication to safety.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.