C208 PILOT REPORTS NMAC WITH METROLINER WHILE ON VISUAL APPROACH TO RWY 32 AT SLC.

Narrative

I PREVIOUSLY WAS CLRED FOR THE CARGO 1 VISUAL APCH BY SLC APCH. SWITCHED TO SLC TWR RIGHT AROUND DOGGY INTXN AND WAS FOLLOWING THE PRESCRIBED ROUTING. AS IS CUSTOMARY; RIGHT AROUND AMANA INTXN; TWR TOLD ME TO ADVISE WHEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO TURN BASE FOR RWY 32; WHICH I DID. (VERY RARELY IS THE FULL PROC FOLLOWED.) TWR TOLD ME ABOUT TFC ON FINAL FOR RWY 35; AND I RESPONDED THAT I WAS LOOKING INTO THE SUN AND PROBABLY WOULDN'T GET VISUAL ON TFC. TWR TOLD ME TO START THE BASE; THEN CHANGED HIS MIND AND TOLD ME TO CONTINUE S FOR ANOTHER MI BEFORE TURNING BASE; WHICH I DID. SOMETIME AROUND HERE I WAS TOLD TO SWITCH TO TWR ON 118.30; AND WAS TOLD OF OTHER TFC. ONCE AGAIN I RESPONDED THAT I COULDN'T SEE TFC BECAUSE OF THE SUN. I WAS CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 32 AND THEN TOLD THAT TFC WAS AT 1 O'CLOCK POS. I THEN HAD A BRIEF TERRIFYING GLIMPSE OF A METROLINER THAT SEEMED TO BE LESS THAN 50 FT OFF MY R; IN A SHARP BANK TURN TO AVOID ME. 'WHOA; YEAH; THERE HE IS!' WAS MY RESPONSE TO TWR. THERE WAS NO TIME FOR ME TO TAKE ANY EVASIVE MANEUVER BY THE TIME I SAW THE METROLINER. ANOTHER PLT; WHO WAS NEXT IN LINE ON THE CARGO 1; LATER TOLD ME THAT HE HEARD (WHILE STILL ON FREQ 120.2); THAT THE PLT OF THE METRO; HAD TOLD TWR THAT HE HAD ME IN SIGHT AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW MY ACFT. (PERHAPS THAT CAN BE CORROBORATED ON THE TAPES.) I LANDED AND THE TWR APOLOGIZED TO ME; BUT I WAS PRETTY SHAKEN UP AND I DON'T REALLY REMEMBER WHAT THE MAN SAID EXCEPT THAT THE METROLINER WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE TURNED THE OTHER WAY. A VERY SIMILAR EVENT (THOUGH NOT NEARLY AS CLOSE) OCCURRED A FEW MONTHS AGO TO ME WITH A BEECH 99 IN ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME PLACE AND I KNOW THAT OTHER PLTS HAVE HAD OTHER CLOSE CALLS. THE OTHER CARGO OPERATORS WHO HAVE SIGNED ON TO THE CARGO 1 ALMOST NEVER USE IT; INSTEAD CANCELING THEIR IFR FLT PLANS TO GET INTO SLC. MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT THOSE PLTS USUALLY FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE PROC BECAUSE FEW OF THEIR ACFT ARE GPS-EQUIPPED. ONE OF THE PROBS WITH THIS CARGO 1 VERSUS VFR SITUATION IS THAT YOU HAVE VERY FAST AIRPLANES; SUCH AS METROLINERS; CANCELING IFR AND THEN MIXING IT UP WITH MUCH SLOWER CARAVANS; AND I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE WISDOM OF THAT. BUT THE BIGGER QUESTION IS WHY ACFT ON IFR FLT PLANS; CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH; ARE NOT BEING GIVEN SEPARATION AS REQUIRED IN FAR 5-5-11B3. PERHAPS SLC CTLRS SHOULD BE REMINDED THAT IFR TFC IS THE PRIORITY AND CARGO OPERATORS SHOULD EITHER ALL USE THE CARGO 1; OR NONE SHOULD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE CARGO 1 WAS CREATED TO EASE THE WORKLOAD ON CONTROLLERS DURING PEAK ARRIVAL TIMES FOR RWY 32 BUT IS NOT MANDATORY. SOME OF THE ACFT; NOTABLY THE FASTER ONES; ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH GPS. THE TOWER NEEDS TO TAKE MORE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION; EVEN WHEN THE FLT CREW CLAIMS THEY HAVE TRAFFIC IN SIGHT.