NMAC ON FINAL APCH. NIGHT OPERATION. TRAFFIC ADVISORY GIVEN.

Narrative

THE STUDENT PLT WAS DOING WELL AND I HAD HIM UNDER THE HOOD; TRACKING IN ON THE SJC VOR. TO AVOID ANY CONFLICT WITH THE ILS; I SET THE MC ON 295 DEGS TO ALLOW FOR ANY DIFFICULTY ON HIS PART WITH TRACKING THE R. THIS PUT OUR POS NEARLY TO HWY 101 ON THE E AS WE RPTED AT IBM AND SET OUR XPONDER TO 0136(?) AND CONFIRMED THE SQUAWK CODE WITH THE TWR. WE WERE ASKED TO RPT AT THE FAIRGROUNDS AND TOLD OF TFC ABOUT 1 1/2 MI AT 11 O'CLOCK WHICH WE ACKNOWLEDGED. WE WERE AT 1800' AT THE OM WHEN THE PLT TRIED TO RPT; BUT WAS UNABLE TO DUE TO HEAVY RADIO TFC UNTIL 5 DME. WE WERE STILL DOING ABOUT 120 KTS AT THE MARKER AS THE STUDENT PLT WAS STILL UNDER THE HOOD AND WAS UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS TYPE OF APCH. I CAUTIONED HIM TO SLOW; WHICH HE DID TO ABOUT 90 KTS. WE WERE STILL WAY TO THE RIGHT OF FINAL APCH COURSE FOR THE RIGHT AND WERE ANGLING IN TOWARDS FINAL. ABOUT 2 MI OUT THE CTLR INSTRUCTED US TO TURN OUT TO THE RIGHT AND RE-ENTER ON BASE. AS WE WERE STILL WELL TO THE RIGHT I TOOK THE CTLS FROM THE STUDENT AND TURNED SLIGHTLY R; BUT NOT MUCH BECAUSE THIS ALREADY PUT US OUT FAR ENOUGH TO BE OPPOSING THE DOWNWIND TFC I WAS ONLY VAGUELY AWARE OF. THIS OPP TFC MADE ME APPREHENSIVE; BUT I NEVERTHELESS COMPLIED AS I SEARCHED THE DOWNWIND FOR CONFLICT AND RE-ENTERED ON A SHARP 90 DEG BASE LEG AND THEN TURNED TO POS US ON A TRUE STRAIGHT IN FOR RWY 20R AT ABOUT OVER HWY 17. I SPOTTED WHAT I THOUGHT WAS OUR TFC AHEAD NEARING TOUCH DOWN AND GAVE THE CTLS BACK TO THE STUDENT WHO HAD REMOVED THE HOOD SHORTLY BEFORE I HAD TAKEN THE CTLS. 3 OR 4 SECS LATER THE CTLR SAID SOMETHING LIKE; 'NO; I WANT YOU TO CONTINUE THROUGH THE FINAL FOR THE L AND TURN BACK.' I ASKED; 'DO YOU WANT US TO MAKE AN S TURN?' HE SAID; 'YES.' I IMMEDIATELY TOOK THE PLAY AGAIN AND MADE A HARD L. 3-5 SECS LATER OUT MY L PERIPHERAL VISION I SAW WHAT I TOOK TO BE GND LIGHTS FLASHING AS THE PLANE MADE A STEEP L BANK. ALMOST IMMEDIATELY THE REAR PAX GRABBED OUR SHOULDERS AS THEY VARIOUSLY SHOUTED; 'WE ALMOST HIT HIM!;' 'WE JUST MISSED THAT PLANE!' I PULLED UP HARD STRAIGHT AHEAD AND JUST SHORT OF THE L FINAL AND LOOKED OVER MY R SHOULDER AND SAW NO LIGHTS MOVING WITH US ABOUT 100-200 FT AT ABOUT OUR 5 O'CLOCK. I COULD NOT SEE THE SHAPE BY THEN AND ASKED; 'WHAT WAS IT?' THE REPLIES: 'IT WAS A LOW WING SMA.' I PROCEEDED TO FLY BTWN THE FINALS AND HELD ALT AS THE CTLR TOLD US TO GAR. I MUMBLED SOMETHING AS I WAS SHAKEN; AND THE CTLR ASKED ME TO REPEAT IT. I SAID; 'YOU JUST TURNED US IN FRONT OF ANOTHER PLANE. WE ALMOST HAD A MIDAIR!' 'OH; OK; RE-ENTER R TFC.' WE LANDED WITH OUT FURTHER INCIDENT; PARKED; FUELED AND WENT TO GND OPS WINDOW TO GET THE PHONE NUMBER FOR THE TWR. THE SHIFT SUPVR MET US AND WE PROCEEDED TO DISCUSS THE MATTER AS HE TOOK PENCIL NOTES ON A RPT FORM. AFTER A WHILE HE BEGAN TO CONTRADICT OUR ACCOUNT AND SAID THAT HE HAD THE POS AT THE TIME AND WHAT WE SAID WAS IMPOSSIBLE. HE HAD US ON RADAR AND THERE WAS NO PLANE THERE AND THAT WE WERE GOING TOO FAST AND WERE RUNNING DOWN THE SMA Y WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW AND THAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAVE US A GAR BY GIVING US THE S TURN. WE SAID WE THOUGHT IT WAS AN SMA X AND THAT WE REMEMBERED HEARING ONE FOLLOWING US. HE SAID THAT THE SMA X PLANE WAS 2 MI BEHIND US ON RADAR AND WHAT WE SAW WAS AN SMA Y AND THAT THERE WAS NO CONFLICT. SINCE THE PAX THAT HAD SEEN THE MOST (AS IT OCCURRED ON HER SIDE) HAD GONE HOME; I ONLY SAW LIGHTS; THE PLT SAW NOTHING; AND NOW THE OTHER PAX WASN'T POSITIVE ANYMORE. WE STARTED TO GO ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN THE SMA Y. WE WERE STILL PUZZLED. HOW; IF WE WERE FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY; TFC THAT WE HADN'T SEEN; AN S TURN COULD POSSIBLY CAUSE US TO OVERTAKE HIM. OUR ASSERTION WAS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE SMA Y WHEN WE WERE TOLD TO TURN. HE JUST SAID THAT WE WERE WRONG. THE RADAR DIDN'T LIE. HE SAID FURTHER THAT WE WERE A PROB ACFT FOR THEM AND HIS MISTAKE WAS NOT TELLING US TO GAR AT THE OM. WHEN HE CAME TO A QUESTION ON HIS FORM ABOUT EVASIVE ACTION; WE SAID THAT THERE HAD NOT BEEN TIME DURING THE ENCOUNTER. HE PUT 'NON TAKEN.' WE OBJECTED THAT THIS SOUNDED LIKE WE WERE ADMITTING NEGLIGENCE AND THAT OUR FOLLOWING HIS VECTORS WAS OUR ACTION. HE SAID HE DIDN'T GIVE US ANY VECTORS (WHICH WAS TECHNICALLY CORRECT). WE WENT UPSTAIRS TO SEE THE RADAR AND LEARNED THAT IT COULD NOT DISCRIMINATE TFC LESS THAN 750' APART AND WERE ONCE AGAIN PUZZLED AT HOW HE COULD BE SO SURE. HE YELLED AT US SOME MORE WHILE IN THE TWR AND WE FINALLY LEFT SAYING WE WOULD PHONE HIM TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TAPE REVEALED. SUBSEQUENTLY; HE SAID THAT THE TAPE SHOWED THAT WE HAD ACKNOWLEDGED WE WERE TO FOLLOW THE SMA Y. HE PLAYED THE TAPE FOR ME OVER THE PHONE WHICH CONFIRMED THAT WE WERE TO FOLLOW THE SMA Y. HOWEVER; IT ALSO REVEALED THAT A SECOND SMA X WAS CLRED FOR TKOF AND TO REMAIN IN R TFC DURING ALL OF THIS. THE CTLR'S PREVIOUS GLEE WITH IT NOT BEING 'HIS FAULT' AND THAT WE WERE FOLLOWING OUR TFC 'TOO CLOSE' AND THAT 'THERE WASN'T ANY CONFLICT; I HAD IT ON RADAR' WAS RATHER ANNOYING SINCE AT LEAST 6 PEOPLE WERE ALMOST KILLED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR DISCUSSED THE INCIDENT WITH THE LCL FSDO AND THEY CLARIFIED MANY POINTS IN REGARD TO THE TWR TAPES. THE ACFT INVOLVED IN THE NMAC WAS IN FACT THE SMA Y THEY HAD BEEN FOLLOWING AND NOT SMA X AS IDENTIFIED BY HIS WIFE. SMA Y WAS FLOWN BY A STUDENT PLT AND HE WAS MAKING A STRAIGHT IN APCH. THE INFO HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO OKC AND NO FURTHER ACTION AGAINST THE RPTR IS PLANNED. STUDENT PLT DID NOT FEEL THE NMAC WAS AS CLOSE AS INDICATED BY THE RPTR AND HE CONTINUED TO A NORMAL LNDG. THE THIRD ACFT WAS SMA X THAT WAS IN THE TFC PATTERN MAKING TOUCH AND GOES. RPT FILLED OUT BY THE TWR WAS SUBMITTED AS AN FAA NMAC. ASRS RPT WAS MADE AT THE SUGGESTIONS OF THE FSDO OFFICE.