NMAC BETWEEN ACR MLG AND GA SMA AT SAME TIME AS LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION BETWEEN THE MLG AND LNDG SECOND SMA.

Narrative

I WAS CAPT OF AN MLG ORD LGB UNDER IFR FLIGHT PLAN. ACFT AND DIGITAL FLIGHT GUIDANCE WERE ALL EXCELLENT CONDITION CO-PILOT 60 HR IN TYPE. COAST APPROVAL CLRED US FOR APPROACH AND TOLD US TO CONTACT TWR AT BECKA. TWR WAS BUSY SO WE CALLED AT 1200 AGL ON FINAL; JUST AS RUNWAY WAS COMING INTO SIGHT. TWR STATED 'CLRED TO LAND.' 'SMA-Y 12 O'CLOCK 2 MILES 1000 FT.' 'ALSO SMA-Z SHORT FINAL RWY 25L.' AT 1000 FT WE SAW SMA-Y COMING AT US AS WE WERE DESCENDING ON THE GLIDE SLOPE WE SAW WE WOULD PASS UNDER THE SMA-Y. AT 500-600 AGL WE PICKED UP THE SMA-Z ON A CONFLICTING COURSE IT LOOKED LIKE WE WERE GOING TO MEET AT THE 25L/30 INTERSECTION WITH A SMA-Y LESS THAN 500 FT ABOVE US. I STUDIED THE SITUATION AND TOLD THE CO-PILOT TO SLOW TO MIN SPEED. A GO AROUND WOULD ONLY HAVE MADE THE SITUATION WORSE IN THIS CASE. WE WERE OVER THE RUNWAY AT 100 FT RADAR ALT WHEN THE SMA-Z CLRED THE INTERSECTION. WITH ALL THESE DISTRACTIONS FROM OM TO FLARE I DID REMEMBER THE BEFORE LANDING CHECKLIST AND TO WATCH THE NEW CO-PILOT A LITTLE. ON THE GND THE TWR OPERATOR DID NOT SEEM CONCERNED ABOUT THIS LACK OF SEPARATION. I THOUGHT FILING IFR GAVE YOU SOME SEPARATION ESPECIALLY ABOVE 18000 AND IN A TCA OR CONTROL ZONE. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM SEPARATION? THE FAA DOESN'T SEEM TO KNOW? THIS WAS MY MINIMUM BUT I WAS TRAPPED BY THE TWR. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER HAS MADE FOLLOW UP AND ATC CLAIMS THIS WAS LEGAL OPERATION WITH THE XING SMA-Y BUT CANNOT GET THEM TO GIVE A DEFINITION OF LEGAL SEPARATION BETWEEN ARRIVING IFR AND LOCAL VFR IN PATTERN. EVEN WROTE HEAD OF FLT STANDARDS IN WASHINGTON AND THEY WILL NOT GIVE ANSWER. FEELS LGB TWR GIVES LOCAL GA PRIORITY AND DOES NOT LIKE ACR TFC.