Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 50; Flight Crew Total 4900; Flight Crew Type 200
Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Tower vectored me into a NMAC on final to 34R at HEF. I was on an IFR flight plan to HEF in VMC. I had been told to expect a visual approach at HEF. When I saw it; I advised Potomac Approach I had the airport in sight. They approved my frequency change. I complied. I contacted Tower and let them know I was at 1500 ft five miles southwest of the field. Tower cleared me 'for a Visual Approach; Runway 34R; advise on two mile final.' I echoed the clearance. A few seconds later; Tower asked me to 'dogleg left then right.' I read back and complied. Then a few seconds after that; Tower cleared me 'direct to the numbers.' That flight path meant I was going to cross short final for Runway 34L. So I immediately added 34L's final approach path into my scan; and I stayed at traffic pattern altitude in order to potentially avoid any traffic for that runway. I repeated the change in routing and complied. That's when I saw the Cessna on downwind to 34R. I called it out to Tower; adding 'no factor.' I was still 'direct to the numbers'; crossing what would have been the point where an aircraft turning left downwind to base for 34L would do so when a Cessna Skylark appeared to be hovering directly in front of me right at my altitude; about 100 ft away. I had enough time to confirm the Skylark's flight path was for 34L and not my runway 34R before I dove slightly away and to the right behind the Skylark. I mentioned to Tower that I was no longer 'direct to the numbers'; that I'd squared up my base to avoid landing traffic on 34L. Tower thanked me. I landed without incident. On the taxi out before switching me to Ground; Tower thanked me again for my 'help with that situation.' I'm writing this report because I feel it might help educate HEF Tower controllers and help improve their situational awareness. My understanding is HEF is a training facility. Mistakes get made at such facilities. No problem. I do believe this was Tower's mistake. My understanding is; per the AIM; that I am just as protected (ATC responsible for separation) on a Visual Approach when on an IFR flight plan; as when on any other charted approach. Failure to adequately separate me from 34L traffic; or at least notify me of that traffic was a mistake that could have been fatal if I had been a less experienced pilot. It might be better in the future not to clear an aircraft approaching from the southwest for 34R 'straight to the numbers' when the flight path will take it across the downwind and base legs for 34L; as my flight path did. That directive put me inside the pattern for 34L. That's why the NMAC occurred.
PA-30 pilot reported a NMAC while on approach to Runway 34R at HEF.