An emb-145 cleared for a visual approach to 16L and sandwiched between parallel approaches to 16R an...

Narrative:

We were assigned a visual approach 16L in den. ATC had notified us that there were simultaneous parallel approaches being conducted to 17R and 16R. ATC issued a traffic advisory (and we noticed on TCAS) of a close parallel arrival; an airbus which we also had in sight. We had the autopilot engaged and the automation was accurately following the approach vertical and horizontal guidance. The airbus looked to us to be at the same altitude following straight in approach to 16R. We were given an RA from the TCAS for a descent. Vsi indicated escape guidance to descend 1;500 fpm on short final. We reported the RA; and the airbus crew also advised of the necessity to comply with an RA to tower. Escape guidance concluded at 600 AGL from which we continued a normal descent to landing.I think this is an ATC spacing issue. Due to traffic volume and parallel approaches aircraft were not staggered far enough apart. The RA could have possibly been avoided this way. However; because we were flying in VMC; both aircraft were able to maintain visual separation and complete descent to landing.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An EMB-145 cleared for a visual approach to 16L and sandwiched between parallel approaches to 16R and 17R at DEN received a TCAS RA directing a 1;500 FPM descent with respect to the parallel traffic to their right; which had also received an RA.

Narrative: We were assigned a Visual Approach 16L in DEN. ATC had notified us that there were simultaneous parallel approaches being conducted to 17R and 16R. ATC issued a traffic advisory (and we noticed on TCAS) of a close parallel arrival; an Airbus which we also had in sight. We had the autopilot engaged and the automation was accurately following the approach vertical and horizontal guidance. The Airbus looked to us to be at the same altitude following straight in approach to 16R. We were given an RA from the TCAS for a descent. VSI indicated escape guidance to descend 1;500 fpm on short final. We reported the RA; and the Airbus crew also advised of the necessity to comply with an RA to tower. Escape guidance concluded at 600 AGL from which we continued a normal descent to landing.I think this is an ATC spacing issue. Due to traffic volume and parallel approaches aircraft were not staggered far enough apart. The RA could have possibly been avoided this way. However; because we were flying in VMC; both aircraft were able to maintain visual separation and complete descent to landing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.

Attributes
ACN	1199392
Time
Date	201408
Local Time Of Day	0601-1200
Place
Locale Reference	DEN.Airport
State Reference	CO
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Initial Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	First Officer Pilot Not Flying
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach

An emb-145 cleared for a visual approach to 16L and sandwiched between parallel approaches to 16R and 17R at den received a TCAS RA directing a 1;500 FPM descent with respect to the parallel traffic to their right; which had also received an RA.