Narrative:

In the terminal area of mggt; we were told that we were number three for the approach and that we were to hold at aur VOR and to expect three turns in holding. After the second turn of the hold; approach told us to slow to minimum approach speed and exit hold cleared for the ILS Y 02. The weather over the airport was clear (we could look down and see the airport) but there were numerous clouds during the teardrop approach and we were mostly IMC. There was a flight ahead of us doing the ILS Z 02 approach. We were aware of their position on TCAS but couldn't really see where they were on the approach without a depiction of their teardrop on the nav display. We were at max landing weight and had the airplane configured and slowed as much as possible. As we approached the turn fix out on the aur 220; it was becoming clear we were going to have a conflict; and soon had a TCAS RA as we began a turn to intercept. We followed the TCAS guidance and immediately had a clear of conflict. We contacted ATC and were talking to a new controller; and requested a climb and turn to avoid the terrain ahead. They gave us a climbing left turn and radar vectored us for another approach. I think we had an inexperienced ATC controller as he was replaced by someone else as we complied with the TCAS RA guidance. This was a potentially bad scenario. Being cleared for an approach and having another aircraft on the opposite ILS tear drop approach. We were boxed in with not too many ways to get out; with high terrain in all quadrants but especially in the sector we were in. A missed approach can happen anywhere during the approach; not just at minimums.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier Captain reports being cleared for the ILS Y Rwy 02 from AUR just after another carrier is cleared for the ILS Z 02 at MGGT. This results in the reporter turning from the southwest to intercept the localizer while the other aircraft is turning from the south to intercept the same localizer. A TCAS RA results and the Captain climbs in compliance with the RA and is vectored for another approach by a different Controller.

Narrative: In the terminal area of MGGT; we were told that we were number three for the approach and that we were to hold at AUR VOR and to expect three turns in holding. After the second turn of the hold; approach told us to slow to minimum approach speed and exit hold cleared for the ILS Y 02. The weather over the airport was clear (we could look down and see the airport) but there were numerous clouds during the teardrop approach and we were mostly IMC. There was a flight ahead of us doing the ILS Z 02 approach. We were aware of their position on TCAS but couldn't really see where they were on the approach without a depiction of their teardrop on the Nav display. We were at max landing weight and had the airplane configured and slowed as much as possible. As we approached the turn fix out on the AUR 220; it was becoming clear we were going to have a conflict; and soon had a TCAS RA as we began a turn to intercept. We followed the TCAS guidance and immediately had a clear of conflict. We contacted ATC and were talking to a new controller; and requested a climb and turn to avoid the terrain ahead. They gave us a climbing left turn and radar vectored us for another approach. I think we had an inexperienced ATC controller as he was replaced by someone else as we complied with the TCAS RA guidance. This was a potentially bad scenario. Being cleared for an approach and having another aircraft on the opposite ILS tear drop approach. We were boxed in with not too many ways to get out; with high terrain in all quadrants but especially in the sector we were in. A missed approach can happen anywhere during the approach; not just at minimums.

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.