Narrative:

Prior to descent into puerto vallarta; mexico (mmpr) we briefed the approach noting the 10-7B page (high unstable approaches) couple with my previous weeks jumpseat observation ride prompted a detailed descent profile briefing. Once established on the descent into mmpr at approximately 20 nm prior to the 13 DME fix on final (CD22) for VOR DME 3 rwy 22; we were approved to deviate south around a cell of weather approximately 30 NM from the field near the final approach course. The weather at puerto vallarta contained stacked layers of overcast clouds from 20;000 down to 1200 AGL. The approach controller asked for a few speed adjustments to fit traffic in. Upon completion of the deviation; we were cleared to intercept the pvr 036 degree radial (final approach coarse 216 degree final) and descend to 4600 MSL (coincided with CD22- 13 NM final). As we approach 4;600 ft MSL; the approach air traffic controller loudly directed us to immediately climb to 5;000 ft MSL for traffic (1 o'clock amber TCAS TA symbol at approximately 5-10 nm converging within 300 ft). We acknowledged; and immediately the controller directed the conflicting traffic to climb. The traffic was still converging at [same] altitude as we were both given a climb. I disconnected the autopilot and started a left hand turn as a new voice on the radio from approach directed a turn to the left (south) and I recall the TA on TCAS was then directed to turn to the left (northeast). I turned and climbed to approximately 5;000 MSL until the traffic was clear laterally. The high terrain was off to our south and despite an amber TA; there was no red or RA associated with the conflict. The controller then cleared us to intercept the approach course and descend to 3;000 ft MSL (final approach fix altitude - FD22). We proceeded to FD22 and descended to 3;000 ft MSL (lvl change) and once cleared the approach selected LNAV; VNAV and 800 ft in MCP window while on VNAV path and LNAV guidance. At approximately 1200 ft AGL; we descended through the last overcast layer and asked to slow our airspeed (already at vref 30 +5) as there was an aircraft on final touching down. The aircraft eventually made a turnoff by the FBO prior to an approximate 1.5 nm final for us. We were then cleared to land. As stated; there was no RA with the traffic conflict approaching the VOR DME 3 rwy 22 final approach course; however; the TA occurred on final approach near terrain and weather. The quick interjection by the supervisor controller prevented the converging TA (within 300 ft and 5 NM) from getting any closer. The big concern was weather and terrain to the south containing limited maneuvering airspace. Unable to describe why the TA was converging towards us during our VOR DME 3 rwy 22 approach.two weeks prior to this trip; I sat on the jumpseat and observed this approach by the crew. They were jammed by ATC because of late descents and volatile speed assignments. Based on this observation; I briefed the approach with this in mind along with the 10-7B notes. During the initial descent with mazatlán high sector; an early descent was granted for a few thousand feet; however; after level off and as we approached a 3:1; we asked for lower and denied until the next sector took the handoff. Once this happened; we were more than 2;000 feet above the VNAV path. After utilizing drag devices and getting back on path; we asked for lower once leveled off and again waited for handoff to approach which kept us high. Once we checked in with approach; we were trying to slow down while getting back on a vertical path which is already steep (3.34 degree glide path). This to say; approach control on both occasions was trying to manage the flow through speed adjustments; however; very difficult to manage when the handoff approach traffic is high and fast with the already steep glidepath approach (3.34 degrees). I suggest a discussion with mazatlán center (high and low) and pvr approach to initiate the handoff points 5-10 nm prior to their current points. This will allow approach to accept a more manageable sequence and approach flow. TA aircraft converging towards us during our VOR approach. Not sure the level of communication and control ATC (approach control) had with the converging traffic.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 Captain reported a difficult MMPR VOR DME 3 Runway 22 Approach after ATC advised of conflicting traffic then directed a climb. The 3.34 degree glidepath demanded speed and altitude profile control which was made more difficult with a traffic avoidance climb.

Narrative: Prior to descent into Puerto Vallarta; Mexico (MMPR) we briefed the approach noting the 10-7B page (high unstable approaches) couple with my previous weeks jumpseat observation ride prompted a detailed descent profile briefing. Once established on the descent into MMPR at approximately 20 nm prior to the 13 DME fix on final (CD22) for VOR DME 3 Rwy 22; we were approved to deviate south around a cell of weather approximately 30 NM from the field near the final approach course. The weather at Puerto Vallarta contained stacked layers of overcast clouds from 20;000 down to 1200 AGL. The Approach Controller asked for a few speed adjustments to fit traffic in. Upon completion of the deviation; we were cleared to intercept the PVR 036 degree radial (final approach coarse 216 degree final) and descend to 4600 MSL (coincided with CD22- 13 NM final). As we approach 4;600 ft MSL; the approach air traffic controller loudly directed us to immediately climb to 5;000 ft MSL for traffic (1 o'clock amber TCAS TA symbol at approximately 5-10 nm converging within 300 ft). We acknowledged; and immediately the controller directed the conflicting traffic to climb. The traffic was still converging at [same] altitude as we were both given a climb. I disconnected the autopilot and started a left hand turn as a new voice on the radio from approach directed a turn to the left (South) and I recall the TA on TCAS was then directed to turn to the left (northeast). I turned and climbed to approximately 5;000 MSL until the traffic was clear laterally. The high terrain was off to our south and despite an amber TA; there was no red or RA associated with the conflict. The controller then cleared us to intercept the approach course and descend to 3;000 ft MSL (Final Approach Fix Altitude - FD22). We proceeded to FD22 and descended to 3;000 ft MSL (LVL Change) and once cleared the approach selected LNAV; VNAV and 800 ft in MCP window while on VNAV Path and LNAV guidance. At approximately 1200 ft AGL; we descended through the last overcast layer and asked to slow our airspeed (already at VREF 30 +5) as there was an aircraft on final touching down. The aircraft eventually made a turnoff by the FBO prior to an approximate 1.5 nm final for us. We were then cleared to land. As stated; there was no RA with the traffic conflict approaching the VOR DME 3 Rwy 22 Final Approach Course; however; the TA occurred on final approach near terrain and weather. The quick interjection by the supervisor controller prevented the converging TA (within 300 ft and 5 NM) from getting any closer. The big concern was weather and terrain to the south containing limited maneuvering airspace. Unable to describe why the TA was converging towards us during our VOR DME 3 Rwy 22 approach.Two weeks prior to this trip; I sat on the jumpseat and observed this approach by the crew. They were jammed by ATC because of late descents and volatile speed assignments. Based on this observation; I briefed the approach with this in mind along with the 10-7B notes. During the initial descent with Mazatlán High Sector; an early descent was granted for a few thousand feet; however; after level off and as we approached a 3:1; we asked for lower and denied until the next sector took the handoff. Once this happened; we were more than 2;000 feet above the VNAV Path. After utilizing drag devices and getting back on path; we asked for lower once leveled off and again waited for handoff to approach which kept us high. Once we checked in with approach; we were trying to slow down while getting back on a vertical path which is already steep (3.34 degree glide path). This to say; Approach control on both occasions was trying to manage the flow through speed adjustments; however; very difficult to manage when the handoff approach traffic is high and fast with the already steep glidepath approach (3.34 degrees). I suggest a discussion with Mazatlán Center (high and low) and PVR approach to initiate the handoff points 5-10 nm prior to their current points. This will allow approach to accept a more manageable sequence and approach flow. TA aircraft converging towards us during our VOR approach. Not sure the level of communication and control ATC (approach control) had with the converging traffic.

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.