Narrative:

From monitoring the ATIS enroute they had switched the operation from north to south shortly prior to the time of our arrival. The latest ATIS read ' ILS va in use 16L 16R.....'. No ILS components for those runways; were showing out of service in the notams or ATIS. We had setup/briefed for the ILS to a visual approach 16L. When we switched from center to approach; approach assigned us runway 16R. We setup and briefed the ILS to a visual approach 16R. I was the pilot flying. There was weather approaching from the west/northwest side of the field at the time we were on a right downwind for runway 16R. The controller turned us on a base leg and descended us to 8000 ft. ATC then asked us if we had the field in sight. At first I told my first officer to not call it in sight; planning to intercept the ILS. As we got closer to intercept at 8000 ft. I realized that the glideslope was not coming alive. The controller asked again if we had the field in sight. At this point I knew that I could either accept the visual approach to 16R or go around. With the field clearly in sight I accepted the visual approach.the controller pointed out traffic ahead of us for runway 16R but said nothing about any traffic on the parallel. We intercepted the final approach at 8000 ft. I start a 900 fpm descent still on autopilot. Right on the VASI. We are now at 170 kts. And slowing to the final configuration and will hit final approach speed of around 148 kts. On the fully loaded A321 over the final approach fix. At this point we get a descending RA. I immediately disconnect the autopilot and call for the flight directors off. The first officer turns them off and I ensure they are off while pitching for the edge of the green at 1100 fpm. I start looking to the direction the traffic was showing on my TCAS. I asked the first officer to tell ATC we are responding to an RA and he does. At this time I see traffic turning in to intercept the parallel runway 16L. They are above us to the left and behind us. The RA pauses for a second and then continues. Now we are over the final approach fix with both aircraft properly established on their respective finals and the other traffic approaching from behind and passing us.at this point while maintaining the visual separation with the RA traffic in sight; having ensured that we have always stayed in the class B I opt to start arresting my descent and getting back on the VASI. The RA ceases shortly after that. At this point the tower controller asked us if we wished to continue the approach in a stressed voice. Our aircraft was stable; above 1000 ft. AGL; with the only offending traffic in sight. The safest course of action in this situation was to maintain the visual with the speeding parallel traffic and continue the approach. I knew our procedures only necessitate a go around in a climbing RA on approach. So we continued and landed without any further incident. After landing I expressed my displeasure to the tower about the situation. Tower was really busy but told me that; if I wanted; they could give me the number to the tower supervisor to file a complaint. I opted to wait until I was parked and called ground and got the number for tower. I then called the supervisor. I explained to him our RA's. He was extremely apologetic and understanding. He said he is logging at least six of these kind of RA's a day. I asked him why they don't stagger them if they are going to use close parallel approaches and control them so they stay staggered. He said that is the problem they are having with TRACON. I told him it put us in a real pickle because not only did we have to comply with a descending RA close to the ground at night in mountainous terrain; but we had to visually acquire the offending traffic; ensure that we stay above the floor of the class B so that there is no chance of any other offending traffic; ensure proper clearance with the terrain; and all this in a high workload phase of flight while on a visual approach and while knowing what a go around in that situation would cause for them. He apologized again and said that when these things happen if at all possible; they hope that we don't elect to go around. I thanked him and said I hope something gets done to improve on this. Clearly state on the ATIS which back up instrument approach is being used for each of the available landing runways so the pilot can elect to not accept a visual approach if they don't want to. If you are going to use close parallel approaches ATC has to provide proper separation by staggering and controlling the speed and flight path of the aircraft. If you are going to use close in parallel approaches make sure you have two fully working ILS approaches. These are some suggestions. But the way the operation is run at this airport with these RA's needs to be re-evaluated.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A321 Captain reported receiving and responding to an RA from parallel runway traffic that was overtaking them.

Narrative: From monitoring the ATIS enroute they had switched the operation from north to south shortly prior to the time of our arrival. The latest ATIS read ' ILS VA in use 16L 16R.....'. No ILS components for those runways; were showing out of service in the NOTAMs or ATIS. We had setup/briefed for the ILS to a visual approach 16L. When we switched from Center to Approach; Approach assigned us Runway 16R. We setup and briefed the ILS to a visual approach 16R. I was the Pilot Flying. There was weather approaching from the west/northwest side of the field at the time we were on a right downwind for Runway 16R. The Controller turned us on a base leg and descended us to 8000 ft. ATC then asked us if we had the field in sight. At first I told my First Officer to not call it in sight; planning to intercept the ILS. As we got closer to intercept at 8000 ft. I realized that the glideslope was not coming alive. The Controller asked again if we had the field in sight. At this point I knew that I could either accept the visual approach to 16R or go around. With the field clearly in sight I accepted the visual approach.The Controller pointed out traffic ahead of us for Runway 16R but said nothing about any traffic on the parallel. We intercepted the final approach at 8000 ft. I start a 900 fpm descent still on autopilot. Right on the VASI. We are now at 170 kts. and slowing to the final configuration and will hit final approach speed of around 148 kts. on the fully loaded A321 over the Final Approach Fix. At this point we get a DESCENDING RA. I immediately disconnect the autopilot and call for the flight directors off. The First Officer turns them off and I ensure they are off while pitching for the edge of the green at 1100 fpm. I start looking to the direction the traffic was showing on my TCAS. I asked the First Officer to tell ATC we are responding to an RA and he does. At this time I see traffic turning in to intercept the parallel Runway 16L. They are above us to the left and behind us. The RA pauses for a second and then continues. Now we are over the Final Approach Fix with both aircraft properly established on their respective finals and the other traffic approaching from behind and passing us.At this point while maintaining the visual separation with the RA traffic in sight; having ensured that we have always stayed in the Class B I opt to start arresting my descent and getting back on the VASI. The RA ceases shortly after that. At this point the Tower Controller asked us if we wished to continue the approach in a stressed voice. Our aircraft was stable; above 1000 ft. AGL; with the only offending traffic in sight. The safest course of action in this situation was to maintain the visual with the speeding parallel traffic and continue the approach. I knew our procedures only necessitate a go around in a CLIMBING RA on approach. So we continued and landed without any further incident. After landing I expressed my displeasure to the Tower about the situation. Tower was really busy but told me that; if I wanted; they could give me the number to the Tower Supervisor to file a complaint. I opted to wait until I was parked and called Ground and got the number for Tower. I then called the Supervisor. I explained to him our RA's. He was extremely apologetic and understanding. He said he is logging at least six of these kind of RA's a day. I asked him why they don't stagger them if they are going to use close parallel approaches and control them so they stay staggered. He said that is the problem they are having with TRACON. I told him it put us in a real pickle because not only did we have to comply with a descending RA close to the ground at night in mountainous terrain; but we had to visually acquire the offending traffic; ensure that we stay above the floor of the Class B so that there is no chance of any other offending traffic; ensure proper clearance with the terrain; and all this in a high workload phase of flight while on a visual approach and while knowing what a go around in that situation would cause for them. He apologized again and said that when these things happen if at all possible; they hope that we don't elect to go around. I thanked him and said I hope something gets done to improve on this. Clearly state on the ATIS which back up instrument approach is being used for each of the available landing runways so the pilot can elect to not accept a visual approach if they don't want to. If you are going to use close parallel approaches ATC has to provide proper separation by staggering and controlling the speed and flight path of the aircraft. If you are going to use close in parallel approaches make sure you have two fully working ILS approaches. These are some suggestions. But the way the operation is run at this airport with these RA's needs to be re-evaluated.

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.