Narrative:

While we were on approach to lax runway 25L on the ILS, approach control called out traffic to our left (south). We observed the converging traffic and replied, 'in sight', XXX commuter, he advised he had us in sight and approach cleared him for a visual to 25R. I missed the runway number at the time and assumed he was going to the north complex (24L/right). From our relative position I didn't conceive that he could be cleared to 25R. He continued to converge from just above and behind. He disappeared from my view as he passed about 300 ft over and just behind us. During this time our TCASII was giving continuous warnings to descend. Shortly after, he reappeared on our right wing just behind us. The TCASII stated 'clear of traffic' but went off again as he moved closer to parallel us. By now I realized that he was landing on 25R and I was really steamed. I couldn't believe this was happening! He flew on my wing until the last part of the approach. The spacing was far too close for safety or comfort, especially when I couldn't see him as he flew over my tail. I estimate his horizontal spacing to be 1/8 mi 500-600 ft or less. On the ground I telephoned my displeasure to the tower and they said it was approach control's setup. I called approach and they said he had at least min spacing when cleared for the visual. They were unconcerned and implied that this was normal procedure. This is not a safe procedure and it should be changed. I feel min spacing should be 1 mi on these close parallel runways. This is also a continuing problem in sfo (28L/right). I've seen overshoots there with traffic converging from both sides at once. I've also been involved in 2 approachs there that were too close for comfort.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR HAS CLOSE PROX WITH COMMUTER ACFT ON VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: WHILE WE WERE ON APCH TO LAX RWY 25L ON THE ILS, APCH CTL CALLED OUT TFC TO OUR L (S). WE OBSERVED THE CONVERGING TFC AND REPLIED, 'IN SIGHT', XXX COMMUTER, HE ADVISED HE HAD US IN SIGHT AND APCH CLRED HIM FOR A VISUAL TO 25R. I MISSED THE RWY NUMBER AT THE TIME AND ASSUMED HE WAS GOING TO THE N COMPLEX (24L/R). FROM OUR RELATIVE POS I DIDN'T CONCEIVE THAT HE COULD BE CLRED TO 25R. HE CONTINUED TO CONVERGE FROM JUST ABOVE AND BEHIND. HE DISAPPEARED FROM MY VIEW AS HE PASSED ABOUT 300 FT OVER AND JUST BEHIND US. DURING THIS TIME OUR TCASII WAS GIVING CONTINUOUS WARNINGS TO DSND. SHORTLY AFTER, HE REAPPEARED ON OUR R WING JUST BEHIND US. THE TCASII STATED 'CLR OF TFC' BUT WENT OFF AGAIN AS HE MOVED CLOSER TO PARALLEL US. BY NOW I REALIZED THAT HE WAS LNDG ON 25R AND I WAS REALLY STEAMED. I COULDN'T BELIEVE THIS WAS HAPPENING! HE FLEW ON MY WING UNTIL THE LAST PART OF THE APCH. THE SPACING WAS FAR TOO CLOSE FOR SAFETY OR COMFORT, ESPECIALLY WHEN I COULDN'T SEE HIM AS HE FLEW OVER MY TAIL. I ESTIMATE HIS HORIZ SPACING TO BE 1/8 MI 500-600 FT OR LESS. ON THE GND I TELEPHONED MY DISPLEASURE TO THE TWR AND THEY SAID IT WAS APCH CTL'S SETUP. I CALLED APCH AND THEY SAID HE HAD AT LEAST MIN SPACING WHEN CLRED FOR THE VISUAL. THEY WERE UNCONCERNED AND IMPLIED THAT THIS WAS NORMAL PROC. THIS IS NOT A SAFE PROC AND IT SHOULD BE CHANGED. I FEEL MIN SPACING SHOULD BE 1 MI ON THESE CLOSE PARALLEL RWYS. THIS IS ALSO A CONTINUING PROBLEM IN SFO (28L/R). I'VE SEEN OVERSHOOTS THERE WITH TFC CONVERGING FROM BOTH SIDES AT ONCE. I'VE ALSO BEEN INVOLVED IN 2 APCHS THERE THAT WERE TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.