Narrative:

We were being vectored for the visual approach to 26L at denver. Approach control issued traffic ahead of us on final for 26R. WX was clear and 40 mi visibility. We reported the runway and the traffic in sight and were cleared visual approach to 26L. The other aircraft going to 26R began overtaking an aircraft in front of him also going to 26R. He requested 26L. Approach control asked us if we would take 26R. We were just below our maximum gross weight for landing and wanted the longer runway (26L) and told approach we would prefer 26L. Approach re-issued clearance for them to continue to 26R and us to continue to 26L. Evidently, the other aircraft began a speed reduction and slowed rapidly. At our high gross weight and subsequent high airspeed we could not stay behind the other aircraft. We moved to the left of the 26L localizer to give as much room as possible as we went by them and made a normal approach to a normal landing. We had them in sight continuously. There was no real conflict, no problem, but we were not advised that they would be slowing. I don't know if they were surprised or not when we passed them. I know some of our passenger asked if it was 'normal' 'to be close to another aircraft like that.' I don't know what a solution would be. Possibly for approach control to provide greater spacing on visual approachs to parallel runways that are too close to allow simultaneous instrument approachs. Thank you.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR FLC TAKES EVASIVE ACTION ON A VISUAL APCH TO AVOID ANOTHER ACFT ON A FINAL APCH TO A PARALLEL RWY.

Narrative: WE WERE BEING VECTORED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO 26L AT DENVER. APCH CTL ISSUED TFC AHEAD OF US ON FINAL FOR 26R. WX WAS CLR AND 40 MI VISIBILITY. WE RPTED THE RWY AND THE TFC IN SIGHT AND WERE CLRED VISUAL APCH TO 26L. THE OTHER ACFT GOING TO 26R BEGAN OVERTAKING AN ACFT IN FRONT OF HIM ALSO GOING TO 26R. HE REQUESTED 26L. APCH CTL ASKED US IF WE WOULD TAKE 26R. WE WERE JUST BELOW OUR MAX GROSS WT FOR LNDG AND WANTED THE LONGER RWY (26L) AND TOLD APCH WE WOULD PREFER 26L. APCH RE-ISSUED CLRNC FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO 26R AND US TO CONTINUE TO 26L. EVIDENTLY, THE OTHER ACFT BEGAN A SPD REDUCTION AND SLOWED RAPIDLY. AT OUR HIGH GROSS WT AND SUBSEQUENT HIGH AIRSPD WE COULD NOT STAY BEHIND THE OTHER ACFT. WE MOVED TO THE L OF THE 26L LOC TO GIVE AS MUCH ROOM AS POSSIBLE AS WE WENT BY THEM AND MADE A NORMAL APCH TO A NORMAL LNDG. WE HAD THEM IN SIGHT CONTINUOUSLY. THERE WAS NO REAL CONFLICT, NO PROBLEM, BUT WE WERE NOT ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD BE SLOWING. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE SURPRISED OR NOT WHEN WE PASSED THEM. I KNOW SOME OF OUR PAX ASKED IF IT WAS 'NORMAL' 'TO BE CLOSE TO ANOTHER ACFT LIKE THAT.' I DON'T KNOW WHAT A SOLUTION WOULD BE. POSSIBLY FOR APCH CTL TO PROVIDE GREATER SPACING ON VISUAL APCHS TO PARALLEL RWYS THAT ARE TOO CLOSE TO ALLOW SIMULTANEOUS INST APCHS. THANK YOU.

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.