Narrative:

We were on approach to lax coming from over seal beach VOR. We were given headings from lax approach after seal beach and were on a 340 degree heading (assigned). Approach called out 2 aircraft which were straight in to lax's 25L&right runways. Since it was dusk, we were unable to immediately positively identify these aircraft. When we acknowledged that we had positive contact with the traffic, approach cleared us to turn left to a 250 degree heading, cleared for a visual approach to runway 25L. This clearance required a 30 degree bank turn to prevent overshooting the extended centerline and additionally put us abeam the traffic straight in to runway 25R. The traffic was about 1000 ft above us, descending and we got a TCASII RA. Since we were also descending (previous clearance to 4000 ft) no additional action needed to be taken to satisfy TCASII instructions. It seemed like the approach control's instructions were putting us in a position to fly wingtip to wingtip with the traffic straight in to runway 25R and requiring a 90 degree turn onto final to do this. It seems to me that when parallel approachs are being conducted to runways so close together, that there should be some staggering on the approach, especially when one aircraft is getting a 90 degree turn onto final abeam the other aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF AN MLG ACR ACFT COMPLAINT ABOUT ATC APCH CTL HANDLING OF SIDE BY SIDE VISUAL APCHS TO PARALLEL RWYS.

Narrative: WE WERE ON APCH TO LAX COMING FROM OVER SEAL BEACH VOR. WE WERE GIVEN HDGS FROM LAX APCH AFTER SEAL BEACH AND WERE ON A 340 DEG HDG (ASSIGNED). APCH CALLED OUT 2 ACFT WHICH WERE STRAIGHT IN TO LAX'S 25L&R RWYS. SINCE IT WAS DUSK, WE WERE UNABLE TO IMMEDIATELY POSITIVELY IDENT THESE ACFT. WHEN WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE HAD POSITIVE CONTACT WITH THE TFC, APCH CLRED US TO TURN L TO A 250 DEG HDG, CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 25L. THIS CLRNC REQUIRED A 30 DEG BANK TURN TO PREVENT OVERSHOOTING THE EXTENDED CTRLINE AND ADDITIONALLY PUT US ABEAM THE TFC STRAIGHT IN TO RWY 25R. THE TFC WAS ABOUT 1000 FT ABOVE US, DSNDING AND WE GOT A TCASII RA. SINCE WE WERE ALSO DSNDING (PREVIOUS CLRNC TO 4000 FT) NO ADDITIONAL ACTION NEEDED TO BE TAKEN TO SATISFY TCASII INSTRUCTIONS. IT SEEMED LIKE THE APCH CTL'S INSTRUCTIONS WERE PUTTING US IN A POS TO FLY WINGTIP TO WINGTIP WITH THE TFC STRAIGHT IN TO RWY 25R AND REQUIRING A 90 DEG TURN ONTO FINAL TO DO THIS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN PARALLEL APCHS ARE BEING CONDUCTED TO RWYS SO CLOSE TOGETHER, THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME STAGGERING ON THE APCH, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE ACFT IS GETTING A 90 DEG TURN ONTO FINAL ABEAM THE OTHER ACFT.

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.