Narrative:

ATIS reporting clear and 20. However, landing into a bright setting sun at xxpm pm local time, runway was visible only about 3 mi out. We had been cleared on an ILS to 25L, sidestep and land 25R. Approach control did advise us that a flight was behind us, had us in sight, and would land 25L. We were still on the ILS approach, (ATC never cleared us for a visual) and had sidestepped to 25R when TCASII gave us an RA 'monitor vertical speed' and showed pictorially for us not to shallow our descent route. This was confusing as the flight behind us had been below us. Looking out the left window I was startled to see the traffic that had been behind us above and to our left, not more than 600 ft away. We were technically still on an ILS to 25L and another flight on approach to the same runway was passing us! Watching him to be sure of his path, our own approach destabilized, i.e., airspeed and descent rate both increasing. But a go around was not an option. TCASII was yelling at us to not shallow our descent, we couldn't turn left with the traffic just mentioned, and there were approachs being conducted to runway 24. The go around door had been closed. This is a dangerous situation. Upon landing, I called the tower and talked with the shift supervisor whose reply was the ATIS says we're conducting parallel visuals, so you are on your own! Even though I was not on a visual! It seems that the acceptance rate of the airport wouldn't be lessened if traffic were staggered so as not to fly wingtip to wingtip, and that traffic not be permitted to pass, especially when runways are only 750 ft apart. If the tower had only informed us of the traffic and told us that we were being passed it would have been a tremendous help. Supplemental information from acn 268985: tower control was contacted over limma OM and asked us if 25R was in sight. We responded negative and were told to report it when in sight. At approximately 3 NM tower cleared us to land 25R, the runway was just visible and we maneuvered to land runway 25R. Approach control called out traffic at 6 O'clock that had us visually when initial clearance for approach was given. At approximately the OM a TA appeared at 6 O'clock and continued until shortly after clearance was given to land 25R (for us). At that time the target became an RA with monitor vertical speed commands while the aircraft proceeded to overtake us and land 25L. Visuals as well as ILS were also being conducted to runway 24. There was no safe way available to be able to execute a go around.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LGT ON ILS TO SIDESTEP TO PARALLEL RWY RECEIVES TCASII RA AS SECOND ACFT PASSES ON APCH.

Narrative: ATIS RPTING CLR AND 20. HOWEVER, LNDG INTO A BRIGHT SETTING SUN AT XXPM PM LCL TIME, RWY WAS VISIBLE ONLY ABOUT 3 MI OUT. WE HAD BEEN CLRED ON AN ILS TO 25L, SIDESTEP AND LAND 25R. APCH CTL DID ADVISE US THAT A FLT WAS BEHIND US, HAD US IN SIGHT, AND WOULD LAND 25L. WE WERE STILL ON THE ILS APCH, (ATC NEVER CLRED US FOR A VISUAL) AND HAD SIDESTEPPED TO 25R WHEN TCASII GAVE US AN RA 'MONITOR VERT SPD' AND SHOWED PICTORIALLY FOR US NOT TO SHALLOW OUR DSCNT RTE. THIS WAS CONFUSING AS THE FLT BEHIND US HAD BEEN BELOW US. LOOKING OUT THE L WINDOW I WAS STARTLED TO SEE THE TFC THAT HAD BEEN BEHIND US ABOVE AND TO OUR L, NOT MORE THAN 600 FT AWAY. WE WERE TECHNICALLY STILL ON AN ILS TO 25L AND ANOTHER FLT ON APCH TO THE SAME RWY WAS PASSING US! WATCHING HIM TO BE SURE OF HIS PATH, OUR OWN APCH DESTABILIZED, I.E., AIRSPD AND DSCNT RATE BOTH INCREASING. BUT A GAR WAS NOT AN OPTION. TCASII WAS YELLING AT US TO NOT SHALLOW OUR DSCNT, WE COULDN'T TURN L WITH THE TFC JUST MENTIONED, AND THERE WERE APCHS BEING CONDUCTED TO RWY 24. THE GAR DOOR HAD BEEN CLOSED. THIS IS A DANGEROUS SIT. UPON LNDG, I CALLED THE TWR AND TALKED WITH THE SHIFT SUPVR WHOSE REPLY WAS THE ATIS SAYS WE'RE CONDUCTING PARALLEL VISUALS, SO YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN! EVEN THOUGH I WAS NOT ON A VISUAL! IT SEEMS THAT THE ACCEPTANCE RATE OF THE ARPT WOULDN'T BE LESSENED IF TFC WERE STAGGERED SO AS NOT TO FLY WINGTIP TO WINGTIP, AND THAT TFC NOT BE PERMITTED TO PASS, ESPECIALLY WHEN RWYS ARE ONLY 750 FT APART. IF THE TWR HAD ONLY INFORMED US OF THE TFC AND TOLD US THAT WE WERE BEING PASSED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A TREMENDOUS HELP. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 268985: TWR CTL WAS CONTACTED OVER LIMMA OM AND ASKED US IF 25R WAS IN SIGHT. WE RESPONDED NEGATIVE AND WERE TOLD TO RPT IT WHEN IN SIGHT. AT APPROX 3 NM TWR CLRED US TO LAND 25R, THE RWY WAS JUST VISIBLE AND WE MANEUVERED TO LAND RWY 25R. APCH CTL CALLED OUT TFC AT 6 O'CLOCK THAT HAD US VISUALLY WHEN INITIAL CLRNC FOR APCH WAS GIVEN. AT APPROX THE OM A TA APPEARED AT 6 O'CLOCK AND CONTINUED UNTIL SHORTLY AFTER CLRNC WAS GIVEN TO LAND 25R (FOR US). AT THAT TIME THE TARGET BECAME AN RA WITH MONITOR VERT SPD COMMANDS WHILE THE ACFT PROCEEDED TO OVERTAKE US AND LAND 25L. VISUALS AS WELL AS ILS WERE ALSO BEING CONDUCTED TO RWY 24. THERE WAS NO SAFE WAY AVAILABLE TO BE ABLE TO EXECUTE A GAR.

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.