Narrative:

Upon arrival to msp, we were sequenced in front on an A-320 for a visual approach to runway 11L. The A-320 was cleared the visual to runway 11R to follow behind us. Our initial downwind heading was 300 degrees and we were subsequently turned to a 220 degree heading for the visual. Clearing to my left, I noticed an aircraft which I thought was unusual for our position on base leg. We proceeded with the visual, but I sensed the traffic was converging. I asked approach if the aircraft was the airbus that had been following us on the arrival and after a 'yes' response, asked him how he could now be in front of us. The controller said that he, the A-320, was to maintain visual separation and follow behind us to runway 11R. The a- 320 then realized that he was converging on us and stated to the controller that 'this is unacceptable' and I echoed that statement. The A-320 then made a turn to his right and we continued the visual approach with a small turn and climb to ensure separation because of a TCASII TA. No further comments or deviations were encountered and a visual approach and landing were accomplished. Supplemental information from acn 276251: during vectors for visual approach to runway 11R at msp, we were 4000 ft, 10 mi west of airport heading west (left downwind). Approach control stated we had traffic at 5 mi, 4000 ft heading south (on base leg), at 1-2 O'clock position. We stated we had traffic. Approach control stated he was traffic landing runway 11L and we would follow him to the right and to maintain visual separation. We rogered that. Approach control then told the traffic that was on a converging flight path with us that he had traffic (us). He stated they had us visually. Approach control stated he has you in sight maintaining visual separation, cleared for the visual approach runway 11L. Air carrier X said, 'what about that traffic,' at which point we had to take evasive action and almost as soon as we started, we received a TCASII RA to monitor vertical speed followed by a descend RA. Air carrier X also turned away. It was inappropriate for the approach controller to issue a visual separation clearance with 2 aircraft on a collision course in such close proximity. He could have vectored us 30 degrees right and then issued the visual separation clearance. It's not normal to get a 'maintain visual separation' clearance and shortly thereafter have to take significant evasive action.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: POTENTIAL CONFLICT.

Narrative: UPON ARR TO MSP, WE WERE SEQUENCED IN FRONT ON AN A-320 FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 11L. THE A-320 WAS CLRED THE VISUAL TO RWY 11R TO FOLLOW BEHIND US. OUR INITIAL DOWNWIND HDG WAS 300 DEGS AND WE WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TURNED TO A 220 DEG HDG FOR THE VISUAL. CLRING TO MY L, I NOTICED AN ACFT WHICH I THOUGHT WAS UNUSUAL FOR OUR POS ON BASE LEG. WE PROCEEDED WITH THE VISUAL, BUT I SENSED THE TFC WAS CONVERGING. I ASKED APCH IF THE ACFT WAS THE AIRBUS THAT HAD BEEN FOLLOWING US ON THE ARR AND AFTER A 'YES' RESPONSE, ASKED HIM HOW HE COULD NOW BE IN FRONT OF US. THE CTLR SAID THAT HE, THE A-320, WAS TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION AND FOLLOW BEHIND US TO RWY 11R. THE A- 320 THEN REALIZED THAT HE WAS CONVERGING ON US AND STATED TO THE CTLR THAT 'THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE' AND I ECHOED THAT STATEMENT. THE A-320 THEN MADE A TURN TO HIS R AND WE CONTINUED THE VISUAL APCH WITH A SMALL TURN AND CLB TO ENSURE SEPARATION BECAUSE OF A TCASII TA. NO FURTHER COMMENTS OR DEVS WERE ENCOUNTERED AND A VISUAL APCH AND LNDG WERE ACCOMPLISHED. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 276251: DURING VECTORS FOR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 11R AT MSP, WE WERE 4000 FT, 10 MI W OF ARPT HDG W (L DOWNWIND). APCH CTL STATED WE HAD TFC AT 5 MI, 4000 FT HDG S (ON BASE LEG), AT 1-2 O'CLOCK POS. WE STATED WE HAD TFC. APCH CTL STATED HE WAS TFC LNDG RWY 11L AND WE WOULD FOLLOW HIM TO THE R AND TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. WE ROGERED THAT. APCH CTL THEN TOLD THE TFC THAT WAS ON A CONVERGING FLT PATH WITH US THAT HE HAD TFC (US). HE STATED THEY HAD US VISUALLY. APCH CTL STATED HE HAS YOU IN SIGHT MAINTAINING VISUAL SEPARATION, CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH RWY 11L. ACR X SAID, 'WHAT ABOUT THAT TFC,' AT WHICH POINT WE HAD TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION AND ALMOST AS SOON AS WE STARTED, WE RECEIVED A TCASII RA TO MONITOR VERT SPD FOLLOWED BY A DSND RA. ACR X ALSO TURNED AWAY. IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE APCH CTLR TO ISSUE A VISUAL SEPARATION CLRNC WITH 2 ACFT ON A COLLISION COURSE IN SUCH CLOSE PROX. HE COULD HAVE VECTORED US 30 DEGS R AND THEN ISSUED THE VISUAL SEPARATION CLRNC. IT'S NOT NORMAL TO GET A 'MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION' CLRNC AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER HAVE TO TAKE SIGNIFICANT EVASIVE ACTION.

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.