Narrative:

Air carrier X passing 10 NM south of ffu we were handed off to slc approach control who gave us successively lower altitudes. We were also given a heading to intercept the runway 34 localizer. As we continued northbound toward the airport we could see several aircraft west of the airport on left IFR downwind to runway 34 and an aircraft turning a left base. After asking us if we had the airport in sight, slc approach control cleared us for a visual approach to runway 35, adding that our traffic was a 737 on a visual to runway 34 who had us in sight. Since these 2 finals to runways 34 and 35 intersect south of the airport, the first officer made a right turn to keep us to the right of the final approach course until north of the point where the finals diverge. He also leveled off to provide vertical separation from the 737 which was then turning final for runway 34. Our speed was 20-30 KTS faster, so we passed above and to the right of the 737 so I was able to keep it in sight. We passed about 300 ft above (TCASII) and 800-1000 ft to the right of the 737. After we were well clear of the 737, we turned left to reintercept the runway 35 centerline and descended to intercept the runway 35 GS and we continued to an uneventful landing. In this procedure of clearing 2 aircraft for visuals to 2 different runways with intercepting finals, one turns final and the other overtakes the first. It results in a situation in which the crews of both aircraft are very apprehensive. Additionally, a small distraction or miscalculation could result in the loss of traffic separation. It is, once again, a case of ATC not providing adequate sequencing, and then dumping the responsibility on the pilots.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP INTERSECTING APCHS ACR X HAD CONFLICT WITH B-737 WHILE ON VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: ACR X PASSING 10 NM S OF FFU WE WERE HANDED OFF TO SLC APCH CTL WHO GAVE US SUCCESSIVELY LOWER ALTS. WE WERE ALSO GIVEN A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 34 LOC. AS WE CONTINUED NBOUND TOWARD THE ARPT WE COULD SEE SEVERAL ACFT W OF THE ARPT ON L IFR DOWNWIND TO RWY 34 AND AN ACFT TURNING A L BASE. AFTER ASKING US IF WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT, SLC APCH CTL CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 35, ADDING THAT OUR TFC WAS A 737 ON A VISUAL TO RWY 34 WHO HAD US IN SIGHT. SINCE THESE 2 FINALS TO RWYS 34 AND 35 INTERSECT S OF THE ARPT, THE FO MADE A R TURN TO KEEP US TO THE R OF THE FINAL APCH COURSE UNTIL N OF THE POINT WHERE THE FINALS DIVERGE. HE ALSO LEVELED OFF TO PROVIDE VERT SEPARATION FROM THE 737 WHICH WAS THEN TURNING FINAL FOR RWY 34. OUR SPD WAS 20-30 KTS FASTER, SO WE PASSED ABOVE AND TO THE R OF THE 737 SO I WAS ABLE TO KEEP IT IN SIGHT. WE PASSED ABOUT 300 FT ABOVE (TCASII) AND 800-1000 FT TO THE R OF THE 737. AFTER WE WERE WELL CLR OF THE 737, WE TURNED L TO REINTERCEPT THE RWY 35 CTRLINE AND DSNDED TO INTERCEPT THE RWY 35 GS AND WE CONTINUED TO AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG. IN THIS PROC OF CLRING 2 ACFT FOR VISUALS TO 2 DIFFERENT RWYS WITH INTERCEPTING FINALS, ONE TURNS FINAL AND THE OTHER OVERTAKES THE FIRST. IT RESULTS IN A SIT IN WHICH THE CREWS OF BOTH ACFT ARE VERY APPREHENSIVE. ADDITIONALLY, A SMALL DISTR OR MISCALCULATION COULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF TFC SEPARATION. IT IS, ONCE AGAIN, A CASE OF ATC NOT PROVIDING ADEQUATE SEQUENCING, AND THEN DUMPING THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE PLTS.

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.