Narrative:

Upon initial check-in with ord approach, we were told to expect a simultaneous visual approach to runway 27R at ord. We were vectored to about a 12 mi base leg. At 5000 ft, heading 180 degrees, we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 27R. I immediately turned 45 degrees right to put myself on a dogleg to final. As I rolled out of the right turn, the runway was at our 1:30 O'clock position, and I immediately spotted a large aircraft at 10 O'clock position. It was dark, but clear. The aircraft had its landing lights on, was quite close, and almost co-altitude, appearing to be on a collision course. I began to steepen our descent to get below him just as we got a TCASII RA to 'descend now.' because my attention was on the aircraft to my left, I flew through the localizer course. We got clear of the conflict, corrected back to the localizer, and continued the approach. Landing was normal. After landing, I called ord approach on the phone to find out what they saw. The controller told me the other aircraft was on final for runway 27L and had been for 10 mi. I asked why we were never told he was there or why he wasn't called out as traffic for us. The controller said that since we were notified that simultaneous visual approachs were in progress, they were not required to point out the traffic for the parallel runway. I told the controller that, in my opinion, the traffic should have been called. At night it's difficult to judge distance and closure, especially when all you can see is bright landing lights bearing down on you. Being vectored 90 degrees to the runway, then having to do a belly-up turn with traffic just a few mi away is not optimum either. I think they should vector to a longer final, using a dogleg, when they have traffic that close for the other runway.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: APCH CTLR AT ORD DID NOT ISSUE TFC TO DC9 CREW ON VISUAL APCH BECAUSE AN ADVISORY HAD BEEN GIVEN THAT SIMULTANEOUS APCHS WERE IN PROGRESS.

Narrative: UPON INITIAL CHK-IN WITH ORD APCH, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT A SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27R AT ORD. WE WERE VECTORED TO ABOUT A 12 MI BASE LEG. AT 5000 FT, HDG 180 DEGS, WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 27R. I IMMEDIATELY TURNED 45 DEGS R TO PUT MYSELF ON A DOGLEG TO FINAL. AS I ROLLED OUT OF THE R TURN, THE RWY WAS AT OUR 1:30 O'CLOCK POS, AND I IMMEDIATELY SPOTTED A LARGE ACFT AT 10 O'CLOCK POS. IT WAS DARK, BUT CLR. THE ACFT HAD ITS LNDG LIGHTS ON, WAS QUITE CLOSE, AND ALMOST CO-ALT, APPEARING TO BE ON A COLLISION COURSE. I BEGAN TO STEEPEN OUR DSCNT TO GET BELOW HIM JUST AS WE GOT A TCASII RA TO 'DSND NOW.' BECAUSE MY ATTN WAS ON THE ACFT TO MY L, I FLEW THROUGH THE LOC COURSE. WE GOT CLR OF THE CONFLICT, CORRECTED BACK TO THE LOC, AND CONTINUED THE APCH. LNDG WAS NORMAL. AFTER LNDG, I CALLED ORD APCH ON THE PHONE TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY SAW. THE CTLR TOLD ME THE OTHER ACFT WAS ON FINAL FOR RWY 27L AND HAD BEEN FOR 10 MI. I ASKED WHY WE WERE NEVER TOLD HE WAS THERE OR WHY HE WASN'T CALLED OUT AS TFC FOR US. THE CTLR SAID THAT SINCE WE WERE NOTIFIED THAT SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL APCHS WERE IN PROGRESS, THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO POINT OUT THE TFC FOR THE PARALLEL RWY. I TOLD THE CTLR THAT, IN MY OPINION, THE TFC SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED. AT NIGHT IT'S DIFFICULT TO JUDGE DISTANCE AND CLOSURE, ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL YOU CAN SEE IS BRIGHT LNDG LIGHTS BEARING DOWN ON YOU. BEING VECTORED 90 DEGS TO THE RWY, THEN HAVING TO DO A BELLY-UP TURN WITH TFC JUST A FEW MI AWAY IS NOT OPTIMUM EITHER. I THINK THEY SHOULD VECTOR TO A LONGER FINAL, USING A DOGLEG, WHEN THEY HAVE TFC THAT CLOSE FOR THE OTHER RWY.

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.