Narrative:

While on a bridge visual for runway 10, approach control told us to follow company ATR72 (who was well behind us at 8 O'clock position), for the runway. We were switched to tower and were cleared to land. The company ATR came very close to us on the approach and caused an RA. I immediately took evasive action and went around with tower and approach for runway 8. I believe that in an effort to clear incoming traffic the controller authority/authorized 2 aircraft for the bridge visual when only 1 aircraft was able to safely perform the approach. Our accepting the approach was a contributing factor to the near collision that almost occurred. In the future, I will not accept this approach unless I am the only aircraft on it.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NMAC BTWN 2 ACR ATR SAME COMPANY ACFT DURING A PUBLISHED VISUAL APCH DUE TO THE CLOSE SPACING USED BY SJU APCH CTL RESULTING IN THE RPTR GOING AROUND IN RESPONSE TO A TCASII RA.

Narrative: WHILE ON A BRIDGE VISUAL FOR RWY 10, APCH CTL TOLD US TO FOLLOW COMPANY ATR72 (WHO WAS WELL BEHIND US AT 8 O'CLOCK POS), FOR THE RWY. WE WERE SWITCHED TO TWR AND WERE CLRED TO LAND. THE COMPANY ATR CAME VERY CLOSE TO US ON THE APCH AND CAUSED AN RA. I IMMEDIATELY TOOK EVASIVE ACTION AND WENT AROUND WITH TWR AND APCH FOR RWY 8. I BELIEVE THAT IN AN EFFORT TO CLR INCOMING TFC THE CTLR AUTH 2 ACFT FOR THE BRIDGE VISUAL WHEN ONLY 1 ACFT WAS ABLE TO SAFELY PERFORM THE APCH. OUR ACCEPTING THE APCH WAS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR TO THE NEAR COLLISION THAT ALMOST OCCURRED. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THIS APCH UNLESS I AM THE ONLY ACFT ON IT.

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.