Narrative:

At 5000 ft MSL, 170 KTS, north downwind for runway 27 at san, approach control called our attention to traffic at our 11-11:30 O'clock position about 5 mi. We saw a TCASII signature for that aircraft, but could not see it visually. ATC then directed us to turn right to 130 degrees to avoid said traffic. As we began the turn, we received a TCASII RA to climb. We followed the RA, turning off autoplt and autothrottles. At this point, I visually acquired the RA producing aircraft, and continued to climb (RA) and turn to the right to avoid same. The first officer (PNF) advised ATC of our RA maneuver. At least 2 air carrier aircraft were on final approach to san runway 27. ATC advised 'clear to maneuver as necessary to avoid traffic.' climbing right turn to avoid traffic resulted in a heading more southerly than 130 degrees. 'Clear of conflict' advisory from TCASII occurred at 5800 ft MSL. Descended back to 5000 ft, ATC said turn right to 360 degrees, turn left to 110 degrees. Traffic at 12 O'clock position, turn right immediately to 360 degrees. We complied, were re-sequenced into the approach to runway 27, cleared to intercept the localizer and subsequently cleared for a visual approach. I feel contributing factors to be: 1) an aircraft in class B airspace without clearance, 2) avoidance vectors issued too late by ATC, 3) ATC vectors into the traffic pattern 'box,' 4) undesired heading resulting from RA and visual maneuvering to avoid traffic, and 5) controller issuing instructions so rapid fire as to lead to confusion and make it difficult to respond. The second traffic call was an air carrier on final to runway 27, san. That aircraft turned south, we turned north, closest loss of separation appeared to be 4 mi.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 FLC INITIATE TCASII CLB DUE TO UNCTLED ACFT AT CLASS B BASE ALT WHILE ON VECTOR TO SAN RWY 27, AND SCT CTLR ISSUES CONFUSING VECTORS WHICH CONFLICT WITH A B727.

Narrative: AT 5000 FT MSL, 170 KTS, N DOWNWIND FOR RWY 27 AT SAN, APCH CTL CALLED OUR ATTN TO TFC AT OUR 11-11:30 O'CLOCK POS ABOUT 5 MI. WE SAW A TCASII SIGNATURE FOR THAT ACFT, BUT COULD NOT SEE IT VISUALLY. ATC THEN DIRECTED US TO TURN R TO 130 DEGS TO AVOID SAID TFC. AS WE BEGAN THE TURN, WE RECEIVED A TCASII RA TO CLB. WE FOLLOWED THE RA, TURNING OFF AUTOPLT AND AUTOTHROTTLES. AT THIS POINT, I VISUALLY ACQUIRED THE RA PRODUCING ACFT, AND CONTINUED TO CLB (RA) AND TURN TO THE R TO AVOID SAME. THE FO (PNF) ADVISED ATC OF OUR RA MANEUVER. AT LEAST 2 ACR ACFT WERE ON FINAL APCH TO SAN RWY 27. ATC ADVISED 'CLR TO MANEUVER AS NECESSARY TO AVOID TFC.' CLBING R TURN TO AVOID TFC RESULTED IN A HEADING MORE SOUTHERLY THAN 130 DEGS. 'CLR OF CONFLICT' ADVISORY FROM TCASII OCCURRED AT 5800 FT MSL. DSNDED BACK TO 5000 FT, ATC SAID TURN R TO 360 DEGS, TURN L TO 110 DEGS. TFC AT 12 O'CLOCK POS, TURN R IMMEDIATELY TO 360 DEGS. WE COMPLIED, WERE RE-SEQUENCED INTO THE APCH TO RWY 27, CLRED TO INTERCEPT THE LOC AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH. I FEEL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO BE: 1) AN ACFT IN CLASS B AIRSPACE WITHOUT CLRNC, 2) AVOIDANCE VECTORS ISSUED TOO LATE BY ATC, 3) ATC VECTORS INTO THE TFC PATTERN 'BOX,' 4) UNDESIRED HEADING RESULTING FROM RA AND VISUAL MANEUVERING TO AVOID TFC, AND 5) CTLR ISSUING INSTRUCTIONS SO RAPID FIRE AS TO LEAD TO CONFUSION AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO RESPOND. THE SECOND TFC CALL WAS AN ACR ON FINAL TO RWY 27, SAN. THAT ACFT TURNED S, WE TURNED N, CLOSEST LOSS OF SEPARATION APPEARED TO BE 4 MI.

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.