Narrative:

On approach to expect a visual to runway 25L at phx the controller gave us a descent from 7000 ft to 4000 ft and a vector to 350 degrees. He asked if we had traffic on approach to runway 25L. We replied negative. He then asked if we had airbus traffic at our 1 O'clock position on approach to runway 26. We replied affirmative. He paused, then said to keep separation from that traffic. At this point we both wondered how we were going to maintain separation when we had no clearance to deviate from our assigned heading. Meanwhile we were closing quickly on the localizer runway 25L on a 90 degree intercept, as we observed our aircraft go through the localizer, the captain (PF) began a hard left turn to avoid traffic while also maintaining altitude. While we were turning, the controller cleared us for a visual approach to runway 25L. At this point the first officer (PNF) confirmed we were clear of the traffic and accepted the clearance for a visual to runway 25L. This was followed by a normal landing to runway 25L. After landing, we called both phx tower and TRACON supervisor who both acknowledged problems with how our aircraft was handled. In conclusion, the problems I saw from the approach controller: 1) poor vectoring we were given a 90 degree intercept to the localizer with conflicting traffic on runway 26. 2) the controller created confusion by telling us to maintain visual separation with conflicting traffic but at the same time he never gave us permission to deviate from an assigned heading or altitude. 3) finally, I believe the controller pushed a bad position. I've seen this problem not just north phx but other airports as well. The moment the controller creates a hole in which he can't get out, he panics and tries to dump everything into my lap by getting me to except a visual clearance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757 CREW, ON APCH TO PHX, TOOK EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID TFC FOR THE PARALLEL.

Narrative: ON APCH TO EXPECT A VISUAL TO RWY 25L AT PHX THE CTLR GAVE US A DSCNT FROM 7000 FT TO 4000 FT AND A VECTOR TO 350 DEGS. HE ASKED IF WE HAD TFC ON APCH TO RWY 25L. WE REPLIED NEGATIVE. HE THEN ASKED IF WE HAD AIRBUS TFC AT OUR 1 O'CLOCK POS ON APCH TO RWY 26. WE REPLIED AFFIRMATIVE. HE PAUSED, THEN SAID TO KEEP SEPARATION FROM THAT TFC. AT THIS POINT WE BOTH WONDERED HOW WE WERE GOING TO MAINTAIN SEPARATION WHEN WE HAD NO CLRNC TO DEVIATE FROM OUR ASSIGNED HDG. MEANWHILE WE WERE CLOSING QUICKLY ON THE LOC RWY 25L ON A 90 DEG INTERCEPT, AS WE OBSERVED OUR ACFT GO THROUGH THE LOC, THE CAPT (PF) BEGAN A HARD L TURN TO AVOID TFC WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING ALT. WHILE WE WERE TURNING, THE CTLR CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 25L. AT THIS POINT THE FO (PNF) CONFIRMED WE WERE CLR OF THE TFC AND ACCEPTED THE CLRNC FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 25L. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY A NORMAL LNDG TO RWY 25L. AFTER LNDG, WE CALLED BOTH PHX TWR AND TRACON SUPVR WHO BOTH ACKNOWLEDGED PROBS WITH HOW OUR ACFT WAS HANDLED. IN CONCLUSION, THE PROBS I SAW FROM THE APCH CTLR: 1) POOR VECTORING WE WERE GIVEN A 90 DEG INTERCEPT TO THE LOC WITH CONFLICTING TFC ON RWY 26. 2) THE CTLR CREATED CONFUSION BY TELLING US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH CONFLICTING TFC BUT AT THE SAME TIME HE NEVER GAVE US PERMISSION TO DEVIATE FROM AN ASSIGNED HDG OR ALT. 3) FINALLY, I BELIEVE THE CTLR PUSHED A BAD POS. I'VE SEEN THIS PROB NOT JUST N PHX BUT OTHER ARPTS AS WELL. THE MOMENT THE CTLR CREATES A HOLE IN WHICH HE CAN'T GET OUT, HE PANICS AND TRIES TO DUMP EVERYTHING INTO MY LAP BY GETTING ME TO EXCEPT A VISUAL CLRNC.

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.