Aircraft on a visual approach to sea experienced TCASII RA with other landing traffic.

Attributes
ACN	578787
Time
Date	200304
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sea.airport
State Reference	WA
Altitude	msl single value : 1500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : sea.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	other
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual arrival star : husky
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tower : sea.tower
Make Model Name	Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 30 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 1000
ASRS Report	578787
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment : tcas other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	controller : issued new clearance flight crew : executed go around flight crew : took evasive action
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	ATC Human Performance

Narrative:

Den-sea. Husky visual approach, runway 16L, sea. Approach control called traffic, probably in boeing field traffic pattern and also an MD80 ahead side-stepping from runway 16R to runway 16L. Earlier a dash 8 was told to maintain visual separation, probably from us. Inside FAF (dglas), fully configured for landing, we got a climb RA. We executed a go around. When tower switched us back to approach control, the controller stated that it was pretty stupid to go around for traffic he had called out to us. First of all we don't think he called the dash 8 to us and second if the dash 8 pulled up on us from behind and sets off the RA we have no choice but to go around. Then instead of vectoring us for another approach he gave us a last second clearance for the bay visual which we were not familiar with, and got more upset with our turn to final. I wish I had refused the visual approach clearance, but the controller certainly did not enhance safety in this operation. Numerous deplaning passenger, who were listening on channel 9, commented on the 'jerk with an attitude' controller and how polite I was. His supervisor called at the gate to apologize.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT ON A VISUAL APCH TO SEA EXPERIENCED TCASII RA WITH OTHER LNDG TFC.

Narrative: DEN-SEA. HUSKY VISUAL APCH, RWY 16L, SEA. APCH CTL CALLED TFC, PROBABLY IN BOEING FIELD TFC PATTERN AND ALSO AN MD80 AHEAD SIDE-STEPPING FROM RWY 16R TO RWY 16L. EARLIER A DASH 8 WAS TOLD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION, PROBABLY FROM US. INSIDE FAF (DGLAS), FULLY CONFIGURED FOR LNDG, WE GOT A CLB RA. WE EXECUTED A GAR. WHEN TWR SWITCHED US BACK TO APCH CTL, THE CTLR STATED THAT IT WAS PRETTY STUPID TO GO AROUND FOR TFC HE HAD CALLED OUT TO US. FIRST OF ALL WE DON'T THINK HE CALLED THE DASH 8 TO US AND SECOND IF THE DASH 8 PULLED UP ON US FROM BEHIND AND SETS OFF THE RA WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GO AROUND. THEN INSTEAD OF VECTORING US FOR ANOTHER APCH HE GAVE US A LAST SECOND CLRNC FOR THE BAY VISUAL WHICH WE WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH, AND GOT MORE UPSET WITH OUR TURN TO FINAL. I WISH I HAD REFUSED THE VISUAL APCH CLRNC, BUT THE CTLR CERTAINLY DID NOT ENHANCE SAFETY IN THIS OP. NUMEROUS DEPLANING PAX, WHO WERE LISTENING ON CHANNEL 9, COMMENTED ON THE 'JERK WITH AN ATTITUDE' CTLR AND HOW POLITE I WAS. HIS SUPVR CALLED AT THE GATE TO APOLOGIZE.

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.