Narrative:

Arrival via holly-1 to mem. After passing holly springs we were assigned 5000 ft and a 280 degree heading 'vectors to runway 36R.' we were given further descent to 3000 ft and told to report 'airport in sight' for a visual approach. Note: we did not call airport in sight nor were we cleared for any approach at that time. We were given further descent to 2000 ft with no heading change. Descending from 3000 ft to 2000 ft (still established on the 280 degree assigned heading) approximately 15 mi from the airport, we picked up the runway. We attempted to call 'airport in sight' but our transmission was blocked. Subsequent attempts to get a word in 'edgewise' were difficult due to frequency congestion. As we were approaching the runway 36R final we saw another aircraft (visual and TCASII) on approach to runway 36L. Shortly thereafter we got a TCASII climb RA which we responded to immediately. The other flight then told the controller he was responding to TCASII RA (descent). The controller then said our flight was joining the runway 36R localizer. At that point we did make the turn to join the runway 36R localizer and the RA went away. The controller asked if we had the runway. We responded that we had just complied with a TCASII RA (climb) and that we did have the runway in sight. He then cleared us for a visual approach to runway 36R and to contact the tower. The rest of the approach/landing was uneventful. In my opinion factors that caused this potential conflict were: frequency congestion -- 1 controller working multiple flts to multiple runways. Controller perhaps thinking he had cleared us for a visual and or intercept, when in fact that did not happen until after we turned inbound as we heard him tell the other flight that we were joining the localizer.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT INBOUND TO MEM EXPERIENCED TCASII RA WITH PARALLEL RWY TFC.

Narrative: ARR VIA HOLLY-1 TO MEM. AFTER PASSING HOLLY SPRINGS WE WERE ASSIGNED 5000 FT AND A 280 DEG HDG 'VECTORS TO RWY 36R.' WE WERE GIVEN FURTHER DSCNT TO 3000 FT AND TOLD TO RPT 'ARPT IN SIGHT' FOR A VISUAL APCH. NOTE: WE DID NOT CALL ARPT IN SIGHT NOR WERE WE CLRED FOR ANY APCH AT THAT TIME. WE WERE GIVEN FURTHER DSCNT TO 2000 FT WITH NO HEADING CHANGE. DSNDING FROM 3000 FT TO 2000 FT (STILL ESTABLISHED ON THE 280 DEG ASSIGNED HEADING) APPROX 15 MI FROM THE ARPT, WE PICKED UP THE RWY. WE ATTEMPTED TO CALL 'ARPT IN SIGHT' BUT OUR XMISSION WAS BLOCKED. SUBSEQUENT ATTEMPTS TO GET A WORD IN 'EDGEWISE' WERE DIFFICULT DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION. AS WE WERE APCHING THE RWY 36R FINAL WE SAW ANOTHER ACFT (VISUAL AND TCASII) ON APCH TO RWY 36L. SHORTLY THEREAFTER WE GOT A TCASII CLB RA WHICH WE RESPONDED TO IMMEDIATELY. THE OTHER FLT THEN TOLD THE CTLR HE WAS RESPONDING TO TCASII RA (DSCNT). THE CTLR THEN SAID OUR FLT WAS JOINING THE RWY 36R LOC. AT THAT POINT WE DID MAKE THE TURN TO JOIN THE RWY 36R LOC AND THE RA WENT AWAY. THE CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD THE RWY. WE RESPONDED THAT WE HAD JUST COMPLIED WITH A TCASII RA (CLB) AND THAT WE DID HAVE THE RWY IN SIGHT. HE THEN CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 36R AND TO CONTACT THE TWR. THE REST OF THE APCH/LNDG WAS UNEVENTFUL. IN MY OPINION FACTORS THAT CAUSED THIS POTENTIAL CONFLICT WERE: FREQ CONGESTION -- 1 CTLR WORKING MULTIPLE FLTS TO MULTIPLE RWYS. CTLR PERHAPS THINKING HE HAD CLRED US FOR A VISUAL AND OR INTERCEPT, WHEN IN FACT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN UNTIL AFTER WE TURNED INBOUND AS WE HEARD HIM TELL THE OTHER FLT THAT WE WERE JOINING THE LOC.

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.