Narrative:

The captain was the PF and I (the first officer) was the PNF. We were being vectored to a visual approach to runway 30L at msp. Msp approach advised us of traffic, a piaggio, landing runway 30R which we were unable to see. We called the airport in sight. Approach control cleared us for the visual to runway 30L, advised us again of traffic, and instructed us to contact msp tower. Before contacting tower, I saw the traffic to our north, slightly above us, and on a possibly intersecting course. As I began to communicate this to the captain, we received a TCASII TA and then, quickly, an RA. The captain began descending in compliance with the RA and continued on a northerly heading. I lost sight of the traffic as it crossed overhead on a southerly course. I contacted msp tower and advised them that we were currently complying with an RA. Tower advised us of the traffic landing runway 30R and of additional traffic crossing overhead. I regained visual contact with the piaggio as it appeared closely off our left wing and pointed it out to the captain. I called the piaggio in sight to the tower controller who then questioned if we were actually north of the piaggio. I confirmed that we were indeed north of the aircraft and the tower subsequently gave us the option to land on runway 30R. And informed us that the piaggio would be cleared to land runway 30L. I asked the captain if this was acceptable to him and he said that it was. We were cleared to land runway 30R, however, as we were approaching to land, I communicated to the captain that we were high and fast. He then initiated a go around. We were vectored for another approach to runway 30R and landed uneventfully. I believe that the steep intercept angle that we were on prior to being cleared for the visual to runway 30L contributed to this situation. While we were originally being vectored to runway 30L, our intercept angle was approximately 90 degrees. The time between being cleared for the visual approach and receiving the TCASII RA was very brief, and the captain had not yet had time to align the aircraft with the final approach course. Once we received the RA, the captain maintained his course in effort to comply with the RA. I am unsure at what point in time we proceeded north of the final approach course as I was focused on trying to locate our traffic visually. The captain felt that turning was inadvisable once the RA was received. Our company training manuals advise that only vertical (and not horizontal) course changes should be used to comply with an RA. I also believe that the piaggio must have continued south of the final approach course for runway 30R which contributed to this situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CARJ CREW HAD A TCASII RA GOING INTO MSP.

Narrative: THE CAPT WAS THE PF AND I (THE FO) WAS THE PNF. WE WERE BEING VECTORED TO A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 30L AT MSP. MSP APCH ADVISED US OF TFC, A PIAGGIO, LNDG RWY 30R WHICH WE WERE UNABLE TO SEE. WE CALLED THE ARPT IN SIGHT. APCH CTL CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 30L, ADVISED US AGAIN OF TFC, AND INSTRUCTED US TO CONTACT MSP TWR. BEFORE CONTACTING TWR, I SAW THE TFC TO OUR N, SLIGHTLY ABOVE US, AND ON A POSSIBLY INTERSECTING COURSE. AS I BEGAN TO COMMUNICATE THIS TO THE CAPT, WE RECEIVED A TCASII TA AND THEN, QUICKLY, AN RA. THE CAPT BEGAN DSNDING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RA AND CONTINUED ON A NORTHERLY HDG. I LOST SIGHT OF THE TFC AS IT CROSSED OVERHEAD ON A SOUTHERLY COURSE. I CONTACTED MSP TWR AND ADVISED THEM THAT WE WERE CURRENTLY COMPLYING WITH AN RA. TWR ADVISED US OF THE TFC LNDG RWY 30R AND OF ADDITIONAL TFC XING OVERHEAD. I REGAINED VISUAL CONTACT WITH THE PIAGGIO AS IT APPEARED CLOSELY OFF OUR L WING AND POINTED IT OUT TO THE CAPT. I CALLED THE PIAGGIO IN SIGHT TO THE TWR CTLR WHO THEN QUESTIONED IF WE WERE ACTUALLY N OF THE PIAGGIO. I CONFIRMED THAT WE WERE INDEED N OF THE ACFT AND THE TWR SUBSEQUENTLY GAVE US THE OPTION TO LAND ON RWY 30R. AND INFORMED US THAT THE PIAGGIO WOULD BE CLRED TO LAND RWY 30L. I ASKED THE CAPT IF THIS WAS ACCEPTABLE TO HIM AND HE SAID THAT IT WAS. WE WERE CLRED TO LAND RWY 30R, HOWEVER, AS WE WERE APCHING TO LAND, I COMMUNICATED TO THE CAPT THAT WE WERE HIGH AND FAST. HE THEN INITIATED A GAR. WE WERE VECTORED FOR ANOTHER APCH TO RWY 30R AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. I BELIEVE THAT THE STEEP INTERCEPT ANGLE THAT WE WERE ON PRIOR TO BEING CLRED FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 30L CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SIT. WHILE WE WERE ORIGINALLY BEING VECTORED TO RWY 30L, OUR INTERCEPT ANGLE WAS APPROX 90 DEGS. THE TIME BTWN BEING CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH AND RECEIVING THE TCASII RA WAS VERY BRIEF, AND THE CAPT HAD NOT YET HAD TIME TO ALIGN THE ACFT WITH THE FINAL APCH COURSE. ONCE WE RECEIVED THE RA, THE CAPT MAINTAINED HIS COURSE IN EFFORT TO COMPLY WITH THE RA. I AM UNSURE AT WHAT POINT IN TIME WE PROCEEDED N OF THE FINAL APCH COURSE AS I WAS FOCUSED ON TRYING TO LOCATE OUR TFC VISUALLY. THE CAPT FELT THAT TURNING WAS INADVISABLE ONCE THE RA WAS RECEIVED. OUR COMPANY TRAINING MANUALS ADVISE THAT ONLY VERT (AND NOT HORIZ) COURSE CHANGES SHOULD BE USED TO COMPLY WITH AN RA. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PIAGGIO MUST HAVE CONTINUED S OF THE FINAL APCH COURSE FOR RWY 30R WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO THIS SIT.

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.