Narrative:

Unstable high approach to runway 25L phx with go around at 500 ft. Approach was too high and too fast on final at 1000 ft. It was beginning to come together but still too high at 500 ft AGL. We discussed that it wasn't going to work and first officer called for go around at 500 ft according to company policy; and go around was initiated. First officer called go around to control tower and rh was flown with a climb. Some time passed before control tower issued any instructions; then issued left 240 degree heading; climb and maintain 6000 ft. Unfortunately; due to either blocked transmission; captain requesting something; busyness during go around; TCAS sounding; the turn instructions were not understood; but first officer read back; 'climb and maintain 6000 ft; say heading again.' about that time; we got a TCAS commanding a 3000 FPM climb. Traffic showed ft below and slightly to the right. Captain initiated an expedited climb while subsequently turning to the 240 degree heading now understood; and the TCAS disappeared. First officer called the TCAS to the control tower. The conflicting traffic; when told to contact departure; made a comment to the control tower like 'that was pretty close.' we never saw the conflicting traffic visually (underneath us). After getting to the gate; I called the control tower to speak with someone about the situation. I spoke with the supervisor; 1 of the 4 controllers who saw this occur. We were being handled by a developmental trainee with an overseeing instructor plus a local assist looking on. The supervisor said it was ugly. He said it was entirely the instructor's responsibility and that we should have been turned approximately 1 mile before we turned and that the controller spent too much time discussing with approach control what they were going to do with us rather than telling us what to do (turn) and that he was not happy with that. Everything was technically legal; but ugly. Another thing he criticized his controllers on was not giving us more information such as; 'traffic departing runway 25R will be straight out.' when I asked if there was anything we should have done differently; he said he did not think so. I also asked if we ever drifted right of course; and he said it was hard to tell with their radar; but he did not think we did. From a pilot's perspective; especially when close parallel runways exist; I will try to be more aware of whether or not traffic is departing from the parallel while on approach; especially if a go around is a consideration. Supplemental information from acn 783109: cleared for takeoff; aircraft on visual approach to parallel runway performed a go around and encroached into our path. TCAS activated a pitch-down command and captain (PNF) verbalized 'turn right!' after TCAS cleared conflict; we returned. This problem occurred when the other aircraft did not follow ATC instructions for the go around.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B757 ON VIS APCH TO PHX EXPERIENCED TCAS RA WITH PARALLEL RWY DEP TFC WHEN GAR WAS INITIATED; LATE TWR ACTION LISTED AS CAUSAL FACTOR.

Narrative: UNSTABLE HIGH APCH TO RWY 25L PHX WITH GAR AT 500 FT. APCH WAS TOO HIGH AND TOO FAST ON FINAL AT 1000 FT. IT WAS BEGINNING TO COME TOGETHER BUT STILL TOO HIGH AT 500 FT AGL. WE DISCUSSED THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO WORK AND FO CALLED FOR GAR AT 500 FT ACCORDING TO COMPANY POLICY; AND GAR WAS INITIATED. FO CALLED GAR TO CTL TWR AND RH WAS FLOWN WITH A CLB. SOME TIME PASSED BEFORE CTL TWR ISSUED ANY INSTRUCTIONS; THEN ISSUED L 240 DEG HDG; CLB AND MAINTAIN 6000 FT. UNFORTUNATELY; DUE TO EITHER BLOCKED XMISSION; CAPT REQUESTING SOMETHING; BUSYNESS DURING GAR; TCAS SOUNDING; THE TURN INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT UNDERSTOOD; BUT FO READ BACK; 'CLB AND MAINTAIN 6000 FT; SAY HDG AGAIN.' ABOUT THAT TIME; WE GOT A TCAS COMMANDING A 3000 FPM CLB. TFC SHOWED FT BELOW AND SLIGHTLY TO THE R. CAPT INITIATED AN EXPEDITED CLB WHILE SUBSEQUENTLY TURNING TO THE 240 DEG HDG NOW UNDERSTOOD; AND THE TCAS DISAPPEARED. FO CALLED THE TCAS TO THE CTL TWR. THE CONFLICTING TFC; WHEN TOLD TO CONTACT DEP; MADE A COMMENT TO THE CTL TWR LIKE 'THAT WAS PRETTY CLOSE.' WE NEVER SAW THE CONFLICTING TFC VISUALLY (UNDERNEATH US). AFTER GETTING TO THE GATE; I CALLED THE CTL TWR TO SPEAK WITH SOMEONE ABOUT THE SIT. I SPOKE WITH THE SUPVR; 1 OF THE 4 CTLRS WHO SAW THIS OCCUR. WE WERE BEING HANDLED BY A DEVELOPMENTAL TRAINEE WITH AN OVERSEEING INSTRUCTOR PLUS A LCL ASSIST LOOKING ON. THE SUPVR SAID IT WAS UGLY. HE SAID IT WAS ENTIRELY THE INSTRUCTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AND THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TURNED APPROX 1 MILE BEFORE WE TURNED AND THAT THE CTLR SPENT TOO MUCH TIME DISCUSSING WITH APCH CTL WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO DO WITH US RATHER THAN TELLING US WHAT TO DO (TURN) AND THAT HE WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THAT. EVERYTHING WAS TECHNICALLY LEGAL; BUT UGLY. ANOTHER THING HE CRITICIZED HIS CTLRS ON WAS NOT GIVING US MORE INFO SUCH AS; 'TFC DEPARTING RWY 25R WILL BE STRAIGHT OUT.' WHEN I ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING WE SHOULD HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY; HE SAID HE DID NOT THINK SO. I ALSO ASKED IF WE EVER DRIFTED R OF COURSE; AND HE SAID IT WAS HARD TO TELL WITH THEIR RADAR; BUT HE DID NOT THINK WE DID. FROM A PLT'S PERSPECTIVE; ESPECIALLY WHEN CLOSE PARALLEL RWYS EXIST; I WILL TRY TO BE MORE AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT TFC IS DEPARTING FROM THE PARALLEL WHILE ON APCH; ESPECIALLY IF A GAR IS A CONSIDERATION. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 783109: CLRED FOR TKOF; ACFT ON VISUAL APCH TO PARALLEL RWY PERFORMED A GAR AND ENCROACHED INTO OUR PATH. TCAS ACTIVATED A PITCH-DOWN COMMAND AND CAPT (PNF) VERBALIZED 'TURN R!' AFTER TCAS CLRED CONFLICT; WE RETURNED. THIS PROB OCCURRED WHEN THE OTHER ACFT DID NOT FOLLOW ATC INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GAR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 2009 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.