Narrative:

Clt was doing ILS approaches to runway's 18L/C/right. Runway 23 was closed and being used for deicing procedures. I was cleared to fly; and had intercepted; the ILS 18C clt. I was cleared to land 18C. ATC requested 170KIAS until ozeji. Flying a dual-coupled approach; I was instructed to turn off the localizer approach for re-sequencing due to proximity to an aircraft on approach to 18R; not previously mentioned by approach control. We had seen the aircraft on TCAS; though we had not received a TCAS TA. When we had started the approach he had been to our right lined up on 18R; approximately 2.5 miles in front of us. Flying the requested speed; I saw our distance to the aircraft on the parallel approach decrease to less than a mile when approach vectored us off our approach. Upon re-sequencing; we were very alert to aircraft approaching the parallel runway. Again we were cleared and were flying a coupled ILS 18C approach. We were cleared to land. Approach requested we fly 170 KIAS since we were 6.5 miles behind the aircraft in front of us to 18C. We were only 2.5 miles behind and to the east of an aircraft flying the ILS to 18R. As this distance diminished; we queried approach control about the speed but he insisted we stay at 170. We complied and saw the distance continue to decrease. We received a TA highlighting the aircraft on approach to 18R we had been watching. We questioned approach and they broke off our approach again vectoring us around for re-sequencing. On the third approach we successfully landed. The approach controller and monitor or supervisor; we heard two distinct voices; were only worried with the horizontal spacing between aircraft assigned to the same runway. They were so intent on keeping a particular distance; they appeared to give no consideration to position relative to a parallel runway. In two instances the speed they requested of us caused closure to a near parallel position to an aircraft on the parallel approach. The aircraft on the parallel approach drifted off course enough to pose a potential threat to our flight; necessitating breaking off our approach and being re-sequenced in the pattern. On the first approach; the vectoring occurred before a TCAS TA occurred. On the second approach a TCAS TA occurred. Suggestions: 1. In a non-normal situation using runway 5/23 for deicing procedures consider using the east and west runway for approaches and the center runway for departures. 2. Suspend controller training during adverse weather/non-normal operations. Let them observe; but not control. 3. Institute requirements that controllers keep nose/tail; for lack of a better term; separation distances not only for aircraft on approach to a runway but for those on near parallel runways. I am not suggesting the same distance but simply not having a parallel approach pass one another. There are too many things that can go wrong since the thresholds are approximately parallel; hence parallel glide paths.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Air Carrier experienced multiple go arounds at CLT during simultaneous approach procedures.

Narrative: CLT was doing ILS approaches to Runway's 18L/C/R. Runway 23 was closed and being used for deicing procedures. I was cleared to fly; and had intercepted; the ILS 18C CLT. I was cleared to land 18C. ATC requested 170KIAS until OZEJI. Flying a dual-coupled approach; I was instructed to turn off the localizer approach for re-sequencing due to proximity to an aircraft on approach to 18R; not previously mentioned by approach control. We had seen the aircraft on TCAS; though we had not received a TCAS TA. When we had started the approach he had been to our right lined up on 18R; approximately 2.5 miles in front of us. Flying the requested speed; I saw our distance to the aircraft on the parallel approach decrease to less than a mile when approach vectored us off our approach. Upon re-sequencing; we were very alert to aircraft approaching the parallel runway. Again we were cleared and were flying a coupled ILS 18C approach. We were cleared to land. Approach requested we fly 170 KIAS since we were 6.5 miles behind the aircraft in front of us to 18C. We were only 2.5 miles behind and to the east of an aircraft flying the ILS to 18R. As this distance diminished; we queried approach control about the speed but he insisted we stay at 170. We complied and saw the distance continue to decrease. We received a TA highlighting the aircraft on approach to 18R we had been watching. We questioned approach and they broke off our approach again vectoring us around for re-sequencing. On the third approach we successfully landed. The Approach Controller and monitor or supervisor; we heard two distinct voices; were only worried with the horizontal spacing between aircraft assigned to the same runway. They were so intent on keeping a particular distance; they appeared to give no consideration to position relative to a parallel runway. In two instances the speed they requested of us caused closure to a near parallel position to an aircraft on the parallel approach. The aircraft on the parallel approach drifted off course enough to pose a potential threat to our flight; necessitating breaking off our approach and being re-sequenced in the pattern. On the first approach; the vectoring occurred before a TCAS TA occurred. On the second approach a TCAS TA occurred. Suggestions: 1. In a non-normal situation using Runway 5/23 for deicing procedures consider using the east and west runway for approaches and the center runway for departures. 2. Suspend controller training during adverse weather/non-normal operations. Let them observe; but not control. 3. Institute requirements that controllers keep nose/tail; for lack of a better term; separation distances not only for aircraft on approach to a runway but for those on near parallel runways. I am not suggesting the same distance but simply not having a parallel approach pass one another. There are too many things that can go wrong since the thresholds are approximately parallel; hence parallel glide paths.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.