Narrative:

Socal approach took me and many other lives right to an edge of a known cliff....all for 'spacing' into lax! Disclaimer: everyone involved acted professionally and the whole incident was 'far legal'...but it was not safe!! This problem is not limited to socal approach but is 'a system problem' at other high volume airports. (Lga; ord; mia etc.) while descending on the lax ILS 25L approach; socal approach directed us to maintain 250 KTS as long as possible for spacing on an aircraft following us. To allow more time; socal approach directed us to descend well below the glide path to 2;000 MSL so we could make a quicker level altitude reduction in speed closer to the airport. Descending through 2;100 MSL; a TCAS target appeared on our display indicating an altitude of 1;900 MSL. The target was almost directly underneath us. Two seconds later; the TCAS issued an RA to climb. At the same time; socal approach recommended a climb. The white VFR aircraft banked to the right away from us as we climbed to 3;000 MSL. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful. I spoke to the socal supervisor by telephone and was told that socal owned the airspace 2;000 MSL and above; but there is an uncontrolled VFR corridor under that airspace. Often; 'foolish VFR pilots' fly their aircraft at 1;900 MSL under the big jets landing at lax. Why would any VFR pilot chose to get so close to a big jet landing at lax? Yes; I agree socal was legal to descend us to 2;000 MSL. Yes; the VFR pilot was legal to fly at 1;900 MSL. But; why was socal approach so willing to risk lives for spacing into lax? On this afternoon; our altimeter and the VFR aircraft's altimeter were reading correctly. Our TCAS system worked 'as advertised'. The socal controller picked up the VFR target 'in time'. But what happens next time? What if one of those safety chains breaks? Are we comfortable taking all this 'risk' just for 'aircraft spacing'? Did 500 ft of altitude make that much difference?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier arrival to LAX described a conflict event when ATC descended their aircraft to 2;000 and a VFR aircraft apparently level near 1;900; all legal but very unsafe according to the reporter.

Narrative: SOCAL Approach took me and many other lives right to an edge of a known cliff....all for 'spacing' into LAX! Disclaimer: Everyone involved acted professionally and the whole incident was 'FAR Legal'...BUT IT WAS NOT SAFE!! This problem is not limited to SOCAL Approach but is 'a system problem' at other high volume airports. (LGA; ORD; MIA etc.) While descending on the LAX ILS 25L approach; SOCAL Approach directed us to maintain 250 KTS as long as possible for spacing on an aircraft following us. To allow more time; SOCAL Approach directed us to descend well below the glide path to 2;000 MSL so we could make a quicker level altitude reduction in speed closer to the airport. Descending through 2;100 MSL; a TCAS target appeared on our display indicating an altitude of 1;900 MSL. The target was almost directly underneath us. Two seconds later; the TCAS issued an RA to climb. At the same time; SOCAL Approach recommended a climb. The white VFR aircraft banked to the right away from us as we climbed to 3;000 MSL. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful. I spoke to the SOCAL Supervisor by telephone and was told that SOCAL owned the airspace 2;000 MSL and above; but there is an uncontrolled VFR corridor under that airspace. Often; 'foolish VFR pilots' fly their aircraft at 1;900 MSL under the big jets landing at LAX. Why would any VFR pilot chose to get so close to a big jet landing at LAX? Yes; I agree SOCAL was legal to descend us to 2;000 MSL. Yes; the VFR pilot was legal to fly at 1;900 MSL. But; WHY WAS SOCAL APPROACH SO WILLING TO RISK LIVES FOR SPACING INTO LAX? On this afternoon; our altimeter and the VFR aircraft's altimeter were reading correctly. Our TCAS system worked 'as advertised'. The SOCAL Controller picked up the VFR target 'in time'. But what happens next time? What if one of those safety chains breaks? Are we comfortable taking all this 'risk' just for 'aircraft spacing'? Did 500 FT of altitude make that much difference?

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.