Narrative:

TCAS RA on final approach: while descending to atw and cleared down to 4;000 ft MSL; green bay approach notified us of traffic southeast of the airport at 3;000 ft MSL. About 12 NM southeast from the airport; we were cleared the visual approach to runway 30 and instructed to contact the appleton tower. I decided to continue my descent to 2;700 ft MSL at this time; which is the FAF altitude for the ILS 30 approach. When we switched radio frequencies; we heard the tower instructing another aircraft to make a left 360 to make way for our arrival. At about 7 miles from the airport; on a left base for runway 30; we received the initial TCAS TA for the conflicting traffic at about 10-11 o'clock and 3 miles; as observed on the TCAS display. After about 10 seconds; we received the TCAS RA 'climb' command while passing through 3;500 ft MSL. At about this time; after reacting to the RA; we both visually acquired the aircraft at our 10 o'clock position; about 500 ft laterally and 200-300 ft below us. The act of slowing our descent with pitch and power was sufficient to clear the traffic; with no evasive maneuvering. However; this did put us out of position vertically for the final approach to runway 30. Appleton tower did offer us the option of entering a left downwind position for runway 21; however I decided I could continue with the planned approach to runway 30. This then required a higher than normal descent angle and descent rate for the approach. Despite this; the aircraft was in a stabilized state by 500 ft AGL and I made a normal landing.the primary threat in all terminal operations is the mid-air collision. We always accept that; but attempt to minimize it through the use of TCAS; ATC services; and visual scanning techniques. I made two errors during this event. First; I decided to make the descent to 2;700 ft MSL; while knowing of the conflicting traffic at 3;000 ft MSL. This placed us into multiple undesired states; first due to the proximity of the other aircraft; then subsequently having to react to the TCAS climb. I should have made the descent to 3;500 ft MSL; which should have kept us clear of the traffic; instead of the rote action of going down to the FAF altitude whenever cleared for a visual approach. Second; knowing I was out of position for the approach; I should have accepted the change in runway offer; which would have mitigated the descent angle and descent rate undesired state during the most critical phase of flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB-145 First Officer reported receiving an RA on approach to ATW.

Narrative: TCAS RA on final approach: While descending to ATW and cleared down to 4;000 FT MSL; Green Bay Approach notified us of traffic southeast of the airport at 3;000 FT MSL. About 12 NM southeast from the airport; we were cleared the visual approach to Runway 30 and instructed to contact the Appleton Tower. I decided to continue my descent to 2;700 FT MSL at this time; which is the FAF altitude for the ILS 30 approach. When we switched radio frequencies; we heard the Tower instructing another aircraft to make a left 360 to make way for our arrival. At about 7 miles from the airport; on a left base for Runway 30; we received the initial TCAS TA for the conflicting traffic at about 10-11 o'clock and 3 miles; as observed on the TCAS display. After about 10 seconds; we received the TCAS RA 'CLIMB' command while passing through 3;500 FT MSL. At about this time; after reacting to the RA; we both visually acquired the aircraft at our 10 o'clock position; about 500 FT laterally and 200-300 FT below us. The act of slowing our descent with pitch and power was sufficient to clear the traffic; with no evasive maneuvering. However; this did put us out of position vertically for the final approach to Runway 30. Appleton Tower did offer us the option of entering a left downwind position for Runway 21; however I decided I could continue with the planned approach to Runway 30. This then required a higher than normal descent angle and descent rate for the approach. Despite this; the aircraft was in a stabilized state by 500 FT AGL and I made a normal landing.The primary threat in all terminal operations is the mid-air collision. We always accept that; but attempt to minimize it through the use of TCAS; ATC services; and visual scanning techniques. I made two errors during this event. First; I decided to make the descent to 2;700 FT MSL; while knowing of the conflicting traffic at 3;000 FT MSL. This placed us into multiple undesired states; first due to the proximity of the other aircraft; then subsequently having to react to the TCAS climb. I should have made the descent to 3;500 FT MSL; which should have kept us clear of the traffic; instead of the rote action of going down to the FAF altitude whenever cleared for a visual approach. Second; knowing I was out of position for the approach; I should have accepted the change in runway offer; which would have mitigated the descent angle and descent rate undesired state during the most critical phase of flight.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.