Narrative:

Arriving into lax on the SADDE6; we were initially told to expect a visual to [runway] 24R. In the vicinity of smo; we were told that the plan had changed and we would be given [runway] 24L. Additional information was given that we would be in front of another aircraft arriving from the east landing [runway] 24R.we asked for our sequence to determine how quickly we needed to descend on downwind; and were given a vague answer that we were number one for [runway] 24L but number 3 for the north complex. The pilot flying kept our descent gradual as we interpreted this to mean that we would not be given an early base leg. Socal approach called out traffic at two o'clock; which we confirmed; and told us to follow that traffic; cleared for the visual [runway] 24L. This represented a change in plans due to (1) being given the visual earlier than expected and (2) we were now following the traffic for [runway] 24R that we were originally supposed to be in front of. In retrospect; we are very puzzled why socal chose to give the straight in traffic [runway] 24R and the traffic on the northern (left) downwind [runway] 24L; necessitating a crossing of flight paths. The geometry of the subsequent visual approach was worsened when socal gave us a 230 heading to intercept [runway] 24L; just as the [runway] 24R traffic began to disappear beneath our nose. We were given a directive simultaneously to the 230 heading saying 'don't pass that traffic.' the 230 vector was a very shallow 20 degree intercept to final that was going to delay the de-confliction in flight paths between us and the [runway] 24R traffic. Before reaching the 230 heading; the pilot flying hesitated; realizing that the 230 heading was incompatible with the directive to not pass the [runway] 24L traffic. The pilot flying was put in a situation at that point that required him hold off on his descent; check the aircraft heading back to something close to a 90-degree base and level the wings; delaying the turn to final in order to de-conflict laterally and vertically with the [runway] 24R traffic. While there were no TA indications from the TCAS; we felt that our flight paths were not de-conflicted enough.all this confusion came on top of the frequency change to tower. After checking in with tower; we were asked to confirm that we were turning back to final for [runway] 24L as our flight path had overshot the localizer due to the maneuver to keep sight and de-conflict with the [runway] 24R traffic. We already had the correction in and confirmed as much with the tower. The overshoot was minor but was a result of the pilot flying and pilot monitoring agreement that the 230 heading was going to result in an unsafe merging of flight paths inside 1;000 ft on final. Despite the confusion; the pilot flying had the aircraft stabilized at 1;000 ft and we landed uneventfully from that point on. Socal should not issue visual approach clearances at night that require aircraft to cross flight paths relatively close to the airport. As a crew; we should have challenged the change in plans issued by ATC. It would have been more appropriate from the aircrew perspective at least to for us to land on [runway] 24R and the straight in traffic to land on [runway] 24L. There are too many aircraft in the vicinity of lax and too much cultural lighting on the ground to visually de conflict in the high task loading environment of a relatively in close base leg visual approach at night. The runway assignments and vectors resulted in unsafe situation on visual approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A flight crew on the LAX SADDE 6 were initially assigned Runway 24R but changed to Runway 24L because of traffic. SCT issued a crosswind vector resulting in a traffic conflict nearing an overflight so the crew deviated to clear the conflict and slightly overshot after the turn back to Runway 24L.

Narrative: Arriving into LAX on the SADDE6; we were initially told to expect a visual to [Runway] 24R. In the vicinity of SMO; we were told that the plan had changed and we would be given [Runway] 24L. Additional information was given that we would be in front of another aircraft arriving from the east landing [Runway] 24R.We asked for our sequence to determine how quickly we needed to descend on downwind; and were given a vague answer that we were number one for [Runway] 24L but number 3 for the north complex. The pilot flying kept our descent gradual as we interpreted this to mean that we would not be given an early base leg. SoCal Approach called out traffic at two o'clock; which we confirmed; and told us to follow that traffic; cleared for the visual [Runway] 24L. This represented a change in plans due to (1) being given the visual earlier than expected and (2) we were now following the traffic for [Runway] 24R that we were originally supposed to be in front of. In retrospect; we are very puzzled why SoCal chose to give the straight in traffic [Runway] 24R and the traffic on the northern (left) downwind [Runway] 24L; necessitating a crossing of flight paths. The geometry of the subsequent visual approach was worsened when SoCal gave us a 230 heading to intercept [Runway] 24L; just as the [Runway] 24R traffic began to disappear beneath our nose. We were given a directive simultaneously to the 230 heading saying 'don't pass that traffic.' The 230 vector was a very shallow 20 degree intercept to final that was going to delay the de-confliction in flight paths between us and the [Runway] 24R traffic. Before reaching the 230 heading; the pilot flying hesitated; realizing that the 230 heading was incompatible with the directive to not pass the [Runway] 24L traffic. The pilot flying was put in a situation at that point that required him hold off on his descent; check the aircraft heading back to something close to a 90-degree base and level the wings; delaying the turn to final in order to de-conflict laterally and vertically with the [Runway] 24R traffic. While there were no TA indications from the TCAS; we felt that our flight paths were not de-conflicted enough.All this confusion came on top of the frequency change to Tower. After checking in with Tower; we were asked to confirm that we were turning back to final for [Runway] 24L as our flight path had overshot the localizer due to the maneuver to keep sight and de-conflict with the [Runway] 24R traffic. We already had the correction in and confirmed as much with the Tower. The overshoot was minor but was a result of the pilot flying and pilot monitoring agreement that the 230 heading was going to result in an unsafe merging of flight paths inside 1;000 FT on final. Despite the confusion; the pilot flying had the aircraft stabilized at 1;000 FT and we landed uneventfully from that point on. SoCal should NOT issue visual approach clearances at night that require aircraft to cross flight paths relatively close to the airport. As a crew; we should have challenged the change in plans issued by ATC. It would have been more appropriate from the aircrew perspective at least to for us to land on [Runway] 24R and the straight in traffic to land on [Runway] 24L. There are too many aircraft in the vicinity of LAX and too much cultural lighting on the ground to visually de conflict in the high task loading environment of a relatively in close base leg visual approach at night. The runway assignments and vectors resulted in unsafe situation on visual approach.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.