Narrative:

The problem is the denver approach control and tower. They are sacrificing safety to reduce their workload. Specifically, they continually try to force visual approachs on aircraft landing on runways 26L and 26R. I understand fully the difficulty of providing IFR separation on those closely- spaced runways, and I am comfortable accepting a visual approach when I can see that the other aircraft is lined up (or nearly so) with his runway. I am not willing to accept a visual when I am not yet on centerline and he is still on a base leg. Narrative: we were cleared from over idc to altur, the runway 26L locator OM, cleared to descend to 8000 ft. A light transport Y jet was approaching from the north to land on runway 26R. The approach controller kept trying to point out the light transport Y and she never told us to intercept the 26L localizer. She had given us an intermediate heading, and we crossed through the localizer at 8000 ft. Suddenly, the TCASII gave us a TA and then a 'climb' RA. We saw the light transport Y a mile or so ahead, started a climb, turned toward the airport and told the tower what we were doing. The tower said 'tower is providing visual separation,' (whatever that is supposed to mean). 'Cleared the visual runway 26L. We landed, maintaining our visual separation from the traffic. Then, to make matters worse, the tower told us to hold short of runway 26R, which we did, then they cleared us to cross runway 26R just as a medium large transport was flaring to land on runway 26R. We declined to cross, pointing out that we saw traffic landing on the runway. 2 (or more) voices responded, but they blocked each other. We presume it was supervisory personnel. I spoke with the tower supervisor after we landed -- he said that training was in progress. Maybe so, but it wasn't very good training for that fledgling controller.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR X TCASII RA CLB NON ADHERENCE TO ATC CLRNC EVASIVE ACTION TAKEN FROM LTT MAINTAINING VISUAL SEPARATION FROM ACR X. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT.

Narrative: THE PROBLEM IS THE DENVER APCH CTL AND TWR. THEY ARE SACRIFICING SAFETY TO REDUCE THEIR WORKLOAD. SPECIFICALLY, THEY CONTINUALLY TRY TO FORCE VISUAL APCHS ON ACFT LNDG ON RWYS 26L AND 26R. I UNDERSTAND FULLY THE DIFFICULTY OF PROVIDING IFR SEPARATION ON THOSE CLOSELY- SPACED RWYS, AND I AM COMFORTABLE ACCEPTING A VISUAL APCH WHEN I CAN SEE THAT THE OTHER ACFT IS LINED UP (OR NEARLY SO) WITH HIS RWY. I AM NOT WILLING TO ACCEPT A VISUAL WHEN I AM NOT YET ON CTRLINE AND HE IS STILL ON A BASE LEG. NARRATIVE: WE WERE CLRED FROM OVER IDC TO ALTUR, THE RWY 26L LOCATOR OM, CLRED TO DSND TO 8000 FT. A LTT Y JET WAS APCHING FROM THE N TO LAND ON RWY 26R. THE APCH CTLR KEPT TRYING TO POINT OUT THE LTT Y AND SHE NEVER TOLD US TO INTERCEPT THE 26L LOC. SHE HAD GIVEN US AN INTERMEDIATE HDG, AND WE CROSSED THROUGH THE LOC AT 8000 FT. SUDDENLY, THE TCASII GAVE US A TA AND THEN A 'CLB' RA. WE SAW THE LTT Y A MILE OR SO AHEAD, STARTED A CLB, TURNED TOWARD THE ARPT AND TOLD THE TWR WHAT WE WERE DOING. THE TWR SAID 'TWR IS PROVIDING VISUAL SEPARATION,' (WHATEVER THAT IS SUPPOSED TO MEAN). 'CLRED THE VISUAL RWY 26L. WE LANDED, MAINTAINING OUR VISUAL SEPARATION FROM THE TFC. THEN, TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, THE TWR TOLD US TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 26R, WHICH WE DID, THEN THEY CLRED US TO CROSS RWY 26R JUST AS A MLG WAS FLARING TO LAND ON RWY 26R. WE DECLINED TO CROSS, POINTING OUT THAT WE SAW TFC LNDG ON THE RWY. 2 (OR MORE) VOICES RESPONDED, BUT THEY BLOCKED EACH OTHER. WE PRESUME IT WAS SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL. I SPOKE WITH THE TWR SUPVR AFTER WE LANDED -- HE SAID THAT TRAINING WAS IN PROGRESS. MAYBE SO, BUT IT WASN'T VERY GOOD TRAINING FOR THAT FLEDGLING CTLR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.