Narrative:

I was made quite nervous last week on my trip from dfw to stl due to ATC procedures at the stl airport that I feel are confusing and unsafe. Before arriving in the stl terminal area, we obtained the ATIS which stated, among other things, that the airport was landing to the west with visual approachs in progress via the 30L lda and the 30R localizer. We were vectored by approach control to a left downwind and base. On base we were instructed to intercept the 30L lda, which we did and proceeded inbound. At about 6 mi from the airport, in VMC, approach control asked us if we had the airport in sight. We told the controller that we did indeed have the airport in sight. He then cleared us for a visual approach to runway 30L. (No mention was made about continuing on the lda approach.) at about 3 mi from the runway, we turned right to line up with the runway centerline. At about 2 mi from the runway our TCASII called 'traffic, traffic.' the display showed an aircraft at our altitude and very close (well under a mi). I was just about to ask the controller about the target when we saw an large transport pass us on our right. He appeared to be on the 30R localizer. We were not warned that this aircraft would be making a simultaneous approach to 30R when we were cleared for our visual approach. In fact, simultaneous approachs are only authorized at stl (as I understand it) if the aircraft are cleared for the ILS 30R and the lda DME 30L. The fact that we were cleared for a visual approach allowed us, in my opinion, to leave the lda at our discretion in order to line up with our runway. After landing, I called the tower chief and asked if simultaneous visual approachs to 30L and 30R were authorized. He said that the ATIS stated that visual approachs were via the lda 30L and the ILS 30R and that the required separation is maintained if aircraft are on those approachs. Therein lies the dilemma. I feel that the controller should have cleared us for the lda DME 30L approach, or should have told us to fly the published approach in visual conditions. He should also have warned us about the traffic behind us making an approach to 30R which passed us and set off our TCASII. If visual approach operations at stl are to be conducted in a safe manner, a visual approach procedure (similar to the river approach to dca or stadium approach to dfw) should be published. In lieu of this, an advisory page should be published to warn pilots that when cleared for the visual approach to 30L, they should follow the lda DME 30L procedure as published. This will prevent unnecessary confusion in the cockpit and should be effective in keeping blood pressure under control during approach to stl.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MLG HAS TCASII WHEN HE STRAYS FROM THE VISUAL APCH PATH EXPECTED BY, BUT NOT PRESCRIBED BY, APCH CTLR.

Narrative: I WAS MADE QUITE NERVOUS LAST WK ON MY TRIP FROM DFW TO STL DUE TO ATC PROCS AT THE STL ARPT THAT I FEEL ARE CONFUSING AND UNSAFE. BEFORE ARRIVING IN THE STL TERMINAL AREA, WE OBTAINED THE ATIS WHICH STATED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE ARPT WAS LNDG TO THE W WITH VISUAL APCHS IN PROGRESS VIA THE 30L LDA AND THE 30R LOC. WE WERE VECTORED BY APCH CTL TO A L DOWNWIND AND BASE. ON BASE WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO INTERCEPT THE 30L LDA, WHICH WE DID AND PROCEEDED INBOUND. AT ABOUT 6 MI FROM THE ARPT, IN VMC, APCH CTL ASKED US IF WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. WE TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE DID INDEED HAVE THE ARPT IN SIGHT. HE THEN CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 30L. (NO MENTION WAS MADE ABOUT CONTINUING ON THE LDA APCH.) AT ABOUT 3 MI FROM THE RWY, WE TURNED R TO LINE UP WITH THE RWY CTRLINE. AT ABOUT 2 MI FROM THE RWY OUR TCASII CALLED 'TFC, TFC.' THE DISPLAY SHOWED AN ACFT AT OUR ALT AND VERY CLOSE (WELL UNDER A MI). I WAS JUST ABOUT TO ASK THE CTLR ABOUT THE TARGET WHEN WE SAW AN LGT PASS US ON OUR R. HE APPEARED TO BE ON THE 30R LOC. WE WERE NOT WARNED THAT THIS ACFT WOULD BE MAKING A SIMULTANEOUS APCH TO 30R WHEN WE WERE CLRED FOR OUR VISUAL APCH. IN FACT, SIMULTANEOUS APCHS ARE ONLY AUTHORIZED AT STL (AS I UNDERSTAND IT) IF THE ACFT ARE CLRED FOR THE ILS 30R AND THE LDA DME 30L. THE FACT THAT WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH ALLOWED US, IN MY OPINION, TO LEAVE THE LDA AT OUR DISCRETION IN ORDER TO LINE UP WITH OUR RWY. AFTER LNDG, I CALLED THE TWR CHIEF AND ASKED IF SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL APCHS TO 30L AND 30R WERE AUTHORIZED. HE SAID THAT THE ATIS STATED THAT VISUAL APCHS WERE VIA THE LDA 30L AND THE ILS 30R AND THAT THE REQUIRED SEPARATION IS MAINTAINED IF ACFT ARE ON THOSE APCHS. THEREIN LIES THE DILEMMA. I FEEL THAT THE CTLR SHOULD HAVE CLRED US FOR THE LDA DME 30L APCH, OR SHOULD HAVE TOLD US TO FLY THE PUBLISHED APCH IN VISUAL CONDITIONS. HE SHOULD ALSO HAVE WARNED US ABOUT THE TFC BEHIND US MAKING AN APCH TO 30R WHICH PASSED US AND SET OFF OUR TCASII. IF VISUAL APCH OPS AT STL ARE TO BE CONDUCTED IN A SAFE MANNER, A VISUAL APCH PROC (SIMILAR TO THE RIVER APCH TO DCA OR STADIUM APCH TO DFW) SHOULD BE PUBLISHED. IN LIEU OF THIS, AN ADVISORY PAGE SHOULD BE PUBLISHED TO WARN PLTS THAT WHEN CLRED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO 30L, THEY SHOULD FOLLOW THE LDA DME 30L PROC AS PUBLISHED. THIS WILL PREVENT UNNECESSARY CONFUSION IN THE COCKPIT AND SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE IN KEEPING BLOOD PRESSURE UNDER CTL DURING APCH TO STL.

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.