Narrative:

Approach cleared us to cross fuelr at 8000 ft then descend to 5000 ft. After fuelr ATC cleared us for a visual to 25R. ATC advised traffic on visual to 25L. We had a TCASII but not visually. Traffic behind lower. We were slowed to 170 KTS. Advised descending out of 5000 ft, we got an RA on TCASII to climb. Captain elected to follow and execute a go around. Climbed. I advised approach, then tower. Tower told us to descend to 2000 ft. Starting the descent, approaching runway beyond limma, descended to 4000 ft. Tower advised traffic (in lax corridor). Got another RA to climb, got visual on traffic. He passed beneath us. Advised tower. They cleared us to 3000 ft. We were vectored for visual to 24R without incident. During taxi in, tower supervisor requested crew call. Captain called. Hearing only one SID, I determined supervisor and captain were at odds on decision to go around and procedures we followed. We are trained to react to an RA. However, in terminal areas, VFR conditions, ATC control, parallel approachs, we have authority/authorized to turn TCASII to TA only. Feel contributing factors were confusing on air carrier procedure. As we were slowed to 170 KTS, to descend on visual the other aircraft was faster at a steady altitude. Being parallel approachs, TCASII computer read a possible conflict. Computer has no way of knowing particular unusual circumstances. Better coordination between crew and ATC (i.e., ATC advising us aircraft in back of us had us in sight -- no problem). Second conflict I feel more dangerous since we were in VFR corridor over lax. Conflict avoided because of visual contact.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF AN LGT ACR ACFT CLBED AND STARTED A GAR DURING A VISUAL APCH TO PARALLEL RWYS IN RESPONSE TO A TCASII RA.

Narrative: APCH CLRED US TO CROSS FUELR AT 8000 FT THEN DSND TO 5000 FT. AFTER FUELR ATC CLRED US FOR A VISUAL TO 25R. ATC ADVISED TFC ON VISUAL TO 25L. WE HAD A TCASII BUT NOT VISUALLY. TFC BEHIND LOWER. WE WERE SLOWED TO 170 KTS. ADVISED DSNDING OUT OF 5000 FT, WE GOT AN RA ON TCASII TO CLB. CAPT ELECTED TO FOLLOW AND EXECUTE A GAR. CLBED. I ADVISED APCH, THEN TWR. TWR TOLD US TO DSND TO 2000 FT. STARTING THE DSCNT, APCHING RWY BEYOND LIMMA, DSNDED TO 4000 FT. TWR ADVISED TFC (IN LAX CORRIDOR). GOT ANOTHER RA TO CLB, GOT VISUAL ON TFC. HE PASSED BENEATH US. ADVISED TWR. THEY CLRED US TO 3000 FT. WE WERE VECTORED FOR VISUAL TO 24R WITHOUT INCIDENT. DURING TAXI IN, TWR SUPVR REQUESTED CREW CALL. CAPT CALLED. HEARING ONLY ONE SID, I DETERMINED SUPVR AND CAPT WERE AT ODDS ON DECISION TO GAR AND PROCS WE FOLLOWED. WE ARE TRAINED TO REACT TO AN RA. HOWEVER, IN TERMINAL AREAS, VFR CONDITIONS, ATC CTL, PARALLEL APCHS, WE HAVE AUTH TO TURN TCASII TO TA ONLY. FEEL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS WERE CONFUSING ON ACR PROC. AS WE WERE SLOWED TO 170 KTS, TO DSND ON VISUAL THE OTHER ACFT WAS FASTER AT A STEADY ALT. BEING PARALLEL APCHS, TCASII COMPUTER READ A POSSIBLE CONFLICT. COMPUTER HAS NO WAY OF KNOWING PARTICULAR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. BETTER COORD BTWN CREW AND ATC (I.E., ATC ADVISING US ACFT IN BACK OF US HAD US IN SIGHT -- NO PROB). SECOND CONFLICT I FEEL MORE DANGEROUS SINCE WE WERE IN VFR CORRIDOR OVER LAX. CONFLICT AVOIDED BECAUSE OF VISUAL CONTACT.

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.