Narrative:

Air carrier X was on a 2-3 mi final for runway 17L on a north bay visual approach when he reported he was climbing in response to a TCASII RA. He was previously told about traffic landing runway 22. When he reported going around, the cessna 172 was on a 2 mi final for runway 22, clearly no factor. X was told this and he said he still didn't have the traffic and he must comply with the climb out. Had tpa approach not approved a 270 degree turn to the west and/or had there been traffic departing runway 22, X was cleared to land runway 17L, hold short of runway 22, this might have been a serious situation. I am highly against the use of TCASII inside class D airspace such as pie. It seems they want us to completely clear the area for them to land, we don't have the time or airspace for that.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP INTERSECTING RWYS ACR X TCASII RA WITH C172 TO OTHER RWY MADE A GAR. SEE AND AVOID CONCEPT.

Narrative: ACR X WAS ON A 2-3 MI FINAL FOR RWY 17L ON A NORTH BAY VISUAL APCH WHEN HE RPTED HE WAS CLBING IN RESPONSE TO A TCASII RA. HE WAS PREVIOUSLY TOLD ABOUT TFC LNDG RWY 22. WHEN HE RPTED GOING AROUND, THE CESSNA 172 WAS ON A 2 MI FINAL FOR RWY 22, CLRLY NO FACTOR. X WAS TOLD THIS AND HE SAID HE STILL DIDN'T HAVE THE TFC AND HE MUST COMPLY WITH THE CLBOUT. HAD TPA APCH NOT APPROVED A 270 DEG TURN TO THE W AND/OR HAD THERE BEEN TFC DEPARTING RWY 22, X WAS CLRED TO LAND RWY 17L, HOLD SHORT OF RWY 22, THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A SERIOUS SIT. I AM HIGHLY AGAINST THE USE OF TCASII INSIDE CLASS D AIRSPACE SUCH AS PIE. IT SEEMS THEY WANT US TO COMPLETELY CLR THE AREA FOR THEM TO LAND, WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR AIRSPACE FOR THAT.

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.