Narrative:

Stl approach controllers continue to place aircraft in hazardous sits by placing them abeam each other when running parallel visual approachs. I've gone around several times for TCASII RA's because responding to a climb RA results in the aircraft being too high for a normal approach and landing. I've written up some of these incidents to report dangerous sits. Some I haven't written up because I realize that it's probably not doing a bit of good. In an answer to one, I was told that stl approach generally attempts to provide an offset, but that differences in aircraft speed sometimes results in them being abeam each other. That may be a goal, but in practice, it just doesn't happen. It's obvious by the vectors and airspeed corrections received, that the goal of most controllers is to place the 2 arriving aircraft on parallel runways abeam each other on final. On this flight we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 12R. No mention was made of other traffic. While on approach, inside the marker, we received a descending RA for an rj abeam us on a visual approach to runway 12L. A climbing RA that ruins an approach and results in a go around that scares passenger and wastes fuel is bad enough. A descending RA when configured inside the marker -- is just plain dangerous. Telling 1 aircraft to maintain visual separation and not even calling the traffic to the other aircraft is ludicrous. This is at least the third time within the last 6 months that I've received an RA while on approach in stl without any prior knowledge of the owner aircraft. Tower's response was, 'I've got you both in sight, so it's ok.' how can that be ok. The practice of putting aircraft abeam each other is legal, I assume, because they always do it. From a pilot's perspective, it is an incredible distraction. Distraction is another link in the accident chain. Seeing another aircraft that close scares our passenger. Many have spoken of it while getting off the aircraft. Go around's really scare the people, and we do a lot in stl. Go around's waste fuel. I always take extra fuel to stl because I have to plan on at least 1 go around. Carrying that extra fuel wastes fuel.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: S80 EXPERIENCED RA AND GAR AT STL AND COMPLAINS ABOUT ON-GOING VISUAL SIDE BY PROCS.

Narrative: STL APCH CTLRS CONTINUE TO PLACE ACFT IN HAZARDOUS SITS BY PLACING THEM ABEAM EACH OTHER WHEN RUNNING PARALLEL VISUAL APCHS. I'VE GONE AROUND SEVERAL TIMES FOR TCASII RA'S BECAUSE RESPONDING TO A CLB RA RESULTS IN THE ACFT BEING TOO HIGH FOR A NORMAL APCH AND LNDG. I'VE WRITTEN UP SOME OF THESE INCIDENTS TO RPT DANGEROUS SITS. SOME I HAVEN'T WRITTEN UP BECAUSE I REALIZE THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT DOING A BIT OF GOOD. IN AN ANSWER TO ONE, I WAS TOLD THAT STL APCH GENERALLY ATTEMPTS TO PROVIDE AN OFFSET, BUT THAT DIFFERENCES IN ACFT SPD SOMETIMES RESULTS IN THEM BEING ABEAM EACH OTHER. THAT MAY BE A GOAL, BUT IN PRACTICE, IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN. IT'S OBVIOUS BY THE VECTORS AND AIRSPD CORRECTIONS RECEIVED, THAT THE GOAL OF MOST CTLRS IS TO PLACE THE 2 ARRIVING ACFT ON PARALLEL RWYS ABEAM EACH OTHER ON FINAL. ON THIS FLT WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 12R. NO MENTION WAS MADE OF OTHER TFC. WHILE ON APCH, INSIDE THE MARKER, WE RECEIVED A DSNDING RA FOR AN RJ ABEAM US ON A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 12L. A CLBING RA THAT RUINS AN APCH AND RESULTS IN A GAR THAT SCARES PAX AND WASTES FUEL IS BAD ENOUGH. A DSNDING RA WHEN CONFIGURED INSIDE THE MARKER -- IS JUST PLAIN DANGEROUS. TELLING 1 ACFT TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION AND NOT EVEN CALLING THE TFC TO THE OTHER ACFT IS LUDICROUS. THIS IS AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME WITHIN THE LAST 6 MONTHS THAT I'VE RECEIVED AN RA WHILE ON APCH IN STL WITHOUT ANY PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE OWNER ACFT. TWR'S RESPONSE WAS, 'I'VE GOT YOU BOTH IN SIGHT, SO IT'S OK.' HOW CAN THAT BE OK. THE PRACTICE OF PUTTING ACFT ABEAM EACH OTHER IS LEGAL, I ASSUME, BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS DO IT. FROM A PLT'S PERSPECTIVE, IT IS AN INCREDIBLE DISTR. DISTR IS ANOTHER LINK IN THE ACCIDENT CHAIN. SEEING ANOTHER ACFT THAT CLOSE SCARES OUR PAX. MANY HAVE SPOKEN OF IT WHILE GETTING OFF THE ACFT. GAR'S REALLY SCARE THE PEOPLE, AND WE DO A LOT IN STL. GAR'S WASTE FUEL. I ALWAYS TAKE EXTRA FUEL TO STL BECAUSE I HAVE TO PLAN ON AT LEAST 1 GAR. CARRYING THAT EXTRA FUEL WASTES FUEL.

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.