Narrative:

After being cleared for a visual approach; sjc tower directed us to enter a right downwind for runway 30R. On downwind; sjc tower cleared us to land on runway 30R. When we were on right base for runway 30R; sjc tower advised us of a 737 on a visual approach for the parallel runway 30L; turning base to final. We observed the 737 in the turn above and behind us as we were turning to final for runway 30R and reported to sjc tower that we had it in sight. Sjc also advised the 737 that we were on an approach for the other runway. The 737 reported that it had us in sight. When we were on final approach for runway 30R and still to the right of the extended runway 30R centerline; the 737 on a visual approach to the parallel runway 30L reported to sjc tower that it was climbing and executing a go around to comply with a TCAS RA. Simultaneously we received a 'monitor vertical speed' TCAS RA but no maneuvering was necessary because our existing normal approach pitch attitude and rate of descent fully complied with our TCAS RA. A normal approach and landing followed. Both crews appear to have made normal responses to their respective TCAS RA's. Both also had the other airplane in sight while on parallel courses to different runways; with normal separation for that circumstance. Supplemental information from acn 822390: at about 4 NM west of the airport on a 090 degree vector to final; we called the field in sight with company traffic also in sight on short final. Approach control then cleared us for the visual approach to runway 30L; #2 behind; advising us 'another carrier was on the 'right' downwind for runway 30R; contact tower.' upon check-in with tower; we were 'cleared to land; the other carrier on the downwind for runway 30R.' tower asked the other carrier to report us in sight which they did as we were in the turn to final. We 'never' reported them in sight since we did not see them and we were in a turn with our 'belly up' to them. Tower then told us; '(other carrier) has you in sight and will maintain visual.' I acknowledged the radio call with roger. Upon rollout; we then saw the other carrier abeam us approximately co-altitude at which time we received an RA of 'climb; climb; climb.' we executed a go-around from about 900 ft AGL. Rest of subsequent flying around the pattern back to landing was uneventful. Tower failed to sequence the 2 aircraft appropriately to the airport based on visual approaches to close runways. They should have issued a clearance to the other aircraft of 'maintain visual with company; he is #1 for the airport; turn base behind him; cleared to land runway 30R.' this is only because we had already begun our turn to final and we were told by approach control we were #2 behind company. If tower wanted us to be #3 to the airport behind the other carrier; they should have told us to extend our downwind for spacing.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Two air carriers described TCAS RA go-around event during visual approach maneuvers to parallel runways; suggesting questionable ATC handling.

Narrative: After being cleared for a visual approach; SJC Tower directed us to enter a right downwind for Runway 30R. On downwind; SJC Tower cleared us to land on Runway 30R. When we were on right base for Runway 30R; SJC Tower advised us of a 737 on a visual approach for the parallel Runway 30L; turning base to final. We observed the 737 in the turn above and behind us as we were turning to final for Runway 30R and reported to SJC Tower that we had it in sight. SJC also advised the 737 that we were on an approach for the other runway. The 737 reported that it had us in sight. When we were on final approach for Runway 30R and still to the right of the extended Runway 30R centerline; the 737 on a visual approach to the parallel Runway 30L reported to SJC Tower that it was climbing and executing a go around to comply with a TCAS RA. Simultaneously we received a 'Monitor Vertical Speed' TCAS RA but no maneuvering was necessary because our existing normal approach pitch attitude and rate of descent fully complied with our TCAS RA. A normal approach and landing followed. Both crews appear to have made normal responses to their respective TCAS RA's. Both also had the other airplane in sight while on parallel courses to different runways; with normal separation for that circumstance. Supplemental information from ACN 822390: At about 4 NM west of the airport on a 090 degree vector to final; we called the field in sight with company traffic also in sight on short final. Approach Control then cleared us for the visual approach to Runway 30L; #2 behind; advising us 'another carrier was on the 'right' downwind for Runway 30R; contact Tower.' Upon check-in with Tower; we were 'cleared to land; the other carrier on the downwind for Runway 30R.' Tower asked the other carrier to report us in sight which they did as we were in the turn to final. We 'never' reported them in sight since we did not see them and we were in a turn with our 'belly up' to them. Tower then told us; '(Other carrier) has you in sight and will maintain visual.' I acknowledged the radio call with roger. Upon rollout; we then saw the other carrier abeam us approximately co-altitude at which time we received an RA of 'Climb; Climb; Climb.' We executed a go-around from about 900 FT AGL. Rest of subsequent flying around the pattern back to landing was uneventful. Tower failed to sequence the 2 aircraft appropriately to the airport based on visual approaches to close runways. They should have issued a clearance to the other aircraft of 'maintain visual with company; he is #1 for the airport; turn base behind him; cleared to land Runway 30R.' This is only because we had already begun our turn to final and we were told by Approach Control we were #2 behind company. If Tower wanted us to be #3 to the airport behind the other carrier; they should have told us to extend our downwind for spacing.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.