B737-800 flight crew reported a near miss with another aircraft on approach.
Synopsis
B737-800 flight crew reported a near miss with another aircraft on approach.
Narrative
We were flying the RNAV GPS XXL at ZZZ. ATC asked us to report a 787 landing XXR in sight flying 3 miles ahead of us. We never saw it; so they broke us off the approach.I believe they needed us to report the B787 to put the wake turbulence separation on us as they didn't have enough separation.On the second time executing the RNAV GPS XXL ATC asked us to report an RJ (Regional Jet) landing XXR in sight. We did not see it so ATC canceled approach clearance.Meanwhile I see the RJ right below and slightly ahead of us; TCAS indicated they were 200' below us. How was the RJ maintaining visual separation while right below us? We believe they had called us in sightWe elected NOT to report the RJ in sight as we knew we could not keep it in sightATC asked us if we wanted an approach clearanceAfter consideration; Captain observed us advancing ahead of the RJ on the TCAS display and said yesWe received clearance to fly the RNAV GPS XXLWe kept our speed up to further increase separation from the RJWe flew a stabilized approach and landed. Cause: The primary function of ATC is to provide traffic separation. ATC should not allow aircraft to get this close even in VMC conditions and especially when conducting non precision approaches.
Second reporter narrative
ATIS:270/11 10mi few 070 few 150 scattered 210 scattered 260 29.85Simul approaches to parallel runways in use. Arrivals expect ILS approach runway XXR; RNAV approach runway XXL.Told to join the RNAV (GPS) runway XXL course by ATC at ZZZZZ. Inside ZZZZZ1 we were cleared the approach. Asked by ATC to call both RJ (Regional Jet) in front of us for XXL and 787 to XXR in sight.We could see neither.On final at 4500' asked again by ATC to call both RJ in front of us for XXL and 787 to XXR in sight.We could see neither. ATC instructed us to level at 3000 feet.Repeatedly asked to call 787 in sight. We could not see it.Upon reaching 3000 feet ATC directed a go-around and gave us vectors and a climb which we executed.Shortly after we were sent around; a delta aircraft was also sent around for the same reason.Given vectors from prior ATC directed go-around. Told to join the RNAV (GPS) runway XXL course by ATC at ZZZZZ2 at 5000 feet. Inside ZZZZZ1 we were cleared to 4000 feet. We were asked by ATC to call RJ in front of us for XXL.We could not see it. I asked if he meant the aircraft 5-7 miles ahead of us on final to XXL that I could see on TCAS but not visually. He responded no. We waited ~30 sec to begin the descent while we attempted to understand the traffic situation. Then we started our descent to 4000 feet.I asked again about the traffic and he said it was 12 o'clock and less than a mile. On final at 4500 feet I then saw traffic on TCAS; not visually; passing underneath us. I asked the FO to look out his side of the aircraft. After some time; he pressed his head against the glass; looked straight down and saw the RJ briefly and said it is close.As we leveled at 4000 feet the TCAS said he was 200 feet below and our lateral separation was less than 1500'. The aircraft was orange on TCAS. We did not receive a TAor RA.I told ATC that we cannot see an aircraft that is directly below us. He said that the aircraft called us in sight (we would have been straight up from the RJ captain's side when he told us that). ATC then asked us; do you want clearance (or not)?We accepted the clearance but didn't descend immediately. We monitored the traffic on TCAS; saw it moving slightly behind us and to the right. The FO never saw the RJ after the initial sighting straight down.We maintained a faster than normal approach speed and delayed our descent to increase separation on the RJ traffic. We landed normally. Cause: the cause of the first go-around was inadequate wake separation by ATC and their reliance on pilots assuming responsibility by calling all traffic in sight. Because the sun was setting; and glaring over the river; this was not a reliable plan by ATC. They were advised of this by other pilots during our approach. They also had at least two ATC directed go around in 10 mins for the same separation issues.The cause of the second loss of separation event was ATC reliance on pilots assuming responsibility for separation and a gap between what is legal and what is safe separation. Before the RJ called us in sight; while I cannot say with certainty; it seems like IFR separation was already compromised.200 feet vertically and <1500 feet laterally on an instrument approach seems too close. I am unsure what the RJ pilots could really see and if could they maintain that view.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.