SJC CTLR DESCRIBED TCAS RA GAR INCIDENT ON PARALLEL RWYS WHEN BOTH ACFT ACCEPTED VISUAL SEPARATION RESPONSIBILITY.

Narrative

NORCAL (LICKE) POS VECTORED Y FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 29 AND X VISUAL APCH RWY 30L. THEY BOTH CHKED ON MY FREQ AT ABOUT AN 8 MI FINAL AND BOTH ACFT; WHEN THEY CHKED ON; SAID THEY HAD EACH OTHER IN SIGHT. I ASSUME THE LICKE CTLR ADVISED THEM TO DO SO. I SUPPRESSED THE CONFLICT ALERT AT THIS TIME. X THEN ADVISED THAT HE WAS RECEIVING A TCAS ON Y AND THAT ALTHOUGH HE HAD THE ACFT IN SIGHT THAT HE WAS REQUIRED BY COMPANY POLICY TO COMPLY WITH WHAT TCAS WAS TELLING HIM. X REQUESTED WHAT THE MISSED APCH PROC WOULD BE IN THE EVENT THAT HE WENT AROUND. I GAVE THE PLT THE MISSED APCH INFO AND ADVISED HIM THAT I HAD HIM AND Y IN SIGHT AND THAT THEY WERE WELL CLR OF HIS FLT PATH. THE PLT INITIATED A MISSED APCH AT ABOUT A 2 MI FINAL AND ABOUT 1200 FT. THE WX WAS RPTED CLR AND VISIBILITY WAS GREATER THAN 10 MI. IT SEEMED RIDICULOUS THAT THIS 'POLICY' ALLOWS VERY LITTLE ROOM FOR COMMON SENSE AND LATITUDE FOR THE PLT TO IGNORE TCAS. THE ADDED WORKLOAD THAT IS PLACED NOT ONLY ON THE CTLRS BUT ALSO ON THE PLT SEEMS EXCESSIVE.