B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Crew Last 90 Days 133; Flight Crew Type 7500
Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
While being vectored for the visual approach for a west landing into ONT; (Approach Control) gave us a vector to the southeast through the final at 6;000 feet MSL. As I queried if we were being vectored through final; the Controller said 'yes' and then gave us a right turn to the northeast back toward final. I asked for a lower altitude and was given 5;500 feet. The Controller once again vectored us through final then gave us a turn back to join final for 26R; and sent us to Tower Control. After switching frequencies to Tower; they asked if I had the traffic behind us (other carrier heavy) in sight. I replied yes. At some point I recall ATC asking the speed of other carrier as he was overtaking us by 15-20 knots. He replied something around 160 knots which was his final approach speed. I think that was about 20 plus knots faster than ours. As other carrier came closer to us; around 1;200 feet AGL; we received a 'descend RA'. The First Officer (Pilot Flying) then responded to the RA. I told ATC we were complying with the RA. Shortly thereafter the other carrier received an RA and then said they were 'going around'. As we were still stable on our approach; we elected to continue the approach to a normal landing.I feel that the Approach Controller started the snowball of events that led to the RA. Then; ONT Tower should have sent the other carrier around before he got close enough to trigger an RA. I should have told Tower to send the other carrier around when we received the RA; as he was above us and it was the safest course of action at that time.
We were being vectored to a visual approach into Ontario; ATC kept us high and vectored us through final when they vectored us back through final on the east side; and they cleared us for visual approach to 26R. ATC also vectored us through Localizer without telling us we were going through. We had to ask twice what they were doing with us. We were high; but slow; so it was not a problem to be stable for the approach. At this point we were east of the localizer heading back west to intercept; we were still right of centerline when ATC switched us to Tower; but cleared for visual. Tower immediately asked if we had the heavy other carrier in sight off our back left. This is the first time we were asked about that traffic. The Captain turned and saw them and said yes we had them in sight. A couple seconds later we got an RA that required us to descend. We complied with the RA and kept the descent going. At this point we were about 1;500 feet AGL. The other carrier then got an RA. That required them to climb; at this point they went around and we were in a normal position to land and clear of conflict; so we landed. The whole situation was caused by ATC pushing both aircraft to the field to close together. ATC to separate traffic better. Also ATC needed to do a better job of telling us their plan for us and communicating with us. The runways in Ontario are way too close to conduct simultaneous approaches even in visual conditions.
A B737 flight crew reports receiving delay vectors before being finally cleared for a visual approach to Runway 26R at ONT. A descend RA is received inside the FAF and is complied with. A heavy jet for Runway 26L receives a climb RA and goes around.