EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Situational Awareness
Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Procedure; Company Policy; Airspace Structure
I was pilot flying. I received and fully complied with an RA while descending on [a visual approach]. Through 1500 feet (about 5NM DME); I was fully configured for the approach (flaps 5; gear down; trim set; on airspeed bug; on glide path; and fully stabilized). Somewhere between 4 DME and 4.5 DME; Tower Controller advised 'Low level helicopter traffic opposite direction over the bridge will maintain visual separation with you.' My Captain (pilot monitoring) responded; 'Looking for traffic.' We then received two audible 'Traffic' callouts from the airplane's TCAS system. Both of our eyes were outside the airplane looking for traffic but unable to identify the target. We then received a climb RA somewhere between 3.0 and 3.5 DME. I immediately initiated a climb to raise the attitude indicator into the green RA box on the PFD. However; as soon as I began my climb; the RA went away and 'Clear of Conflict' was announced. I then recovered from the maneuver and began my descent back on the approach. At that time; Tower asked; 'State your intentions.' I looked at the DME - I was at 2.4 NM at 720 feet. I knew that was a safe altitude and distance for a 3 degree visual descent slope into the field so I advised my Captain; 'Continuing.' The Captain then replied to ATC that we were continuing the approach/landing. I landed safely and without making the approach unstabilized. After the event my CA and I discussed the thought of a go around while receiving an RA on the approach. We both confidently and fully agree that our flight was 100% safe and never was there a point where we deliberately did something out of compliance. However; after looking through the SOPs; I found a notation that a go around procedure is required after an RA in the landing configuration.
We got the RA after achieving landing configuration but before descending below 1000 feet AGL. Although we still met the requirements of a stabilized approach; we technically should have executed a go-around because we received and RA after 'landing configuration.'
ERJ-170 First Officer continued approach and landing after complying with a momentary 'climb' TCAS RA and subsequently found that company SOP requires a go-around if the aircraft was configured for landing.