Global 5000 (Bombardier)
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Procedure; Airspace Structure
Operations at ZZZ1 were landing to the north on RWY 30L/30R and at night. It was heard on approach frequencies that multiple [air carrier] traffic landing on RW30R. We were approaching from the west. We were being vectored for visual approach on RW30L. On base leg ATC referenced [an air carrier] 737 on straight in for 30R and we were for 30L. We acknowledged and identified our traffic to ATC. We were then cleared for visual approach RW30L reference [the 737] and to maintain visual separation for parallel landings. Our speeds seems to match so I slowed aircraft to remain slightly behind [the 737]. Vertical navigation using ILS for 30L was being utilized for the approach. I began a slow turn; 'modified dogleg' to intercept Localizer final as not to spook [the air carrier traffic]. Also disconnected autopilot so no abrupt inputs would occur joining inbound course would again not spook [the 737]. We were in visual contact with [the] 737 during the entire approach. Our paths never converged and our aircraft never crossed into his path. [The 737] had begun to slow to his approach speed around 1;000 AGL. I matched it as not to pass him and keep him in sight. I would say distance at this time between both aircraft had closed to 1/4 mile with 400ft separation above us. This was indeed close than I expected. Pretty much parallel. At 600 ft AGL [the other aircraft] initiated a go around and stated on radio he was responding to an TA/RA on his TCAS. I quickly discerned that he was responding to our aircraft. We saw him very slowly climb away. At that time we then received a TA/RA and our TCAS commanded us to not climb and alert box commanded to pitch down to avoid traffic. We were stable at 500 ft and did not follow commands from TCAS this close to the ground. We landed uneventful. We received no further transmission from ATC about the event. I did call to talk to supervisor on duty in tower. Was told that technically from 1nm out that airspace belonged to approach and someone would call me back. Someone did about 20min later. I was specifically told that the perimeters for the approach were within their standards and that it was [the air carriers] choice to go around. Was also told that a meeting had just completed about this event. Radar tracks apparently were reviewed and it was determined that we at no time crossed into [the other aircrafts] flight path. Specifically made a point to acknowledge that we did nothing out the ordinary and the case was closed. I do find it interesting that we conduct these parallel; mostly visually; at numerous airports around continental US. Perhaps in ZZZ1 operations; a safety margin should be in place due to lateral runways approach courses are a bit to close. May prevent such an event in the future. I personally had NOT conducted such visual approach in the manner at [this airport] before. My personal expectations was that since we were landing on differing runways and in visual conditions; it would be no different reference operations [at other large airports] were normal for us at this point. I expected the same at ZZZ1. From this outcome this appears to be the wrong assumption. The relative small distances in approach courses and that a minimum separation of 1-2nm should be instated during these such operations.
The Captain of a Bombardier Global reported that during approach using parallel runways they received an RA.