Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D21.TRACON, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E D21
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Aircraft component: TCAS Software
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approaching DTW from the northeast; we were vectored onto final for a visual approach to 22L. I had the autopilot controlling the aircraft and due to our distance from the airport (approx 20 miles) I elected to capture the localizer in white needles with a blue needle overlay. Both NAV sources showed the aircraft perfectly centered on the localizer. Shortly after we were established we noticed a company aircraft intercepting the approach to Runway 22R. As the RJ continued to roll onto its inbound course we received a TA followed by a descending RA. We complied with the RA; descending below the glideslope momentarily from an altitude of approximately 7;000 feet. The RA cleared and we continued level to re-intercept the glideslope. Shortly thereafter; as we both appeared to arrive back on glideslope; we received another TA. We maintained our assigned speed while it appeared the other aircraft slowed and the TA disappeared. The remainder of the visual approach was completed without incident.I believe this was the result of two aircraft being vectored onto close parallel visual approaches without being staggered enough vertically or horizontally and a minor misjudgment in planned separation by Approach Control. Staggering the inbound sequence a bit more would have avoided the RA.


Second narrative: While on a visual approach to RWY 22R (Using ILS Z as noted in ATIS); autopilot coupled and on centerline of LOC we received at TCAS RA to descend. The Captain took control of aircraft and immediately followed RA guidance; we then notified ATC that we were taking evasive action to comply with a traffic RA. Approach immediately began asking us if we had visual on an aircraft to our left (DTW was using 22L for arrivals as well as 22R; extremely close runways). The Captain responded that he did not (he was busy following the commands of the TCAS RA). This was the second RA we have received in the past two days into DTW associated with the arrival usage of RWY 22R and 22L.Being that this was the second RA received by us in two days (every flight into DTW) it [appears to be] indicative of an unreasonable detoriation of safety. DTW is trying to increase the arrivals during VMC conditions at the jeopardy of passenger and crew safety. The Approach Controller was more interested in trying to get our visual confirmation of the other aircraft as opposed to giving separation directions (i.e. heading and altitude direction). When I spoke later with other flight's crew members about this issue; they all had had similar experiences. It is not reasonable for ATC to jeopardize safety for performance numbers.


Synopsis: Two CRJs inbound side by side in VMC to Runways 22L and R at DTW responded to TCAS RAs. The flight crews believed a contributing factor to have been ATC's willingness to minimize spacing so as to increase acceptance rates.