Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were operating [to] SLC during day; VMC conditions. We were set up and briefed for the visual backed up with the ILS to 34R. We checked on with SLC approach and were given a clearance to descend via the LEEHY arrival. I noted that the controller seemed to be busy with lots of other aircraft while listening to the frequency. We were getting near the end of the arrival and we hadn't been cleared for the visual approach. The controller than asked if we had the field; we did; so she cleared us for the visual approach for 34R. We hadn't been given any speed instructions so we were slowly bringing the speed from 250 back to 210 knots. The busy controller than told us to slow to 190 knots. As we were slowing she gave us another speed reduction of 170 knots to the outer marker. We were busy configuring the airplane and she switched us to the tower frequency. I quickly switched frequencies and just as I was getting ready to check in; the tower controller asked if we were on frequency. I said 'yes; and we are on the visual for 34R.' The controller then said there was traffic at our 3 o'clock; had us in sight; and was turning base for 35 and then cleared us to land. We quickly spotted the traffic and kept it in sight as we continued our approach. The other plane was about 400 feet above us but descending and was intercepting the approach for 35 which converges with the traffic on 34R. (Normally traffic on runway 35 does an LDA approach to correct for that; but this plane was on an arrival from the North.) At this point we had been stabilized on the LOC and GS and at our final approach speed. Within a few seconds we received a TCAS TA. We still had the traffic in sight but at this point he was almost on top of us. Soon after we received an RA that told us to descend. The First Officer (FO) was the Pilot Flying (PF) so he disconnected the autopilot and followed the guidance. We descended for about 5 seconds before the guidance said we were clear and should monitor vertical speed. At this point we were about 3 miles from the end of the runway and about 700 feet AGL. We were well below the glideslope and were in visual conditions. The FO asked if we should go around due to being unstable. We were visual and on speed so I told him to just maintain altitude because at that point I was unaware of where the traffic was landing on 35 as well as any traffic that might have been on 34L. I didn't want to execute a go-around into the traffic that was above us. We continued; intercepted the GS again and had an uneventful landing. I had notified the tower controller that we had been following our TCAS RA guidance when we were on the approach.I don't think there was anything that we could have done much differently in this scenario. There was traffic on both sides of us since we were landing on the center runway. The plane on 35 was on a different frequency so I have no idea what he might have been communicating with the tower controller. I'm guessing that tower had asked if the aircraft had us in sight; they probably said they did; and were told to follow us. But I think he saw us and then just turned right at us instead of following us. We were boxed in at that point; and the RA was telling us to descend. We couldn't climb or execute a go-around because we would have climbed into the other aircraft. I don't know if there was a mis-communication between the other aircraft and tower. I believe the other aircraft should have been told to execute a go-around because we were at the lower altitude and therefore had the right of way in this situation. We also could not execute a go-around because again; we would have climbed into the other traffic. As we were exiting the runway; I wanted to communicate with tower about how poorly that situation was handled by the controller. But he was clearing a plane to takeoff right after us and there was another plane coming into land shortly after so he cleared us off the runway and over to ground quickly. I'm not really sure how to prevent this situation in the future. Maybe I could have told the tower to tell the other plane to execute the go-around because we couldn't but I didn't think about that until afterwards.




Synopsis: A Captain reported an uncomfortable visual approach to SLC that included a low altitude RA and no go-around option because of an aircraft in near proximity above them.