Narrative:

We were conducting a simultaneous visibility approach to runway 28R at sfo with an air carrier Y on the visibility approach to 28L. Each of us was advised of the other aircraft and told to maintain visibility sep. Neither aircraft was given a clearance to follow or stay behind the other as has become standard operating procedure by sfo approach. The point being that no fore and aft horizontal sep is now required. The aircraft may be wing tip to wing tip, one slightly behind the other (in his blind spot with an overlap), or one aircraft may be passing the other. In this case we were approximately 1000' behind the medium large transport and as he approached foster city designated (noise sensitive) on the visibility approach runway 28L (19-2) plate. At this point he slid to the right (possible to avoid foster city) in front of our aircraft. The first officer who was flying took evasive action by sliding right also to maintain our sep. We advised approach control and the medium large transport rapidly turned left to repos itself for 28L. If the clrncs for this approach had required either of us to follow the other maintaining our sep with assigned approach speed that would preclude overtaking, this occurrence would not have been as alarming. But theoretically, we could have just as easily been only slightly behind the medium large transport with an overlap, but not on the field of vision of the pilot in the medium large transport left seat. If this had been the case, his movement to the right apparently around foster city could have resulted in a collision. Recommendations: remove the foster city (noise sensitive)' note from plate 19-2. Replace it was a non specific note 'this is a noise sensitive approach.' consider redesigning visibility approach with recommended lower flap settings and continuous low power due to higher than 3.00 degree approach profile until passing foster city. I believe the eastbound landing frankfurt germany visibility approach charts are an example of this type of approach. This incident does raise questions as to the safety of any future simultaneous 28L/28R sfo approachs. Supplemental information from acn 104470: make no mistake, what medium large transport did was dangerous and produced the near collision. I doubt that he is aware of what effect his actions had on us. Perhaps he forgot we were there.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE PROX ACR-HVT ACR-MLG ON VISUAL APCH TO RWYS 28L AND R AT SFO.

Narrative: WE WERE CONDUCTING A SIMULTANEOUS VIS APCH TO RWY 28R AT SFO WITH AN ACR Y ON THE VIS APCH TO 28L. EACH OF US WAS ADVISED OF THE OTHER ACFT AND TOLD TO MAINTAIN VIS SEP. NEITHER ACFT WAS GIVEN A CLRNC TO FOLLOW OR STAY BEHIND THE OTHER AS HAS BECOME STANDARD OPERATING PROC BY SFO APCH. THE POINT BEING THAT NO FORE AND AFT HORIZ SEP IS NOW REQUIRED. THE ACFT MAY BE WING TIP TO WING TIP, ONE SLIGHTLY BEHIND THE OTHER (IN HIS BLIND SPOT WITH AN OVERLAP), OR ONE ACFT MAY BE PASSING THE OTHER. IN THIS CASE WE WERE APPROX 1000' BEHIND THE MLG AND AS HE APCHED FOSTER CITY DESIGNATED (NOISE SENSITIVE) ON THE VIS APCH RWY 28L (19-2) PLATE. AT THIS POINT HE SLID TO THE RIGHT (POSSIBLE TO AVOID FOSTER CITY) IN FRONT OF OUR ACFT. THE F/O WHO WAS FLYING TOOK EVASIVE ACTION BY SLIDING RIGHT ALSO TO MAINTAIN OUR SEP. WE ADVISED APCH CTL AND THE MLG RAPIDLY TURNED LEFT TO REPOS ITSELF FOR 28L. IF THE CLRNCS FOR THIS APCH HAD REQUIRED EITHER OF US TO FOLLOW THE OTHER MAINTAINING OUR SEP WITH ASSIGNED APCH SPD THAT WOULD PRECLUDE OVERTAKING, THIS OCCURRENCE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS ALARMING. BUT THEORETICALLY, WE COULD HAVE JUST AS EASILY BEEN ONLY SLIGHTLY BEHIND THE MLG WITH AN OVERLAP, BUT NOT ON THE FIELD OF VISION OF THE PLT IN THE MLG LEFT SEAT. IF THIS HAD BEEN THE CASE, HIS MOVEMENT TO THE RIGHT APPARENTLY AROUND FOSTER CITY COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A COLLISION. RECOMMENDATIONS: REMOVE THE FOSTER CITY (NOISE SENSITIVE)' NOTE FROM PLATE 19-2. REPLACE IT WAS A NON SPECIFIC NOTE 'THIS IS A NOISE SENSITIVE APCH.' CONSIDER REDESIGNING VIS APCH WITH RECOMMENDED LOWER FLAP SETTINGS AND CONTINUOUS LOW PWR DUE TO HIGHER THAN 3.00 DEG APCH PROFILE UNTIL PASSING FOSTER CITY. I BELIEVE THE EBND LNDG FRANKFURT GERMANY VIS APCH CHARTS ARE AN EXAMPLE OF THIS TYPE OF APCH. THIS INCIDENT DOES RAISE QUESTIONS AS TO THE SAFETY OF ANY FUTURE SIMULTANEOUS 28L/28R SFO APCHS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 104470: MAKE NO MISTAKE, WHAT MLG DID WAS DANGEROUS AND PRODUCED THE NEAR COLLISION. I DOUBT THAT HE IS AWARE OF WHAT EFFECT HIS ACTIONS HAD ON US. PERHAPS HE FORGOT WE WERE THERE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.