Narrative:

Approaching sfo from the north bay approach told us to 'expect a right downwind' then gave us a heading. I asked how far down we could expect to go and bay said about the bridge. We were given dscnts to 6000' and again to 4999'(?) and passing the bridge were told to slow to 180 KTS. The only other traffic for 28R was a widebody transport on a 4 mi final. I became aware of bay talking to an small aircraft who said he saw us and was told to 'line up on 28L' and remain clear of us. About 9 mi, still flying 180 KTS and 100 degree, bay told us to turn to 180 degree and continue the descent. I can't remember whether or not we had rolled out on 180 degree, (we were then pointed an the small aircraft, probably within a mi of him and can't see him) but bay gave us another turn, this time to 280 degree. Bay also pointed out the small aircraft and asked us if we had him. We didn't. Bay then told the small aircraft to 'alter course to the left of centerline and remain clear' of us. He already altered course to get over to 28L from 28R and when he saw how close it was going to be began another turn to avoid us. I saw him in his evasive maneuver at about our 10 O'clock slightly higher than us, pointed him out to captain, called him out to bay and said that he was 'pretty close'. The small aircraft also said it was 'pretty close'. We continued the turn to 280 degree and bay cleared us visual 28R. We still had not been asked if we had the field nor had we reported it in sight. Throughout this entire approach we were operating under IFR with ATC vectoring us and supposedly providing us traffic separation from 'other known IFR traffic'. What I didn't like about it was that bay was vectoring us into the small aircraft which he had not pointed out to us, which we couldn't see, and who was taking evasive action to avoid us. My personal feeling about this whole situation is one of anger. I am angry with the FAA control system. I am angry with the procedures and I am angry with the apparent pressure that our controllers seem to be working under. The cause of this particular near miss, in my opinion, lies solely in the fact that ATC wants us to fly side-by-side apches in order to be able to handle more traffic in sfo. I am positive this is the case because when I called TRACON I spoke with the shift supervisor, mr Y, and he said that this is what they do to allow more departures. The day after mr Z, quality assurance at TRACON, called. He said he was investigating the incident and 'something didn't seem quite right to him' and when he listened to the tape again he found that TRACON procedures 'were not followed'.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: VECTORS BY TRACON BUT ACFT TOO CLOSE FOR COMFORT OF FLT CREW ON VISUAL APCH AT SFO.

Narrative: APCHING SFO FROM THE NORTH BAY APCH TOLD US TO 'EXPECT A RIGHT DOWNWIND' THEN GAVE US A HDG. I ASKED HOW FAR DOWN WE COULD EXPECT TO GO AND BAY SAID ABOUT THE BRIDGE. WE WERE GIVEN DSCNTS TO 6000' AND AGAIN TO 4999'(?) AND PASSING THE BRIDGE WERE TOLD TO SLOW TO 180 KTS. THE ONLY OTHER TFC FOR 28R WAS A WDB ON A 4 MI FINAL. I BECAME AWARE OF BAY TALKING TO AN SMA WHO SAID HE SAW US AND WAS TOLD TO 'LINE UP ON 28L' AND REMAIN CLEAR OF US. ABOUT 9 MI, STILL FLYING 180 KTS AND 100 DEG, BAY TOLD US TO TURN TO 180 DEG AND CONTINUE THE DSCNT. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD ROLLED OUT ON 180 DEG, (WE WERE THEN POINTED AN THE SMA, PROBABLY WITHIN A MI OF HIM AND CAN'T SEE HIM) BUT BAY GAVE US ANOTHER TURN, THIS TIME TO 280 DEG. BAY ALSO POINTED OUT THE SMA AND ASKED US IF WE HAD HIM. WE DIDN'T. BAY THEN TOLD THE SMA TO 'ALTER COURSE TO THE LEFT OF CENTERLINE AND REMAIN CLEAR' OF US. HE ALREADY ALTERED COURSE TO GET OVER TO 28L FROM 28R AND WHEN HE SAW HOW CLOSE IT WAS GOING TO BE BEGAN ANOTHER TURN TO AVOID US. I SAW HIM IN HIS EVASIVE MANEUVER AT ABOUT OUR 10 O'CLOCK SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN US, POINTED HIM OUT TO CAPT, CALLED HIM OUT TO BAY AND SAID THAT HE WAS 'PRETTY CLOSE'. THE SMA ALSO SAID IT WAS 'PRETTY CLOSE'. WE CONTINUED THE TURN TO 280 DEG AND BAY CLRED US VISUAL 28R. WE STILL HAD NOT BEEN ASKED IF WE HAD THE FIELD NOR HAD WE REPORTED IT IN SIGHT. THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE APCH WE WERE OPERATING UNDER IFR WITH ATC VECTORING US AND SUPPOSEDLY PROVIDING US TFC SEPARATION FROM 'OTHER KNOWN IFR TFC'. WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE ABOUT IT WAS THAT BAY WAS VECTORING US INTO THE SMA WHICH HE HAD NOT POINTED OUT TO US, WHICH WE COULDN'T SEE, AND WHO WAS TAKING EVASIVE ACTION TO AVOID US. MY PERSONAL FEELING ABOUT THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS ONE OF ANGER. I AM ANGRY WITH THE FAA CONTROL SYSTEM. I AM ANGRY WITH THE PROCS AND I AM ANGRY WITH THE APPARENT PRESSURE THAT OUR CTLRS SEEM TO BE WORKING UNDER. THE CAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR NEAR MISS, IN MY OPINION, LIES SOLELY IN THE FACT THAT ATC WANTS US TO FLY SIDE-BY-SIDE APCHES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE MORE TFC IN SFO. I AM POSITIVE THIS IS THE CASE BECAUSE WHEN I CALLED TRACON I SPOKE WITH THE SHIFT SUPVR, MR Y, AND HE SAID THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY DO TO ALLOW MORE DEPS. THE DAY AFTER MR Z, QUALITY ASSURANCE AT TRACON, CALLED. HE SAID HE WAS INVESTIGATING THE INCIDENT AND 'SOMETHING DIDN'T SEEM QUITE RIGHT TO HIM' AND WHEN HE LISTENED TO THE TAPE AGAIN HE FOUND THAT TRACON PROCS 'WERE NOT FOLLOWED'.

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.