Narrative:

Aircraft #1 light transport X. Aircraft #2 widebody transport Y. We had been cleared for the quiet bridge approach to 28R at sfo. As we neared the airport we were advised of traffic south of the airport on a downwind that would be landing on 28L. After sighting and reporting the traffic, bay approach told us to maintain visual separation from the traffic. As we approached the san mateo bridge aircraft #2 began its base turn. As it continued its turn through base to final, it was obvious that his turn on to final would put the aircraft very close to our course on the 095 degree right. At this time we turned right away from aircraft #2 to avoid a collision. I asked bay approach if aircraft #2 had us in sight. There was no response. At this point aircraft #2 increased its bank to complete its turn to final and continued its left turn to roll out on a heading to intercept the 28L centerline which it had flown through. By this time we were over the bridge and contacted the tower as previously instructed. We contacted the tower and continued our approach to the runway at an angle until short final when we lined up for landing. After landing and shut down I contacted the tower and they talked to bay approach and gave me a number and told me to speak with the control room supervisor. Upon speaking with the control room supervisor, I was informed that they (bay approach) had vectored aircraft #2 a little close in and that due to its speed, the radius of turn was such that it overshot the 28L centerline. I told the supervisor that we had to take evasive action and that I would file an near midair collision report with our company. The supervisor then became defensive and angered and said that we (aircraft #1) had been told to maintain visual separation from aircraft #2. I agreed and told him again that we had to take evasive action to the right of course to avoid the other aircraft. He did not seem to understand my point of view. I then asked if aircraft #2 crossed the centerline for 28R (runway for aircraft #1). He in turn asked the controller working the final sector and informed me that yes, aircraft # had crossed the centerline for 28R. I thanked him and told him I would indeed file a report. I believe there are primarily 2 factors that led to this occurrence. The first as told by the bay approach control room supervisor was the fact that bay approach had positioned aircraft #2 in too close to allow a turn that would have remained on or south of the 28L centerline. Factor #2, is the acceptance of the position and turn from bay approach by the crew of aircraft #2.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WDB AND LTT EXPERIENCE LESS THAN STANDARD SEPARATION ON PARALLEL RWY VISUAL APCH. VISUAL ACCEPTED BY LTT WITH TRAFFIC IN SIGHT FOR OTHER RWY. WDB OVERSHOT HIS APCH COURSE.

Narrative: ACFT #1 LTT X. ACFT #2 WDB Y. WE HAD BEEN CLRED FOR THE QUIET BRIDGE APCH TO 28R AT SFO. AS WE NEARED THE ARPT WE WERE ADVISED OF TFC S OF THE ARPT ON A DOWNWIND THAT WOULD BE LNDG ON 28L. AFTER SIGHTING AND REPORTING THE TFC, BAY APCH TOLD US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM THE TFC. AS WE APCHED THE SAN MATEO BRIDGE ACFT #2 BEGAN ITS BASE TURN. AS IT CONTINUED ITS TURN THROUGH BASE TO FINAL, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT HIS TURN ON TO FINAL WOULD PUT THE ACFT VERY CLOSE TO OUR COURSE ON THE 095 DEG R. AT THIS TIME WE TURNED RIGHT AWAY FROM ACFT #2 TO AVOID A COLLISION. I ASKED BAY APCH IF ACFT #2 HAD US IN SIGHT. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. AT THIS POINT ACFT #2 INCREASED ITS BANK TO COMPLETE ITS TURN TO FINAL AND CONTINUED ITS LEFT TURN TO ROLL OUT ON A HDG TO INTERCEPT THE 28L CENTERLINE WHICH IT HAD FLOWN THROUGH. BY THIS TIME WE WERE OVER THE BRIDGE AND CONTACTED THE TWR AS PREVIOUSLY INSTRUCTED. WE CONTACTED THE TWR AND CONTINUED OUR APCH TO THE RWY AT AN ANGLE UNTIL SHORT FINAL WHEN WE LINED UP FOR LNDG. AFTER LNDG AND SHUT DOWN I CONTACTED THE TWR AND THEY TALKED TO BAY APCH AND GAVE ME A NUMBER AND TOLD ME TO SPEAK WITH THE CTL ROOM SUPVR. UPON SPEAKING WITH THE CTL ROOM SUPVR, I WAS INFORMED THAT THEY (BAY APCH) HAD VECTORED ACFT #2 A LITTLE CLOSE IN AND THAT DUE TO ITS SPEED, THE RADIUS OF TURN WAS SUCH THAT IT OVERSHOT THE 28L CENTERLINE. I TOLD THE SUPVR THAT WE HAD TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION AND THAT I WOULD FILE AN NMAC REPORT WITH OUR COMPANY. THE SUPVR THEN BECAME DEFENSIVE AND ANGERED AND SAID THAT WE (ACFT #1) HAD BEEN TOLD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM ACFT #2. I AGREED AND TOLD HIM AGAIN THAT WE HAD TO TAKE EVASIVE ACTION TO THE RIGHT OF COURSE TO AVOID THE OTHER ACFT. HE DID NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND MY POINT OF VIEW. I THEN ASKED IF ACFT #2 CROSSED THE CENTERLINE FOR 28R (RWY FOR ACFT #1). HE IN TURN ASKED THE CTLR WORKING THE FINAL SECTOR AND INFORMED ME THAT YES, ACFT # HAD CROSSED THE CENTERLINE FOR 28R. I THANKED HIM AND TOLD HIM I WOULD INDEED FILE A REPORT. I BELIEVE THERE ARE PRIMARILY 2 FACTORS THAT LED TO THIS OCCURRENCE. THE FIRST AS TOLD BY THE BAY APCH CTL ROOM SUPVR WAS THE FACT THAT BAY APCH HAD POSITIONED ACFT #2 IN TOO CLOSE TO ALLOW A TURN THAT WOULD HAVE REMAINED ON OR SOUTH OF THE 28L CENTERLINE. FACTOR #2, IS THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE POSITION AND TURN FROM BAY APCH BY THE CREW OF ACFT #2.

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.