Narrative:

ATIS at sfo indicated ILS to runway 28R in use and our FMC was programmed for that. After contacting oak approach control, they proceeded to give us radar vectors for the ILS to 28R and to expect ILS 28R. After 2 vectors across 28R localizer for spacing with traffic, controller abruptly changed our expected approach to intercept the sfo 095 degree radial and report the airport in sight for a visual approach. We were at 7000' and 20 NM east of the airport and approximately on the glide slope and only the eastern half and the runway approach ends and approach lights were in sight. I asked the controller to confirm airport WX and he said the sfo WX was 1100 broken, 12 mi visibility and the high span WX was (AWOS) 11,900 sct, 12 mi visibility. We then called the airport in sight, and the approach controller said 'cleared for 'the' visual approach to runway 28R and follow traffic 5 mi ahead and stay on or north of sfo 095 degree right'. We told the approach controller we had also the traffic ahead. At the san mateo bridge high span, we lost sight of airport due to the lower ceiling extending out from the airport and our slant range visibility at 2000' over the bridge obscured the approach end of the runway. However, we still had the traffic ahead in sight which still made us legal to continue the visual approach as long as our flight conditions were VMC, which they were. At the bridge we switched to tower and sfo two told us to switch to runway 28L and to follow traffic ahead, which we did and at 1700' the airport was in sight after some maneuvering was done to stay visual, and keep the aircraft ahead in sight. The remaining flight profile was uneventful. First of all, the numerous changes in our expected approach kept cockpit workload very hectic. Secondly, having 2 WX minimums and only 2 WX reporting stations, is not enough information for flight crews to access a safe completion of this particular cvp (charted visual approach procedure) because neither approach control nor sfo tower has any idea what the WX is between the san mateo bridge and the airport. I feel the FAA should raise the minimum WX at sfo above 1000' and 3 mi for these charted visual approach procedures for runway 28 4R at sfo.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF LGT PROGRAMMED FOR APCH TO 28R AT SFO WERE SWITCHED TO 28L WITH WX MARGINAL FOR VISUAL APCH.

Narrative: ATIS AT SFO INDICATED ILS TO RWY 28R IN USE AND OUR FMC WAS PROGRAMMED FOR THAT. AFTER CONTACTING OAK APCH CTL, THEY PROCEEDED TO GIVE US RADAR VECTORS FOR THE ILS TO 28R AND TO EXPECT ILS 28R. AFTER 2 VECTORS ACROSS 28R LOC FOR SPACING WITH TFC, CTLR ABRUPTLY CHANGED OUR EXPECTED APCH TO INTERCEPT THE SFO 095 DEG RADIAL AND REPORT THE ARPT IN SIGHT FOR A VISUAL APCH. WE WERE AT 7000' AND 20 NM E OF THE ARPT AND APPROX ON THE GLIDE SLOPE AND ONLY THE EASTERN HALF AND THE RWY APCH ENDS AND APCH LIGHTS WERE IN SIGHT. I ASKED THE CTLR TO CONFIRM ARPT WX AND HE SAID THE SFO WX WAS 1100 BROKEN, 12 MI VIS AND THE HIGH SPAN WX WAS (AWOS) 11,900 SCT, 12 MI VIS. WE THEN CALLED THE ARPT IN SIGHT, AND THE APCH CTLR SAID 'CLRED FOR 'THE' VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R AND FOLLOW TFC 5 MI AHEAD AND STAY ON OR N OF SFO 095 DEG R'. WE TOLD THE APCH CTLR WE HAD ALSO THE TFC AHEAD. AT THE SAN MATEO BRIDGE HIGH SPAN, WE LOST SIGHT OF ARPT DUE TO THE LOWER CEILING EXTENDING OUT FROM THE ARPT AND OUR SLANT RANGE VIS AT 2000' OVER THE BRIDGE OBSCURED THE APCH END OF THE RWY. HOWEVER, WE STILL HAD THE TFC AHEAD IN SIGHT WHICH STILL MADE US LEGAL TO CONTINUE THE VISUAL APCH AS LONG AS OUR FLT CONDITIONS WERE VMC, WHICH THEY WERE. AT THE BRIDGE WE SWITCHED TO TWR AND SFO TWO TOLD US TO SWITCH TO RWY 28L AND TO FOLLOW TFC AHEAD, WHICH WE DID AND AT 1700' THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT AFTER SOME MANEUVERING WAS DONE TO STAY VISUAL, AND KEEP THE ACFT AHEAD IN SIGHT. THE REMAINING FLT PROFILE WAS UNEVENTFUL. FIRST OF ALL, THE NUMEROUS CHANGES IN OUR EXPECTED APCH KEPT COCKPIT WORKLOAD VERY HECTIC. SECONDLY, HAVING 2 WX MINIMUMS AND ONLY 2 WX REPORTING STATIONS, IS NOT ENOUGH INFO FOR FLT CREWS TO ACCESS A SAFE COMPLETION OF THIS PARTICULAR CVP (CHARTED VISUAL APCH PROC) BECAUSE NEITHER APCH CTL NOR SFO TWR HAS ANY IDEA WHAT THE WX IS BETWEEN THE SAN MATEO BRIDGE AND THE ARPT. I FEEL THE FAA SHOULD RAISE THE MINIMUM WX AT SFO ABOVE 1000' AND 3 MI FOR THESE CHARTED VISUAL APCH PROCS FOR RWY 28 4R AT SFO.

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.