Narrative:

We had briefed a night time VMC tiptoe approach to sfo 28L off of the big sur STAR. Over menlo at 210 knots heading 330 and 5;000 feet; norcal called traffic for 28 right at 3 o'clock (believe it was A321). Captain (ca) called traffic and sfo insight without first officer (first officer) concurrence which led to norcal to instruct us to maintain visual separation. Ca had a hard time hearing my calls for flaps and speed settings due to ATC frequency congestion and possible hearing impairment. Once cleared to maintain visual separation and cleared for tiptoe visual approach; due to no other information; I began to slow dramatically in order to keep traffic in front of me. Additionally we had a 15 knot tailwind as we approached final course. Norcal informed us that the traffic had us in sight and was maintaining visual separation. Never did I hear from norcal who was to lead and who was to trail on approach. The A321 began to slow likewise and both aircraft were within 1 mile of each other racing to final approach speed attempting to both be the trailing aircraft. This distraction initially put us very high on profile and which then diverted my attention to getting down instead of assuming the lead in formation with the A321! I lost sight of A321 because the geometry of the rendezvous merge never gave me a chance to trail the other traffic before we had to turn toward runway. I elected to remain a little left off course until 1;000 feet. I believe we got the TCAS traffic advisory around 1;500 feet. I had briefed the ca of my desire to keep the TCAS in tara for safety before approach but he elected to turn it off once we got the traffic advisory. I am convinced the traffic advisory would have gone to a RA had we kept it on. Based on visual sighting of an A321 at 4 o'clock at 1;000 feet; I estimate we were within 2;000 feet laterally and 50 feet vertically with a 10 knot left to right crosswind (night time swag!). As a side note: because we slowed so early; I believe sfo tower squeezed out another departure on runway 1 which led to a departing airplane crossing our runway below 100 feet AGL. Other than that; the rest of the flight was a normal sfo 28 visual! I contacted norcal and spoke with the desk manager who reviewed the tapes of our approach and confirmed everything stated above including our wing tip to wing tip distance. Controller stated that once they issue visual separation they can merge aircraft within 3 miles but that they didn't understand the premise of our obligation of keeping adjacent aircraft in front of us is the only way we can assure visual separation. Additionally; the norcal controller has written guidance that aircraft should be paired about 1/4 mile in trail to ensure departure capacity isn't diminished. This seems in direct conflict with near midair collision definition and wake turbulence separation criteria. 'A near midair collision is defined as an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft; or a report is received from a pilot or a flight crew member stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.' if wing tip to wing tip isn't the definition of a potential collision hazard I don't know what is! This serves as a pilot's statement of our near mid air collision.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 First Officer does not approve of simultaneous visual approaches to Runways 28 Left and Right at SFO. FO believes that one aircraft must be ahead of the other to maintain visual separation. NCT and SFO Tower do not see it that way.

Narrative: We had briefed a night time VMC Tiptoe approach to SFO 28L off of the Big Sur STAR. Over MENLO at 210 knots heading 330 and 5;000 feet; NORCAL called traffic for 28 R at 3 o'clock (believe it was A321). Captain (CA) called traffic and SFO insight without First Officer (FO) concurrence which led to NORCAL to instruct us to maintain visual separation. CA had a hard time hearing my calls for flaps and speed settings due to ATC frequency congestion and possible hearing impairment. Once cleared to maintain visual separation and cleared for tiptoe visual approach; due to no other information; I began to slow dramatically in order to keep traffic in front of me. Additionally we had a 15 knot tailwind as we approached final course. NORCAL informed us that the traffic had us in sight and was maintaining visual separation. Never did I hear from NORCAL who was to lead and who was to trail on approach. The A321 began to slow likewise and both aircraft were within 1 mile of each other racing to final approach speed attempting to both be the trailing Aircraft. This distraction initially put us very high on profile and which then diverted my attention to getting down instead of assuming the lead in formation with the A321! I lost sight of A321 because the geometry of the rendezvous merge never gave me a chance to trail the other traffic before we had to turn toward runway. I elected to remain a little left off course until 1;000 feet. I believe we got the TCAS traffic advisory around 1;500 feet. I had briefed the CA of my desire to keep the TCAS in TARA for safety before approach but he elected to turn it off once we got the traffic advisory. I am convinced the traffic advisory would have gone to a RA had we kept it on. Based on visual sighting of an A321 at 4 o'clock at 1;000 feet; I estimate we were within 2;000 feet laterally and 50 feet vertically with a 10 knot left to right crosswind (night time SWAG!). As a side note: because we slowed so early; I believe SFO tower squeezed out another departure on RWY 1 which led to a departing airplane crossing our runway below 100 feet AGL. Other than that; the rest of the flight was a normal SFO 28 visual! I contacted NORCAL and spoke with the desk manager who reviewed the tapes of our approach and confirmed everything stated above including our wing tip to wing tip distance. Controller stated that once they issue visual separation they can merge Aircraft within 3 miles but that they didn't understand the premise of our obligation of keeping adjacent Aircraft in front of us is the only way we can assure visual separation. Additionally; the NORCAL controller has written guidance that Aircraft should be paired about 1/4 mile in trail to ensure departure capacity isn't diminished. This seems in direct conflict with NMAC definition and wake turbulence separation criteria. 'A near midair collision is defined as an incident associated with the operation of an aircraft in which a possibility of collision occurs as a result of proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft; or a report is received from a pilot or a flight crew member stating that a collision hazard existed between two or more aircraft.' If wing tip to wing tip isn't the definition of a potential collision hazard I don't know what is! This serves as a pilot's statement of our Near Mid Air Collision.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.