Narrative:

On approach into sfo we were cleared for the visual approach to runway 28R and paired with a 777 landing on 28L. The prevailing winds were from the south and we were flying behind and to the right (north) of the 777. We clearly understood we would be in position to encounter the wake of the 777. As a precaution we as a crew agreed to remain above glide path on our approach to land. The first officer flew a very precise stable approach slightly above glidepath. We experienced smooth conditions during the approach without any indication of wake turbulence. However just at the point of the flare to land we encountered a sudden onset of turbulence which in my estimation could only have been produced by the 777 who landed just ahead on the parallel runway. The turbulent condition was very sudden and very abrupt but also cleared quickly. The first officer handled the aircraft well with swift and accurate corrections and continued with a stable touchdown and landing. At the gate we conducted a debrief and the first officer asked if he could call the tower to add clarity to our discussion. Upon conclusion of the discussion with the tower we learned that the relative wind is not considered when we are paired with an aircraft during visual approaches. Once we accept a visual approach with the assignment to maintain visual separation wake turbulence is our responsibility. With regards to this it is true we can remain clear of wake turbulence while on approach by remaining above the glide path of the preceding aircraft. However when it comes to the point of touchdown we do not have an option; we have to land in the touchdown zone; and as we found out; in the area of wake turbulence and very close to the ground. It is our estimation that thoughtful consideration be made of crosswinds when pairing aircraft for visual approaches. Second point of discussion was our assessment of the sudden and abrupt nature of the turbulence causing a distraction; we were both in the mindset to call for and initiate a go around then just as quick we encountered the turbulence were clear of it and touch down and landed. My point in the debrief was that stabilization was such a focus that the touchdown zone may have been a factor as well.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence landing on a parallel runway to a B777 while upwind of his wake. Captain recommended that controllers consider crosswind effects on possible wake encounters.

Narrative: On approach into SFO we were cleared for the visual approach to runway 28R and paired with a 777 landing on 28L. The prevailing winds were from the south and we were flying behind and to the right (north) of the 777. We clearly understood we would be in position to encounter the wake of the 777. As a precaution we as a crew agreed to remain above glide path on our approach to land. The First Officer flew a very precise stable approach slightly above glidepath. We experienced smooth conditions during the approach without any indication of wake turbulence. However just at the point of the flare to land we encountered a sudden onset of turbulence which in my estimation could only have been produced by the 777 who landed just ahead on the parallel runway. The turbulent condition was very sudden and very abrupt but also cleared quickly. The First Officer handled the aircraft well with swift and accurate corrections and continued with a stable touchdown and landing. At the gate we conducted a debrief and the First Officer asked if he could call the tower to add clarity to our discussion. Upon conclusion of the discussion with the tower we learned that the relative wind is not considered when we are paired with an aircraft during visual approaches. Once we accept a visual approach with the assignment to maintain visual separation wake turbulence is our responsibility. With regards to this it is true we can remain clear of wake turbulence while on approach by remaining above the glide path of the preceding aircraft. However when it comes to the point of touchdown we do not have an option; we have to land in the touchdown zone; and as we found out; in the area of wake turbulence and very close to the ground. It is our estimation that thoughtful consideration be made of crosswinds when pairing aircraft for visual approaches. Second point of discussion was our assessment of the sudden and abrupt nature of the turbulence causing a distraction; we were both in the mindset to call for and initiate a go around then just as quick we encountered the turbulence were clear of it and touch down and landed. My point in the debrief was that stabilization was such a focus that the touchdown zone may have been a factor as well.

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.