Narrative:

Flying the dyamd 3 RNAV arrival ATIS was advertising the quiet bridge approach; weather was VFR. Just before top of descent we verified the dyamd 3 arrival. We were discussing what approach to expect based on the ATIS that said to expect the quiet bridge visual. Looking through the company pages and the arrival page of the FMS it became clear that there is no coded approach for the quiet bridge visual and we are not allowed to build it. The ATIS was not advertising the actual approach in use; which was the FMS bridge visual. While trying to sort this out we also noted the company pages had a statement about the use of TA mode on the TCAS below 3000 due to the congestion in sfo and the possibility of a TCAS RA. Anyway; during the next few minutes I took the time to select the different coded RNAV approaches and compared them to all of the appropriate plates in the event that we were given something unexpected. Somehow; I had left the box set up with the RNAV-Z rwy 28R and not the FMS bridge visual after we were cleared to descent via the dyamd 3. We started down and were well into the arrival before ATC cleared us to fly the course for the FMS bridge visual (RNAV-F). I was looking at the plate and briefed it. I looked at the mcdu page and saw RNAV for the approach in the flight plan page and assumed that I had the correct RNAV approach inserted. About the time we reached archi; we were cleared for the FMS bridge visual and were getting very busy. I pressed the appr button to join the approach and the V/deviation was showing a descent but the airplane did not respond even though I had set a bottom altitude of 1200 into the flight control unit. While I was trying to figure out why the airplane was not descending we were issued traffic that was to join final from the south for runway 28L. We reported that aircraft in sight and they reported us in sight. Things were getting even busier and the airplane was still not doing what I expected it to so I chose to select 6000 feet and went open descent and walked the altitudes down. About that time ATC asked us to report the bridge and/or the airport; which we did. A few minutes later; approach asked us if we were doing the RNAV or the localizer. We told him we were on the RNAV; which we were; although as it happens; it was the incorrect RNAV. He didn't say anything more about it as we joined final somewhere between the dumbarton bridge and the san mateo bridge. Our traffic was an airbus that appeared to me to be going much faster than we were and it was going to join final right next to us. The separation on the approaches to runway 28L/right is minimal and I did not want to be wingtip to wingtip. Approach told us to maintain 180 kts to the bridge even with airbus right next to us. I didn't think that was safe so I slowed down 10 kts to about 170 kts to let him pass us. As they were closing on us; we were about 2700 feet or so and we got an RA. In the heat of everything that was going on we never put the TCAS into TA mode. I turned the autopilot off and steered the airplane away from the airbus and offset my final to the right of course. The TCAS cleared and the airbus leveled off above us and then passed us. Everything else about our final approach and landing was normal. The first part of this started before top of descent when the ATIS was advertising the quiet bridge visual instead of the approach they were actually using. It takes time to set up and verify and validate an RNAV procedure carefully. Instead; sfo historically seems to think the actual approach in use should be a big secret until the last minute. It would have been nice to know what to expect before we started down. Once we started down on the arrival; things got progressively busier as we got closer to archi. I simply didn't stop what I was doing and re-verify that I had the correct RNAV procedure programmed. Another hole in the safety model was made when I pushed the appr button. Even though I had the incorrect RNAV procedure programmed; the one that was in there was still an RNAV approach and the autopilot should have followed the V/deviation commands. The fact that I had to 'walk' the descent down was another major distraction. In this particular case; perhaps having a coded procedure that said 'FMS visual' instead of the other RNAV approaches would have made a difference.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A321 flight crew reported being assigned the SFO FMS Bridge Visual while the Quiet Bridge Visual Approach was listed on the ATIS. The FMS Bridge Visual could not be found in the FMC and the RNAV-Z Runway 28R was chosen inadvertently. This resulted in a TCAS RA with traffic for Runway 28L.

Narrative: Flying the DYAMD 3 RNAV Arrival ATIS was advertising the Quiet Bridge Approach; weather was VFR. Just before top of descent we verified the DYAMD 3 Arrival. We were discussing what approach to expect based on the ATIS that said to expect the Quiet Bridge Visual. Looking through the company pages and the arrival page of the FMS it became clear that there is no coded approach for the Quiet Bridge Visual and we are not allowed to build it. The ATIS was NOT advertising the actual approach in use; which was the FMS Bridge Visual. While trying to sort this out we also noted the company pages had a statement about the use of TA mode on the TCAS below 3000 due to the congestion in SFO and the possibility of a TCAS RA. Anyway; during the next few minutes I took the time to select the different coded RNAV approaches and compared them to all of the appropriate plates in the event that we were given something unexpected. Somehow; I had left the box set up with the RNAV-Z Rwy 28R and not the FMS Bridge Visual after we were cleared to descent via the DYAMD 3. We started down and were well into the arrival before ATC cleared us to fly the course for the FMS Bridge Visual (RNAV-F). I was looking at the plate and briefed it. I looked at the MCDU page and saw RNAV for the approach in the flight plan page and assumed that I had the correct RNAV approach inserted. About the time we reached ARCHI; we were cleared for the FMS Bridge Visual and were getting very busy. I pressed the APPR button to join the approach and the V/DEV was showing a descent but the airplane did not respond even though I had set a bottom altitude of 1200 into the Flight Control Unit. While I was trying to figure out why the airplane was not descending we were issued traffic that was to join final from the south for RWY 28L. We reported that aircraft in sight and they reported us in sight. Things were getting even busier and the airplane was still not doing what I expected it to so I chose to select 6000 feet and went OPEN DESCENT and walked the altitudes down. About that time ATC asked us to report the bridge and/or the airport; which we did. A few minutes later; Approach asked us if we were doing the RNAV or the Localizer. We told him we were on the RNAV; which we were; although as it happens; it was the incorrect RNAV. He didn't say anything more about it as we joined final somewhere between the Dumbarton Bridge and the San Mateo Bridge. Our traffic was an Airbus that appeared to me to be going much faster than we were and it was going to join final right next to us. The separation on the approaches to RWY 28L/R is minimal and I did not want to be wingtip to wingtip. Approach told us to maintain 180 kts to the bridge even with Airbus right next to us. I didn't think that was safe so I slowed down 10 kts to about 170 kts to let him pass us. As they were closing on us; we were about 2700 feet or so and we got an RA. In the heat of everything that was going on we never put the TCAS into TA mode. I turned the autopilot off and steered the airplane away from the Airbus and offset my final to the right of course. The TCAS cleared and the Airbus leveled off above us and then passed us. Everything else about our final approach and landing was normal. The first part of this started before top of descent when the ATIS was advertising the Quiet Bridge Visual instead of the approach they were actually using. It takes time to set up and verify and validate an RNAV procedure carefully. Instead; SFO historically seems to think the actual approach in use should be a big secret until the last minute. It would have been nice to know what to expect before we started down. Once we started down on the arrival; things got progressively busier as we got closer to ARCHI. I simply didn't stop what I was doing and re-verify that I had the correct RNAV procedure programmed. Another hole in the safety model was made when I pushed the APPR button. Even though I had the incorrect RNAV procedure programmed; the one that was in there was still an RNAV approach and the autopilot should have followed the V/DEV commands. The fact that I had to 'walk' the descent down was another major distraction. In this particular case; perhaps having a coded procedure that said 'FMS Visual' instead of the other RNAV approaches would have made a difference.

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.