Narrative:

Sfo lax. First time copilot had ever flown this segment, so sfo departure procedures and profile descent and visibility approach for lax were all thoroughly briefed! Given an 090 degree heading off the smo VOR, approach asked if we had the airport. The captain asked me if I could see it. I turned and had to look quite a bit back, but did see both complexes, though marginally. Approach then said, 'expect approach clearance in 2 mi.' we were given a 160 degree heading and cleared for the stadium visibility 24R. I picked up the runway rolling out of the turn. I advised the captain of traffic to our left, and we kept the traffic in sight, assuming it was for the parallel runway. (We were never advised of this traffic, to my recall.) I configured for the approach prior to the OM. As we continued, I again noted the location of and proximity to the traffic. I then realized I was looking at 25R and began a turn and sighted 24R, though not as clearly. Tower called just after that advising of a traffic alert, and I immediately tightened the turn, and completed the final approach to a landing on 24R. The correction did not seem excessive, and I had ample time to establish the profile for 24R. The problem arose because we accepted a visibility approach based on seeing the airport 2 mi prior, and did not reestablish visibility on both complexes. Visibility was reported as 15 mi, but into the sun and smog, it was certainly much less than that for us. The problem was discovered by us (and confirmed by tower alert) because of the proximity of the parallel aircraft, and the sudden realization that something didn't look right. Contributing, we were all looking out for the visibility clues that were shown on the approach plate, and at the traffic. Corrective action was a turn back to the appropriate runway. Human factors involved: after receiving our 070 degree vector we set up all available navaids for the approach, but being outside the cockpit for visibility clues, we neglected to x-chk the INS. The captain noted G/south indications, but we neglected localizer information. (I confirmed this during my corrective turn.) possible corrective action: REIL for 24R seems to me to be the best solution, or some sort of high intensity or strobe lead-in lights. Follow this up with controller clearance that requires having both complexes and not just airport in sight, or if lights available, confirm 24R lights in sight. Normally advisories of parallel traffic are given; however, I do not recall getting this advisory for this particular approach. I know we were not asked if we still had the airport before getting clearance 2 mi later, and seeing the runway we thought to be ours.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF LGT CLEARED FOR VISUAL APCH TO RWY 24R OVERSHOT RWY ALIGNMENT TRANSGRESSING INTO APCH PATH OF WDB ALIGNED WITH 25R.

Narrative: SFO LAX. FIRST TIME COPLT HAD EVER FLOWN THIS SEGMENT, SO SFO DEP PROCS AND PROFILE DSNT AND VIS APCH FOR LAX WERE ALL THOROUGHLY BRIEFED! GIVEN AN 090 DEG HDG OFF THE SMO VOR, APCH ASKED IF WE HAD THE ARPT. THE CAPT ASKED ME IF I COULD SEE IT. I TURNED AND HAD TO LOOK QUITE A BIT BACK, BUT DID SEE BOTH COMPLEXES, THOUGH MARGINALLY. APCH THEN SAID, 'EXPECT APCH CLRNC IN 2 MI.' WE WERE GIVEN A 160 DEG HDG AND CLRED FOR THE STADIUM VIS 24R. I PICKED UP THE RWY ROLLING OUT OF THE TURN. I ADVISED THE CAPT OF TFC TO OUR LEFT, AND WE KEPT THE TFC IN SIGHT, ASSUMING IT WAS FOR THE PARALLEL RWY. (WE WERE NEVER ADVISED OF THIS TFC, TO MY RECALL.) I CONFIGURED FOR THE APCH PRIOR TO THE OM. AS WE CONTINUED, I AGAIN NOTED THE LOCATION OF AND PROX TO THE TFC. I THEN REALIZED I WAS LOOKING AT 25R AND BEGAN A TURN AND SIGHTED 24R, THOUGH NOT AS CLEARLY. TWR CALLED JUST AFTER THAT ADVISING OF A TFC ALERT, AND I IMMEDIATELY TIGHTENED THE TURN, AND COMPLETED THE FINAL APCH TO A LNDG ON 24R. THE CORRECTION DID NOT SEEM EXCESSIVE, AND I HAD AMPLE TIME TO ESTABLISH THE PROFILE FOR 24R. THE PROB AROSE BECAUSE WE ACCEPTED A VIS APCH BASED ON SEEING THE ARPT 2 MI PRIOR, AND DID NOT REESTABLISH VIS ON BOTH COMPLEXES. VISIBILITY WAS RPTED AS 15 MI, BUT INTO THE SUN AND SMOG, IT WAS CERTAINLY MUCH LESS THAN THAT FOR US. THE PROB WAS DISCOVERED BY US (AND CONFIRMED BY TWR ALERT) BECAUSE OF THE PROX OF THE PARALLEL ACFT, AND THE SUDDEN REALIZATION THAT SOMETHING DIDN'T LOOK RIGHT. CONTRIBUTING, WE WERE ALL LOOKING OUT FOR THE VIS CLUES THAT WERE SHOWN ON THE APCH PLATE, AND AT THE TFC. CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS A TURN BACK TO THE APPROPRIATE RWY. HUMAN FACTORS INVOLVED: AFTER RECEIVING OUR 070 DEG VECTOR WE SET UP ALL AVAILABLE NAVAIDS FOR THE APCH, BUT BEING OUTSIDE THE COCKPIT FOR VIS CLUES, WE NEGLECTED TO X-CHK THE INS. THE CAPT NOTED G/S INDICATIONS, BUT WE NEGLECTED LOC INFO. (I CONFIRMED THIS DURING MY CORRECTIVE TURN.) POSSIBLE CORRECTIVE ACTION: REIL FOR 24R SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE BEST SOLUTION, OR SOME SORT OF HIGH INTENSITY OR STROBE LEAD-IN LIGHTS. FOLLOW THIS UP WITH CTLR CLRNC THAT REQUIRES HAVING BOTH COMPLEXES AND NOT JUST ARPT IN SIGHT, OR IF LIGHTS AVAILABLE, CONFIRM 24R LIGHTS IN SIGHT. NORMALLY ADVISORIES OF PARALLEL TFC ARE GIVEN; HOWEVER, I DO NOT RECALL GETTING THIS ADVISORY FOR THIS PARTICULAR APCH. I KNOW WE WERE NOT ASKED IF WE STILL HAD THE ARPT BEFORE GETTING CLRNC 2 MI LATER, AND SEEING THE RWY WE THOUGHT TO BE OURS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.