Narrative:

During the descent on the DYAMD4 into sfo we picked up the digital ATIS and found they were landing 28L/28R. Due to FBO location on the field we planned; programmed and briefed the ILS for 28R. The last fix on the arrival; archi; is the IAF on the ILS and we had reviewed the altitudes for the approach. We had been given various speed assignments due to the aircraft we were following and we were concentrating on complying as this was both crew members first time flying into sfo. When handed off to final approach we were cleared the quiet bridge visual. Not expecting that we scrambled to find that chart as it is not listed under 28R in jeppesen flight deck but under 28L. Some confusion ensued and I had to read back the clearance twice. I also thought we were cleared to a minimum of 2000 feet; which I thought I had read back. There was a busy time in the cockpit as we were in the middle of running final approach and landing checks when the instructions were given. On reviewing the charted visual we both agreed on the 255 heading after archi to intercept the sfo R-095 inbound. While I noticed the DME fixes I did not catch the minimum altitudes noted. The captain called for dialing in the min pattern altitude and I entered 2000 feet into the altitude alerter. Thinking everything was correct we continued inbound. Before handing us off to tower ATC told us that we needed to call upon landing for a possible pilot deviation. Not knowing what we had done I asked if they could 'give us a hint' and he replied possible two altitude deviations. It was then that I noticed the altitudes next to the DME fixes on the chart. We continued our landing without any further events and called as soon as possible. We were notified that we were low at one fix by 200 feet and at a second; I believe the 15.0 fix; we were low by 800 feet. She explained that the altitudes were for protection of san jose aircraft. There were no aircraft on our TCAS that our deviation should have impacted. She was very pleasant and we informed her that this was our first trip into sfo and that we should have declined the visual and continued with the ILS. She said that was a good plan and ATC usually works with folks who are unfamiliar with the airport. The nexgen arrivals that lead into approaches are being implemented to increase safety and efficiency. An ILS approach is a much safer and [more] stable approach than a non-precision visual into an international class B airport with very high traffic volume. In hindsight we should have declined the visual and requested the ILS 28R that we had loaded; planned; and briefed instead of accepting the visual that we did not have adequate time to brief and plan since it was not the typical 'visual' profile that we fly when cleared for a visual approach. Also if being cleared for a 'charted' visual approach it would be beneficial to ATC and pilots that they phrase it as: 'cleared for the quiet bridge visual; comply with altitudes'. If that had been said to us we would have taken a second look and verified. It was a huge distraction as we were making our final configuration and running our final checklist before landing that ATC was giving us a phone number to call. It took away from our flying duties at a critical phase of flight and took away from other pilots who may have needed to check in with ATC; or other aircraft that ATC needed to communicate with. We could have been given that number to call norcal TRACON by ground control or clearance after we had landed and were clear of the runway. Since the quiet bridge visual is for runways 28 left and right; jeppesen should put the quiet bridge visual with the 28L and also 28R approaches to prevent having to hunt for a chart that is not listed in the approaches for the runway you are landing. This was a learning experience for myself and I hope that ATC can take something away from this to prevent this altitude deviation from occurring again.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Citation X crew reported overshooting two crossing restrictions on the Quiet Bridge Visual Approach to SFO.

Narrative: During the descent on the DYAMD4 into SFO we picked up the digital ATIS and found they were landing 28L/28R. Due to FBO location on the field we planned; programmed and briefed the ILS for 28R. The last fix on the arrival; ARCHI; is the IAF on the ILS and we had reviewed the altitudes for the approach. We had been given various speed assignments due to the aircraft we were following and we were concentrating on complying as this was both crew members first time flying into SFO. When handed off to final approach we were cleared the Quiet Bridge visual. Not expecting that we scrambled to find that chart as it is not listed under 28R in Jeppesen Flight Deck but under 28L. Some confusion ensued and I had to read back the clearance twice. I also thought we were cleared to a minimum of 2000 feet; which I thought I had read back. There was a busy time in the cockpit as we were in the middle of running final approach and landing checks when the instructions were given. On reviewing the charted visual we both agreed on the 255 heading after ARCHI to intercept the SFO R-095 inbound. While I noticed the DME fixes I did not catch the minimum altitudes noted. The Captain called for dialing in the min pattern altitude and I entered 2000 feet into the altitude alerter. Thinking everything was correct we continued inbound. Before handing us off to Tower ATC told us that we needed to call upon landing for a possible pilot deviation. Not knowing what we had done I asked if they could 'give us a hint' and he replied possible two altitude deviations. It was then that I noticed the altitudes next to the DME fixes on the chart. We continued our landing without any further events and called as soon as possible. We were notified that we were low at one fix by 200 feet and at a second; I believe the 15.0 fix; we were low by 800 feet. She explained that the altitudes were for protection of San Jose aircraft. There were no aircraft on our TCAS that our deviation should have impacted. She was very pleasant and we informed her that this was our first trip into SFO and that we should have declined the visual and continued with the ILS. She said that was a good plan and ATC usually works with folks who are unfamiliar with the airport. The NEXGEN Arrivals that lead into approaches are being implemented to increase safety and efficiency. An ILS Approach is a much safer and [more] stable approach than a non-precision visual into an International Class B airport with very high traffic volume. In hindsight we should have declined the visual and requested the ILS 28R that we had loaded; planned; and briefed instead of accepting the visual that we did not have adequate time to brief and plan since it was not the typical 'VISUAL' profile that we fly when cleared for a Visual Approach. Also if being cleared for a 'Charted' Visual Approach it would be beneficial to ATC and Pilots that they phrase it as: 'Cleared for the Quiet Bridge Visual; comply with altitudes'. If that had been said to us we would have taken a second look and verified. It was a huge distraction as we were making our final configuration and running our final checklist before landing that ATC was giving us a phone number to call. It took away from our flying duties at a critical phase of flight and took away from other pilots who may have needed to check in with ATC; or other aircraft that ATC needed to communicate with. We could have been given that number to call NORCAL TRACON by Ground Control or Clearance after we had landed and were clear of the runway. Since the Quiet Bridge Visual is for Runways 28 Left and Right; Jeppesen should put the Quiet Bridge Visual with the 28L and also 28R Approaches to prevent having to hunt for a chart that is not listed in the approaches for the runway you are landing. This was a learning experience for myself and I hope that ATC can take something away from this to prevent this altitude deviation from occurring again.

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.