Reporter did not like an aircraft flying alongside his aircraft to a parallel runway separated by 55...

Attributes
ACN	160306
Time
Date	199010
Day	Mon
Local Time Of Day	1801 To 2400
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : sfo
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 1000 msl bound upper : 1200
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Night
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tower : sfo tower : gon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Medium Large Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight Phase	descent : approach descent other
Route In Use	approach : straight in approach : visual arrival other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 22000 flight time type : 4000
ASRS Report	160306
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew
Miss Distance	horizontal : 550
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

Sfo arrival ATIS remarks were that tipp toe and quiet bridge approachs were in use. While on the big sur arrival routing the airport was in sight at approximately 20-30 mi out; however, there appears to be a stratus cloud layer over the bay in the runway 28 approach area. Approaching menlo a flight ahead of us requested an ILS approach, because he did not have the airport in sight. He was cleared for an ILS to 28L. In the vicinity of menlo, bay approach asked us if we had the airport in sight. We did not, and responded not in sight. Instructions were then received to intercept the sfo 095 degree right and descend to 1800'. At approximately 7 NM we could only see the approach lights to runway 28R, so I requested and was cleared for an ILS to runway 28R. The ILS was flown IMC through the cloud layer, and upon breaking out (bases 1000-1200') an light transport was observed at 9-9:30 position approximately 200' away at the same altitude on a visibility approach to 28L. After landing I called bay approach from operations and talked to a supervisor and after a discussion of the incident, he said he would review the tape and requested that I call him back, which I did the following day. From this subsequent conversation, it appears that approach control had been handling the traffic properly, although they switched to an in trail IFR ILS operation immediately after our approach. The light transport aircraft had reported us (medium large transport) and the airport in sight, so they had been cleared a visibility to 28L. I believe that he ducked under the stratus to keep the runway in sight and had to have lost visibility contact with us. This incidentally reinforces the safety concerns of the parallel visibility approachs to sfo 28 runways, especially when the WX over the bay in the approach corridor is significantly lower than WX at the airport, and pilots cleared a visibility approach will keep the runway in sight but not maintain visibility contact with traffic that they have acknowledged in sight. I believe that it is essential that sfo develop a means to observe the actual WX along the tipp toe and quiet bridge approach routing.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: REPORTER DID NOT LIKE AN ACFT FLYING ALONGSIDE HIS ACFT TO A PARALLEL RWY SEPARATED BY 550' BETWEEN RWY EDGES.

Narrative: SFO ARR ATIS REMARKS WERE THAT TIPP TOE AND QUIET BRIDGE APCHS WERE IN USE. WHILE ON THE BIG SUR ARR RTING THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT AT APPROX 20-30 MI OUT; HOWEVER, THERE APPEARS TO BE A STRATUS CLOUD LAYER OVER THE BAY IN THE RWY 28 APCH AREA. APCHING MENLO A FLT AHEAD OF US REQUESTED AN ILS APCH, BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE THE ARPT IN SIGHT. HE WAS CLRED FOR AN ILS TO 28L. IN THE VICINITY OF MENLO, BAY APCH ASKED US IF WE HAD THE ARPT IN SIGHT. WE DID NOT, AND RESPONDED NOT IN SIGHT. INSTRUCTIONS WERE THEN RECEIVED TO INTERCEPT THE SFO 095 DEG R AND DSND TO 1800'. AT APPROX 7 NM WE COULD ONLY SEE THE APCH LIGHTS TO RWY 28R, SO I REQUESTED AND WAS CLRED FOR AN ILS TO RWY 28R. THE ILS WAS FLOWN IMC THROUGH THE CLOUD LAYER, AND UPON BREAKING OUT (BASES 1000-1200') AN LTT WAS OBSERVED AT 9-9:30 POS APPROX 200' AWAY AT THE SAME ALT ON A VIS APCH TO 28L. AFTER LNDG I CALLED BAY APCH FROM OPS AND TALKED TO A SUPVR AND AFTER A DISCUSSION OF THE INCIDENT, HE SAID HE WOULD REVIEW THE TAPE AND REQUESTED THAT I CALL HIM BACK, WHICH I DID THE FOLLOWING DAY. FROM THIS SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION, IT APPEARS THAT APCH CTL HAD BEEN HANDLING THE TFC PROPERLY, ALTHOUGH THEY SWITCHED TO AN IN TRAIL IFR ILS OPERATION IMMEDIATELY AFTER OUR APCH. THE LTT ACFT HAD RPTED US (MLG) AND THE ARPT IN SIGHT, SO THEY HAD BEEN CLRED A VIS TO 28L. I BELIEVE THAT HE DUCKED UNDER THE STRATUS TO KEEP THE RWY IN SIGHT AND HAD TO HAVE LOST VIS CONTACT WITH US. THIS INCIDENTALLY REINFORCES THE SAFETY CONCERNS OF THE PARALLEL VIS APCHS TO SFO 28 RWYS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE WX OVER THE BAY IN THE APCH CORRIDOR IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN WX AT THE ARPT, AND PLTS CLRED A VIS APCH WILL KEEP THE RWY IN SIGHT BUT NOT MAINTAIN VIS CONTACT WITH TFC THAT THEY HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED IN SIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT SFO DEVELOP A MEANS TO OBSERVE THE ACTUAL WX ALONG THE TIPP TOE AND QUIET BRIDGE APCH RTING.

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.

Reporter did not like an aircraft flying alongside his aircraft to a parallel runway separated by 550' between runway edges.