Narrative:

We were cleared husky visual approach for landing on runway 16L -- following by 4-5 mi an air carrier X 757 landing on runway 16R. We had been advised of and had seen air carrier Z over the bay, and they had been instructed to follow us on the visual approach for landing on runway 16R. We were tracking the ILS per the sea 29- 2 page (to runway 16R) and preparing to transition to the runway 16L centerline (approximately 8-10 mi out) when we were passed approximately 500 ft on the right by the air carrier Z flight. We received a TA at the same time. The air carrier X and the air carrier Z both landed on runway 16R prior to our landing on runway 16L (both had to wait for our landing to cross runway 16L). I believe that the actions by the air carrier Z crew were improper and placed not only our aircraft but theirs in a potentially dangerous situation. My reasoning: the husky visual does not reference simultaneous approachs -- nor were we advised of same: we were greatly surprised by the TA and the appearance of the air carrier Z to our right at a critical phase of the approach: the air carrier Z crew placed their aircraft in a potentially hazardous situation unnecessarily by closing extremely close behind the B757 -- whose wake problem is well-known. During my conversation with ATC controllers on the phone later -- they were surprised to find out that if we had gotten an RA from TCASII we would have followed it despite knowing the air carrier Z flight was behind us. Most pilots assume that approachs to runway 16L and runway 16R will be staggered -- with no passing allowed. I received several comments from passenger about the close proximity of the flight as it passed us. Thanks.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLTDEV.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED HUSKY VISUAL APCH FOR LNDG ON RWY 16L -- FOLLOWING BY 4-5 MI AN ACR X 757 LNDG ON RWY 16R. WE HAD BEEN ADVISED OF AND HAD SEEN ACR Z OVER THE BAY, AND THEY HAD BEEN INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW US ON THE VISUAL APCH FOR LNDG ON RWY 16R. WE WERE TRACKING THE ILS PER THE SEA 29- 2 PAGE (TO RWY 16R) AND PREPARING TO TRANSITION TO THE RWY 16L CTRLINE (APPROX 8-10 MI OUT) WHEN WE WERE PASSED APPROX 500 FT ON THE R BY THE ACR Z FLT. WE RECEIVED A TA AT THE SAME TIME. THE ACR X AND THE ACR Z BOTH LANDED ON RWY 16R PRIOR TO OUR LNDG ON RWY 16L (BOTH HAD TO WAIT FOR OUR LNDG TO CROSS RWY 16L). I BELIEVE THAT THE ACTIONS BY THE ACR Z CREW WERE IMPROPER AND PLACED NOT ONLY OUR ACFT BUT THEIRS IN A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SIT. MY REASONING: THE HUSKY VISUAL DOES NOT REF SIMULTANEOUS APCHS -- NOR WERE WE ADVISED OF SAME: WE WERE GREATLY SURPRISED BY THE TA AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE ACR Z TO OUR R AT A CRITICAL PHASE OF THE APCH: THE ACR Z CREW PLACED THEIR ACFT IN A POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS SIT UNNECESSARILY BY CLOSING EXTREMELY CLOSE BEHIND THE B757 -- WHOSE WAKE PROB IS WELL-KNOWN. DURING MY CONVERSATION WITH ATC CTLRS ON THE PHONE LATER -- THEY WERE SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THAT IF WE HAD GOTTEN AN RA FROM TCASII WE WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED IT DESPITE KNOWING THE ACR Z FLT WAS BEHIND US. MOST PLTS ASSUME THAT APCHS TO RWY 16L AND RWY 16R WILL BE STAGGERED -- WITH NO PASSING ALLOWED. I RECEIVED SEVERAL COMMENTS FROM PAX ABOUT THE CLOSE PROX OF THE FLT AS IT PASSED US. THANKS.

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.