Multiple runway operation parallel runways. Air carrier X unhappy with visual sideby approachs.

Attributes
ACN	295415
Time
Date	199502
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	1201 To 1800
Place
Locale Reference	atc facility : sfo
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4000 msl bound upper : 4000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : oak tower : bos
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	enroute : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 110 flight time total : 11000 flight time type : 2800
ASRS Report	295415
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne less severe
Independent Detector	other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	Other
Miss Distance	horizontal : 750 vertical : 0
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

ATIS, which was 1 hour old, reported 1300 ft broken, 3100 ft broken, with good visibility underneath. After passing over sfo VOR, air carrier X was given a heading of 100 degrees and an altitude of 6000 ft. Bay approach said 'radar vectors for a visual approach' to a previous flight. I heard air carrier Y being vectored for the visual approach to runway 28L. We were given a turn to 180 degrees and a descent to 4000 ft and 'you have traffic at your 12 O'clock.' I said, 'we are in the clouds.' bay then said 'come to 230 degrees, descend to 1600 ft, report the field.' at about 3700 ft, we broke out and I saw the field. I said, 'I have the field.' bay replied, 'cleared visual runway 28R, you have traffic at 10 O'clock, contact tower.' I said, 'I don't have the traffic.' bay replied, 'that's ok, he has you in sight and the tower will provide visual separation.' I then saw air carrier Y 737 slightly ahead and below. We were wingtip-to-wingtip from 2 mi out to touchdown. Tower made no mention of traffic. Some areas of concern: 1) approach vectoring for a visual approach in marginal WX, keeping you high, and making it difficult to transition to the ILS if you don't break out. 2) I never heard report traffic in sight nor being told to 'maintain visual separation.' 3) approach gave a heading and a descent toward parallel traffic after I stated that we were in the clouds. 4) after I broke out and said that I didn't have the traffic, the statement that, 'he will maintain visual on you,' (we had just broken out, were above and behind him, and I never heard him accept responsibility for visual separation.) 5) I question the statement that 'tower will provide visual separation.' we had similar approach speeds, and I don't believe that tower's equipment or workload would allow this. The sometimes-used procedure of having 1 aircraft do an s-turn to increase stagger is dangerous and unacceptable where there is only 750 ft between runway ctrlines. The 'forcing' of parallel visual approachs in marginal WX with questionable procedures is unsafe.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP PARALLEL RWYS. ACR X UNHAPPY WITH VISUAL SIDEBY APCHS.

Narrative: ATIS, WHICH WAS 1 HR OLD, RPTED 1300 FT BROKEN, 3100 FT BROKEN, WITH GOOD VISIBILITY UNDERNEATH. AFTER PASSING OVER SFO VOR, ACR X WAS GIVEN A HDG OF 100 DEGS AND AN ALT OF 6000 FT. BAY APCH SAID 'RADAR VECTORS FOR A VISUAL APCH' TO A PREVIOUS FLT. I HEARD ACR Y BEING VECTORED FOR THE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28L. WE WERE GIVEN A TURN TO 180 DEGS AND A DSCNT TO 4000 FT AND 'YOU HAVE TFC AT YOUR 12 O'CLOCK.' I SAID, 'WE ARE IN THE CLOUDS.' BAY THEN SAID 'COME TO 230 DEGS, DSND TO 1600 FT, RPT THE FIELD.' AT ABOUT 3700 FT, WE BROKE OUT AND I SAW THE FIELD. I SAID, 'I HAVE THE FIELD.' BAY REPLIED, 'CLRED VISUAL RWY 28R, YOU HAVE TFC AT 10 O'CLOCK, CONTACT TWR.' I SAID, 'I DON'T HAVE THE TFC.' BAY REPLIED, 'THAT'S OK, HE HAS YOU IN SIGHT AND THE TWR WILL PROVIDE VISUAL SEPARATION.' I THEN SAW ACR Y 737 SLIGHTLY AHEAD AND BELOW. WE WERE WINGTIP-TO-WINGTIP FROM 2 MI OUT TO TOUCHDOWN. TWR MADE NO MENTION OF TFC. SOME AREAS OF CONCERN: 1) APCH VECTORING FOR A VISUAL APCH IN MARGINAL WX, KEEPING YOU HIGH, AND MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO TRANSITION TO THE ILS IF YOU DON'T BREAK OUT. 2) I NEVER HEARD RPT TFC IN SIGHT NOR BEING TOLD TO 'MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.' 3) APCH GAVE A HDG AND A DSCNT TOWARD PARALLEL TFC AFTER I STATED THAT WE WERE IN THE CLOUDS. 4) AFTER I BROKE OUT AND SAID THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THE TFC, THE STATEMENT THAT, 'HE WILL MAINTAIN VISUAL ON YOU,' (WE HAD JUST BROKEN OUT, WERE ABOVE AND BEHIND HIM, AND I NEVER HEARD HIM ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR VISUAL SEPARATION.) 5) I QUESTION THE STATEMENT THAT 'TWR WILL PROVIDE VISUAL SEPARATION.' WE HAD SIMILAR APCH SPDS, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TWR'S EQUIP OR WORKLOAD WOULD ALLOW THIS. THE SOMETIMES-USED PROC OF HAVING 1 ACFT DO AN S-TURN TO INCREASE STAGGER IS DANGEROUS AND UNACCEPTABLE WHERE THERE IS ONLY 750 FT BTWN RWY CTRLINES. THE 'FORCING' OF PARALLEL VISUAL APCHS IN MARGINAL WX WITH QUESTIONABLE PROCS IS UNSAFE.

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.