Narrative:

Flying a 240 degree heading to intercept sfo 095 degree radial for a quiet bridge runway 28R landing at sfo. At 11000 ft approach pointed out traffic at our 10 O'clock position, which we saw. I don't remember that a course was given. After that we were asked if the airport was in sight. We reported the airport and was cleared to 7000 ft for the quiet bridge runway 28R visual approach. We did not receive any information that our course and the other aircraft would be crossing or to maintain visual separation. We had previously programmed the approach with crossing altitudes in the FMC. While descending and intercepting the 095 degree radial, the other aircraft's position was obstructed by my window side frame. About 9500 ft the copilot commented that this isn't going to work. He brought my attention to the converging aircraft. The TCASII then gave a caution warning, followed by an RA, which I followed. We passed above and behind the other aircraft. The avoidance maneuver was basically a normal leveling from a normal 1500 FPM descent at 250 KTS. The other aircraft did not appear to make any attempt to change altitude or heading to avoid the conflict. We are encouraged to use the visual approach to sfo to increase traffic flow and to reduce noise. To more safely do this we need more information on crossing VFR traffic. Even better, there ought to be a dedicated arrival and departure corridor for greater safety. The problem of visual separation between aircraft, especially at night, at vastly different speeds, added to changing altitudes, is very difficult and inaccurate. To reduce noise we try to maintain speeds and confign to allow us to use minimum power to short final. The major carriers have had to reduce speeds below 10000 ft for yrs in an attempt to make VFR separations safer. Now it is time to develop some arrival/departure corridors to keep VFR traffic from causing this kind of conflict. Supplemental information from acn 307579: traffic was spotted at our 10 O'clock position, 8500 ft and approximately 10 mi. After acquired target was reported to ATC, a clearance was issued to maintain 7000 ft. A descent rate was established at approximately 1700 FPM. Around 9300 ft the PNF noticed that current path would take them through the other aircraft's path and altitude, so he verbalized his concern. When traffic was issued by ATC, and target acquired by both pilots, I did not know what ATC had planned for us or for the target aircraft. Instructions were not given to maintain visual separation with traffic. A comment was made to ATC by the pilot of the other aircraft, as to our position relative to him, at which point ATC instructed him that he was out of class B airspace and he was responsible for his own traffic separation. After complying with the TCASII RA a clearance was given to us for the quiet bridge visual approach. The rest of the approach was uneventful. When ATC issues a clearance that would cross a conflicting aircraft path, whether controled or not (this can only be known for certain by ATC), the instruction should include maintain visual separation with related traffic. From my standpoint there was no way to tell if this aircraft was under ATC control. We assumed he was (aircraft was in class east airspace). The aircraft was only being given TA's.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR COMPLAINT ON ATC HANDLING WITH REGARDS TO AIRSPACE ALLOCATION ON SFO QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28 APCH.

Narrative: FLYING A 240 DEG HDG TO INTERCEPT SFO 095 DEG RADIAL FOR A QUIET BRIDGE RWY 28R LNDG AT SFO. AT 11000 FT APCH POINTED OUT TFC AT OUR 10 O'CLOCK POS, WHICH WE SAW. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT A COURSE WAS GIVEN. AFTER THAT WE WERE ASKED IF THE ARPT WAS IN SIGHT. WE RPTED THE ARPT AND WAS CLRED TO 7000 FT FOR THE QUIET BRIDGE RWY 28R VISUAL APCH. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY INFO THAT OUR COURSE AND THE OTHER ACFT WOULD BE XING OR TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PROGRAMMED THE APCH WITH XING ALTS IN THE FMC. WHILE DSNDING AND INTERCEPTING THE 095 DEG RADIAL, THE OTHER ACFT'S POS WAS OBSTRUCTED BY MY WINDOW SIDE FRAME. ABOUT 9500 FT THE COPLT COMMENTED THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK. HE BROUGHT MY ATTN TO THE CONVERGING ACFT. THE TCASII THEN GAVE A CAUTION WARNING, FOLLOWED BY AN RA, WHICH I FOLLOWED. WE PASSED ABOVE AND BEHIND THE OTHER ACFT. THE AVOIDANCE MANEUVER WAS BASICALLY A NORMAL LEVELING FROM A NORMAL 1500 FPM DSCNT AT 250 KTS. THE OTHER ACFT DID NOT APPEAR TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE ALT OR HDG TO AVOID THE CONFLICT. WE ARE ENCOURAGED TO USE THE VISUAL APCH TO SFO TO INCREASE TFC FLOW AND TO REDUCE NOISE. TO MORE SAFELY DO THIS WE NEED MORE INFO ON XING VFR TFC. EVEN BETTER, THERE OUGHT TO BE A DEDICATED ARR AND DEP CORRIDOR FOR GREATER SAFETY. THE PROB OF VISUAL SEPARATION BTWN ACFT, ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT, AT VASTLY DIFFERENT SPDS, ADDED TO CHANGING ALTS, IS VERY DIFFICULT AND INACCURATE. TO REDUCE NOISE WE TRY TO MAINTAIN SPDS AND CONFIGN TO ALLOW US TO USE MINIMUM PWR TO SHORT FINAL. THE MAJOR CARRIERS HAVE HAD TO REDUCE SPDS BELOW 10000 FT FOR YRS IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE VFR SEPARATIONS SAFER. NOW IT IS TIME TO DEVELOP SOME ARR/DEP CORRIDORS TO KEEP VFR TFC FROM CAUSING THIS KIND OF CONFLICT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 307579: TFC WAS SPOTTED AT OUR 10 O'CLOCK POS, 8500 FT AND APPROX 10 MI. AFTER ACQUIRED TARGET WAS RPTED TO ATC, A CLRNC WAS ISSUED TO MAINTAIN 7000 FT. A DSCNT RATE WAS ESTABLISHED AT APPROX 1700 FPM. AROUND 9300 FT THE PNF NOTICED THAT CURRENT PATH WOULD TAKE THEM THROUGH THE OTHER ACFT'S PATH AND ALT, SO HE VERBALIZED HIS CONCERN. WHEN TFC WAS ISSUED BY ATC, AND TARGET ACQUIRED BY BOTH PLTS, I DID NOT KNOW WHAT ATC HAD PLANNED FOR US OR FOR THE TARGET ACFT. INSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT GIVEN TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH TFC. A COMMENT WAS MADE TO ATC BY THE PLT OF THE OTHER ACFT, AS TO OUR POS RELATIVE TO HIM, AT WHICH POINT ATC INSTRUCTED HIM THAT HE WAS OUT OF CLASS B AIRSPACE AND HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN TFC SEPARATION. AFTER COMPLYING WITH THE TCASII RA A CLRNC WAS GIVEN TO US FOR THE QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL APCH. THE REST OF THE APCH WAS UNEVENTFUL. WHEN ATC ISSUES A CLRNC THAT WOULD CROSS A CONFLICTING ACFT PATH, WHETHER CTLED OR NOT (THIS CAN ONLY BE KNOWN FOR CERTAIN BY ATC), THE INSTRUCTION SHOULD INCLUDE MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH RELATED TFC. FROM MY STANDPOINT THERE WAS NO WAY TO TELL IF THIS ACFT WAS UNDER ATC CTL. WE ASSUMED HE WAS (ACFT WAS IN CLASS E AIRSPACE). THE ACFT WAS ONLY BEING GIVEN TA'S.

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.