Narrative:

When contacting bay approach, I advised the controller that I could not accept a visual approach. The controller then asked if I would tell him why I could not do a visual. I explained that since they would be putting me so close in trail to the aircraft on the parallel runway that I could not keep from passing that aircraft and I could not accept that. The controller then advised that if that was my only concern it was not a problem, and in the future all I had to do was say that I did not want anyone abeam on approach. With those assurances, I said that I could accept a visual approach under those conditions. When we switched to the next controller, we were given traffic at 10-11 O'clock, 4 mi. We could not see the traffic at this time. We were next given the traffic at 9-10 O'clock, 2 mi. I then saw the B737 in that relative position, but we had less than 1 mi in trail and still closing, even though we were already at minimum approach speed. I told the controller that we could not keep from passing the aircraft. We were then given a missed approach. I tried to avoid this situation upon initial contact with bay approach, but was lied to in an attempt to force me to accept an unsafe situation! This should not happen! My math tells me that if I start 1/4 mi behind an aircraft and my approach speed is 30 KTS faster, then I will pass the aircraft in about 45 seconds. In the future, I will avoid a similar situation by demanding a full IFR approach. I will not allow a controller to put my aircraft in an unsafe position whether, in a case like this, or not given the 2 min or 5 mi behind a heavy on takeoff.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: WDB HAD TO GAR BECAUSE IT WAS ABOUT TO PASS ANOTHER ACFT ON A PARALLEL APCH.

Narrative: WHEN CONTACTING BAY APCH, I ADVISED THE CTLR THAT I COULD NOT ACCEPT A VISUAL APCH. THE CTLR THEN ASKED IF I WOULD TELL HIM WHY I COULD NOT DO A VISUAL. I EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THEY WOULD BE PUTTING ME SO CLOSE IN TRAIL TO THE ACFT ON THE PARALLEL RWY THAT I COULD NOT KEEP FROM PASSING THAT ACFT AND I COULD NOT ACCEPT THAT. THE CTLR THEN ADVISED THAT IF THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN IT WAS NOT A PROB, AND IN THE FUTURE ALL I HAD TO DO WAS SAY THAT I DID NOT WANT ANYONE ABEAM ON APCH. WITH THOSE ASSURANCES, I SAID THAT I COULD ACCEPT A VISUAL APCH UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS. WHEN WE SWITCHED TO THE NEXT CTLR, WE WERE GIVEN TFC AT 10-11 O'CLOCK, 4 MI. WE COULD NOT SEE THE TFC AT THIS TIME. WE WERE NEXT GIVEN THE TFC AT 9-10 O'CLOCK, 2 MI. I THEN SAW THE B737 IN THAT RELATIVE POS, BUT WE HAD LESS THAN 1 MI IN TRAIL AND STILL CLOSING, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE ALREADY AT MINIMUM APCH SPD. I TOLD THE CTLR THAT WE COULD NOT KEEP FROM PASSING THE ACFT. WE WERE THEN GIVEN A MISSED APCH. I TRIED TO AVOID THIS SIT UPON INITIAL CONTACT WITH BAY APCH, BUT WAS LIED TO IN AN ATTEMPT TO FORCE ME TO ACCEPT AN UNSAFE SIT! THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN! MY MATH TELLS ME THAT IF I START 1/4 MI BEHIND AN ACFT AND MY APCH SPD IS 30 KTS FASTER, THEN I WILL PASS THE ACFT IN ABOUT 45 SECONDS. IN THE FUTURE, I WILL AVOID A SIMILAR SIT BY DEMANDING A FULL IFR APCH. I WILL NOT ALLOW A CTLR TO PUT MY ACFT IN AN UNSAFE POS WHETHER, IN A CASE LIKE THIS, OR NOT GIVEN THE 2 MIN OR 5 MI BEHIND A HVY ON TKOF.

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.