Narrative:

FMS bridge visual runway 28R at sfo -- conducting east/cvfp approachs an air carrier B757 was slightly ahead for runway 28L. Wind was shifting -- light wind (280 degrees/08 KTS). At about 200 ft MSL, experienced wake turbulence from preceding B757. Control was maintained to touchdown. Contributing factors: oakland approach does not establish proper separation for aircraft when using sfo east/cvfp procedures. They force crews to accept a visual approach, washing their hands of responsibility, leaving the aircraft in an undesirable/unsafe position of separation. If the wind had been ssw, it (turbulence) could have been more serious. Corrective actions: oakland approach should provide more lateral separation between aircraft on east/cvfp approachs, I believe they even compromise on their own rules. Eventually they will put someone into the bay, due to wake turbulence, but of course it will be 'pilot error,' since the pilot was on a visual approach that oakland approach set up. Repeatedly on east/cvfp approachs I have asked which aircraft they are positioning first, they will not respond, they do not know, and will not accept responsibility for their own actions. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: this reporter participated in the wake turbulence callback study. Reporter is very dissatisfied with the separation standards used on the FMS visual approach to runway 28R at sfo. He feels there is no way to avoid wake turbulence as an aircraft approachs the runway ahead of his aircraft with the close separations of 1/8 to 1/4 mi. He understands why the approach design is such as it is, but dislikes it intensely.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 LNDG AT SFO, ENCOUNTERS WAKE TURB 200 FT AGL. CLOSE PROX OF ACFT ON FINAL DUE TO VISUAL APCH DESIGN IS BLAMED BY THE PLT FOR THIS ENCOUNTER.

Narrative: FMS BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R AT SFO -- CONDUCTING E/CVFP APCHS AN ACR B757 WAS SLIGHTLY AHEAD FOR RWY 28L. WIND WAS SHIFTING -- LIGHT WIND (280 DEGS/08 KTS). AT ABOUT 200 FT MSL, EXPERIENCED WAKE TURB FROM PRECEDING B757. CTL WAS MAINTAINED TO TOUCHDOWN. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: OAKLAND APCH DOES NOT ESTABLISH PROPER SEPARATION FOR ACFT WHEN USING SFO E/CVFP PROCS. THEY FORCE CREWS TO ACCEPT A VISUAL APCH, WASHING THEIR HANDS OF RESPONSIBILITY, LEAVING THE ACFT IN AN UNDESIRABLE/UNSAFE POS OF SEPARATION. IF THE WIND HAD BEEN SSW, IT (TURB) COULD HAVE BEEN MORE SERIOUS. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: OAKLAND APCH SHOULD PROVIDE MORE LATERAL SEPARATION BTWN ACFT ON E/CVFP APCHS, I BELIEVE THEY EVEN COMPROMISE ON THEIR OWN RULES. EVENTUALLY THEY WILL PUT SOMEONE INTO THE BAY, DUE TO WAKE TURB, BUT OF COURSE IT WILL BE 'PLT ERROR,' SINCE THE PLT WAS ON A VISUAL APCH THAT OAKLAND APCH SET UP. REPEATEDLY ON E/CVFP APCHS I HAVE ASKED WHICH ACFT THEY ARE POSITIONING FIRST, THEY WILL NOT RESPOND, THEY DO NOT KNOW, AND WILL NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS RPTR PARTICIPATED IN THE WAKE TURB CALLBACK STUDY. RPTR IS VERY DISSATISFIED WITH THE SEPARATION STANDARDS USED ON THE FMS VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R AT SFO. HE FEELS THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID WAKE TURB AS AN ACFT APCHS THE RWY AHEAD OF HIS ACFT WITH THE CLOSE SEPARATIONS OF 1/8 TO 1/4 MI. HE UNDERSTANDS WHY THE APCH DESIGN IS SUCH AS IT IS, BUT DISLIKES IT INTENSELY.

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.