Narrative:

Substandard handling by sfo approach/tower started with being kept high after passing sfo VOR. Kept at 11000 ft for some time and then descended incrementally to 9000 ft, 8000 ft and 7000 ft. By this time we were on a 310 degree heading to get set up for a visual to runway 28L. WX was excellent VMC. Still at 7000 ft and getting close in, looking for traffic for the right and trying to get a clearance for a lower altitude. Verified our traffic as a B757 and controller cleared us for a visual via the sfo 101 degree radial, which I refused, asking for an unrestr visual, which he granted with the caveat not to pass B757, keep speed up to 170 KTS, go to tower. At this point we had just left 7000 ft and were about 12 mi out with slight tailwind. My first officer had her hands full of B777 trying to get it down. She did a good job but did require a little assistance from me. In the meantime, sfo tower says cleared to land, don't pass B757. I can immediately see this is going to be a problem due to our speed already being at target, and still overtaking B757. With no help from tower, I took matters into my own hands and asked B757 his speed. Reply was 135 KTS. I asked if he could do 140 KTS and he clicked the microphone twice in assent. Landing was completed successfully, meeting all requirements for stabilized approach. Was asked to call tower on landing (no surprise) and upon reaching supervisor he politely asked what happened. After detailing the poor handling, he agreed with my assessment, but felt it necessary to inform me that broadcasting on local was perhaps inappropriate and that I should use caution in the future. I told him that I was aware of the proscription, but I felt barring any sort of nominal help from tower, I had no choice. He then repeated his admonition even though he understood my frustration. I began to get a little testy and repeated my motives. He then said that he was equally frustrated due to lack of direction from FAA brass, and repeated admonition again. He did not seem to get the point that this our approach was rapidly deteriorating and required positive intervention to save it. This is how serious incidents and accidents start out, so I dropped the subject. I also told him that the PAPI was inoperative for runway 28L which did not help. He said he was not aware of that and would immediately check into it. Our conversation was mostly very cordial, if frustrating, and it was left with no further action contemplated by him. I suggested that we should both make a report and he agreed. I also reminded him that we cannot fly these hvys like B737S and that we had been flying for 11 plus hours. To me I would think that hvys would get a little more consideration by approach/tower. He also agreed with my contention that we would have been the one forced to go around if we lost sight of B757 below us and that this would not have been the best situation. I would do the same thing in the future, even risking violation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BOEING 777 FLC ASKED ANOTHER ACFT TO INCREASE SPD TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT ON A PARALLEL VISUAL APCH TO SFO.

Narrative: SUBSTANDARD HANDLING BY SFO APCH/TWR STARTED WITH BEING KEPT HIGH AFTER PASSING SFO VOR. KEPT AT 11000 FT FOR SOME TIME AND THEN DSNDED INCREMENTALLY TO 9000 FT, 8000 FT AND 7000 FT. BY THIS TIME WE WERE ON A 310 DEG HDG TO GET SET UP FOR A VISUAL TO RWY 28L. WX WAS EXCELLENT VMC. STILL AT 7000 FT AND GETTING CLOSE IN, LOOKING FOR TFC FOR THE R AND TRYING TO GET A CLRNC FOR A LOWER ALT. VERIFIED OUR TFC AS A B757 AND CTLR CLRED US FOR A VISUAL VIA THE SFO 101 DEG RADIAL, WHICH I REFUSED, ASKING FOR AN UNRESTR VISUAL, WHICH HE GRANTED WITH THE CAVEAT NOT TO PASS B757, KEEP SPD UP TO 170 KTS, GO TO TWR. AT THIS POINT WE HAD JUST LEFT 7000 FT AND WERE ABOUT 12 MI OUT WITH SLIGHT TAILWIND. MY FO HAD HER HANDS FULL OF B777 TRYING TO GET IT DOWN. SHE DID A GOOD JOB BUT DID REQUIRE A LITTLE ASSISTANCE FROM ME. IN THE MEANTIME, SFO TWR SAYS CLRED TO LAND, DON'T PASS B757. I CAN IMMEDIATELY SEE THIS IS GOING TO BE A PROB DUE TO OUR SPD ALREADY BEING AT TARGET, AND STILL OVERTAKING B757. WITH NO HELP FROM TWR, I TOOK MATTERS INTO MY OWN HANDS AND ASKED B757 HIS SPD. REPLY WAS 135 KTS. I ASKED IF HE COULD DO 140 KTS AND HE CLICKED THE MIKE TWICE IN ASSENT. LNDG WAS COMPLETED SUCCESSFULLY, MEETING ALL REQUIREMENTS FOR STABILIZED APCH. WAS ASKED TO CALL TWR ON LNDG (NO SURPRISE) AND UPON REACHING SUPVR HE POLITELY ASKED WHAT HAPPENED. AFTER DETAILING THE POOR HANDLING, HE AGREED WITH MY ASSESSMENT, BUT FELT IT NECESSARY TO INFORM ME THAT BROADCASTING ON LCL WAS PERHAPS INAPPROPRIATE AND THAT I SHOULD USE CAUTION IN THE FUTURE. I TOLD HIM THAT I WAS AWARE OF THE PROSCRIPTION, BUT I FELT BARRING ANY SORT OF NOMINAL HELP FROM TWR, I HAD NO CHOICE. HE THEN REPEATED HIS ADMONITION EVEN THOUGH HE UNDERSTOOD MY FRUSTRATION. I BEGAN TO GET A LITTLE TESTY AND REPEATED MY MOTIVES. HE THEN SAID THAT HE WAS EQUALLY FRUSTRATED DUE TO LACK OF DIRECTION FROM FAA BRASS, AND REPEATED ADMONITION AGAIN. HE DID NOT SEEM TO GET THE POINT THAT THIS OUR APCH WAS RAPIDLY DETERIORATING AND REQUIRED POSITIVE INTERVENTION TO SAVE IT. THIS IS HOW SERIOUS INCIDENTS AND ACCIDENTS START OUT, SO I DROPPED THE SUBJECT. I ALSO TOLD HIM THAT THE PAPI WAS INOP FOR RWY 28L WHICH DID NOT HELP. HE SAID HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT AND WOULD IMMEDIATELY CHK INTO IT. OUR CONVERSATION WAS MOSTLY VERY CORDIAL, IF FRUSTRATING, AND IT WAS LEFT WITH NO FURTHER ACTION CONTEMPLATED BY HIM. I SUGGESTED THAT WE SHOULD BOTH MAKE A RPT AND HE AGREED. I ALSO REMINDED HIM THAT WE CANNOT FLY THESE HVYS LIKE B737S AND THAT WE HAD BEEN FLYING FOR 11 PLUS HRS. TO ME I WOULD THINK THAT HVYS WOULD GET A LITTLE MORE CONSIDERATION BY APCH/TWR. HE ALSO AGREED WITH MY CONTENTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE FORCED TO GO AROUND IF WE LOST SIGHT OF B757 BELOW US AND THAT THIS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BEST SIT. I WOULD DO THE SAME THING IN THE FUTURE, EVEN RISKING VIOLATION.

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.