Narrative:

Parallel visual approachs to runways 28L&right were in use at sfo. There was no cloud cover, and visibility was good, probably 15 mi or better. At XA30 the sun was still fully above the horizon, and visibility towards the sun was somewhat reduced. Our flight was established on the runway 28L localizer and GS about 3 mi from the FAF at an assigned airspeed of 170 KTS, cleared for a visual approach, and landing clearance was issued by the tower. We had been watching a B757 approaching our right side from the north. This B757 was assigned to runway 28R and had been pointed out by approach control as our parallel traffic. Immediately after our call to the tower approaching the FAF, it was obvious that the B757 was drifting left of the centerline of runway 28R. I asked the tower what the B757 was doing, and tower replied 'I don't know, I'm not talking to him.' we were about to break off the approach when we observed the nose come up on the B757 as he initiated a go around. At this point the other aircraft was just off our right wing. During his missed approach, the B757 drifted further left and passed a few hundred ft over our cockpit, and flew a missed approach track to the left of the runway 28L centerline. Our only evasive maneuver was to descend slightly below the glide path momentarily. It appears likely that although we were pointed out to the B757 earlier by approach control, the B757 did not see us during the later phase of his approach. There were several contributing factors to this incident: the sun was low on the horizon to the west. Although we could see the airport clearly from 10-15 mi away and could see the aircraft to our right easily, he may not have been able to see us in the sun's glare. Also, although we were cleared for a visual approach, we were assigned a speed of 170 KTS to the FAF, limiting our ability to space ourselves a little ahead or behind the other traffic. As a consequence, the other traffic ended up directly off our right wingtip. A large contributing factor was the split frequency arrangement in use at bay TRACON. At no time during the whole episode were the 2 airplanes involved able to speak to each other or to the same controller. The B757 was working the north side approach frequency, and we were initially on the south frequency, and later the tower. As far as I know, the B757 never changed to tower frequency, as he had begun his missed approach just outside of the FAF. Consequently, the 2 aircraft were never speaking to the same ATC facility or sharing a common frequency, even though they were flying only a few hundred ft apart. Last, the B757 initiated a go around because he got too close to the aircraft he was following to runway 28R, not because he saw us. High cockpit workload in the B757 cockpit may have contributed to his not seeing us. In summary, the following conditions all contributed to setting up this near miss: 1) 2 aircraft vectored towards each other were on different frequencys, speaking to different facilities. No coordination was possible. 2) sun glare at that time of evening may have made observing traffic to the left difficult or impossible. 3) accepting an assigned airspeed up to the FAF degraded the ability of our aircraft to maneuver while on a visual approach. We were essentially 'put in the slot' (localizer and GS) at an assigned speed by approach control while still being expected to maintain a safe separation from other traffic. What parameter were we permitted to change? 4) possible high workload in the other cockpit due to proximity of preceding traffic to his runway. It is not known at this time why the B757 drifted through the runway 28R centerline, and eventually through the runway 28L centerline as well.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: HVY JET CREW ON VISUAL APCH INTO SFO RWY 28L RPTED AN NMAC WITH TFC ATTEMPTING TO MAKE AN APCH TO RWY 28R.

Narrative: PARALLEL VISUAL APCHS TO RWYS 28L&R WERE IN USE AT SFO. THERE WAS NO CLOUD COVER, AND VISIBILITY WAS GOOD, PROBABLY 15 MI OR BETTER. AT XA30 THE SUN WAS STILL FULLY ABOVE THE HORIZON, AND VISIBILITY TOWARDS THE SUN WAS SOMEWHAT REDUCED. OUR FLT WAS ESTABLISHED ON THE RWY 28L LOC AND GS ABOUT 3 MI FROM THE FAF AT AN ASSIGNED AIRSPD OF 170 KTS, CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH, AND LNDG CLRNC WAS ISSUED BY THE TWR. WE HAD BEEN WATCHING A B757 APCHING OUR R SIDE FROM THE N. THIS B757 WAS ASSIGNED TO RWY 28R AND HAD BEEN POINTED OUT BY APCH CTL AS OUR PARALLEL TFC. IMMEDIATELY AFTER OUR CALL TO THE TWR APCHING THE FAF, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE B757 WAS DRIFTING L OF THE CTRLINE OF RWY 28R. I ASKED THE TWR WHAT THE B757 WAS DOING, AND TWR REPLIED 'I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT TALKING TO HIM.' WE WERE ABOUT TO BREAK OFF THE APCH WHEN WE OBSERVED THE NOSE COME UP ON THE B757 AS HE INITIATED A GAR. AT THIS POINT THE OTHER ACFT WAS JUST OFF OUR R WING. DURING HIS MISSED APCH, THE B757 DRIFTED FURTHER L AND PASSED A FEW HUNDRED FT OVER OUR COCKPIT, AND FLEW A MISSED APCH TRACK TO THE L OF THE RWY 28L CTRLINE. OUR ONLY EVASIVE MANEUVER WAS TO DSND SLIGHTLY BELOW THE GLIDE PATH MOMENTARILY. IT APPEARS LIKELY THAT ALTHOUGH WE WERE POINTED OUT TO THE B757 EARLIER BY APCH CTL, THE B757 DID NOT SEE US DURING THE LATER PHASE OF HIS APCH. THERE WERE SEVERAL CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THIS INCIDENT: THE SUN WAS LOW ON THE HORIZON TO THE W. ALTHOUGH WE COULD SEE THE ARPT CLRLY FROM 10-15 MI AWAY AND COULD SEE THE ACFT TO OUR R EASILY, HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE US IN THE SUN'S GLARE. ALSO, ALTHOUGH WE WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH, WE WERE ASSIGNED A SPD OF 170 KTS TO THE FAF, LIMITING OUR ABILITY TO SPACE OURSELVES A LITTLE AHEAD OR BEHIND THE OTHER TFC. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE OTHER TFC ENDED UP DIRECTLY OFF OUR R WINGTIP. A LARGE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THE SPLIT FREQ ARRANGEMENT IN USE AT BAY TRACON. AT NO TIME DURING THE WHOLE EPISODE WERE THE 2 AIRPLANES INVOLVED ABLE TO SPEAK TO EACH OTHER OR TO THE SAME CTLR. THE B757 WAS WORKING THE N SIDE APCH FREQ, AND WE WERE INITIALLY ON THE S FREQ, AND LATER THE TWR. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE B757 NEVER CHANGED TO TWR FREQ, AS HE HAD BEGUN HIS MISSED APCH JUST OUTSIDE OF THE FAF. CONSEQUENTLY, THE 2 ACFT WERE NEVER SPEAKING TO THE SAME ATC FACILITY OR SHARING A COMMON FREQ, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE FLYING ONLY A FEW HUNDRED FT APART. LAST, THE B757 INITIATED A GAR BECAUSE HE GOT TOO CLOSE TO THE ACFT HE WAS FOLLOWING TO RWY 28R, NOT BECAUSE HE SAW US. HIGH COCKPIT WORKLOAD IN THE B757 COCKPIT MAY HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO HIS NOT SEEING US. IN SUMMARY, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ALL CONTRIBUTED TO SETTING UP THIS NEAR MISS: 1) 2 ACFT VECTORED TOWARDS EACH OTHER WERE ON DIFFERENT FREQS, SPEAKING TO DIFFERENT FACILITIES. NO COORD WAS POSSIBLE. 2) SUN GLARE AT THAT TIME OF EVENING MAY HAVE MADE OBSERVING TFC TO THE L DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE. 3) ACCEPTING AN ASSIGNED AIRSPD UP TO THE FAF DEGRADED THE ABILITY OF OUR ACFT TO MANEUVER WHILE ON A VISUAL APCH. WE WERE ESSENTIALLY 'PUT IN THE SLOT' (LOC AND GS) AT AN ASSIGNED SPD BY APCH CTL WHILE STILL BEING EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN A SAFE SEPARATION FROM OTHER TFC. WHAT PARAMETER WERE WE PERMITTED TO CHANGE? 4) POSSIBLE HIGH WORKLOAD IN THE OTHER COCKPIT DUE TO PROX OF PRECEDING TFC TO HIS RWY. IT IS NOT KNOWN AT THIS TIME WHY THE B757 DRIFTED THROUGH THE RWY 28R CTRLINE, AND EVENTUALLY THROUGH THE RWY 28L CTRLINE AS WELL.

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.