Narrative:

Sfo ATIS indicated ILS runway 28R approach in progress. We loaded ILS runway 28R into FMS. Upon initial contact, sfo approach instructed us to intercept the sfo 095 degree radial and expect a visual approach to runway 28R. The captain asked how I wanted to set up our FMS. I requested that he build me a waypoint to define the sfo 095 degree radial, unaware that this ATC instruction is a precursor to an FMS bridge visual approach clearance. The captain instead offered to load the sfo 095 degree radial into our radio navigation page, which he did. I then selected the rose navigation display on EFIS, and intercepted the radial. The approach controller asked if we had the 'bridge' (san mateo) and airport in sight. The captain answered affirmative, and the approach controller cleared us for the 'bridge visual.' at this point, we were somewhat high and fast, so I decelerated and requested flaps 1 degree. I also explained to the captain that while I could see the bridge, I couldn't see the runway. He pointed out that he could see 'a piece of the runway through that sucker hole' below us. He suggested that I turn off the flight directors and intercept the localizer to runway 28R. He reached up, turned off the flight directors, and I intercepted the localizer using the navigation display. As I did this, I requested flaps 2 degrees just as the approach controller asked us which radial we were tracking inbound. I called for the 'gear down' in order to increase drag and decelerate further. The captain, however, was explaining to the controller that we had been tracking the 095 degree radial, but subsequently intercepted the final approach course when cleared for the visual. Again, I called for the gear down. After finishing his discussion with approach control, the captain contacted the tower as instructed. He then told me that if I didn't do something soon, we wouldn't get down in time. I explained that I had requested the gear down 3 times. We subsequently configured the aircraft, descended through the 1200 ft overcast layer, and landed uneventfully. Upon descending through the clouds, it became clear to my why the approach controller was concerned about the radial that we were tracking inbound. The runway 28L&right ctrlines are separated by only 750 ft. I do not believe that we were ever in conflict with another aircraft. In the future, however, I will be more assertive in requesting that the captain load the FMS bridge visual to runway 28R. I will also recognize that a clearance to intercept the sfo 095 degree radial is a cue that the FMS bridge visual clearance will follow shortly. While our approach was stable, it was highly confused. If this happens in the future, I will suggest a go around and request vectors for another approach.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 CREW INBOUND TO SFO ACCEPT A CHARTED VISUAL APCH BUT INTERCEPTED AND DSNDED ON THE LOC BECAUSE OF OBSERVED WX ON THE FINAL APCH.

Narrative: SFO ATIS INDICATED ILS RWY 28R APCH IN PROGRESS. WE LOADED ILS RWY 28R INTO FMS. UPON INITIAL CONTACT, SFO APCH INSTRUCTED US TO INTERCEPT THE SFO 095 DEG RADIAL AND EXPECT A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R. THE CAPT ASKED HOW I WANTED TO SET UP OUR FMS. I REQUESTED THAT HE BUILD ME A WAYPOINT TO DEFINE THE SFO 095 DEG RADIAL, UNAWARE THAT THIS ATC INSTRUCTION IS A PRECURSOR TO AN FMS BRIDGE VISUAL APCH CLRNC. THE CAPT INSTEAD OFFERED TO LOAD THE SFO 095 DEG RADIAL INTO OUR RADIO NAV PAGE, WHICH HE DID. I THEN SELECTED THE ROSE NAV DISPLAY ON EFIS, AND INTERCEPTED THE RADIAL. THE APCH CTLR ASKED IF WE HAD THE 'BRIDGE' (SAN MATEO) AND ARPT IN SIGHT. THE CAPT ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVE, AND THE APCH CTLR CLRED US FOR THE 'BRIDGE VISUAL.' AT THIS POINT, WE WERE SOMEWHAT HIGH AND FAST, SO I DECELERATED AND REQUESTED FLAPS 1 DEG. I ALSO EXPLAINED TO THE CAPT THAT WHILE I COULD SEE THE BRIDGE, I COULDN'T SEE THE RWY. HE POINTED OUT THAT HE COULD SEE 'A PIECE OF THE RWY THROUGH THAT SUCKER HOLE' BELOW US. HE SUGGESTED THAT I TURN OFF THE FLT DIRECTORS AND INTERCEPT THE LOC TO RWY 28R. HE REACHED UP, TURNED OFF THE FLT DIRECTORS, AND I INTERCEPTED THE LOC USING THE NAV DISPLAY. AS I DID THIS, I REQUESTED FLAPS 2 DEGS JUST AS THE APCH CTLR ASKED US WHICH RADIAL WE WERE TRACKING INBOUND. I CALLED FOR THE 'GEAR DOWN' IN ORDER TO INCREASE DRAG AND DECELERATE FURTHER. THE CAPT, HOWEVER, WAS EXPLAINING TO THE CTLR THAT WE HAD BEEN TRACKING THE 095 DEG RADIAL, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY INTERCEPTED THE FINAL APCH COURSE WHEN CLRED FOR THE VISUAL. AGAIN, I CALLED FOR THE GEAR DOWN. AFTER FINISHING HIS DISCUSSION WITH APCH CTL, THE CAPT CONTACTED THE TWR AS INSTRUCTED. HE THEN TOLD ME THAT IF I DIDN'T DO SOMETHING SOON, WE WOULDN'T GET DOWN IN TIME. I EXPLAINED THAT I HAD REQUESTED THE GEAR DOWN 3 TIMES. WE SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIGURED THE ACFT, DSNDED THROUGH THE 1200 FT OVCST LAYER, AND LANDED UNEVENTFULLY. UPON DSNDING THROUGH THE CLOUDS, IT BECAME CLR TO MY WHY THE APCH CTLR WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE RADIAL THAT WE WERE TRACKING INBOUND. THE RWY 28L&R CTRLINES ARE SEPARATED BY ONLY 750 FT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WE WERE EVER IN CONFLICT WITH ANOTHER ACFT. IN THE FUTURE, HOWEVER, I WILL BE MORE ASSERTIVE IN REQUESTING THAT THE CAPT LOAD THE FMS BRIDGE VISUAL TO RWY 28R. I WILL ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT A CLRNC TO INTERCEPT THE SFO 095 DEG RADIAL IS A CUE THAT THE FMS BRIDGE VISUAL CLRNC WILL FOLLOW SHORTLY. WHILE OUR APCH WAS STABLE, IT WAS HIGHLY CONFUSED. IF THIS HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE, I WILL SUGGEST A GAR AND REQUEST VECTORS FOR ANOTHER APCH.

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.