Narrative:

Improper ATC clearance, misleading instructions. We were flying an airbus A319 series airliner into the sfo arrival flow mod 2 arrival, expecting the FMS visual runway 28R, WX severe clear, afternoon haze and low sun angle west. Our initial approach clearance was 'direct archi, expect the FMS runway 28R.' after switching to the final controller, we were re-cleared to maintain heading and intercept the ILS runway 28L, with a subsequent clearance for the 'ILS runway 28L approach.' about 4 miles outside of the OM, final controller asked us to spot another small aircraft (light twin cessna) to our right. After switching to tower, the tower controller repeatedly asked us if we still had the traffic, which was our first indication that this traffic was also landing at sfo! Since we were not able to slow any further, the cessna driver essentially 'floored it' to stay ahead of us to the runway (a tip of the hat and a tall cold one to that pilot, whoever he/she is). Issues: at no time, were we instructed to 'follow' the cessna by any controller until switched to sfo tower (120.5). There is no mention anywhere in connecticut charts referring to this issue which is apparently unique to this airport. Since we are not based at sfo, we are not familiar with local 'customs' or other unique 'traffic enhancement' procedures. Another issue here with clrncs to not pass parallel VFR traffic on runway 28L/right is the mismatch of approach speeds. The airbus equipment normally does not fly a fixed indicated approach speed. Rather, the airbus flys a 'managed v-app speed,' which is essentially flying a calculated ground speed. As the headwind increases, the airbus indicated approach airspeed increases to maintain the calculated ground speed. The net effect is that it would have been impossible for us to remain behind a light twin aircraft, since the winds at the OM altitude were 280/25-30 KTS, and reported at 15 KTS at the field our indicated speed was initially 150 KIAS in the fully-configured, stabilized v-app speed at the OM altitude, and 139 KIAS at touchdown. Recommendations: 1) publish in the company connecticut pages information about these formation approachs for those of us who infrequently fly into sfo. 2) approach controllers must specifically state 'cleared visual and do not pass traffic.' 3) don't mix airbus and small twin traffic without additional separation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A319 CAPT COMPLAINT REGARDING CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO SFO. WITH A TWIN CESSNA AHEAD AND ON THE PARALLEL RWY WITHOUT HAVING ATC SPECIFICALLY STATING TO NOT PASS TFC, BUT ONLY ASKING IF THEY HAD THE OTHER TFC.

Narrative: IMPROPER ATC CLRNC, MISLEADING INSTRUCTIONS. WE WERE FLYING AN AIRBUS A319 SERIES AIRLINER INTO THE SFO ARR FLOW MOD 2 ARR, EXPECTING THE FMS VISUAL RWY 28R, WX SEVERE CLR, AFTERNOON HAZE AND LOW SUN ANGLE W. OUR INITIAL APCH CLRNC WAS 'DIRECT ARCHI, EXPECT THE FMS RWY 28R.' AFTER SWITCHING TO THE FINAL CTLR, WE WERE RE-CLEARED TO MAINTAIN HEADING AND INTERCEPT THE ILS RWY 28L, WITH A SUBSEQUENT CLRNC FOR THE 'ILS RWY 28L APCH.' ABOUT 4 MILES OUTSIDE OF THE OM, FINAL CTLR ASKED US TO SPOT ANOTHER SMALL ACFT (LIGHT TWIN CESSNA) TO OUR R. AFTER SWITCHING TO TWR, THE TWR CTLR REPEATEDLY ASKED US IF WE STILL HAD THE TFC, WHICH WAS OUR FIRST INDICATION THAT THIS TFC WAS ALSO LNDG AT SFO! SINCE WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SLOW ANY FURTHER, THE CESSNA DRIVER ESSENTIALLY 'FLOORED IT' TO STAY AHEAD OF US TO THE RWY (A TIP OF THE HAT AND A TALL COLD ONE TO THAT PLT, WHOEVER HE/SHE IS). ISSUES: AT NO TIME, WERE WE INSTRUCTED TO 'FOLLOW' THE CESSNA BY ANY CTLR UNTIL SWITCHED TO SFO TWR (120.5). THERE IS NO MENTION ANYWHERE IN CONNECTICUT CHARTS REFERRING TO THIS ISSUE WHICH IS APPARENTLY UNIQUE TO THIS ARPT. SINCE WE ARE NOT BASED AT SFO, WE ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH LCL 'CUSTOMS' OR OTHER UNIQUE 'TFC ENHANCEMENT' PROCS. ANOTHER ISSUE HERE WITH CLRNCS TO NOT PASS PARALLEL VFR TFC ON RWY 28L/R IS THE MISMATCH OF APCH SPEEDS. THE AIRBUS EQUIPMENT NORMALLY DOES NOT FLY A FIXED INDICATED APCH SPEED. RATHER, THE AIRBUS FLYS A 'MANAGED V-APP SPEED,' WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY FLYING A CALCULATED GND SPEED. AS THE HEADWIND INCREASES, THE AIRBUS INDICATED APCH AIRSPEED INCREASES TO MAINTAIN THE CALCULATED GND SPEED. THE NET EFFECT IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO REMAIN BEHIND A LIGHT TWIN ACFT, SINCE THE WINDS AT THE OM ALTITUDE WERE 280/25-30 KTS, AND RPTED AT 15 KTS AT THE FIELD OUR INDICATED SPEED WAS INITIALLY 150 KIAS IN THE FULLY-CONFIGURED, STABILIZED V-APP SPEED AT THE OM ALTITUDE, AND 139 KIAS AT TOUCHDOWN. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) PUBLISH IN THE COMPANY CONNECTICUT PAGES INFO ABOUT THESE FORMATION APCHS FOR THOSE OF US WHO INFREQUENTLY FLY INTO SFO. 2) APCH CTLRS MUST SPECIFICALLY STATE 'CLRED VISUAL AND DO NOT PASS TFC.' 3) DON'T MIX AIRBUS AND SMALL TWIN TFC WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SEPARATION.

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.