Narrative:

On tiptoe visual runway 28L into sfo airport. We were just inside menlo when approach control advised us to look for traffic that was assigned to runway 28R. I saw the lights from two aircraft in that vicinity and could not positively identify which one he was pointing out. Approach told us that the other traffic had us in sight and they would maintain visual separation. The other aircraft asked approach which one of us was first. Approach said, whichever one gets there first. Upon reaching the outer marker, we positively identified the other aircraft. We appeared to be closer to the airport with them off our right side, and they were slightly higher. Approach asked if we had them insight. We replied yes. Approach told us to maintain visual separation, he cleared us for the visual approach and told us to contact the tower. We contacted the tower and were cleared to land. Moments later, the other aircraft came up on tower frequency and was cleared to land. Throughout the approach, the other aircraft was just off our right side and slightly higher. Upon reaching 200-300 AGL, the other aircraft reported they were going around. When tower asked the reason for the go around, they reported that they felt the spacing with us was too close. Tower told them that they do these type of approachs all of the time into sfo. We never went north of the extended center line for runway 28L and they never appeared to have come south of the extended centerline for runway 28R.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737 ON SHORT FINAL DURING A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R PERFORMS A GAR WHEN THE PIC FEELS HE IS TOO CLOSE TO THE MD80 OFF HIS L WING ON THE TIP TOE VISUAL OF RWY 28L AT SFO, CA.

Narrative: ON TIPTOE VISUAL RWY 28L INTO SFO ARPT. WE WERE JUST INSIDE MENLO WHEN APCH CTL ADVISED US TO LOOK FOR TFC THAT WAS ASSIGNED TO RWY 28R. I SAW THE LIGHTS FROM TWO ACFT IN THAT VICINITY AND COULD NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFY WHICH ONE HE WAS POINTING OUT. APCH TOLD US THAT THE OTHER TFC HAD US IN SIGHT AND THEY WOULD MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. THE OTHER ACFT ASKED APCH WHICH ONE OF US WAS FIRST. APCH SAID, WHICHEVER ONE GETS THERE FIRST. UPON REACHING THE OUTER MARKER, WE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED THE OTHER ACFT. WE APPEARED TO BE CLOSER TO THE ARPT WITH THEM OFF OUR R SIDE, AND THEY WERE SLIGHTLY HIGHER. APCH ASKED IF WE HAD THEM INSIGHT. WE REPLIED YES. APCH TOLD US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION, HE CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL APCH AND TOLD US TO CONTACT THE TWR. WE CONTACTED THE TWR AND WERE CLRED TO LAND. MOMENTS LATER, THE OTHER ACFT CAME UP ON TWR FREQUENCY AND WAS CLRED TO LAND. THROUGHOUT THE APCH, THE OTHER ACFT WAS JUST OFF OUR R SIDE AND SLIGHTLY HIGHER. UPON REACHING 200-300 AGL, THE OTHER ACFT RPTED THEY WERE GOING AROUND. WHEN TWR ASKED THE REASON FOR THE GAR, THEY RPTED THAT THEY FELT THE SPACING WITH US WAS TOO CLOSE. TWR TOLD THEM THAT THEY DO THESE TYPE OF APCHS ALL OF THE TIME INTO SFO. WE NEVER WENT N OF THE EXTENDED CTR LINE FOR RWY 28L AND THEY NEVER APPEARED TO HAVE COME S OF THE EXTENDED CTRLINE FOR RWY 28R.

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.