Narrative:

We were put on heading of 070 degrees east of smo. Socal had an airline B747 that was over the marker for runway 24L. They asked if we had it in sight, which we did, but told them we would need more than 4 mi in trail of a heavy. They immediately said 'that ain't going to happen!' and vectored us to the northeast at 2500 ft towards the san gabriel mountains. Then they took us out approximately 14 mi and then cleared us for the ILS to runway 24R. Both socal approach and bay approach in sfo have been pushing smaller aircraft into these sits. I have had to do 2 gars in sfo for B757's passing me on visual approachs, and I have been pulled off numerous approachs, especially in sfo, for not accepting side-by-side or in trail parallel approachs without adequate spacing behind a heavy or B757. What's more upsetting is that some B737's are accepting these approachs and what's worse I'm seeing turboprop aircraft accepting these clrncs. I'll be blunt, they are going to kill somebody and probably sooner than later. Bay even said over the air to us that spacing doesn't apply to them because sfo was exempted from that and 'we do side-by-side approachs here.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TFC DELAY INCURRED FOR APCHING B737-300 FLC WHEN ASSIGNED #2 BEHIND B747 ON APCH TO RWY 24L AT LAX. B737 PIC ASKS FOR 4 MI BEHIND AND IS GIVEN A DELAYING VECTOR TO THE NE AND SUBSEQUENT ILS TO RWY 24R.

Narrative: WE WERE PUT ON HDG OF 070 DEGS E OF SMO. SOCAL HAD AN AIRLINE B747 THAT WAS OVER THE MARKER FOR RWY 24L. THEY ASKED IF WE HAD IT IN SIGHT, WHICH WE DID, BUT TOLD THEM WE WOULD NEED MORE THAN 4 MI IN TRAIL OF A HVY. THEY IMMEDIATELY SAID 'THAT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!' AND VECTORED US TO THE NE AT 2500 FT TOWARDS THE SAN GABRIEL MOUNTAINS. THEN THEY TOOK US OUT APPROX 14 MI AND THEN CLRED US FOR THE ILS TO RWY 24R. BOTH SOCAL APCH AND BAY APCH IN SFO HAVE BEEN PUSHING SMALLER ACFT INTO THESE SITS. I HAVE HAD TO DO 2 GARS IN SFO FOR B757'S PASSING ME ON VISUAL APCHS, AND I HAVE BEEN PULLED OFF NUMEROUS APCHS, ESPECIALLY IN SFO, FOR NOT ACCEPTING SIDE-BY-SIDE OR IN TRAIL PARALLEL APCHS WITHOUT ADEQUATE SPACING BEHIND A HVY OR B757. WHAT'S MORE UPSETTING IS THAT SOME B737'S ARE ACCEPTING THESE APCHS AND WHAT'S WORSE I'M SEEING TURBOPROP ACFT ACCEPTING THESE CLRNCS. I'LL BE BLUNT, THEY ARE GOING TO KILL SOMEBODY AND PROBABLY SOONER THAN LATER. BAY EVEN SAID OVER THE AIR TO US THAT SPACING DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM BECAUSE SFO WAS EXEMPTED FROM THAT AND 'WE DO SIDE-BY-SIDE APCHS HERE.'

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.