Narrative:

While flying a visual approach to sfo runway 28L, a learjet was also cleared for a visual approach to 28R based on having us in sight. The learjet seemed confused as to their runway assignment, saying 28L twice and being corrected by the controller. About 3 mi from touchdown, at approximately 3000 ft the learjet rapidly passed us, landing approximately 1/2 mi ahead. There is no way the lear could have kept us in sight and since we did not have an assignment to maintain visual contact, because the lear was behind us, this would seem to be a violation of the lear's clearance to maintain visual separation. I contacted tower and approach control and both stated that once the lear had us in sight, relative position of the aircraft are of no concern to them and that they accept the word of the pilot that they can maintain visual separation. Due to my comment on the radio, the lear had already called the controller to claim that they had maintained visual contact -- something that I don't believe. What should a pilot do when such a clearance has been violated? Go around? And what about the unsafe condition created as the aircraft cleared to maintain visual contact moves into a position where that is impossible?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LJ CREW ON VISUAL APCH TO SFO PASSED TFC ON FINAL TO THE PARALLEL RWY THEY WERE INSTRUCTED TO FOLLOW AND MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION.

Narrative: WHILE FLYING A VISUAL APCH TO SFO RWY 28L, A LEARJET WAS ALSO CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO 28R BASED ON HAVING US IN SIGHT. THE LEARJET SEEMED CONFUSED AS TO THEIR RWY ASSIGNMENT, SAYING 28L TWICE AND BEING CORRECTED BY THE CTLR. ABOUT 3 MI FROM TOUCHDOWN, AT APPROX 3000 FT THE LEARJET RAPIDLY PASSED US, LNDG APPROX 1/2 MI AHEAD. THERE IS NO WAY THE LEAR COULD HAVE KEPT US IN SIGHT AND SINCE WE DID NOT HAVE AN ASSIGNMENT TO MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT, BECAUSE THE LEAR WAS BEHIND US, THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE A VIOLATION OF THE LEAR'S CLRNC TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. I CONTACTED TWR AND APCH CTL AND BOTH STATED THAT ONCE THE LEAR HAD US IN SIGHT, RELATIVE POS OF THE ACFT ARE OF NO CONCERN TO THEM AND THAT THEY ACCEPT THE WORD OF THE PLT THAT THEY CAN MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. DUE TO MY COMMENT ON THE RADIO, THE LEAR HAD ALREADY CALLED THE CTLR TO CLAIM THAT THEY HAD MAINTAINED VISUAL CONTACT -- SOMETHING THAT I DON'T BELIEVE. WHAT SHOULD A PLT DO WHEN SUCH A CLRNC HAS BEEN VIOLATED? GO AROUND? AND WHAT ABOUT THE UNSAFE CONDITION CREATED AS THE ACFT CLRED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL CONTACT MOVES INTO A POS WHERE THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE?

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.