A300 on visual side-by to sfo initiated go around, TCASII RA.

Attributes
ACN	574359
Time
Date	200302
Day	Sun
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sfo.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl single value : 1000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : nct.tracon tower : sch.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	approach : visual
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : nct.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 1834
ASRS Report	574359
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 200 flight time total : 12000 flight time type : 1834
ASRS Report	574359
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne critical inflight encounter other non adherence : published procedure non adherence : clearance non adherence : far
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment : tcas other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : executed go around flight crew : took evasive action
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Flight Crew Human Performance
Primary Problem	Flight Crew Human Performance

Narrative:

During simultaneous visual approachs to runway 28R/left, both aircraft had others in sight. Tower handed off responsibility for separation, knowing they would be almost wingtip-to-wingtip due to assigned speeds to the bridge. The other aircraft was just off our left wing. I cannot watch traffic on my left wing and monitor the progress of the approach. Therefore, I left TCASII in RA, which resulted in an RA warning, which was followed by a go around. The subsequent approach was vectors to be wingtip-to-wingtip with another aircraft. We intentionally slowed early to be able to keep the other aircraft in sight while making the approach. These 2 approachs did not occur during heavy traffic. It appears to me that if sfo approach control wants us to maintain an assigned speed to the bridge, they also know we will be right beside each other on the approach.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A300 ON VISUAL SIDE-BY TO SFO INITIATED GAR, TCASII RA.

Narrative: DURING SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL APCHS TO RWY 28R/L, BOTH ACFT HAD OTHERS IN SIGHT. TWR HANDED OFF RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION, KNOWING THEY WOULD BE ALMOST WINGTIP-TO-WINGTIP DUE TO ASSIGNED SPDS TO THE BRIDGE. THE OTHER ACFT WAS JUST OFF OUR L WING. I CANNOT WATCH TFC ON MY L WING AND MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THE APCH. THEREFORE, I LEFT TCASII IN RA, WHICH RESULTED IN AN RA WARNING, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY A GAR. THE SUBSEQUENT APCH WAS VECTORS TO BE WINGTIP-TO-WINGTIP WITH ANOTHER ACFT. WE INTENTIONALLY SLOWED EARLY TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE OTHER ACFT IN SIGHT WHILE MAKING THE APCH. THESE 2 APCHS DID NOT OCCUR DURING HVY TFC. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IF SFO APCH CTL WANTS US TO MAINTAIN AN ASSIGNED SPD TO THE BRIDGE, THEY ALSO KNOW WE WILL BE RIGHT BESIDE EACH OTHER ON THE 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.