Narrative:

Descending to 9000 ft on a clearance to intercept the FMS bridge visual runway 28R final. We were handed off to the final norcal controller just before intercepting the bridge visual track; and he was obviously very busy. When we checked in we reported the 'bridge and airport in sight;' and the controller's response was simply 'descend to 8000 ft; slow to 210 KTS.' this was followed by another descend clearance to 5000 ft. We were high on the profile; as we had been for the last few miles; due to the constraints of the ATC issued altitude; so we were trying to make things work with configuration changes. When there was a break in radio traffic we again reported the field and asked for approach clearance. The controller's response was 'do you have the 10 o'clock traffic in sight?' we said 'no; you never issued us traffic' and his response was I'm issuing it now; traffic is a XXXX at 10 o'clock 5000 ft descending for runway 28L; report him in sight.' we said 'not in sight;' and he said 'stop descent at 6000 ft.' since we were already below 6000 ft we stopped descent immediately at 5700 ft and climbed back to 6000 ft shortly thereafter we acquire the competing aircraft on the parallel approach; slowed to 180 KTS on our own initiative based on the TCAS spacing from the traffic ahead on our runway; and were issued the approach clearance. Just 3 miles before the bridge we were handed to tower with the injunction 'maintain 180 KTS to the bridge.' (at that point speed assignments hardly matter.) as soon as we checked in with sfo tower a few seconds later; they cleared us to land; and announced a 50 KT overtake on the traffic ahead. So of course we slowed to final speed; speed assignment notwithstanding; and landed just as traffic ahead cleared the runway. This is typical of what we encounter every day during simultaneous visual approaches to runway 28L and right at sfo. These are very high-pressure; sometimes chaotic approaches. We are often left high; given last-minute heading; altitude; and speed assignment; taken off the final and then back on again; sometimes twice; and all of this while the frequency is too busy to get a word in edgewise. There is precious air time available for niceties like call signs. The controllers and the pilots do a good job trying to communicate; even truncating radio transmissions to a degree that would make the authors of the FAA pilot-controller handbook shudder - but the situation is often gut-wrenching. These approaches involve airplanes coming down the bay from both sides of the airport; head-on base legs; and then closely-spaced; staggered; parallel flight paths down final. The possibility for a loss of separation; a near miss; or some other scary thing are multitudinous; not to mention almost impossible 'compliance with ATC instructions.' sfo is usually busy when the published visual approaches to runway 28L and right are in use; and the changing speed and altitude assignments are fairly typical. If more printed detail could be added to the approach procedures - such as publishing speeds; or reducing the 'cut' at the final - perhaps these simultaneous visual approaches could be conducted in a more orderly fashion. Or maybe the airspace needs to be re-allocated to take the load off the final controller.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air carrier landing SFO during busy side-by visual approach procedures described detailed summary of the complications and constraints of the subject operation.

Narrative: Descending to 9000 FT on a clearance to intercept the FMS Bridge Visual Runway 28R final. We were handed off to the final NORCAL Controller just before intercepting the Bridge Visual track; and he was obviously very busy. When we checked in we reported the 'bridge and airport in sight;' and the Controller's response was simply 'descend to 8000 FT; slow to 210 KTS.' This was followed by another descend clearance to 5000 FT. We were high on the profile; as we had been for the last few miles; due to the constraints of the ATC issued altitude; so we were trying to make things work with configuration changes. When there was a break in radio traffic we again reported the field and asked for approach clearance. The Controller's response was 'Do you have the 10 o'clock traffic in sight?' We said 'No; you never issued us traffic' and his response was I'm issuing it now; traffic is a XXXX at 10 o'clock 5000 FT descending for Runway 28L; report him in sight.' We said 'not in sight;' and he said 'stop descent at 6000 FT.' Since we were already below 6000 FT we stopped descent immediately at 5700 FT and climbed back to 6000 FT shortly thereafter we acquire the competing aircraft on the parallel approach; slowed to 180 KTS on our own initiative based on the TCAS spacing from the traffic ahead on our runway; and were issued the approach clearance. Just 3 miles before the bridge we were handed to Tower with the injunction 'maintain 180 KTS to the bridge.' (At that point speed assignments hardly matter.) As soon as we checked in with SFO Tower a few seconds later; they cleared us to land; and announced a 50 KT overtake on the traffic ahead. So of course we slowed to final speed; speed assignment notwithstanding; and landed just as traffic ahead cleared the runway. This is typical of what we encounter every day during simultaneous visual approaches to Runway 28L and R at SFO. These are very high-pressure; sometimes chaotic approaches. We are often left high; given last-minute heading; altitude; and speed assignment; taken off the final and then back on again; sometimes twice; and all of this while the frequency is too busy to get a word in edgewise. There is precious air time available for niceties like call signs. The Controllers and the pilots do a good job trying to communicate; even truncating radio transmissions to a degree that would make the authors of the FAA Pilot-Controller handbook shudder - but the situation is often gut-wrenching. These approaches involve airplanes coming down the Bay from both sides of the airport; head-on base legs; and then closely-spaced; staggered; parallel flight paths down final. The possibility for a loss of separation; a near miss; or some other scary thing are multitudinous; not to mention almost impossible 'compliance with ATC instructions.' SFO is usually busy when the published visual approaches to Runway 28L and R are in use; and the changing speed and altitude assignments are fairly typical. If more printed detail could be added to the approach procedures - such as publishing speeds; or reducing the 'cut' at the final - perhaps these simultaneous visual approaches could be conducted in a more orderly fashion. Or maybe the airspace needs to be re-allocated to take the load off the Final Controller.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.