Narrative:

Flight approached san francisco from the north on the golden gate 5 arrival. When the crew initially contacted norcal approach; they were told to expect a visual approach to runway 28R. The flight was given vectors for a right downwind and [we] were then switched to another norcal approach frequency. As the flight descended to 4;000 ft and passed abeam axmul; norcal alerted the crew to traffic in the vicinity of the dumbarton bridge and gave them a turn to 130 degrees. Established on the 130 degree heading the captain called the airport and traffic in sight. Our airplane was configured with flaps 1; gear up and at our last assigned speed of 210 KTS. The other traffic was a couple miles south of our position and at a lower altitude. Norcal cleared us for a visual approach and the first officer turned the airplane toward the san mateo bridge. Concurrent with the visual approach clearance the first officer focused on configuring the airplane for landing and establishing a stabilized profile. As our wings rolled level on our track toward the san mateo bridge the other airplane was now abeam and to our left (south) and just below our altitude. The crew received a TCAS traffic advisory and the captain switched the transponder to TA only. Sometime during this period; while the altitude alerter was sounding; the autopilot and auto throttle disconnect warnings were cheeping and the TCAS was chiming in with the obvious; sometime while the captain was responding to configuration and flight management requests from the first officer; reading the checklist and keeping the first officer advised of the traffic to our left which the first officer was unable to see because of the cutoff angle; sometime during this period while the captain was monitoring the energy state of the airplane and all the other s/a he could absorb; the controller said 'flight XXX you're for the ___ and he's for the __'? At that time the captain was absolutely sure our flight was cleared for the visual approach 28R. We had been told to expect 28R. The other airplane is nearly abeam on our left. The geometry of the airplanes aligned our airplane with 28R and aligned the other airplane with 28L. The clearance for the visual 28R was settled in the captain's mind; there was no other logical course for the two airplanes. It wasn't until we switched to the tower frequency we realized the other airplane; now ahead of us at nearly the same altitude was planning to land on runway 28R. The tower controller quickly sorted the situation out. The other airplane sidestepped to runway 28L and we received clearance to land on runway 28R. The first officer did an excellent job of keeping the airplane on a safe profile while also adjusting his speed and track to maintain safe separation from the other airplane. The norcal controller did not say anything about switching runways. He did not say anything about passing behind the other airplane. He said nothing about the speeds being compatible or needing adjustment. He said nothing about do not pass the other airplane. We did not hear; comprehend or understand any transmissions that could contradict the geometry we saw out our window and the only safe flight path that was available.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 flight crew cleared for the visual to Runway 28R at SFO from a right base reports conflict with another aircraft landing Runway 28L. After switching to Tower it was discovered that both aircraft were trying to land on Runway 28R.

Narrative: Flight approached San Francisco from the north on the Golden Gate 5 arrival. When the crew initially contacted NORCAL Approach; they were told to expect a visual approach to Runway 28R. The flight was given vectors for a right downwind and [we] were then switched to another NORCAL Approach frequency. As the flight descended to 4;000 FT and passed abeam AXMUL; NORCAL alerted the crew to traffic in the vicinity of the Dumbarton Bridge and gave them a turn to 130 degrees. Established on the 130 degree heading the Captain called the airport and traffic in sight. Our airplane was configured with flaps 1; gear up and at our last assigned speed of 210 KTS. The other traffic was a couple miles south of our position and at a lower altitude. NORCAL cleared us for a visual approach and the First Officer turned the airplane toward the San Mateo Bridge. Concurrent with the visual approach clearance the First Officer focused on configuring the airplane for landing and establishing a stabilized profile. As our wings rolled level on our track toward the San Mateo Bridge the other airplane was now abeam and to our left (south) and just below our altitude. The crew received a TCAS traffic advisory and the Captain switched the transponder to TA only. Sometime during this period; while the altitude alerter was sounding; the autopilot and auto throttle disconnect warnings were cheeping and the TCAS was chiming in with the obvious; sometime while the Captain was responding to configuration and flight management requests from the First Officer; reading the checklist and keeping the First Officer advised of the traffic to our left which the First Officer was unable to see because of the cutoff angle; sometime during this period while the Captain was monitoring the energy state of the airplane and all the other s/a he could absorb; the controller said 'Flight XXX you're for the ___ and he's for the __'? At that time The Captain was absolutely sure our flight was cleared for the visual approach 28R. We had been told to expect 28R. The other airplane is nearly abeam on our left. The geometry of the airplanes aligned our airplane with 28R and aligned the other airplane with 28L. The clearance for the visual 28R was settled in the Captain's mind; there was no other logical course for the two airplanes. It wasn't until we switched to the Tower frequency we realized the other airplane; now ahead of us at nearly the same altitude was planning to land on Runway 28R. The Tower Controller quickly sorted the situation out. The other airplane sidestepped to Runway 28L and we received clearance to land on Runway 28R. The First Officer did an excellent job of keeping the airplane on a safe profile while also adjusting his speed and track to maintain safe separation from the other airplane. The NORCAL Controller did not say anything about switching runways. He did not say anything about passing behind the other airplane. He said nothing about the speeds being compatible or needing adjustment. He said nothing about do not pass the other airplane. We did not hear; comprehend or understand any transmissions that could contradict the geometry we saw out our window and the only safe flight path that was available.

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.