Narrative:

Air carrier X on qba approach to runway 28R; air carrier Y on tip toe approach to runway 28L; air carrier Y was a mile or so behind air carrier X; approximately 70 KTS faster; air carrier Y pulled abeam air carrier X and was rapidly reducing airspeed; I was monitoring situation to ensure there was no overtake; had to determine possible overtake with radar; it was night time and I was unable to determine if air carrier Y overtook air carrier X visually. On the radar; air carrier Y's target was abeam air carrier X's and never fully overtook air carrier X. As the aircraft's targets were acquired on the asde; I could see that air carrier Y was slightly ahead of air carrier X; but at that point both aircraft were approximately 150 AGL; and I felt it would be unsafe to send either aircraft around. Air carrier X carried on an extensive dialog with ground control about overtake situations and called the tower and conversed with supervisor for several minutes about the situation. Recommendation; if the crew of air carrier X thought there was an unsafe or problematic situation; they should have advised local control of it or abandoned the approach and executed a missed approach. If the situation warranted a lengthy discussion with ground control and the supervisor; it must have been a problematic situation. I do not understand why during the flight the crew of air carrier X would have not advised local control of an overtake issue which they could identify much easier than local control. The overtake rule is silly. If pilots are maintaining visual separation from each other what is the problem? The flight crews always have the option to execute a missed approach or take evasive action if there is a hazardous and or unsafe situation. I feel the go arounds from the overtake rule are a waste of time and fuel and add to an already complex operation here at sfo. Obviously in the specific situation of this report if there was an overtake it was only an aesthetic hazard to the crew of air carrier X; or they would have gone around. Before this rule how many dangerous overtake situations were there? If local control is to be able to determine accurate aircraft position without pilot reports on overtakes or visually when possible; maybe sfo should have access to the prm radar display and be trained how to use it so we have more accurate radar data to make decisions about overtakes; I don't feel the ASR-9 display and my training are enough to accurately determine if there is an overtake between two aircraft on parallel approaches.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SFO Controller described an overtake event on short final during parallel operations to Runways 28L/R; the reporter noting available RADAR equipment makes it difficult for controllers to identify overtake events.

Narrative: Air Carrier X on QBA approach to Runway 28R; Air Carrier Y on Tip Toe approach to Runway 28L; Air Carrier Y was a mile or so behind Air Carrier X; approximately 70 KTS faster; Air Carrier Y pulled abeam Air Carrier X and was rapidly reducing airspeed; I was monitoring situation to ensure there was no overtake; had to determine possible overtake with RADAR; it was night time and I was unable to determine if Air Carrier Y overtook Air Carrier X visually. On the RADAR; Air Carrier Y's target was abeam Air Carrier X's and never fully overtook Air Carrier X. As the aircraft's targets were acquired on the ASDE; I could see that Air Carrier Y was slightly ahead of Air Carrier X; but at that point both aircraft were approximately 150 AGL; and I felt it would be unsafe to send either aircraft around. Air Carrier X carried on an extensive dialog with Ground Control about overtake situations and called the Tower and conversed with Supervisor for several minutes about the situation. Recommendation; if the crew of Air Carrier X thought there was an unsafe or problematic situation; they should have advised Local Control of it or abandoned the approach and executed a missed approach. If the situation warranted a lengthy discussion with Ground Control and the Supervisor; it must have been a problematic situation. I do not understand why during the flight the crew of Air Carrier X would have not advised Local Control of an overtake issue which they could identify much easier than Local Control. The overtake rule is silly. If pilots are maintaining visual separation from each other what is the problem? The flight crews always have the option to execute a missed approach or take evasive action if there is a hazardous and or unsafe situation. I feel the go arounds from the overtake rule are a waste of time and fuel and add to an already complex operation here at SFO. Obviously in the specific situation of this report if there was an overtake it was only an aesthetic hazard to the crew of Air Carrier X; or they would have gone around. Before this rule how many dangerous overtake situations were there? If Local Control is to be able to determine accurate aircraft position without pilot reports on overtakes or visually when possible; maybe SFO should have access to the PRM radar display and be trained how to use it so we have more accurate RADAR data to make decisions about overtakes; I don't feel the ASR-9 display and my training are enough to accurately determine if there is an overtake between two aircraft on parallel approaches.

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.