Narrative:

This event is evidence of continued disregard on the part of norcal controllers to offer efficient handling of 'staggered' approaches where wide body aircraft and lighter weight; slower approach speed aircraft are paired on runway's 28L and 28R. My recent experience on one such 'staggered' approach when the lighter weight aircraft was put ahead of my aircraft we were required by sfo tower to execute a missed approach because of our imminent passing of the slower aircraft when about 1nm from the end of the runway even while we selected and flew a 30 flap approach at ref speed. What happened in this latest event was not a tower commanded missed approach but nevertheless identifies the continued bias for norcal to favor the heavy aircraft trailing the slower aircraft. After being cleared to descend via the pacific 2 TA; we were later told by norcal to maintain 6000ft on a heading of 050. An outbound aircraft was restricted below us at 5000ft. This ended the opportunity for the terminal arrival. We were told to expect the visual to 28L and that our traffic was an airbus evidently coming from the east. We were told to slow to 170kts when our speed had been 240kts. We were told to maintain 170kts until the san mateo bridge. We asked the speed of the airbus. We were told it was 220kts. We advised norcal we had acquired a visual on the airbus and norcal instructed us to keep him in sight. I asked norcal why they had sequenced the airbus ahead of us. The response was that the airbus was ahead of us. Of course the timing of our slow down and the airbus' subsequent relative position made it evident that once again; norcal saw fit to put the lighter weight slower final approach speed aircraft in front of a heavier; higher speed aircraft. I asked the controller who determined the sequence. He responded that he did. I told him I would call him when I got on the ground. I called and spoke with the supervisor on duty for that particular sector. He told me he had reviewed the tapes. His attitude became counterproductive when he told me that pilots think they know the best way to control aircraft. After which; I hung up in disgust. Once again; today; our briefed approach flap configuration and target speed had to be adjusted to accommodate norcal's bias. This time; the pilot of the airbus; apparently recognizing the proximity issue; did not slow to minimum speed on short final that would have mandated a go-around as did my previous event with a B757. The B757 must have had a final approach speed 15kts to 20kts less than ours and was probably using maximum flaps. Approach speeds are not and cannot be mandated by norcal or tower but a keen awareness of maximum vs. Minimum final approach speeds needs to be second nature to those controlling and sequencing our aircraft for arrival. Today's methodology by air traffic controllers unnecessarily burdens our crews with the added requirement 'do not pass the lead aircraft'. When maximum flaps and minimum approach speeds are insufficient to 'not pass the lead aircraft'; problems can and will follow. The present bias of norcal to put the faster approach speed aircraft behind the slower is inconsistent with safety and logic. This bias and attitude is untenable and if not changed will eventually result in further problems. I will continue to question the bias used in these examples of 'staggered' approaches and continue to advocate for positive change.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier B747 pilot expressed concern regarding NCT's handling of parallel approach procedures into SFO; claiming NCT frequently sequences faster aircraft behind slower/smaller aircraft complicating speed adjustments.

Narrative: This event is evidence of continued disregard on the part of NORCAL controllers to offer efficient handling of 'staggered' approaches where wide body aircraft and lighter weight; slower approach speed aircraft are paired on Runway's 28L and 28R. My recent experience on one such 'staggered' approach when the lighter weight aircraft was put ahead of my aircraft we were required by SFO tower to execute a missed approach because of our imminent passing of the slower aircraft when about 1nm from the end of the runway even while we selected and flew a 30 flap approach at ref speed. What happened in this latest event was not a tower commanded missed approach but nevertheless identifies the continued bias for NORCAL to favor the heavy aircraft trailing the slower aircraft. After being cleared to descend via the Pacific 2 TA; we were later told by NORCAL to maintain 6000ft on a heading of 050. An outbound aircraft was restricted below us at 5000ft. This ended the opportunity for the Terminal Arrival. We were told to expect the visual to 28L and that our traffic was an Airbus evidently coming from the East. We were told to slow to 170kts when our speed had been 240kts. We were told to maintain 170kts until the San Mateo Bridge. We asked the speed of the Airbus. We were told it was 220kts. We advised NORCAL we had acquired a visual on the Airbus and NORCAL instructed us to keep him in sight. I asked NORCAL why they had sequenced the Airbus ahead of us. The response was that the Airbus was ahead of us. Of course the timing of our slow down and the Airbus' subsequent relative position made it evident that once again; NORCAL saw fit to put the lighter weight slower final approach speed aircraft in front of a heavier; higher speed aircraft. I asked the controller who determined the sequence. He responded that he did. I told him I would call him when I got on the ground. I called and spoke with the supervisor on duty for that particular sector. He told me he had reviewed the tapes. His attitude became counterproductive when he told me that pilots think they know the best way to control aircraft. After which; I hung up in disgust. Once again; today; our briefed approach flap configuration and target speed had to be adjusted to accommodate NORCAL's bias. This time; the pilot of the Airbus; apparently recognizing the proximity issue; did not slow to minimum speed on short final that would have mandated a go-around as did my previous event with a B757. The B757 must have had a final approach speed 15kts to 20kts less than ours and was probably using maximum flaps. Approach speeds are not and cannot be mandated by NORCAL or tower but a keen awareness of maximum vs. minimum final approach speeds needs to be second nature to those controlling and sequencing our aircraft for arrival. Today's methodology by air traffic controllers unnecessarily burdens our crews with the added requirement 'do not pass the lead aircraft'. When maximum flaps and minimum approach speeds are insufficient to 'not pass the lead aircraft'; problems can and will follow. The present bias of NORCAL to put the faster approach speed aircraft behind the slower is inconsistent with safety and logic. This bias and attitude is untenable and if not changed will eventually result in further problems. I will continue to question the bias used in these examples of 'staggered' approaches and continue to advocate for positive change.

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.