Narrative:

I was the pilot flying but not the captain on the passenger flight to sfo. I completed the cockpit set-up while the captain waited inside for the (late) passenger. During this time; we did not review the weather; NOTAMS; flight plan and clearance until he closed the main cabin door and sat down in the right seat. While en route to sfo; he made the jump seat available to the passenger (a non-pilot) for the landing; during which time we were starting our initial arrival with frequency changes and altitude clearances. When back in the right seat; he received the ATIS and we both set-up for runway 28R sfo. We were then given runway 28L and assigned the tipp toe visual 28L. After the arrival was set-up; he announced that he was leaving his seat to help the passenger. During the time that I was flying the aircraft and communicating with ATC; I did not have adequate time to further review the visual approach.the captain returned to the right seat and we started to get busy on the approach--looking for traffic landing 28R; receiving speed restrictions; shortly followed by assigned speeds. At one point during the approach we were told not to pass the adjacent aircraft on the visual for 28R. While in the process of slowing the aircraft we received an RA to which the pilot not flying said 'disregard.' I disengaged the autopilot and made an abrupt left turn away from the traffic as we were above the aircraft in question. During the remainder of the approach; we remained above; behind and laterally clear of the landing traffic on 28R. We exited at the assigned taxiway; held short of 28R and taxied to parking without incident and no comment from ATC.after the passenger and captain deplaned; I reviewed the approach procedure and concluded that if we had briefed the approach in more detail and set-up the oak and sfo DME's versus both of us having the localizer tuned for 28L; it would have alleviated a lot of stresses on my part and also made it a much cleaner approach without all of the ambiguity of when and where to turn. I also feel that the passenger in the jumpseat was a contributing factor in this near conflict. Upon returning to the aircraft; we briefly spoke of the approach; but did not mention the jumpseater other than he said that she enjoyed it. I said that it was a very busy approach to have had our full attention diverted from the task at hand of flying/navigating/communicating. Note: the other aircraft remained on course during our approach and neither aircraft were issued breakout instructions.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: The flight crew of a G-V suffered an RA while on side by side visual to Runways 28 at SFO. Poor CRM throughout the flight and the invited cockpit presence of the non-pilot passenger were contributing factors.

Narrative: I was the pilot flying but not the Captain on the passenger flight to SFO. I completed the cockpit set-up while the Captain waited inside for the (late) passenger. During this time; we did not review the weather; NOTAMS; flight plan and clearance until he closed the main cabin door and sat down in the right seat. While en route to SFO; he made the jump seat available to the passenger (a non-pilot) for the landing; during which time we were starting our initial arrival with frequency changes and altitude clearances. When back in the right seat; he received the ATIS and we both set-up for Runway 28R SFO. We were then given Runway 28L and assigned the TIPP TOE VISUAL 28L. After the arrival was set-up; he announced that he was leaving his seat to help the passenger. During the time that I was flying the aircraft and communicating with ATC; I did not have adequate time to further review the Visual Approach.The Captain returned to the right seat and we started to get busy on the Approach--looking for traffic landing 28R; receiving speed restrictions; shortly followed by assigned speeds. At one point during the approach we were told not to pass the adjacent aircraft on the visual for 28R. While in the process of slowing the aircraft we received an RA to which the pilot not flying said 'disregard.' I disengaged the autopilot and made an abrupt left turn away from the traffic as we were above the aircraft in question. During the remainder of the Approach; we remained above; behind and laterally clear of the landing traffic on 28R. We exited at the assigned taxiway; held short of 28R and taxied to parking without incident and no comment from ATC.After the passenger and Captain deplaned; I reviewed the Approach procedure and concluded that if we had briefed the Approach in more detail and set-up the OAK and SFO DME's versus both of us having the LOC tuned for 28L; it would have alleviated a lot of stresses on my part and also made it a much cleaner approach without all of the ambiguity of when and where to turn. I also feel that the passenger in the jumpseat was a contributing factor in this near conflict. Upon returning to the aircraft; we briefly spoke of the Approach; but did not mention the jumpseater other than he said that she enjoyed it. I said that it was a VERY BUSY Approach to have had our FULL attention diverted from the task at hand of flying/navigating/communicating. NOTE: The other aircraft remained on course during our approach and neither aircraft were issued breakout instructions.

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.