Narrative:

The flight to sfo descended via the modesto 3 arrival with a transition to the quiet bridge visual to runway 28R. A clearance was given to intercept the sfo 095 radial after oomen. We had built way points corresponding to the 18/13/6 DME fixes on the visual arrival and continued with LNAV engaged. Approach control called traffic (another carrier's heavy) coming from left on the tip toe visual; which we acknowledged. We were assigned 180 KTS from 210 KTS. The first officer had the sfo raw data VOR to confirm our position. Between 18 and 13 DME; I noticed the other carrier's heavy taking a cut away from us. We continued to configure for landing on 28R. Approaching the san mateo bridge; we were still in a close abeam position and the lateral separation was closing. Approaching 1;200 ft AGL; the first officer called the tower and said; 'confirm the heavy is going to the left.' the heavy initiated a go-around and we continue to land. We estimated the lateral separation to be 800 to 1;000 ft. I called the sfo tower supervisor and discussed the event. He seemed unconcerned.according to the sfo expanded charted visual procedures there should be 1/8 to 1/4 mile stagger between aircraft on visual approaches. Either approach or the tower failed to establish the proper stagger. I was reluctant to slow behind the heavy due to possible wake turbulence issues.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: B737 flight crew describes a conflict with a heavy Airbus on short final during simultaneous visual approaches to Runways 28L and R. The Airbus crew either mistook or misunderstood the clearance to Runway 28L and attempted to line up on Runway 28R; before going around when the error is discovered.

Narrative: The flight to SFO descended via the MODESTO 3 Arrival with a transition to the QUIET BRIDGE visual to Runway 28R. A clearance was given to intercept the SFO 095 radial after OOMEN. We had built way points corresponding to the 18/13/6 DME fixes on the visual arrival and continued with LNAV engaged. Approach Control called traffic (another carrier's heavy) coming from left on the TIP TOE visual; which we acknowledged. We were assigned 180 KTS from 210 KTS. The First Officer had the SFO raw data VOR to confirm our position. Between 18 and 13 DME; I noticed the other carrier's heavy taking a cut away from us. We continued to configure for landing on 28R. Approaching the San Mateo Bridge; we were still in a close abeam position and the lateral separation was closing. Approaching 1;200 FT AGL; the First Officer called the Tower and said; 'Confirm the heavy is going to the left.' The heavy initiated a go-around and we continue to land. We estimated the lateral separation to be 800 to 1;000 FT. I called the SFO Tower Supervisor and discussed the event. He seemed unconcerned.According to the SFO expanded charted visual procedures there should be 1/8 to 1/4 mile stagger between aircraft on visual approaches. Either Approach or the Tower failed to establish the proper stagger. I was reluctant to slow behind the heavy due to possible wake turbulence issues.

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.