Narrative:

Ord-sfo was re-routed from mina approach gate to over point reyes gate. From point reyes we were slowed to 210 KTS and descended to 7000' on a 120 degree heading. We were then slowed to 170 KTS then turned to 250 degrees for a parallel visual to runway 28R. Sep looked good from aircraft on final for runway 28L, however the runway 28L traffic was a heavy jet and sep was too close. ATC requested us to increase speed so as to pass the heavy advising 200 KTS would get us past the traffic. We increased to 200 KTS with no visible closing. We further increased to 220 KTS and judged that closure would be too slow to overtake the runway 28L traffic and still be in a situation to land on runway 28R. I refused the approach requesting a right 360 degree turn or vectors for a second, properly spaced approach. The second approach was from 3000'. Traffic was pointed out to us. We idented as best as possible in the dark. We were cleared for the approach to runway 28R and to maintain visual with the traffic for runway 28L. We configured the aircraft for final approach flaps and speed. I was flying the approach and my first officer kept a close watch on the traffic which seemed glued to my left wingtip. I wondered if perhaps the traffic on runway 28L was attempting to maintain visual with me as well, which amounts to having 2 aircraft in formation and neither knowing what the slowest speed could be. I am not comfortable with formation night flight, especially in transport aircraft in landing confign. The parallel closely spaced apches to runway 28L/right at sfo are an accident waiting to happen. The problem developed I feel because the controller turned me too soon to follow a heavy. Attempting to correct his error exceeded the speed capabilities of the aircraft placing it too close, too fast to execute a stabilized safe approach. The second approach is equally unsafe in condoning formation flight of transport aircraft with widely variable speed envelopes. Pls gentlemen, something must be done and soon to have a national criteria established for closely spaced parallel approachs. Sfo needs attention as well as den runway 26L/right 25 approachs.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR MLG CAPT COMPLAINT ABOUT VISUAL PARALLEL APCHS TO SFO.

Narrative: ORD-SFO WAS RE-ROUTED FROM MINA APCH GATE TO OVER POINT REYES GATE. FROM POINT REYES WE WERE SLOWED TO 210 KTS AND DSNDED TO 7000' ON A 120 DEG HDG. WE WERE THEN SLOWED TO 170 KTS THEN TURNED TO 250 DEGS FOR A PARALLEL VISUAL TO RWY 28R. SEP LOOKED GOOD FROM ACFT ON FINAL FOR RWY 28L, HOWEVER THE RWY 28L TFC WAS A HVY JET AND SEP WAS TOO CLOSE. ATC REQUESTED US TO INCREASE SPD SO AS TO PASS THE HVY ADVISING 200 KTS WOULD GET US PAST THE TFC. WE INCREASED TO 200 KTS WITH NO VISIBLE CLOSING. WE FURTHER INCREASED TO 220 KTS AND JUDGED THAT CLOSURE WOULD BE TOO SLOW TO OVERTAKE THE RWY 28L TFC AND STILL BE IN A SITUATION TO LAND ON RWY 28R. I REFUSED THE APCH REQUESTING A RIGHT 360 DEG TURN OR VECTORS FOR A SECOND, PROPERLY SPACED APCH. THE SECOND APCH WAS FROM 3000'. TFC WAS POINTED OUT TO US. WE IDENTED AS BEST AS POSSIBLE IN THE DARK. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH TO RWY 28R AND TO MAINTAIN VISUAL WITH THE TFC FOR RWY 28L. WE CONFIGURED THE ACFT FOR FINAL APCH FLAPS AND SPD. I WAS FLYING THE APCH AND MY F/O KEPT A CLOSE WATCH ON THE TFC WHICH SEEMED GLUED TO MY LEFT WINGTIP. I WONDERED IF PERHAPS THE TFC ON RWY 28L WAS ATTEMPTING TO MAINTAIN VISUAL WITH ME AS WELL, WHICH AMOUNTS TO HAVING 2 ACFT IN FORMATION AND NEITHER KNOWING WHAT THE SLOWEST SPD COULD BE. I AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH FORMATION NIGHT FLT, ESPECIALLY IN TRANSPORT ACFT IN LNDG CONFIGN. THE PARALLEL CLOSELY SPACED APCHES TO RWY 28L/R AT SFO ARE AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN. THE PROB DEVELOPED I FEEL BECAUSE THE CTLR TURNED ME TOO SOON TO FOLLOW A HVY. ATTEMPTING TO CORRECT HIS ERROR EXCEEDED THE SPD CAPABILITIES OF THE ACFT PLACING IT TOO CLOSE, TOO FAST TO EXECUTE A STABILIZED SAFE APCH. THE SECOND APCH IS EQUALLY UNSAFE IN CONDONING FORMATION FLT OF TRANSPORT ACFT WITH WIDELY VARIABLE SPD ENVELOPES. PLS GENTLEMEN, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE AND SOON TO HAVE A NATL CRITERIA ESTABLISHED FOR CLOSELY SPACED PARALLEL APCHS. SFO NEEDS ATTN AS WELL AS DEN RWY 26L/R 25 APCHS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.