Nct controller described a conflict event on the sfo final when traffic assigned a visual approach t...

Narrative:

Air carrier X was down the bay when he checked in [and] I descended him to 4;000 ft. Air carrier Y was cleared 'tip toe visual approach runway 28L.' my intentions were to make them a pair. I had a nuq point out to the visual approach. I wanted to turn air carrier X base in a timely manner to avoid conflict with the arrival. I called traffic and turned air carrier X base. He called traffic in sight [and] I advised to maintain visual separation with which he complied. I called traffic to air carrier Y and he reported traffic in sight; but did not respond to maintain visual separation. I then cleared air carrier X for the visual approach. Air carrier X went over the top of air carrier Y and climbed and proceeded to go around. I informed the supervisor that I was unsure if the go around was because of TCAS or too high for the approach. I'm not sure that I have any recommendations for procedures or changes. I do however think that we are constantly scrutinized for not making the 'side-bys' as accurately as possible and that affects pushing the aircraft limitations to the utmost levels.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NCT Controller described a conflict event on the SFO final when traffic assigned a Visual Approach to Runway 28R over flew sighted traffic inbound for Runway 28L; citing pressure to establish side-by's as a causal factor.

Narrative: Air Carrier X was down the bay when he checked in [and] I descended him to 4;000 FT. Air Carrier Y was cleared 'Tip Toe Visual Approach Runway 28L.' My intentions were to make them a pair. I had a NUQ point out to the visual approach. I wanted to turn Air Carrier X base in a timely manner to avoid conflict with the Arrival. I called traffic and turned Air Carrier X base. He called traffic in sight [and] I advised to maintain visual separation with which he complied. I called traffic to Air Carrier Y and he reported traffic in sight; but did not respond to maintain visual separation. I then cleared Air Carrier X for the Visual Approach. Air Carrier X went over the top of Air Carrier Y and climbed and proceeded to go around. I informed the Supervisor that I was unsure if the go around was because of TCAS or too high for the approach. I'm not sure that I have any recommendations for procedures or changes. I do however think that we are constantly scrutinized for not making the 'side-bys' as accurately as possible and that affects pushing the aircraft limitations to the utmost levels.

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.

Attributes
ACN	965108
Time
Date	201108
Local Time Of Day	1201-1800
Place
Locale Reference	SFO.Airport
State Reference	CA
Environment
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	A320
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Final Approach
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Function	Approach
Qualification	Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Conflict Airborne Conflict

Nct controller described a conflict event on the sfo final when traffic assigned a visual approach to runway 28R over flew sighted traffic inbound for runway 28L; citing pressure to establish side-by's as a causal factor.