Air carrier landing sfo runway 28L during side-by simultaneous approaches suggested that ATC provide...

Narrative:

[We were] assigned a visual approach to runway 28L in sfo while a falcon business jet was assigned the visual approach to runway 28R. Both aircraft confirmed the other aircraft and runway in sight. Norcal assigned speed of 180 KTS to us and indicated we were a mile and a half to two miles in trail of the falcon; cleared approach and directed to not pass the falcon. We advised we understood restriction but had a minimum final approach speed of 152 KTS hoping the controller would query the falcon what his final speed would be or at least have the falcon pilot be cognizant of our minimum speed and minimal in trail spacing. We slowed to our minimum final approach speed of 152 KTS and separation was fine until about a 5-6 mile final when the falcon slowed up considerably as was evident by our closure rate. I had to select 30 flaps when 25 was initially planned and slowed to our new final speed approximately 5 KTS less than previously required with 25 flaps. We ended up touching down within a couple seconds of the falcon jet and had we not slowed as soon as possible and went to our greatest flap setting and slowest speed we would have passed the falcon and likely been sent around. This same thing happened to me several weeks before during my last flight when we were instructed not to pass a narrow body air carrier. It should be standard practice on simultaneous visual approaches in sfo of dissimilar aircraft to ask each pilot what their planned final approach speed will be and stagger the aircraft accordingly. If this is not done; pilots have no ability to ensure in trail separation once they have reduced speed to their minimum. The reason for requiring the wide bodies not to pass the narrow bodies or smaller aircraft is the potential wake turbulence problem. Ironically the turbulence problem is potentially much worse if I have to add power and do a go around in close proximity to the smaller/lighter aircraft. As an aside; several hours after I landed and was commuting home on a jump seat waiting for take off on runway 1R; we observed a another aircraft being sent around by the tower on a visual approach to runway 28L because they could not avoid passing a slower turboprop landing on runway 28R.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Air Carrier landing SFO Runway 28L during side-by simultaneous approaches suggested that ATC provide more speed information on parallel traffic when issuing a 'do not pass' clearance.

Narrative: [We were] assigned a Visual Approach to Runway 28L in SFO while a Falcon business jet was assigned the Visual Approach to Runway 28R. Both aircraft confirmed the other aircraft and runway in sight. NORCAL assigned speed of 180 KTS to us and indicated we were a mile and a half to two miles in trail of the Falcon; cleared approach and directed to not pass the Falcon. We advised we understood restriction but had a minimum final approach speed of 152 KTS hoping the Controller would query the Falcon what his final speed would be or at least have the Falcon pilot be cognizant of our minimum speed and minimal in trail spacing. We slowed to our minimum final approach speed of 152 KTS and separation was fine until about a 5-6 mile final when the Falcon slowed up considerably as was evident by our closure rate. I had to select 30 flaps when 25 was initially planned and slowed to our new final speed approximately 5 KTS less than previously required with 25 flaps. We ended up touching down within a couple seconds of the Falcon jet and had we not slowed as soon as possible and went to our greatest flap setting and slowest speed we would have passed the Falcon and likely been sent around. This same thing happened to me several weeks before during my last flight when we were instructed not to pass a narrow body air carrier. It should be standard practice on simultaneous Visual Approaches in SFO of dissimilar aircraft to ask each pilot what their planned final approach speed will be and stagger the aircraft accordingly. If this is not done; pilots have no ability to ensure in trail separation once they have reduced speed to their minimum. The reason for requiring the wide bodies not to pass the narrow bodies or smaller aircraft is the potential wake turbulence problem. Ironically the turbulence problem is potentially much worse if I have to add power and do a go around in close proximity to the smaller/lighter aircraft. As an aside; several hours after I landed and was commuting home on a jump seat waiting for take off on Runway 1R; we observed a another aircraft being sent around by the tower on a Visual Approach to Runway 28L because they could not avoid passing a slower turboprop landing on Runway 28R.

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	980092
Time
Date	201111
Local Time Of Day	0001-0600
Place
Locale Reference	SFO.Tower
State Reference	CA
Aircraft 1
Make Model Name	B747-400
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	Landing
Route In Use	Visual Approach
Aircraft 2
Make Model Name	Dassault-Breguet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight Phase	Landing
Person 1
Function	Pilot Flying Captain
Experience	Flight Crew Last 90 Days 200 Flight Crew Total 1500 Flight Crew Type 4000
Events
Anomaly	ATC Issue All Types Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Deviation - Procedural Clearance

Air carrier landing sfo runway 28L during side-by simultaneous approaches suggested that ATC provide more speed information on parallel traffic when issuing a 'do not pass' clearance.