Narrative:

San francisco approach procedures on the golden gate STAR from over pye call for a vector abeam the sfo airport north at 11000' MSL between 210 KTS and 250 KTS. Controllers frequently do not assign an arrival sequence and it is very common for them to expect a 6 to 8 mi right base to a parallel visibility approach to runway 28R at sfo. Assuming approximately 1500' AGL at 5 mi from T/D to make a stabilized approach on the glidepath, this leaves approximately 8 to 10 mi, (or 3-4 mins), to descend 9500' and slow down. Many air carrier aircraft (ie the large transport X) can accomplish this 'no sweat'. The large transport Y cannot and controllers should be made aware of that. The descent rate of an large transport Y at 210 KTS, gear down and speed brakes are fully extended is 1200-1500 FPM. This requires about 6.5 mins or 20 mi to accomplish the descent. The flight in question received the short right base to visibility bay runway 28R approach described above. In retrospect, my better judgement should not have accepted this clearance. In addition to an unstable approach, we had an large transport X on the tipp toe visibility 28L approach right on our wingtip throughout the approach. Needless to say, this made for a very 'busy' cockpit environment. After landing and clearing 28R to hold short of runway 28L, we made the required call to the tower to report holding short of runway 28R only to find no one home on the frequency. We are both unsure as to whether we received a landing clearance or not. The moral to the story is that our otherwise disciplined standard operating procedures may have broken down in a very 'busy' cockpit and visibility environment. We feel that controllers should recognize that their visibility approachs (specifically sfo and lax) are infinitely more complex and distracting than IMC approachs to IFR minimums. In addition, controller training should include more aircraft performance information to better equipment them to sequence traffic. I recognize that my above observations about ATC should in no way reduce my obligations as PIC; however, better knowledge and planning on their part could certainly reduce my cockpit workload.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT FORGOT TO CALL THE TWR BEFORE LNDG ON A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R SFO FROM A GOLDEN GATE STAR.

Narrative: SAN FRANCISCO APCH PROCS ON THE GOLDEN GATE STAR FROM OVER PYE CALL FOR A VECTOR ABEAM THE SFO ARPT N AT 11000' MSL BTWN 210 KTS AND 250 KTS. CTLRS FREQUENTLY DO NOT ASSIGN AN ARR SEQUENCE AND IT IS VERY COMMON FOR THEM TO EXPECT A 6 TO 8 MI R BASE TO A PARALLEL VIS APCH TO RWY 28R AT SFO. ASSUMING APPROX 1500' AGL AT 5 MI FROM T/D TO MAKE A STABILIZED APCH ON THE GLIDEPATH, THIS LEAVES APPROX 8 TO 10 MI, (OR 3-4 MINS), TO DSND 9500' AND SLOW DOWN. MANY AIR CARRIER ACFT (IE THE LGT X) CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS 'NO SWEAT'. THE LGT Y CANNOT AND CTLRS SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF THAT. THE DSNT RATE OF AN LGT Y AT 210 KTS, GEAR DOWN AND SPD BRAKES ARE FULLY EXTENDED IS 1200-1500 FPM. THIS REQUIRES ABOUT 6.5 MINS OR 20 MI TO ACCOMPLISH THE DSNT. THE FLT IN QUESTION RECEIVED THE SHORT R BASE TO VIS BAY RWY 28R APCH DESCRIBED ABOVE. IN RETROSPECT, MY BETTER JUDGEMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED THIS CLRNC. IN ADDITION TO AN UNSTABLE APCH, WE HAD AN LGT X ON THE TIPP TOE VIS 28L APCH R ON OUR WINGTIP THROUGHOUT THE APCH. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS MADE FOR A VERY 'BUSY' COCKPIT ENVIRONMENT. AFTER LNDG AND CLRING 28R TO HOLD SHORT OF RWY 28L, WE MADE THE REQUIRED CALL TO THE TWR TO RPT HOLDING SHORT OF RWY 28R ONLY TO FIND NO ONE HOME ON THE FREQ. WE ARE BOTH UNSURE AS TO WHETHER WE RECEIVED A LNDG CLRNC OR NOT. THE MORAL TO THE STORY IS THAT OUR OTHERWISE DISCIPLINED STANDARD OPERATING PROCS MAY HAVE BROKEN DOWN IN A VERY 'BUSY' COCKPIT AND VIS ENVIRONMENT. WE FEEL THAT CTLRS SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THEIR VIS APCHS (SPECIFICALLY SFO AND LAX) ARE INFINITELY MORE COMPLEX AND DISTRACTING THAN IMC APCHS TO IFR MINIMUMS. IN ADDITION, CTLR TRNING SHOULD INCLUDE MORE ACFT PERFORMANCE INFO TO BETTER EQUIP THEM TO SEQUENCE TFC. I RECOGNIZE THAT MY ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT ATC SHOULD IN NO WAY REDUCE MY OBLIGATIONS AS PIC; HOWEVER, BETTER KNOWLEDGE AND PLANNING ON THEIR PART COULD CERTAINLY REDUCE MY COCKPIT WORKLOAD.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.