Narrative:

Air carrier X cleared for the tip toe visual approach to runway 28L at sfo, with an air carrier Y on the parallel to runway 28R in sight, slightly ahead. Due to speed assignments and sequencing, it resulted in a wingtip approach. We stayed deliberately left of centerline as the other aircraft seemed to be lining up for runway 28L. At approximately 500 ft it still appeared that he was intent on runway 28L and we could not query him nor tower due to frequency congestion. We elected to go around as we would soon be out of position for a normal stabilized approach and landing. Tower later (on the go around) told us he was landing runway 28R, but we have no idea if that meant he could see (radar) the aircraft on centerline or if he was merely 'cleared for the approach.' would like to know the extent of tracking facilities (if any). Both tower, and later approach, asked us the reason for the go around. With only the navigation and strobe lights and no moon over the water it was very tough to ascertain distance. Could only see apparent closure and feeling of extreme discomfort. Supplemental information from acn 261032: air carrier X cleared for night tip toe visual to runway 28L at sfo, when still south of runway 28L localizer. Sequencing and speed assignments resulted in trying to get on runway 28L centerline along side another aircraft, air carrier Y. Visual cues at night were not sufficient for me to be sure other aircraft was on the runway 28R localizer as assigned. First officer couldn't tell, either. First officer asked tower once about situation, tower said something like 'he's on runway 28R' which doesn't really tell us if he is in fact on the runway 28R centerline, or just supposed to be. First officer tried to ask again but frequency was too congested. We got down to about 500 ft, at which time it still appeared to first officer and me that moving over to the runway 28L centerline would produce a collision hazard. First officer advised a go around, and I agreed. Go around was uneventful. Suggestion: have approach avoid formation approachs at night, and if they are asked if other aircraft is on his centerline, make it clear whether they are telling us that he is (radar) verified on track, or merely supposed to be on track.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MULTIPLE RWY OP PARALLEL RWYS. VISUAL APCHS. ACR X MADE GAR AS ACR Y THOUGHT TO BE ON WRONG RWY.

Narrative: ACR X CLRED FOR THE TIP TOE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28L AT SFO, WITH AN ACR Y ON THE PARALLEL TO RWY 28R IN SIGHT, SLIGHTLY AHEAD. DUE TO SPD ASSIGNMENTS AND SEQUENCING, IT RESULTED IN A WINGTIP APCH. WE STAYED DELIBERATELY L OF CTRLINE AS THE OTHER ACFT SEEMED TO BE LINING UP FOR RWY 28L. AT APPROX 500 FT IT STILL APPEARED THAT HE WAS INTENT ON RWY 28L AND WE COULD NOT QUERY HIM NOR TWR DUE TO FREQ CONGESTION. WE ELECTED TO GAR AS WE WOULD SOON BE OUT OF POS FOR A NORMAL STABILIZED APCH AND LNDG. TWR LATER (ON THE GAR) TOLD US HE WAS LNDG RWY 28R, BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA IF THAT MEANT HE COULD SEE (RADAR) THE ACFT ON CTRLINE OR IF HE WAS MERELY 'CLRED FOR THE APCH.' WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE EXTENT OF TRACKING FACILITIES (IF ANY). BOTH TWR, AND LATER APCH, ASKED US THE REASON FOR THE GAR. WITH ONLY THE NAV AND STROBE LIGHTS AND NO MOON OVER THE WATER IT WAS VERY TOUGH TO ASCERTAIN DISTANCE. COULD ONLY SEE APPARENT CLOSURE AND FEELING OF EXTREME DISCOMFORT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FROM ACN 261032: ACR X CLRED FOR NIGHT TIP TOE VISUAL TO RWY 28L AT SFO, WHEN STILL S OF RWY 28L LOC. SEQUENCING AND SPD ASSIGNMENTS RESULTED IN TRYING TO GET ON RWY 28L CTRLINE ALONG SIDE ANOTHER ACFT, ACR Y. VISUAL CUES AT NIGHT WERE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ME TO BE SURE OTHER ACFT WAS ON THE RWY 28R LOC AS ASSIGNED. FO COULDN'T TELL, EITHER. FO ASKED TWR ONCE ABOUT SIT, TWR SAID SOMETHING LIKE 'HE'S ON RWY 28R' WHICH DOESN'T REALLY TELL US IF HE IS IN FACT ON THE RWY 28R CTRLINE, OR JUST SUPPOSED TO BE. FO TRIED TO ASK AGAIN BUT FREQ WAS TOO CONGESTED. WE GOT DOWN TO ABOUT 500 FT, AT WHICH TIME IT STILL APPEARED TO FO AND ME THAT MOVING OVER TO THE RWY 28L CTRLINE WOULD PRODUCE A COLLISION HAZARD. FO ADVISED A GAR, AND I AGREED. GAR WAS UNEVENTFUL. SUGGESTION: HAVE APCH AVOID FORMATION APCHS AT NIGHT, AND IF THEY ARE ASKED IF OTHER ACFT IS ON HIS CTRLINE, MAKE IT CLR WHETHER THEY ARE TELLING US THAT HE IS (RADAR) VERIFIED ON TRACK, OR MERELY SUPPOSED TO BE ON TRACK.

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.