Narrative:

While shooting the FMS bridge visual runway 28R approach to sfo, approach control called our traffic at 10 O'clock high and that it would be going to runway 28L. ATC then added that the same traffic had just initiated his turn to base leg and would be behind us on final approach. We acknowledged the traffic and continued on the FMS approach passing the garow fix (15 DME at or above 4000 ft) as prescribed. Shortly thereafter, we were slowed to 180 KIAS. At approximately 9 DME we were slowed to 160 KIAS for spacing on a B757 4 mi ahead of us for runway 28R. Our original traffic (a B777) that was slated for runway 28L was at our 8 O'clock position and appeared to be 'no factor.' inside the samul fix (7 DME sfo VOR) we were switched to tower and cleared to land on runway 28R and advised that the B777 was going to land on runway 28L and to maintain visual separation. We looked back and there he was, approximately 3000-4000 ft laterally displaced from us. He appeared to be gaining slightly on our position. As we passed the 4.4 DME fix, we began to slow to approach speed and slowly work our way toward runway centerline, our traffic to pull ahead of us at the 2 1/2 mi from the runway point. We thought it odd that he was cruising right by us, but figured we would have the required 1/8 mi stagger prior to touchdown. Neither ATC nor tower said a word. The procedures for these parallel approachs state that if you are overtaking an aircraft during an approach the overtaking aircraft should make some sort of accommodating move to ensure they will not pass another aircraft on the approach. This accommodation could take many forms -- ie, speed reduction, request for an s-turn, request ATC request a speed increase on the slower traffic to facilitate separation or a missed approach by the faster aircraft. We had remained slightly to the right of runway 28R centerline during the approach and were on centerline by 500 ft AGL. Our traffic touched down on runway 28L slightly before we did on runway 28R. We had a smooth controled touchdown and experienced no wake turbulence during the approach, landing, or rollout. Having spent a great deal of time in tactical attack aircraft during my military career, I felt very comfortable with the B777 on my wing in loose cruise formation. I felt the lead change went smoothly also, and as we settled into our 1/8 mi loose cruise position for the landing, the thought occurred to me a PA to the passenger might be in order after landing. The thrust of the announcement was that both aircraft were on published approachs to different runways and both aircraft were in visual contact with each other at all times. My suggestion is to have the 'no pass' rule plainly placarded on the approach plate's plan view -- not buried in the notes sections of the 'users of runway 28L visual approach and runway 28R respectively' pages.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757 IS PASSED ON FINAL TO RWY 28R BY A B777 LNDG ON RWY 28L AT SFO, CA. FLC STATES THE APCH PLATES SHOULD BE CHANGED TO ALERT ALL ACFT WHAT THE PASSING LIMITS ARE FOR HVY ACFT AND SMALLER ACFT.

Narrative: WHILE SHOOTING THE FMS BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R APCH TO SFO, APCH CTL CALLED OUR TFC AT 10 O'CLOCK HIGH AND THAT IT WOULD BE GOING TO RWY 28L. ATC THEN ADDED THAT THE SAME TFC HAD JUST INITIATED HIS TURN TO BASE LEG AND WOULD BE BEHIND US ON FINAL APCH. WE ACKNOWLEDGED THE TFC AND CONTINUED ON THE FMS APCH PASSING THE GAROW FIX (15 DME AT OR ABOVE 4000 FT) AS PRESCRIBED. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WE WERE SLOWED TO 180 KIAS. AT APPROX 9 DME WE WERE SLOWED TO 160 KIAS FOR SPACING ON A B757 4 MI AHEAD OF US FOR RWY 28R. OUR ORIGINAL TFC (A B777) THAT WAS SLATED FOR RWY 28L WAS AT OUR 8 O'CLOCK POS AND APPEARED TO BE 'NO FACTOR.' INSIDE THE SAMUL FIX (7 DME SFO VOR) WE WERE SWITCHED TO TWR AND CLRED TO LAND ON RWY 28R AND ADVISED THAT THE B777 WAS GOING TO LAND ON RWY 28L AND TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. WE LOOKED BACK AND THERE HE WAS, APPROX 3000-4000 FT LATERALLY DISPLACED FROM US. HE APPEARED TO BE GAINING SLIGHTLY ON OUR POS. AS WE PASSED THE 4.4 DME FIX, WE BEGAN TO SLOW TO APCH SPD AND SLOWLY WORK OUR WAY TOWARD RWY CTRLINE, OUR TFC TO PULL AHEAD OF US AT THE 2 1/2 MI FROM THE RWY POINT. WE THOUGHT IT ODD THAT HE WAS CRUISING RIGHT BY US, BUT FIGURED WE WOULD HAVE THE REQUIRED 1/8 MI STAGGER PRIOR TO TOUCHDOWN. NEITHER ATC NOR TWR SAID A WORD. THE PROCS FOR THESE PARALLEL APCHS STATE THAT IF YOU ARE OVERTAKING AN ACFT DURING AN APCH THE OVERTAKING ACFT SHOULD MAKE SOME SORT OF ACCOMMODATING MOVE TO ENSURE THEY WILL NOT PASS ANOTHER ACFT ON THE APCH. THIS ACCOMMODATION COULD TAKE MANY FORMS -- IE, SPD REDUCTION, REQUEST FOR AN S-TURN, REQUEST ATC REQUEST A SPD INCREASE ON THE SLOWER TFC TO FACILITATE SEPARATION OR A MISSED APCH BY THE FASTER ACFT. WE HAD REMAINED SLIGHTLY TO THE R OF RWY 28R CTRLINE DURING THE APCH AND WERE ON CTRLINE BY 500 FT AGL. OUR TFC TOUCHED DOWN ON RWY 28L SLIGHTLY BEFORE WE DID ON RWY 28R. WE HAD A SMOOTH CTLED TOUCHDOWN AND EXPERIENCED NO WAKE TURB DURING THE APCH, LNDG, OR ROLLOUT. HAVING SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME IN TACTICAL ATTACK ACFT DURING MY MIL CAREER, I FELT VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE B777 ON MY WING IN LOOSE CRUISE FORMATION. I FELT THE LEAD CHANGE WENT SMOOTHLY ALSO, AND AS WE SETTLED INTO OUR 1/8 MI LOOSE CRUISE POS FOR THE LNDG, THE THOUGHT OCCURRED TO ME A PA TO THE PAX MIGHT BE IN ORDER AFTER LNDG. THE THRUST OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT WAS THAT BOTH ACFT WERE ON PUBLISHED APCHS TO DIFFERENT RWYS AND BOTH ACFT WERE IN VISUAL CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER AT ALL TIMES. MY SUGGESTION IS TO HAVE THE 'NO PASS' RULE PLAINLY PLACARDED ON THE APCH PLATE'S PLAN VIEW -- NOT BURIED IN THE NOTES SECTIONS OF THE 'USERS OF RWY 28L VISUAL APCH AND RWY 28R RESPECTIVELY' PAGES.

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.