Narrative:

Sfo ATIS few 1200 ft, visibility 10 mi, parallel charted visual approachs in use, landing runway 28L. About 15 mi out, after established on sfo 095 degree radial inbound, inquired about runway assignment and reply was runway 28R. First officer spent next few mins entering data and clearing map display. Started out on GS but despite idle power and 1/2 spoilers (french logic allows only 1/2 spoilers if autoplt on), went well above GS. The 'few' clouds all happened to be hugging the west side of san francisco bay between us and sfo. We continued to get lower altitude assignments by ATC without sfo being in sight. Another aircraft on the parallel 'tipp toe' approach reported us in sight and promised to maintain visual separation. Still above GS, I disconnected autoplt and autothrottle and dirtied up. About 8-10 mi out, first officer said he could see reils, but I wasn't confident enough to report field in sight and take a visual. Approaching brijj (at approximately 6 mi final) we were cleared to 2000 ft. My major concerns were unseen aircraft to our left and being too high. Inside brijj, first officer said '2000 ft assigned' as we passed 1700 ft. I believe we entered the thin clouds about 2000 ft. As I started to add power, the field became clearly visible, along with the other traffic which was now 2-3 mi ahead of us. As the first officer was pointing out my altitude deviation, ATC was asking if we could maintain visual with the aircraft ahead. As we came out of the clouds, we answered yes and were cleared for the visual. Although the altitude alerter was set to 2000 ft, neither the first officer nor I recall hearing it. The sfo ATIS for the previous 3 hours (we had been getting it on ACARS) had been saying arrs runway 28L only and the NOTAMS said runway 28R closed after XA00 (our arrival time). How can an air carrier pilot expect to maintain basic VFR cloud clearance, at night, with any clouds at 1200 ft. I acknowledge my screw up in busting my altitude. I also should have told ATC 'field not in sight and not expected to come into sight.' but, it is almost impossible to communicate with a busy approach facility. All you can usually do is respond, tersely, to instructions. Supplemental information from acn 405081: current ATIS stated that runway 28R was closed. We programmed the FMS with the quiet bridge visual runway 28R recommended altitudes, DME's, but had runway 28L programmed instead of runway 28R. We assumed we would fly the runway 28R charted visual approach with the exception that we would conduct a visual approach to runway 28L once we acquired the field. We had a discontinuity programmed after the last DME fix. At approximately 8-10 mi out, the approach controller told us that traffic at our 10 O'clock position had us visually and would maintain separation from us and that he was landing on runway 28L. We then realized that sfo was using both runways and they wanted us to land on runway 28R. I had the sfo 095 degree radial hard-tuned, so, as the PNF, I selected ILS runway 28R on the FMS so the captain would have final guidance to runway 28R. This action eliminated the manually inputted DME recommended altitudes that he had entered for the quiet bridge. It took me a while to get runway 28R entered because I selected the modesto 2 arrival and had to erase a lot of waypoints instead of selecting 'no STAR.' things were happening fairly quickly by this time. I was concentrating on entering the correct ILS in the FMS and was not focusing on the altimeter as I would have been had we not been given a runway change late in the game. I normally program the 'secondary flight plan' with the parallel runway, if there is one, but decided not to in this case because the ATIS specifically stated that runway 28R was closed.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATIS NOT UP TO DATE. FLC OF A320 IS GIVEN PARALLEL APCH TO EXPECT VISUAL APCH IN MARGINAL WX. GIVEN RWY CHANGE AT THE LAST MIN. CREW DSNDED BELOW THEIR CLRED ALT BEFORE BECOMING VISUAL.

Narrative: SFO ATIS FEW 1200 FT, VISIBILITY 10 MI, PARALLEL CHARTED VISUAL APCHS IN USE, LNDG RWY 28L. ABOUT 15 MI OUT, AFTER ESTABLISHED ON SFO 095 DEG RADIAL INBOUND, INQUIRED ABOUT RWY ASSIGNMENT AND REPLY WAS RWY 28R. FO SPENT NEXT FEW MINS ENTERING DATA AND CLRING MAP DISPLAY. STARTED OUT ON GS BUT DESPITE IDLE PWR AND 1/2 SPOILERS (FRENCH LOGIC ALLOWS ONLY 1/2 SPOILERS IF AUTOPLT ON), WENT WELL ABOVE GS. THE 'FEW' CLOUDS ALL HAPPENED TO BE HUGGING THE W SIDE OF SAN FRANCISCO BAY BTWN US AND SFO. WE CONTINUED TO GET LOWER ALT ASSIGNMENTS BY ATC WITHOUT SFO BEING IN SIGHT. ANOTHER ACFT ON THE PARALLEL 'TIPP TOE' APCH RPTED US IN SIGHT AND PROMISED TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. STILL ABOVE GS, I DISCONNECTED AUTOPLT AND AUTOTHROTTLE AND DIRTIED UP. ABOUT 8-10 MI OUT, FO SAID HE COULD SEE REILS, BUT I WASN'T CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO RPT FIELD IN SIGHT AND TAKE A VISUAL. APCHING BRIJJ (AT APPROX 6 MI FINAL) WE WERE CLRED TO 2000 FT. MY MAJOR CONCERNS WERE UNSEEN ACFT TO OUR L AND BEING TOO HIGH. INSIDE BRIJJ, FO SAID '2000 FT ASSIGNED' AS WE PASSED 1700 FT. I BELIEVE WE ENTERED THE THIN CLOUDS ABOUT 2000 FT. AS I STARTED TO ADD PWR, THE FIELD BECAME CLRLY VISIBLE, ALONG WITH THE OTHER TFC WHICH WAS NOW 2-3 MI AHEAD OF US. AS THE FO WAS POINTING OUT MY ALTDEV, ATC WAS ASKING IF WE COULD MAINTAIN VISUAL WITH THE ACFT AHEAD. AS WE CAME OUT OF THE CLOUDS, WE ANSWERED YES AND WERE CLRED FOR THE VISUAL. ALTHOUGH THE ALT ALERTER WAS SET TO 2000 FT, NEITHER THE FO NOR I RECALL HEARING IT. THE SFO ATIS FOR THE PREVIOUS 3 HRS (WE HAD BEEN GETTING IT ON ACARS) HAD BEEN SAYING ARRS RWY 28L ONLY AND THE NOTAMS SAID RWY 28R CLOSED AFTER XA00 (OUR ARR TIME). HOW CAN AN ACR PLT EXPECT TO MAINTAIN BASIC VFR CLOUD CLRNC, AT NIGHT, WITH ANY CLOUDS AT 1200 FT. I ACKNOWLEDGE MY SCREW UP IN BUSTING MY ALT. I ALSO SHOULD HAVE TOLD ATC 'FIELD NOT IN SIGHT AND NOT EXPECTED TO COME INTO SIGHT.' BUT, IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH A BUSY APCH FACILITY. ALL YOU CAN USUALLY DO IS RESPOND, TERSELY, TO INSTRUCTIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 405081: CURRENT ATIS STATED THAT RWY 28R WAS CLOSED. WE PROGRAMMED THE FMS WITH THE QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R RECOMMENDED ALTS, DME'S, BUT HAD RWY 28L PROGRAMMED INSTEAD OF RWY 28R. WE ASSUMED WE WOULD FLY THE RWY 28R CHARTED VISUAL APCH WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT WE WOULD CONDUCT A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28L ONCE WE ACQUIRED THE FIELD. WE HAD A DISCONTINUITY PROGRAMMED AFTER THE LAST DME FIX. AT APPROX 8-10 MI OUT, THE APCH CTLR TOLD US THAT TFC AT OUR 10 O'CLOCK POS HAD US VISUALLY AND WOULD MAINTAIN SEPARATION FROM US AND THAT HE WAS LNDG ON RWY 28L. WE THEN REALIZED THAT SFO WAS USING BOTH RWYS AND THEY WANTED US TO LAND ON RWY 28R. I HAD THE SFO 095 DEG RADIAL HARD-TUNED, SO, AS THE PNF, I SELECTED ILS RWY 28R ON THE FMS SO THE CAPT WOULD HAVE FINAL GUIDANCE TO RWY 28R. THIS ACTION ELIMINATED THE MANUALLY INPUTTED DME RECOMMENDED ALTS THAT HE HAD ENTERED FOR THE QUIET BRIDGE. IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO GET RWY 28R ENTERED BECAUSE I SELECTED THE MODESTO 2 ARR AND HAD TO ERASE A LOT OF WAYPOINTS INSTEAD OF SELECTING 'NO STAR.' THINGS WERE HAPPENING FAIRLY QUICKLY BY THIS TIME. I WAS CONCENTRATING ON ENTERING THE CORRECT ILS IN THE FMS AND WAS NOT FOCUSING ON THE ALTIMETER AS I WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD WE NOT BEEN GIVEN A RWY CHANGE LATE IN THE GAME. I NORMALLY PROGRAM THE 'SECONDARY FLT PLAN' WITH THE PARALLEL RWY, IF THERE IS ONE, BUT DECIDED NOT TO IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE ATIS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT RWY 28R WAS CLOSED.

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.