Narrative:

Bay approach vectored us (aircraft X) down the bay for a visual approach to runway 28R. He told us that report a falcon (aircraft Y) on visual approach to runway 28R and we will be following that traffic. He gave us a heading for a base turn. When we saw the falcon, we were right on top of the falcon and about 4500 ft right over the marker (bridge). Then he cleared us for a visual approach to runway 28L and told us to maintain visual separation with falcon. Due to position and altitude we have, I had to configure the aircraft quickly and dive to capture the GS. During this process, we were lined up with runway 28L and had the falcon aircraft in sight at all times. We noticed that falcon aircraft slowed to its approach speed. During our descent, we passed abeam of falcon aircraft. When we switched to tower frequency, tower controller asked us if we were told not to pass the falcon aircraft. We said no, and we were not told to maintain falcon in sight. She did not make any comment after that. I think problem started with bay approach controller. He did not inform us about the runway change and our sequence. He turned us too tight and high behind the traffic. Later on, the tower controller told us we should not have passed the falcon traffic. We think she was worried about our wake turbulence due to close proximity of the runways in sfo. I think our understanding of maintaining visual separation is different than sfo controller's. They should be more clear about clrncs. They should be more clear about clrncs. Keep the crews informed about their approach plans.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR PIC CONCERNED WITH CLOSE-IN RWY CHANGE AND SEQUENCING AT SFO.

Narrative: BAY APCH VECTORED US (ACFT X) DOWN THE BAY FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R. HE TOLD US THAT RPT A FALCON (ACFT Y) ON VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R AND WE WILL BE FOLLOWING THAT TFC. HE GAVE US A HDG FOR A BASE TURN. WHEN WE SAW THE FALCON, WE WERE RIGHT ON TOP OF THE FALCON AND ABOUT 4500 FT RIGHT OVER THE MARKER (BRIDGE). THEN HE CLRED US FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28L AND TOLD US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH FALCON. DUE TO POS AND ALT WE HAVE, I HAD TO CONFIGURE THE ACFT QUICKLY AND DIVE TO CAPTURE THE GS. DURING THIS PROCESS, WE WERE LINED UP WITH RWY 28L AND HAD THE FALCON ACFT IN SIGHT AT ALL TIMES. WE NOTICED THAT FALCON ACFT SLOWED TO ITS APCH SPD. DURING OUR DSCNT, WE PASSED ABEAM OF FALCON ACFT. WHEN WE SWITCHED TO TWR FREQ, TWR CTLR ASKED US IF WE WERE TOLD NOT TO PASS THE FALCON ACFT. WE SAID NO, AND WE WERE NOT TOLD TO MAINTAIN FALCON IN SIGHT. SHE DID NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT AFTER THAT. I THINK PROB STARTED WITH BAY APCH CTLR. HE DID NOT INFORM US ABOUT THE RWY CHANGE AND OUR SEQUENCE. HE TURNED US TOO TIGHT AND HIGH BEHIND THE TFC. LATER ON, THE TWR CTLR TOLD US WE SHOULD NOT HAVE PASSED THE FALCON TFC. WE THINK SHE WAS WORRIED ABOUT OUR WAKE TURB DUE TO CLOSE PROX OF THE RWYS IN SFO. I THINK OUR UNDERSTANDING OF MAINTAINING VISUAL SEPARATION IS DIFFERENT THAN SFO CTLR'S. THEY SHOULD BE MORE CLR ABOUT CLRNCS. THEY SHOULD BE MORE CLR ABOUT CLRNCS. KEEP THE CREWS INFORMED ABOUT THEIR APCH PLANS.

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.