Narrative:

We were cleared for the FMS visual approach to runway 28R at sfo. Prior to switching over to tower, we heard approach ask a company B737 at our 8 O'clock position (behind and to our left) who was on a left base vector to runway 28L if he had company traffic in sight (which was our B757). The B737 indicated he had us in sight and was cleared for a visual approach to runway 28L. At this point we switched to tower and were cleared to land runway 28R. At about a 2-3 mi final, we observed our company B737 come up alongside us and proceeded to overtake our aircraft. We landed without incident. However, it is my understanding that a following aircraft is not supposed to overtake a preceding aircraft on final approach. These runways are spaced very close to one another and believe this set of conditions leads to a loss of safe horizontal separation, especially if one of the involved aircraft were to lose an inboard engine to the parallel traffic. I'm sure the resulting yaw would cause that aircraft to stray dangerously close to the other aircraft. This seems to be a common circumstance at sfo, and aircraft on parallel visual approachs to runway 28L&right must remain staggered on final approach and landing. The B737 crew should have been aware of this, or maybe this caveat should be published on the approach plates if it is not already.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 CREW, ON FINAL TO SFO, WERE OVERTAKEN BY ANOTHER ACFT LNDG ON THE PARALLEL.

Narrative: WE WERE CLRED FOR THE FMS VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R AT SFO. PRIOR TO SWITCHING OVER TO TWR, WE HEARD APCH ASK A COMPANY B737 AT OUR 8 O'CLOCK POS (BEHIND AND TO OUR L) WHO WAS ON A L BASE VECTOR TO RWY 28L IF HE HAD COMPANY TFC IN SIGHT (WHICH WAS OUR B757). THE B737 INDICATED HE HAD US IN SIGHT AND WAS CLRED FOR A VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28L. AT THIS POINT WE SWITCHED TO TWR AND WERE CLRED TO LAND RWY 28R. AT ABOUT A 2-3 MI FINAL, WE OBSERVED OUR COMPANY B737 COME UP ALONGSIDE US AND PROCEEDED TO OVERTAKE OUR ACFT. WE LANDED WITHOUT INCIDENT. HOWEVER, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT A FOLLOWING ACFT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO OVERTAKE A PRECEDING ACFT ON FINAL APCH. THESE RWYS ARE SPACED VERY CLOSE TO ONE ANOTHER AND BELIEVE THIS SET OF CONDITIONS LEADS TO A LOSS OF SAFE HORIZ SEPARATION, ESPECIALLY IF ONE OF THE INVOLVED ACFT WERE TO LOSE AN INBOARD ENG TO THE PARALLEL TFC. I'M SURE THE RESULTING YAW WOULD CAUSE THAT ACFT TO STRAY DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO THE OTHER ACFT. THIS SEEMS TO BE A COMMON CIRCUMSTANCE AT SFO, AND ACFT ON PARALLEL VISUAL APCHS TO RWY 28L&R MUST REMAIN STAGGERED ON FINAL APCH AND LNDG. THE B737 CREW SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS, OR MAYBE THIS CAVEAT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED ON THE APCH PLATES IF IT IS NOT ALREADY.

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.