Narrative:

During simultaneous visual approachs to runway 28R/left, both aircraft had others in sight. Tower handed off responsibility for separation, knowing they would be almost wingtip-to-wingtip due to assigned speeds to the bridge. The other aircraft was just off our left wing. I cannot watch traffic on my left wing and monitor the progress of the approach. Therefore, I left TCASII in RA, which resulted in an RA warning, which was followed by a go around. The subsequent approach was vectors to be wingtip-to-wingtip with another aircraft. We intentionally slowed early to be able to keep the other aircraft in sight while making the approach. These 2 approachs did not occur during heavy traffic. It appears to me that if sfo approach control wants us to maintain an assigned speed to the bridge, they also know we will be right beside each other on the approach.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A300 ON VISUAL SIDE-BY TO SFO INITIATED GAR, TCASII RA.

Narrative: DURING SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL APCHS TO RWY 28R/L, BOTH ACFT HAD OTHERS IN SIGHT. TWR HANDED OFF RESPONSIBILITY FOR SEPARATION, KNOWING THEY WOULD BE ALMOST WINGTIP-TO-WINGTIP DUE TO ASSIGNED SPDS TO THE BRIDGE. THE OTHER ACFT WAS JUST OFF OUR L WING. I CANNOT WATCH TFC ON MY L WING AND MONITOR THE PROGRESS OF THE APCH. THEREFORE, I LEFT TCASII IN RA, WHICH RESULTED IN AN RA WARNING, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY A GAR. THE SUBSEQUENT APCH WAS VECTORS TO BE WINGTIP-TO-WINGTIP WITH ANOTHER ACFT. WE INTENTIONALLY SLOWED EARLY TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THE OTHER ACFT IN SIGHT WHILE MAKING THE APCH. THESE 2 APCHS DID NOT OCCUR DURING HVY TFC. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IF SFO APCH CTL WANTS US TO MAINTAIN AN ASSIGNED SPD TO THE BRIDGE, THEY ALSO KNOW WE WILL BE RIGHT BESIDE EACH OTHER ON THE APCH.

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.