Captain of B757-200 feels RA on final to runway 28L at sfo was the result of controller error.

Attributes
ACN	687670
Time
Date	200602
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	airport : sfo.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	msl single value : 1000
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Aircraft 1
Controlling Facilities	tracon : nct.tracon tower : atl.tower
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B757-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	ils localizer only : 28l
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Route In Use	arrival : on vectors
Flight Plan	IFR
Aircraft 2
Controlling Facilities	tracon : nct.tracon
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Navigation In Use	ils localizer only : 28r
Flight Phase	descent : approach
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
ASRS Report	687670
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
Events
Anomaly	conflict : airborne critical
Independent Detector	aircraft equipment : tcas other flight crewa
Resolutory Action	flight crew : executed go around
Supplementary
Problem Areas	ATC Human Performance Flight Crew Human Performance Aircraft Airport
Primary Problem	Ambiguous

Narrative:

We were being vectored by ATC for runway 28L. Very pushy and inattentive controller. Asked if we had the traffic and airport. I told him we had the bridge. He cleared us for the visual to runway 28L. Insisted that we keep our speed up to 230 KTS twice. I asked for 180 KTS to slow per SOP. He insisted we maintain 230 KTS until 10 mi out -- which we did. We then threw everything out to slow to 180 KTS over the bridge and then to slow to target of 130 KTS. First officer did a great job flying. He told us to maintain visual with the traffic. I told him we didn't have the traffic. He sounded annoyed -- thought we had called it. I told him no; we had the bridge. He cleared us for the visual and turned us over to tower (about the bridge). Advised other traffic had us in sight and was maintaining separation. Checked in with tower; inside the bridge; and slowing to 130 KTS. Well inside the bridge they asked if we could accelerate to 180 KTS. I told them no; we were already slowing to 130 KTS. Traffic on the right side was a commuter aircraft. Traffic looked close and was turning in to us; there was no sequencing between us -- we were turned exactly at each other. The first officer did a nice job of staying just to the left of runway 28L localizer centerline -- less than a hair's width. Other traffic blew past his runway 28R localizer into our area and we got an RA 'climb; climb.' we complied and told ATC what we were doing. They brought us around left traffic for an uneventful landing on runway 28L with descent vectors this time around. They said that it looked ok on radar when I called them. If it looked ok on radar; why all the crazy vectors? I think this was controller error as well as the other airplane going past his centerline. He was banking pretty severely to try to get back on course -- we saw a good deal of the underside of his airplane. Nice job by first officer on avoiding the RA and also doing a go around.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF B757-200 FEELS RA ON FINAL TO RWY 28L AT SFO WAS THE RESULT OF CTLR ERROR.

Narrative: WE WERE BEING VECTORED BY ATC FOR RWY 28L. VERY PUSHY AND INATTENTIVE CTLR. ASKED IF WE HAD THE TFC AND ARPT. I TOLD HIM WE HAD THE BRIDGE. HE CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL TO RWY 28L. INSISTED THAT WE KEEP OUR SPD UP TO 230 KTS TWICE. I ASKED FOR 180 KTS TO SLOW PER SOP. HE INSISTED WE MAINTAIN 230 KTS UNTIL 10 MI OUT -- WHICH WE DID. WE THEN THREW EVERYTHING OUT TO SLOW TO 180 KTS OVER THE BRIDGE AND THEN TO SLOW TO TARGET OF 130 KTS. FO DID A GREAT JOB FLYING. HE TOLD US TO MAINTAIN VISUAL WITH THE TFC. I TOLD HIM WE DIDN'T HAVE THE TFC. HE SOUNDED ANNOYED -- THOUGHT WE HAD CALLED IT. I TOLD HIM NO; WE HAD THE BRIDGE. HE CLRED US FOR THE VISUAL AND TURNED US OVER TO TWR (ABOUT THE BRIDGE). ADVISED OTHER TFC HAD US IN SIGHT AND WAS MAINTAINING SEPARATION. CHKED IN WITH TWR; INSIDE THE BRIDGE; AND SLOWING TO 130 KTS. WELL INSIDE THE BRIDGE THEY ASKED IF WE COULD ACCELERATE TO 180 KTS. I TOLD THEM NO; WE WERE ALREADY SLOWING TO 130 KTS. TFC ON THE R SIDE WAS A COMMUTER ACFT. TFC LOOKED CLOSE AND WAS TURNING IN TO US; THERE WAS NO SEQUENCING BTWN US -- WE WERE TURNED EXACTLY AT EACH OTHER. THE FO DID A NICE JOB OF STAYING JUST TO THE L OF RWY 28L LOC CTRLINE -- LESS THAN A HAIR'S WIDTH. OTHER TFC BLEW PAST HIS RWY 28R LOC INTO OUR AREA AND WE GOT AN RA 'CLB; CLB.' WE COMPLIED AND TOLD ATC WHAT WE WERE DOING. THEY BROUGHT US AROUND L TFC FOR AN UNEVENTFUL LNDG ON RWY 28L WITH DSCNT VECTORS THIS TIME AROUND. THEY SAID THAT IT LOOKED OK ON RADAR WHEN I CALLED THEM. IF IT LOOKED OK ON RADAR; WHY ALL THE CRAZY VECTORS? I THINK THIS WAS CTLR ERROR AS WELL AS THE OTHER AIRPLANE GOING PAST HIS CTRLINE. HE WAS BANKING PRETTY SEVERELY TO TRY TO GET BACK ON COURSE -- WE SAW A GOOD DEAL OF THE UNDERSIDE OF HIS AIRPLANE. NICE JOB BY FO ON AVOIDING THE RA AND ALSO DOING A GAR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.