Narrative:

3 miles southwest brijj LOM, 28L sfo, heading 140 degree 7800' MSL descending to 6000' speed 180 KTS. We were asked if we had widebody transport X in sight below us about 5000' heading 300 degree on final for 28L? We reported yes and were cleared for a visual 28L behind widebody transport X. We extended for 1 mile descending and started a 25 degree bank turn to our left northeast to follow widebody transport X. Approach asked if we were turning, we replied yes we are in the turn, he asked if we had the widebody transport X, negative, he then says maintain 4000' heading 310 degree to intercept sfo 282 degree right, caution widebody transport Y at 1 O'clock for 28R. When I looked up my altitude it was 3200' MSL as I leveled off, approach says you were assigned 4000' but maintain 3000 and 200 KTS to brijj for visual 28L. He then says are you on the 282 degree right, no but we are on the intercept heading. Once over to tower everything was smooth and uneventful, nice landing ahead of schedule etc. I'm not happy nor will I accept in the future a visual without the runway in sight. An large transport cannot descend like a rock nor can we keep opposite direction traffic in sight in 180 KTS. Sfo visuals from the north are unsatisfactory, if not unsafe. 180 degree overhead visuals are not safe for aircraft. I won't accept another one. Callback conversation with revealed the following: although the reporter in his report said that he did not think the procedure was safe he modified this as we talked. He does suggest that approach control vector the aircraft until on the 102 right intercept and restrict altitude to 4000'.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LGT PROBLEM WITH TIPP TOE VISUAL APCH TO RWY SFO.

Narrative: 3 MILES SW BRIJJ LOM, 28L SFO, HEADING 140 DEG 7800' MSL DESCENDING TO 6000' SPEED 180 KTS. WE WERE ASKED IF WE HAD WDB X IN SIGHT BELOW US ABOUT 5000' HEADING 300 DEG ON FINAL FOR 28L? WE REPORTED YES AND WERE CLRED FOR A VISUAL 28L BEHIND WDB X. WE EXTENDED FOR 1 MILE DESCENDING AND STARTED A 25 DEG BANK TURN TO OUR LEFT NE TO FOLLOW WDB X. APPROACH ASKED IF WE WERE TURNING, WE REPLIED YES WE ARE IN THE TURN, HE ASKED IF WE HAD THE WDB X, NEGATIVE, HE THEN SAYS MAINTAIN 4000' HEADING 310 DEG TO INTERCEPT SFO 282 DEG R, CAUTION WDB Y AT 1 O'CLOCK FOR 28R. WHEN I LOOKED UP MY ALTITUDE IT WAS 3200' MSL AS I LEVELED OFF, APPROACH SAYS YOU WERE ASSIGNED 4000' BUT MAINTAIN 3000 AND 200 KTS TO BRIJJ FOR VISUAL 28L. HE THEN SAYS ARE YOU ON THE 282 DEG R, NO BUT WE ARE ON THE INTERCEPT HEADING. ONCE OVER TO TWR EVERYTHING WAS SMOOTH AND UNEVENTFUL, NICE LANDING AHEAD OF SCHEDULE ETC. I'M NOT HAPPY NOR WILL I ACCEPT IN THE FUTURE A VISUAL WITHOUT THE RWY IN SIGHT. AN LGT CANNOT DESCEND LIKE A ROCK NOR CAN WE KEEP OPPOSITE DIRECTION TFC IN SIGHT IN 180 KTS. SFO VISUALS FROM THE NORTH ARE UNSATISFACTORY, IF NOT UNSAFE. 180 DEG OVERHEAD VISUALS ARE NOT SAFE FOR ACFT. I WON'T ACCEPT ANOTHER ONE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: ALTHOUGH THE RPTR IN HIS RPT SAID THAT HE DID NOT THINK THE PROC WAS SAFE HE MODIFIED THIS AS WE TALKED. HE DOES SUGGEST THAT APCH CTL VECTOR THE ACFT UNTIL ON THE 102 R INTERCEPT AND RESTRICT ALT TO 4000'.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.