Narrative:

Day VFR on quiet bridge visual approach to 28R at sfo. Autopilot on; LNAV/VNAV with approach armed. Cleared for the visual approach; following behind heavy (received some wake turbulence and roll earlier on the approach); and told to watch for an airbus on parallel approach to 28L. We saw him and acknowledged. Given speed of 160; approaching the turn point at the bridge; approximately 2300 ft; began slowing and configuring. Lost visual on airbus as focused on approach (he was behind and to the left of me); heard 'traffic'; looked over and saw airbus converging on our course; believed he had overshot or was lined up on wrong runway. Clicked off autopilot and banked right; then heard RA 'descend; now'; initiated descent below glideslope until he turned back; then was able to level out and recapture glideslope and configure and land normally (still above 1500 or so when leveled off). Upon landing informed tower of RA; no response. Asked ground control for towers' phone number; told to ask our operations for that. Asked operations and given phone number; spoke with supervisor at the tower who told me 'he received numerous calls about this type of incident all the time; they plan the approaches to be shoulder to shoulder'. I told him staggered spacing might be a better idea. I think this charted visual approach needs to be changed so that we don't converge at the same point over the bridge; or approach and tower should stagger us instead of putting us in shoulder to shoulder. The tower supervisor told me they did 'shoulder to shoulder' by design; seems dangerous to me.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 pilot on a Quiet Bridge Visual to SFO Runway 28R encountered some turbulence from a heavy jet early in the approach. Later a conflict developed between an Airbus on the parallel final to 28L causing the reporter to take evasive action.

Narrative: Day VFR on Quiet Bridge Visual Approach to 28R at SFO. Autopilot on; LNAV/VNAV with APPROACH armed. Cleared for the visual approach; following behind heavy (received some wake turbulence and roll earlier on the approach); and told to watch for an Airbus on parallel approach to 28L. We saw him and acknowledged. Given speed of 160; approaching the turn point at the bridge; approximately 2300 FT; began slowing and configuring. Lost visual on Airbus as focused on approach (he was behind and to the left of me); heard 'Traffic'; looked over and saw Airbus converging on our course; believed he had overshot or was lined up on wrong runway. Clicked off autopilot and banked right; then heard RA 'Descend; now'; initiated descent below glideslope until he turned back; then was able to level out and recapture glideslope and configure and land normally (still above 1500 or so when leveled off). Upon landing informed Tower of RA; no response. Asked ground control for Towers' phone number; told to ask our Operations for that. Asked Operations and given phone number; spoke with Supervisor at the Tower who told me 'he received numerous calls about this type of incident all the time; they plan the approaches to be shoulder to shoulder'. I told him staggered spacing might be a better idea. I think this charted visual approach needs to be changed so that we don't converge at the same point over the bridge; or Approach and Tower should stagger us instead of putting us in shoulder to shoulder. The Tower Supervisor told me they did 'shoulder to shoulder' by design; seems dangerous to me.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.