Narrative:

On approach into sfo, approach control vectored us in and assigned airspds in such a manner that as we were approaching the bridge we were converging with heavy transport Z making a left turn in for runway 28L. (We were going to runway 28R.) our convergence was such that we were going to be maneuvering in turns, wing tip to wing tip. I did not want to trust the safety of my flight to the other pilot's ability to not overshoot his turn on, so I voiced my concern to the controller and declined the approach. He then stopped my descent at 4000' and vectored me away from the other aircraft. As we came up over the bridge (at 4000') he cleared me for a visual approach. The bridge is normally crossed at 1900'. I told him that we were too high to make a landing from that point, so we wound up being vectored over the airport and back for a left turn in to runway 28L. Over the yrs I have made numerous parallel approachs into sfo, but the other aircraft has always been slightly ahead of, or behind me, and the rear aircraft has always been instructed not to overtake the lead aircraft. There was no discussion over the radio, but after landing I called on the landline and spoke to the supervisor. He stated that he saw nothing wrong with our being turned on side by side instead of staggered slightly. In fact, he thought I was 'wrong to have declined the approach.' he said that we had 'a philosophical difference of opinion on what constitutes a safe approach.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF ACR-WDB OBJECTED TO AND REFUSED A VISUAL APCH SIDE-BY-SIDE WITH AN ACR-HVT. ATC VECTORED FLT FOR A VISUAL APCH (NOT SIDE-BY-SIDE).

Narrative: ON APCH INTO SFO, APCH CTL VECTORED US IN AND ASSIGNED AIRSPDS IN SUCH A MANNER THAT AS WE WERE APCHING THE BRIDGE WE WERE CONVERGING WITH HVT Z MAKING A LEFT TURN IN FOR RWY 28L. (WE WERE GOING TO RWY 28R.) OUR CONVERGENCE WAS SUCH THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE MANEUVERING IN TURNS, WING TIP TO WING TIP. I DID NOT WANT TO TRUST THE SAFETY OF MY FLT TO THE OTHER PLT'S ABILITY TO NOT OVERSHOOT HIS TURN ON, SO I VOICED MY CONCERN TO THE CTLR AND DECLINED THE APCH. HE THEN STOPPED MY DSCNT AT 4000' AND VECTORED ME AWAY FROM THE OTHER ACFT. AS WE CAME UP OVER THE BRIDGE (AT 4000') HE CLRED ME FOR A VISUAL APCH. THE BRIDGE IS NORMALLY CROSSED AT 1900'. I TOLD HIM THAT WE WERE TOO HIGH TO MAKE A LNDG FROM THAT POINT, SO WE WOUND UP BEING VECTORED OVER THE ARPT AND BACK FOR A LEFT TURN IN TO RWY 28L. OVER THE YRS I HAVE MADE NUMEROUS PARALLEL APCHS INTO SFO, BUT THE OTHER ACFT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SLIGHTLY AHEAD OF, OR BEHIND ME, AND THE REAR ACFT HAS ALWAYS BEEN INSTRUCTED NOT TO OVERTAKE THE LEAD ACFT. THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OVER THE RADIO, BUT AFTER LNDG I CALLED ON THE LANDLINE AND SPOKE TO THE SUPVR. HE STATED THAT HE SAW NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR BEING TURNED ON SIDE BY SIDE INSTEAD OF STAGGERED SLIGHTLY. IN FACT, HE THOUGHT I WAS 'WRONG TO HAVE DECLINED THE APCH.' HE SAID THAT WE HAD 'A PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON WHAT CONSTITUTES A SAFE APCH.'

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.