A B757-200 LNDG AT SFO; ENCOUNTERS WAKE TURB 200 FT AGL. CLOSE PROX OF ACFT ON FINAL DUE TO VISUAL APCH DESIGN IS BLAMED BY THE PLT FOR THIS ENCOUNTER.

Narrative

FMS BRIDGE VISUAL RWY 28R AT SFO -- CONDUCTING E/CVFP APCHS AN ACR B757 WAS SLIGHTLY AHEAD FOR RWY 28L. WIND WAS SHIFTING -- LIGHT WIND (280 DEGS/08 KTS). AT ABOUT 200 FT MSL; EXPERIENCED WAKE TURB FROM PRECEDING B757. CTL WAS MAINTAINED TO TOUCHDOWN. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS: OAKLAND APCH DOES NOT ESTABLISH PROPER SEPARATION FOR ACFT WHEN USING SFO E/CVFP PROCS. THEY FORCE CREWS TO ACCEPT A VISUAL APCH; WASHING THEIR HANDS OF RESPONSIBILITY; LEAVING THE ACFT IN AN UNDESIRABLE/UNSAFE POS OF SEPARATION. IF THE WIND HAD BEEN SSW; IT (TURB) COULD HAVE BEEN MORE SERIOUS. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS: OAKLAND APCH SHOULD PROVIDE MORE LATERAL SEPARATION BTWN ACFT ON E/CVFP APCHS; I BELIEVE THEY EVEN COMPROMISE ON THEIR OWN RULES. EVENTUALLY THEY WILL PUT SOMEONE INTO THE BAY; DUE TO WAKE TURB; BUT OF COURSE IT WILL BE 'PLT ERROR;' SINCE THE PLT WAS ON A VISUAL APCH THAT OAKLAND APCH SET UP. REPEATEDLY ON E/CVFP APCHS I HAVE ASKED WHICH ACFT THEY ARE POSITIONING FIRST; THEY WILL NOT RESPOND; THEY DO NOT KNOW; AND WILL NOT ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THIS RPTR PARTICIPATED IN THE WAKE TURB CALLBACK STUDY. RPTR IS VERY DISSATISFIED WITH THE SEPARATION STANDARDS USED ON THE FMS VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R AT SFO. HE FEELS THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID WAKE TURB AS AN ACFT APCHS THE RWY AHEAD OF HIS ACFT WITH THE CLOSE SEPARATIONS OF 1/8 TO 1/4 MI. HE UNDERSTANDS WHY THE APCH DESIGN IS SUCH AS IT IS; BUT DISLIKES IT INTENSELY.