PLT OF A PIPER PA32 DSNDED TO ASSURE VISUAL SEPARATION WITH A B727 DSNDING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AFTER APCH CTLR INSTRUCTED HIM TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION. HOWEVER; THE B727 CREW MADE A NMAC RPT OF INCIDENT.

Narrative

WHILE ON FLT FOLLOWING FROM Q94 TO SQL WE REQUESTED AND WERE GRANTED AN SFO CLASS B CLRNC. WE WERE AT 3000 FT WHEN BAY APCH NOTIFIED US OF TFC; A B727 AT ABOUT 5000 FT; DSNDING FOR OAK. WE RPTED THE JET IN SIGHT AND WERE TOLD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION FROM THAT TFC. THIS WE DID. WE DSNDED TO 2500 FT AFTER NOTIFYING BAY APCH OF OUR INTENTIONS. THE JET PASSED ABOVE (APPROX 1500 FT) AND SLIGHTLY AHEAD (ESTIMATED 1500 FT) OF US. WE THOUGHT NOTHING OF THE MATTER; AND DID NOT THINK IT WAS A NEAR MISS; NOR ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY. UPON RETURNING HOME; WE LEARNED VIA A PHONE CALL FROM TRACON CTLR; THAT THE B727 PLT HAD BECOME IRATE ABOUT THE SIT AND WAS FILING A NEAR MISS. CTLR HAD REVIEWED THE TAPES AND CONCLUDED THAT WE HAD ACTED APPROPRIATELY AND ALSO DID NOT SEE ANY GROUNDS TO FILE A NEAR MISS RPT. IN MY OPINION; THIS WAS NOT AN INCIDENT. WE HAD THE B727 IN SIGHT AT ALL TIMES AND MAINTAINED MORE THAN ADEQUATE SEPARATION FROM IT. THE ISSUE IS ONLY THAT THE B727 PLT DID NOT GET A VISUAL ON US; BUT DID GET A TCASII ALERT. I THINK THE ACR PROC MANUAL CALLS FOR A GAR IN THIS SIT. THE SIT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THE CARRIER CREW HAD SEEN US; PERHAPS THEY WERE DISTRACTED WITH SETTING UP FOR THE APCH TO OAK. IT COULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF TRACON HAD ASSIGNED US AN ALT OR GIVEN US A VECTOR. WE COULD HAVE PERFORMED SOME MANEUVER TO INCREASE OUR SEPARATION DISTANCE; EG; DSNDED FASTER. HOWEVER; WE WERE ON TOP OF A CLOUD DECK WITH TOPS AT ABOUT 1800 FT; AND SO COULD NOT GO MUCH LOWER WHILE MAINTAINING VFR.