TURNING ONTO SFO RWY 28R FINAL FOR A VISUAL APCH; DC10 WAS TOLD NOT TO PASS E120 INBOUND FOR RWY 28L. AFTER ADVISING 'UNABLE;' DC10 CLRED TO LAND.

Narrative

ON QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R AT SFO. WE WERE CLRED FOR THE APCH AND TOLD WE HAD TFC GOING TO RWY 28L THAT HAD US IN SIGHT. APPROX 5 MI OUT; TFC WAS AGAIN CALLED OUT AND I WAS TOLD TO CONTACT TWR. I TOLD APCH THAT I PROBABLY COULDN'T SEE THE TFC BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING FOR IT DIRECTLY INTO THE SUN. I THEN SAW THE ACFT; RPTED SEEING IT; AND WAS TOLD TO MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION AND AGAIN TO CONTACT TWR. WHEN I CONTACTED TWR; I WAS TOLD NOT TO PASS THE ACFT ON APCH TO RWY 28L. I RESPONDED THAT I WAS UNABLE TO KEEP FROM PASSING THAT ACFT. I WAS THEN CLRED TO LAND AND I LANDED WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT. AFTER VISUALLY ACQUIRING THE TFC; IN MY JUDGEMENT; WE WERE NOT SO CLOSE AS TO CREATE A COLLISION HAZARD. IN HINDSIGHT; I NOW BELIEVE MY WAKE TURB COULD POSSIBLY HAVE CAUSED A PROB FOR THE SMALLER ACFT. THE DISTR OF LOOKING TO ACQUIRE THE OTHER ACFT VISUALLY; WHILE FLYING THE APCH PROC; AND RUNNING CHKLIST CAUSED ME TO BE SOMEWHAT LATE IN CONFIGURING AND SLOWING MY ACFT; WHICH ACCENTUATED THE SPD DISPARITY BTWN THE 2 AIRPLANES. ANOTHER CONTRIBUTING FACTOR WAS THAT WE WERE NEVER GIVEN ANY SPD ADVISORIES WITH THE OTHER ACFT; OR ASSIGNED ANY SPD TO FLY DURING THE APCH. THIS WOULD HAVE ALLOWED FOR BETTER SEQUENCING OF THE 2 ACFT. TO PREVENT A FUTURE OCCURRENCE OF AN EVENT SIMILAR TO THIS; I WOULD SUGGEST BETTER SPD ADVISORIES FROM ATC; ESPECIALLY IF AN ACFT DOESN'T HAVE VISUAL CONTACT ON OTHER TFC UNTIL BEING SO CLOSE TO THE ARPT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 535282: EVEN IF WE HAD SLOWED/CONFIGURED EARLIER WE WOULD HAVE STILL PASSED THE SLOWER COMMUTER SOMEWHERE DOWN FINAL. WHEN WE OVERTOOK HE ADVISED THAT HE COULD REMAIN VISUAL SEPARATED FROM US. THE BASIC PROB HERE WAS SEQUENCING OF VERY DIFFERENT ACFT. THE SUN ANGLE AND THE COM HDOF BTWN APCH AND TWR RIGHT AS BOTH ACFT CONVERGED JUST COMPLICATED THE PROB.