MD88 ON RWY 28L WAS ISSUED GAR AT SFO BECAUSE B757 ON RWY 28R DID NOT REMAIN ON THE LDA PRM APCH PROC UNTIL DARNE AS REQUIRE.

Date: 2005-03 · Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model · Phase: approach

Anomalies: conflict-airborne-conflict|deviation-track-heading-all-types|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy

Synopsis

MD88 ON RWY 28L WAS ISSUED GAR AT SFO BECAUSE B757 ON RWY 28R DID NOT REMAIN ON THE LDA PRM APCH PROC UNTIL DARNE AS REQUIRE.

Narrative

ON A SCHEDULED FLT FROM JFK TO SFO; WE WERE GIVEN CLRNC FOR THE PRM LDA APCH TO RWY 28R. WE BROKE OUT UNDERNEATH THE CEILING FAIRLY EARLY IN THE APCH AND ATC CALLED OUR TFC (AN MD88) WHICH WE ACKNOWLEDGED IN SIGHT. WE FOLLOWED THE MD88 DOWN THE APCH KEEPING HIM IN SIGHT ALL THE TIME. AFTER BEING CLRED TO LAND BY TWR WITH THE RWY IN SIGHT (ALONG WITH THE MD88) WE BEGAN TO ALIGN THE RWY TO KEEP OUR SPACING AND INTERVAL ON THE MD88 LNDG ON THE L. SHORTLY THEREAFTER; WE OBSERVED THE MD88 GOING AROUND AND THE FINAL CTLR FOR THE MD88 CAME ON THE RADIO AND INFORMED US THAT WE HAD TO STAY ON THE LDA FINAL UNTIL THE DARNES FIX. BECAUSE WE HAD THE ACFT (MD88) AND RWY IN SIGHT; WERE CLRED TO LAND; RPTED THE MD88 IN SIGHT AND HAD A 20 KT XWIND; THE CAPT CHOSE TO BEGIN ALIGNING WITH RWY JUST OUTSIDE OF DARNES (TO KEEP PROPER SPACING AND INTERVAL ON OUR TFC). THE WORDING IN OUR COMMERCIAL CHART MISLED US TO THINK ONCE THE ACFT AND RWY WERE IN SIGHT AND ANNOUNCED THAT WE NEEDED TO KEEP PROPER INTERVAL AND SEPARATION ON THE ACFT IN FRONT OF US.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.