CL64 CLRED FOR TIPP TOE VISUAL RWY 28L AT SFO FAILED TO TURN AS PUBLISHED AND CONFLICTED WITH RWY 28R TFC; TCAS RA ACTIVATED.

Narrative

NORCAL CLRED US TIPP TOE VISUAL RWY 28L SFO. NORCAL CLRED ACFT Y VISUAL RWY 28R. WE NEVER ACQUIRED VISUAL CONTACT WITH ACFT Y. NORCAL STATED ACFT Y WILL MAINTAIN VISUAL SEPARATION WITH US. WE COULD NOT HEAR ACFT Y ON FREQ. PERHAPS ACFT Y WAS ON A DIFFERENT FREQ. BECAUSE OF CTLR OJT AT NORCAL; WE WERE NOT GIVEN A 'TURN-ON' VECTOR; CAUSING US TO OVERSHOOT THE RWY 28L LOC; OUR VISUAL APCH CLRNC WAS DELAYED; AND WE WERE KEPT HIGH (3000 FT MSL). THIS WAS THE SETUP FOR THE LOSS OF SEPARATION AND TCAS TA/RA. WE STARTED OUR DSCNT FOR RWY 28L AND CONTACTED TWR. WE RECEIVED A TCAS TA THEN RA TO CLB; ON FINAL APPROX 4 NM OUT ON RWY 28L LOC. WE DID NOT RPT TCAS TA TO SFO TWR DUE TO WORKLOAD. NORCAL LAST RPTED THE TFC AT 4 O'CLOCK POS BEHIND US. ACCORDING TO NORCAL SAFETY ASSURANCE OFFICER; SEPARATION WAS 500 FT; WE WERE AT 2200 FT MSL AND THE ACFT Y WAS AT 1700 FT MSL. THIS INCIDENT RAISES MANY SAFETY ISSUES: 1) SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL APCHS COMPROMISE SAFETY WHEN 1 ACFT DOES NOT HAVE THE OTHER ACFT IN SIGHT. WE COULDN'T SEE ACFT Y BECAUSE WE WERE HELD HIGH BY CTLR OJT. ACFT Y WAS UNDER OUR WING OR UNDERNEATH OUR FUSELAGE. 2) CTLR OJT IS NECESSARY; BUT NOT WHEN IT COMPROMISES SAFETY AND CREATES A SITUATION WHERE AN ACFT RECEIVES A TCAS TA/RA. WE WERE FORCED TO DSND RAPIDLY TO MAKE THE APCH. PAPI WAS WHT/WHT/WHT/WHT. 3) WHY DIDN'T THE SFO LCL CTLR ISSUE A TFC ALERT REGARDING ACFT Y? 4) IN CLASS B AIRSPACE; THE MOST CTLED AIRSPACE IN THE NAS; ACFT SHOULDN'T RECEIVE TCAS TA/RA. FOR THE FUTURE: IF I DON'T HAVE THE OTHER ACFT IN SIGHT; I WON'T ACCEPT A SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL APCH. IF AT ANY TIME I RECEIVE A TCAS TA/RA; I WILL EXECUTE AN EVASIVE MANEUVER; CONTACT ATC; AND GO MISSED. ATC CAN GO TO PLAN B. INCREASED ARR RATES ARE IMPORTANT; BUT NOT WHEN THEY COMPROMISE SAFETY. THE SIMULTANEOUS VISUAL APCH PROCS AT SFO NEED TO BE CAREFULLY REVIEWED AND REVISED.