B737 flight crew describes a conflict with a heavy Airbus on short final during simultaneous visual approaches to Runways 28L and R. The Airbus crew either mistook or misunderstood the clearance to Runway 28L and attempted to line up on Runway 28R; before going around when the error is discovered.
Synopsis
B737 flight crew describes a conflict with a heavy Airbus on short final during simultaneous visual approaches to Runways 28L and R. The Airbus crew either mistook or misunderstood the clearance to Runway 28L and attempted to line up on Runway 28R; before going around when the error is discovered.
Narrative
The flight to SFO descended via the MODESTO 3 Arrival with a transition to the QUIET BRIDGE visual to Runway 28R. A clearance was given to intercept the SFO 095 radial after OOMEN. We had built way points corresponding to the 18/13/6 DME fixes on the visual arrival and continued with LNAV engaged. Approach Control called traffic (another carrier's heavy) coming from left on the TIP TOE visual; which we acknowledged. We were assigned 180 KTS from 210 KTS. The First Officer had the SFO raw data VOR to confirm our position. Between 18 and 13 DME; I noticed the other carrier's heavy taking a cut away from us. We continued to configure for landing on 28R. Approaching the San Mateo Bridge; we were still in a close abeam position and the lateral separation was closing. Approaching 1;200 FT AGL; the First Officer called the Tower and said; 'Confirm the heavy is going to the left.' The heavy initiated a go-around and we continue to land. We estimated the lateral separation to be 800 to 1;000 FT. I called the SFO Tower Supervisor and discussed the event. He seemed unconcerned.According to the SFO expanded charted visual procedures there should be 1/8 to 1/4 mile stagger between aircraft on visual approaches. Either Approach or the Tower failed to establish the proper stagger. I was reluctant to slow behind the heavy due to possible wake turbulence issues.
Second reporter narrative
We were flying into SFO on the QUIET BRIDGE VISUAL approach for Runway 28L and R. I was the pilot not flying and working the radios. NCT told us to comply with the charted visual approach for Runway 28 right. We were inside of 13 miles to the field when they notified us that a heavy Airbus would be on a parallel visual approach to Runway 28L and to maintain visual separation from the heavy Airbus. As we continued on the approach; the Captain and I kept visual contact with the Airbus. At eight miles; I selected TA on the transponder in accordance with company procedures for SFO. At six miles from SFO and over the bridge on the charted visual procedure; the Captain was still north of the extended centerline getting ready to intercept the final.We were transferred to the Tower frequency; checked in; and received landing clearance. We both noticed that the Airbus looked as if it was getting closer; but then it appeared to make a correction away from our course. Both aircraft were exactly abeam one another. The TCAS then made a 'traffic' call; and we noticed that the Airbus was now banking back to north of the course for 28L and getting closer. Consequently; the Captain maneuvered north of course; as we were already displaced significantly north of the centerline for Runway 28R. I made a radio call to the Tower and said; 'Confirm the heavy Airbus is landing on Runway 28L.' There was a pause and at this point the Airbus executed a go-around; and the Tower confirmed our landing clearance on Runway 28R. The Airbus was approximately 500 FT from us laterally when it executed the go-around. We continued to the runway and landed uneventfully. One contributing factor was that both aircraft were exactly abeam one another on the approach; making range and closure judgments harder to see at night while trying to align with Runway 28R. The other factor was that the other carrier tried to land on the wrong runway.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.