Flight Crew Last 90 Days 200; Flight Crew Total 18500; Flight Crew Type 3000
Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Procedure; Human Factors
Concerned over being blamed for passing aircraft flying simultaneous PRM approach into SFO we were flying the LDA PRM 28R approach into SFO. Approach Control on 120.35 (with monitor frequency in #2 radio) had us maintaining 250 KTS; and at one point on the approach; NCT told us to maintain 170 KTS; which we slowed to immediately; and maintained it until I felt it necessary to slow to final approach speed. We slowed to final approach speed earlier than would normally be done; as we observed on TCAS; another aircraft on the PRM 28L approach. We were aware that when we made visual contact; one of the items of importance on the approach details was to attempt to not pass the other aircraft. NCT Approach never mentioned their presence nor issued any other speed request/reduction. We were at our minimum approach speed. The relative location of the other aircraft was hard to determine viewing our TCAS display; and we were still in instrument meteorological conditions until essentially DARNE; just above published decision altitude. When we broke out of the overcast; it was raining and we could see Runway 28R; and an aircraft just to our left. We contacted the Tower; were cleared to land; and advised the Tower we had them in sight. The other aircraft did not report us in sight; and the Tower did not issue any other instructions. With strong winds out of the south; (our heading was left of our track) that aircraft's position; while visible at approximately our 9 O'clock position; was apparently very slightly behind us. We did not pass that aircraft after breaking out of the clouds. A while later; SFO Tower sent the regional jet around and when questioned by the Regional jet; SFO Tower alleged 'the aircraft to your right passed you on the approach.' If that was the case; sequencing control was still in the hands of the RADAR Controller until we observed them for the first time (when they appeared slightly behind us); and since we were at our minimum approach speed; we could not limit them from dropping back behind if they slowed further. We had not yet maneuvered left to join the extended center line of Runway 28R. With the south winds; and additional ground track distance involved; we would have ended up slightly behind that aircraft when we were both on extended center lines. With the strong winds from the south; there was never any wake turbulence issue.
We were flying the LDA PRM 28R Approach into SFO. NCT Approach Control on 120.35 (with monitor frequency in #2 radio) had us maintaining 250 KTS; and at one point on the approach; NCT told us to maintain 170 KTS; which we slowed to immediately; and maintained it until I felt it necessary to slow to final approach speed. We slowed to final approach speed earlier than would normally be done; as we observed on TCAS; another aircraft on the PRM 28L approach. We were aware that when we made visual contact; one of the items of importance on the approach details was to attempt to not pass the other aircraft. NCT Approach never mentioned their presence nor issued any other speed request/reduction. We were at our minimum approach speed. The relative location of the other aircraft was hard to determine viewing our TCAS display; and we were still in instrument meteorological conditions until essentially DARNE; just above published decision altitude. When we broke out of the overcast; it was raining and we could see Runway 28R and an aircraft just to our left. We contacted the Tower; were cleared to land; and advised the Tower we had the other aircraft in sight. The other aircraft did not report us in sight; and the Tower did not issue any other instructions. With strong winds out of the south; (our heading was left of our track) that aircraft's position; while visible at approximately our 9 O'clock position; was apparently very slightly behind us. We did not pass that aircraft after breaking out of the clouds. A while later SFO Tower sent the regional jet around and when questioned by the regional jet; SFO Tower alleged 'the aircraft to your right passed you on the approach'. If that was the case; sequencing control was still in the hands of the Radar Controller until we observed them for the first time (when they appeared slightly behind us); and since we were at our minimum approach speed; we could not limit them from dropping back behind if they slowed further. We had not yet maneuvered left to join the extended center line of Runway 28R. With the south winds; and additional ground track distance involved; we would have ended up slightly behind that aircraft when we were both on extended center lines. With the strong winds from the south; there was never any wake turbulence issue. At no point was there any uncertainty about maintaining a safe operation.
Air Carrier conducting an LDA PRM 28R approach to SFO described a go-around event by parallel traffic on Runway 28L. ATC claimed the reporter's aircraft passed parallel traffic causing the event.