Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the Captain and Pilot Flying on a B757 landing SFO Runway 28L in night VMC conditions. B767 landed Runway 28R approximately 1/4 mile behind us. My concern is that arriving aircraft on simultaneous visual approaches to Runways 28L/R at SFO are closely spaced wing tip to wing tip; but on different Approach Control frequencies. It is frequently ambiguous whether or not the other aircraft also has you in visual contact. Typically; you try not to pass the other airplane in order to maintain visual contact to touchdown. In this case; both aircraft got into a race to fall back behind the other; slowing to target approach airspeed early in the approach. The result this time was that the B767 for 28R won; leaving us to query ATC if the B767 had us in sight. My First Officer F/O queried NorCal Approach if they had us in sight; but he could not get an answer. On very short final; the F/O looked back; but reported that he could no longer see that aircraft. About 1 hour after landing; I telephoned NorCal Approach. The facility Manager called back within 10 minutes after talking to the Controller on duty; and reported the following. Both aircraft were instructed to maintain visual separation and both aircraft reported the other aircraft in sight. RADAR history showed about 1/4 mile stagger on 1-mile final with the B777 landing ahead of us on 28L. The aircraft on 28R were on a separate TRACON frequencies so we never hear those transmissions. The Tower expects; and NorCal routinely pairs arriving aircraft so as to leave a gap for departing aircraft on the crossing runways. RADAR history showed one RJ departure in the gap between us and the Heavy B777; and two departures in the gap behind us.


Second narrative: We were dispatched to SFO with the TCAS INOP. Arriving at SFO after dark; we were on a left base for Runway 28L and were told that we would be following a B777 on final; 'Caution wake turbulence'. Next we were asked to report traffic in sight for the right runway a B767. It was unclear from our point of view which aircraft would be the lead aircraft so I asked but the Controller did not give us a clear answer and we wound up side-by-side. Had I been the Captain I would have refused visual separation without this information since the traffic would only be visible out the side window but the Captain wanted to call the aircraft in sight so we did. Later when we debriefed this issue the Captain said he felt that mutual visual separation was only a wake turbulence issue and we were not concerned about avoiding the wake from a B767. The NorCal controllers are very good at vectoring traffic and it is clear that they are deliberately trying to put us side-by-side. The B777 requested to begin slowing and the Controller slowed us to final approach speed. Despite flying at approach speed; we wound up ahead and I told NorCal that we had lost sight of our traffic for the right runway. He did not acknowledge but sent us over to the Tower. We wound up landing ahead of the B767; the aircraft that we were told to maintain visual separation with. After shutdown we debriefed the flight and I told the Captain that I was very uncomfortable with the approach due to our obligation to maintain visual separation with an aircraft that wound up behind us. The Captain offered to call NorCal Approach for an explanation. He reported back to me this morning that B767 was on a different frequency but had also been told to maintain visual separation with us. I feel that it this does not relieve us of the responsibility to maintain visual separation since we were told to do so and agreed that we would. Only the trailing aircraft should be maintaining visual separation like on a PRM approach. When we landed the B777 was on Taxiway Bravo; blocking our planned exit at Tango and the Tower requested that we roll to Quebec; adding that there was no traffic on final for Runway 28R. If there was no traffic behind us then why did NorCal have to stuff us so close behind the B777 and so close to B767? Another half mile of spacing would have allowed both pilots to clearly keep the B767 in sight out the front window. There were multiple threats associated with this flight which in turn caused us to make an error by accepting visual separation: 1. TCAS should be a NO-GO item for airliners; especially in ETOPS airspace and after dark. 2. Controllers should not be allowed to rely on pilot's maintaining visual separation from a preceding heavy; especially after dark. We have no way to determine his flight path and 'Caution wake turbulence' is not a magic wand that dissipates the turbulence. 3. Side-by-side approaches should not be allowed using mutual visual separation. Controllers should be required to identify which is the lead aircraft and only the trailing aircraft should maintain visual separation.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew landing SFO expressed concern regarding ATC's application of visual separation between two aircraft on different frequencies landing on the closely spaced parallel runways.