Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were flying the DYAMD2 arrival to SFO and were cleared to intercept the FMS Bridge visual to 28R. Our speed was being controlled from 210 KIAS then 180 or faster until SAMML. We were advised of traffic at 9 o'clock approaching 28L. We reported it in sight prior to JANYY (bridge) and were told they had us in sight and would maintain visual separation. At this point; I neglected to request TCAS set to 'TA.' They were told to slow for departing traffic. Our speeds resulted in us flying wingtip to wingtip. As we lined up on course inside the bridge below 2;000 feet in landing configuration; we received a TCAS descend warning. I do not recall any advisory warning prior to that; just an immediate descend. That caused me to again carefully look at the traffic and I did not bother to go to RA.I had the other jet in sight and was satisfied we could continue our approach. It was on a normal course to 28L. The TCAS changed to climb at some point after that; I believe inside the bridge well below 1;500 feet.Nothing had changed; we were flying in a steady formation to our runways. We were each on a normal; stabilized profile at matched speeds. We landed normally and proceeded to our gate.


Second narrative: The prevailing issue is comprised of three elements: visual approach clearances; ATC speed assignments; and TCAS system operations. We were cleared for; and were conducting the FMS Bridge Visual 28R in night VMC conditions. At about 15 miles we're assigned 210 KTS. Another Airbus was conducting a visual approach to 28L. ATC called the traffic to us; we were 'looking.' ATC then advised that the other aircraft had us in sight; and we then responded that we had that traffic in sight. ATC: 'Maintain visual separation.' About 60 seconds later we were given speed 180 KTS. We complied. About 60 seconds after that we were given '180 or greater to the San Mateo Bridge' and contact tower. We were watching the other aircraft and were drawing closer as the FMS moves in to parallel the center line of 28L. We contacted tower and were cleared to land (28R). We would have been slightly behind the other aircraft; but tower then gave the 28L landing aircraft direction to 'slow to approach speed' which then caused him to be placed almost exactly abeam us. We received TCAS warning; then RA; initially a 'Descend' RA; then as the flight paths varied; we were given a 'climb crossing climb' RA. I could see the other aircraft out the Captain side window. I asked the CA if he had the aircraft in sight (he did); and asked if he was ok to continue (he was).The RA's subsided; and we landed normally. There was no abrupt maneuvering; nor was there any separation issue regarding safety. However; we could have avoided a lot of distraction if we had placed the TCAS to the TA ONLY position.We discussed the event thoroughly afterwards and decided that safety was not compromised; and that it was prudent to continue. Though we both acknowledged that we had multiple experiences on this arrival with very similar circumstances and outcomes.One of the difficulties is the visual approach clearance and the acceptance of maintaining visual separation while complying with speed assignments (in this case multiple speed assignments) from two different ATC facilities which probably have differing agendas (App concerned with the separation of airborne aircraft and Tower with both landing and departing aircraft)It is a complex situation; and we could have made things easier by utilizing the TA only mode; but it perhaps also highlights the potential conflict of visual approach clearances (and the acceptance of visual separation by the pilot; and speed assignments from two differing ATC facilities.)I believe our decision to not follow the RA was prudent and correct; we could see the situation developing right before our eyes; the varying speed assignments and adjustments just worked out to trigger the RA.


Synopsis: An Airbus flight crew reported that; while performing a parallel visual approach; ATC assigned several speed control clearances which resulted in a wingtip to wingtip situation on final approach. An RA was generated by the proximity of the two aircraft; but visual contact was always maintained; and the flight crew continued the approach and landing without incident.