Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During the arrival phase of our flight while being radar vectored on a left downwind leg for the visual approach to runway 28L we were assigned a speed of 180 kts. Weather was clear; light winds; night conditions with visual approaches to both of the parallel (28L & 28R) runways but the published visual approaches to SFO were NOT in effect. At about 4000 ft while on the base leg to intercept the final approach course; ATC asked if we had the traffic at 2 o'clock high and the airport in sight (off our left side). We had both and [were] therefore cleared for the visual approach to 28L while the 2 o'clock traffic was landing on 28R. Once aligned on final we both noticed that the other flight was moving faster than we were though we were ahead of them by about a couple of miles or so initially. Still at 180 and intercepting the ILS Glide Slope we noticed the flight getting closer and closer vertically AND horizontally. I purposely drifted a little left of course for my own comfort level. When passing through about 1300 ft or so the TCAS generated an RA calling for a climb. The Captain said he had a visual on the traffic which was just above our altitude so a climb would have made things worse. It was decided to continue downwards on the slope and the traffic was kept in sight by the CA all the way until landing (the other flight landed almost simultaneously with us). I do not believe that sufficient spacing existed for the other flight to continue; even in visual conditions; for a visual approach without at least slowing down in some amount to give enough space between aircraft---especially at night!I was unpleasantly surprised that given the minimal distance that exists between runways 28L & 28R that a staggered aircraft approach procedure was not in effect that would allow for at least a couple of miles in between each arriving aircraft regardless of whether VFR conditions existed or not. Previous experiences in STL; ORD and other places led me to expect that unless there was a mile or so between runways; there would be a staggered arrival pattern in effect. I would encourage the controllers who work SFO to develop AND USE this kind of procedure keeping ALL arrival traffic at a similar speed so that horizontal spacing is not compromised (much like what is done in PRM approaches) and thereby avoiding a potential collision.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported unfamiliarity with standard ATC arrival procedures for parallel visual approaches to Runways 28L and 28R at SFO resulting in a TCAS RA on final approach.