Some interesting comments on the last 2 pages: please let me ask some questions.
The thought that an SFO visual profile should be a trained manoeuvre: there are many airports where terrain causes them to be a self-briefed or trained airport due to extenuating circumstances. If SFO visuals falls into that category then so be it.
However, my experience of a visual approach is one requested by me. If granted it means I can manoeuvre my a/c as I see fit onto a final approach path to execute a landing with visual references. If it has an ILS it is usually promulgated that the approach will not be flown below the G.S. and sometimes not to establish below XYZ feet. How is it that ATC can determine the 'visual approach' profile?
If they can, and pilots find it demanding, how come it has not been challenged before? How can ATC impose visual approach criteria? It would suggest they are radar vectoring for a difficult energy management visual approach. How has this been allowed to happen AND continue, if it is the case?
I suspect that once the carpet is lifted there will be much to be found has been swept under it over the years.