Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Parallel Landings At SFO?  
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6873 posts, RR: 7
Posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5033 times:

That "Airliners" article in the current issue says "Aircraft landing on parallel Runways 28L and 28R are directed to land simultaneously in order to allow spacing for departing aircrtaft on intersecting Runways 1L and 1R."

By "directed" they must mean, by the approach controller or conceivably the tower-- right? Has anyone ever heard that on their scanner?

I haven't, and I thought someone told me controllers weren't allowed even to request that, much less direct it. If it happens, great-- but I thought controllers couldn't try to make it happen. Was I wrong?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineModesto2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2812 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

As far as I know, controllers do their best to sequence arrivals together. They may keep aircraft together with speed restrictions, but I've never heard a controller instruct a flight to stay together with another airplane. Instead, both aircraft may be put together and instructed to maintain 180 knots to the bridge or something like that.

User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3361 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4985 times:

I have seen really freaky things happen on arrival into SFO, I was once in a CI 744 and we cut into the path of the Icelandair 767 and it was pretty damn close behind us then suddenly we start speeding up to increase distance then we actually land, I was assuming the Iceland Air would land parallel to us, but actuallly it used our runway and a US A321 just fly right below us at a higher speed to do the parallel, but I just wonder how we just cut into a 767 path and it would land behind us


There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6073 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4978 times:

NorCal approach is the one that is synchronizing the approaches into SFO by using parallel visual approaches into the airport. SFO tower then takes the spaces between then arrivals to run departures off of the 1's.

Quoting Timz (Thread starter):
I haven't, and I thought someone told me controllers weren't allowed even to request that, much less direct it. If it happens, great-- but I thought controllers couldn't try to make it happen. Was I wrong?

When flying IFR, the controllers call the shots as far as spacing and syncronization go.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4960 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 3):
When flying IFR, the controllers call the shots as far as spacing and syncronization go.

Just a note to clarify that Goldenshield said "IFR" and not "IMC". When the weather at SFO get to be about 2500-5 (IIRC), the simultaneous visual approaches to 28L and 28R go "poof" and they go to the ILS to 28L -or- 28R (one, not both).


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6073 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4934 times:

Quoting OPNLguy (Reply 4):
When the weather at SFO get to be about 2500-5 (IIRC), the simultaneous visual approaches to 28L and 28R go "poof" and they go to the ILS to 28L -or- 28R (one, not both).

Since they put in the LDA PRM approach, SFO can be as low 1200-4, with 2400-4 needed at the bridge for simultanious offset instrument approaches.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4900 times:

Haven't kept up with the mins since we ceased service there, but that's better than it used to be, and undoubtedly why (come to think of it) there don't seem to be as many GDP messages off the wire as there used to be.

BTW, your TRS308 DEN-ATL helped us out with a radio relay the other night--very professional, and appreciated. Already put an "attaboy" in the pipeline...


User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 7, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4837 times:

As an aside, anyone who has a copy of the issue of "Airliners" in questions (November/December 2005) should check out two of the pictures in the article: both depict a UA 744 holding on a taxiway, and a US A321 and UA 757 about to touch down. One was taken at ground level, and the other from an elevated position off to the side of the runway. They couldn't have been taken more than a couple of seconds apart.

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4755 times:

One thing that the FAA is seriously considering is that SFO could become the first airport to use an autoland system based on GPS satellite signals and differential GPS signals from the ground. This will allow extreme precision in landing even in very bad weather conditions (how about accuracy within one meter of runway centerline Big grin ), and could even allow side-by-side landings in ICAO Category III conditions

User currently offlineFreedomtofly From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 750 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (8 years 11 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4689 times:

Of course this could happen on occasion.



And this happens sometimes too.



Btw does anyone know what altitude aircraft are at when overflying the San Mateo Bridge? I heard it's anywhere between 1500 and 2500.

Aaron



You are now free to move about the world.
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3476 posts, RR: 46
Reply 10, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4487 times:

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 9):
And this happens sometimes too.

When instructed to maintain visual separation and "do not pass" the other plane, I prefer to fly formation on that other plane. It's fun and gives the pax a nice view. Attempt is to touchdown as close as possible to the same time. Helps SFO ATC and is.... fun.  Wink

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 9):
Btw does anyone know what altitude aircraft are at when overflying the San Mateo Bridge? I heard it's anywhere between 1500 and 2500.

On the charted visual approaches... 1900 ft. The ILS' show 1800 ft.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineAeri28 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 709 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4417 times:

There was a great shot in the photo section somebody had taking a pic of a UA 744 from inside a cabin of another aircraft while both were getting ready to land.

User currently offlineRalgha From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 1614 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4387 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 5):
Since they put in the LDA PRM approach, SFO can be as low 1200-4, with 2400-4 needed at the bridge for simultanious offset instrument approaches.

Yeah, but they don't use the PRM approaches. I've heard it's because they're understaffed. Alas, when the weather is too low for visuals, they regress to the ILS 28R. Leads to the expression "one cloud, two airplanes, three hour delay".

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 9):
Btw does anyone know what altitude aircraft are at when overflying the San Mateo Bridge? I heard it's anywhere between 1500 and 2500.

Bigger airplanes are as said a couple responses back. The mighty Brasilia can cross the bridge at 4-5 thousand and still make the runway.



09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
User currently offlineWindowSeat From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1312 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4331 times:

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 9):
Of course this could happen on occasion

It happens more often than you think. Only yesterday I was at the airport and watched a CX744 come in with a UA A319.

I myself have a video of an America West A319 and a Lufthansa 744 in a parallel approach all the way to the threshold.

It is quite fun to watch. I have been frequenting the airport a lot recently to spot, sitting at the Bayfront park watching aircraft eating a In-and-out burger is my new thing Big grin

cheers



I'm all in favour of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with keyboards.
User currently offlineFreedomtofly From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 750 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4307 times:

Quoting WindowSeat (Reply 13):
sitting at the Bayfront park watching aircraft eating a In-and-out burger is my new thing

In N Out burger is the best burger place ever!! I go there so much, it's kinda sad, but so good. And second, where exactly is bayfront park? My camera doesn't have enough zoom so I was told to go to Bayfront park to get good shots.

Aaron

[Edited 2005-11-29 01:24:20]


You are now free to move about the world.
User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3195 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 4256 times:

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 14):
And second, where exactly is bayfront park? My camera doesn't have enough zoom so I was told to go to Bayfront park to get good shots.

You need a pretty good amount of zoom for Bayfront Park, especially with a new fence ruining 1R shots.

To get to Bayfront Park, take the Millbrae Ave exit off the 101 and head east (towards the bay). At the end of the street is a traffic light, turn right and you'll see the park on your left. There is a small parking lot, make the first left you can into it. If you pass the Marriott hotel, you've gone too far.


User currently offlineWindowSeat From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1312 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 4214 times:

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 15):
To get to Bayfront Park, take the Millbrae Ave exit off the 101 and head east (towards the bay). At the end of the street is a traffic light, turn right and you'll see the park on your left. There is a small parking lot, make the first left you can into it. If you pass the Marriott hotel, you've gone too far.

That is right. Also, if the parking lot in the Bayfront park is full, there is reserved parking for the Bayfront park users in the Westin SFO lot.

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 14):
In N Out burger is the best burger place ever

I'll be at the in-N-out and then the park next Sunday if anyone wishes to join.

cheers



I'm all in favour of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with keyboards.
User currently offlineAMSSFO From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4171 times:

Quoting Tom in NO (Reply 7):
both depict a UA 744 holding on a taxiway, and a US A321 and UA 757 about to touch down. One was taken at ground level, and the other from an elevated position off to the side of the runway. They couldn't have been taken more than a couple of seconds apart.

here they are ...from a.net!

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © I. Gunawan
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Ben Wang


impressive!

and looking for those I found some more:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © I. Gunawan
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © I. Gunawan



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sven De Bevere



User currently offlineCschleic From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 1266 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4123 times:

I've been on a United flight when the pilot told everyone not to worry about the plane right off the right side...just the parallel landing. It happens a lot...also on a Brasilia once as an America West A-320 caught up and passed us on the right. Happens at LAX, too.

User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

Quoting Hawaiian717 (Reply 15):
You need a pretty good amount of zoom for Bayfront Park, especially with a new fence ruining 1R shots.

scumball security..can't take decent pictures up close anymore.. mad 


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jacobin777
MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jacobin777



Quoting WindowSeat (Reply 16):
That is right. Also, if the parking lot in the Bayfront park is full, there is reserved parking for the Bayfront park users in the Westin SFO lot.

I didn't know the Westin allowed it...I wind up parking accross the street..if the parking lot is full..plus there is no time limit there..  Smile

Quoting WindowSeat (Reply 16):

I'll be at the in-N-out and then the park next Sunday if anyone wishes to join.

hmm....maybe I'll be there on Saturday, but Sunday is reserved for Football.. biggrin 



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineMarshalN From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2005, 1521 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 11 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Wow.... I love that Delta+BA744 shot. The views on the DL plane (left side) must be incredible!!!

User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8580 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3844 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There is a great aerial photo of SFO at the moment under 'top of the last 24 hours' ( sorry , I don't know how to put the photo into my post ) but it has really confused me - both sets of parallel runways look very close - too close I would have thought for simultaneous parallel landings - and yet the photos in reply 17 clearly show them - what is the minimum runway separation required for this sort of thing , and what is the actual separation at SFO ?


Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineAMSSFO From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 21):
There is a great aerial photo of SFO at the moment under 'top of the last 24 hours' ( sorry , I don't know how to put the photo into my post )

post a pic: photoid:971612 between brackets <> (the ID can be found in the URL of the picture.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Bjoern Schmitt - world-of-aviation


Don't know the answers on your questions, though.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3739 times:

Quoting Freedomtofly (Reply 9):
Btw does anyone know what altitude aircraft are at when overflying the San Mateo Bridge? I heard it's anywhere between 1500 and 2500.



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 10):
On the charted visual approaches... 1900 ft. The ILS' show 1800 ft.

correct, I was @ SFO yesterday listening in to the control tower.....1900 ft. was the predominant number mentioned.....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6873 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3684 times:

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 21):
what is the minimum runway separation required for this sort of thing , and what is the actual separation at SFO ?

Actual separation is 750 ft center-to-center, which supposedly means 550 feet edge to edge. Looking at the rule, 550 feet edge to edge seems to be too close for large airliners to legally land parallel-- but somehow they do it.


25 Hiflyer : Considering the FAA requirement for bad weather dual landing is 4300 feet runway sep getting what they have now is pretty good!
26 Post contains links Timz : Found the rule again-- see where it says the runway edges are supposed to be 600 feet apart? And not just for landings, either. http://www.faa.gov/atp
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Parallel Landings At LHR And Elsewhere? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 22:27:20 by Timz
AS At SFO posted Wed Nov 22 2006 11:01:55 by EIPremier
Why Did I Get The "ssss" Extra Security At SFO? posted Tue Nov 21 2006 19:15:14 by Deaphen
PAL A340 At SFO This Weekend posted Mon Nov 13 2006 18:59:37 by Flyswim
Air New Zealand Switch Terminals At SFO? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 16:00:55 by SFOFlyer
Are Landings At Philipsburg Too Outlandish posted Mon Oct 23 2006 06:57:13 by Flybynight
KLM MD-11 At SFO This Morning posted Sun Oct 22 2006 05:04:18 by Goomba
VS A/c RON At SFO On 27/09/06? posted Thu Sep 28 2006 07:13:13 by Stealth777
Citation Severe Wake-turbulence Encounter At SFO posted Mon Sep 25 2006 05:22:43 by Wave882
Five Aborted Landings At Melbourne Airport posted Sat Sep 23 2006 04:38:35 by AeroplaneFreak