Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Minimum Distance Allowed For Parallel Runways?  
User currently offline8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1258 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 21375 times:

I was wondering what the minimum distance is for parallel runways if they are to be both used at the same time.

Both LAX and ATL have parallel runways...are they all used at the same time?

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBWilliams From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21343 times:

Minmum distance for simultaneous landings on parallel runways is 4300ft. (how the F I remember reading that is beyond me. o.O)


In ATL.. they don't have an option but to use parallel runways -- ALL the runways are parallel!  cheerful   duck 



Regards, Brad Williams
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10352 posts, RR: 26
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 21334 times:



Quoting BWilliams (Reply 1):
In ATL.. they don't have an option but to use parallel runways -- ALL the runways are parallel!

Same as LAX.

However, "simultaneous" landings implies using ILS, does it not?

For instance, LAX, BOS, SFO, and various other airports have parallel approaches to their parallel runways, that are much less than 4300 feet apart, in VFR conditions.

LAX's north complex runways (6L/R-24R/L) are about 700 feet apart, centerline-to-centerline. South complex (7L/R-25R/L) are now 800 feet apart, I believe. SFO's two sets of parallel runways are 750 feet apart.

Depending on the type of approach (simultaneous, staggered, etc...) there are different minimum distances. I cannot ever keep them straight.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 21305 times:

No idea what the rules are in the rest of the world, but in the US 4300 ft allows simultaneous independent ILS approaches-- i.e. no need for ATC to arrange any longitudinal separation. If ATC does stagger the approaches then you can have simultaneous ILS approaches to runways... is it 3000 ft apart? Or maybe 2500?

Looking at the rules you'd think it wouldn't be legal to do the simultaneous visual approaches that they regularly do at SFO-- it seems to say the runway edges have to be at least 600 ft apart, and presumably SFO's runway edges are 550 ft.

Smaller aircraft can land closer than that-- SNA's runway centerlines are 500 ft apart, and here and there other airports are closer than that.

Somebody said new construction has larger required separation-- if you're building a new airport, that is. Adding new runways to an existing airport probably only has to meet the old standards.


User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21188 times:



Quoting Timz (Reply 3):
If ATC does stagger the approaches then you can have simultaneous ILS approaches to runways... is it 3000 ft apart? Or maybe 2500?

2,500 feet for (parallel (staggered) ILS approaches, and 4,300 feet for simultaneous (wingtip to wingtip) ILS approaches.

The fact that SFO 28L/R don't meet either criteria explains why they can (and often do) go single runway ILS (with big delays) when seemingly "minor" ceilings and visibilities come in and wipe out the ability to conduct visual approaches to both 28L/R. I know you know this, but maybe others don't...  Wink


User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 21184 times:

So, what is the criteria for determining the distance?

A worst-case assumption, where aircraft A (on the right) goes full-scale deflection to the left while aircraft B (on the left) goes full-scale deflection to the right on the localizers? 3 degrees of of the centerline, no?

IIRC from my instrument and commercial groundschools, when parrallel approaches are active, there is a controller who is doing nothing but constantly monitoring the space between the parrallel glidepaths, and if that controller transmits on the radio, it overpowers the appropriate approach and/or tower controller.



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10352 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 21144 times:



Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
A worst-case assumption, where aircraft A (on the right) goes full-scale deflection to the left while aircraft B (on the left) goes full-scale deflection to the right on the localizers? 3 degrees of of the centerline, no?

Those two paths will intersect at some distance from the thresholds. So with 4300 feet being the minimum for parallel non-staggered ILS approaches, the localizer signals will intersect about 7.77 miles from the runway thresholds (assuming colinear thresholds).

At least, I think that's what you were saying.

I also don't know how far out aircraft typically begin following ILS signals...



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineKELPkid From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 6428 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21130 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 6):
I also don't know how far out aircraft typically begin following ILS signals...

5 (nautical) miles from the FAF (final approach fix) to the missed approach point/decision height seems to be about the norm...some ILS'es are longer and some are short. I'd say 80-90% of ILS approaches allow the controller to vector the aircraft to the FAF...

IIRC, a localizer signal is considered usable out to around 20 nautical miles or so, assuming no terrain interference or other mitigating factors. Of course, it is also a very narrow signal. I know that there are a few airway intersections in the world that can be identified by airway radial + localizer needle centered  Smile .



Celebrating the birth of KELPkidJR on August 5, 2009 :-)
User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 21116 times:

Quoting Timz (Reply 3):
Adding new runways to an existing airport probably only has to meet the old standards.

Not so sure about that. Look at the new runways at IAD and ATL and they are well away from the ones they parallel. Not sure if its to meet the new standard or to prevent restricting some flow in weather.

Also, places like LAX and ATL use the two outter runways for approaches to increase the seperation. Not sure what the actual distances are at the two places, but I do not think you typically see aircraft approaching both parallels on the same side of the field at one time.

[Edited 2008-06-18 15:44:59]


Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21105 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 2):
However, "simultaneous" landings implies using ILS, does it not?

I don't think simultaneous landings implies anything other than the aircraft touch down simultaneously.

Now the phrase simultaneous approaches implies only that approaches are being conducted to more than one runway.....not necessarily even parallel runways!

The correct phrase used in the U.S. for approaches conducted to parallel runways with the approved distance between center lines is "parallel dependant" or "simultaneous independent" approaches were you are able to conduct visuals or ILS approaches if you have the final monitors in place to monitor the runway center lines.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 2):
Depending on the type of approach (simultaneous, staggered, etc...) there are different minimum distances. I cannot ever keep them straight.

And then there is the triple parallel runways where you are able to conduct triple simuls" as long as the airfield elevation IIRC is less than 1,000' MSL and the runway center lines are each at least 5,000' apart from the next runway centerline.  Smile

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
5 (nautical) miles from the FAF (final approach fix) to the missed approach point/decision height seems to be about the norm...some ILS'es are longer and some are short. I'd say 80-90% of ILS approaches allow the controller to vector the aircraft to the FAF...

Actually vector to the final approach course outside the FAF applying the correct intercept angle and distance from the fix when required due to the weather. If visual approaches are being conducted then at times ATC will clear an aircraft direct to the FAF to report the airport or preceeding traffic in sight.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 7):
a localizer signal is considered usable out to around 20 nautical miles or so

The localizer is normally certified to 18 NM from the antenna, unless it has been flight inspected for an expanded service volume then it may be greater distance.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2915 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 21101 times:



Quoting Timz (Reply 3):
Somebody said new construction has larger required separation-- if you're building a new airport, that is. Adding new runways to an existing airport probably only has to meet the old standards.

The new one (18R-36L) at AMS (which has existed since 1916) is at 2100m (I think) from the existing one. There were plans of inserting another runway in between, but I think this plan was abandoned in favour of a new parallel 06-24.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21882 posts, RR: 55
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 21088 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 9):
And then there is the triple parallel runways where you are able to conduct triple simuls" as long as the airfield elevation IIRC is less than 1,000' MSL and the runway center lines are each at least 5,000' apart from the next runway centerline.

I don't know about the airfield elevation part - DEN can land triple parallel.

Quoting KELPkid (Reply 5):
IIRC from my instrument and commercial groundschools, when parrallel approaches are active, there is a controller who is doing nothing but constantly monitoring the space between the parrallel glidepaths, and if that controller transmits on the radio, it overpowers the appropriate approach and/or tower controller.

That's a PRM approach, which allows for simultaneous approaches to parallel runways as little as 3,400 feet apart, or 3,000 feet apart if one of the courses is offset. Not all simultaneous approaches are PRM - those with spacing of over 4,300 feet don't need it.

Then there's the SOIA approach, which is what SFO has. For a SOIA approach, rather than have the runways separated by at least 3,000 feet, they have the approach courses separated by at least 3,000 feet. The ILS to 28L is a straight-in approach, and 28R has an LDA with glideslope that is offset a couple of degrees. Pilots flying the ILS to 28L can go all the way down to Cat I minimums. Pilots flying the LDA to 28R can only go as far as the point where the approach courses are 3,000 feet apart before they have to have visual contact with the other traffic. That is the missed approach point, and beyond that a go-around must be made if the traffic cannot be seen, since there is no way to guarantee separation in IMC. Naturally, the minimums for this approach are quite a bit higher - 2,100 feet ceiling and four miles visibility. And thus, when fog rolls in, SFO is down to only one runway for landing.

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 6):
Those two paths will intersect at some distance from the thresholds. So with 4300 feet being the minimum for parallel non-staggered ILS approaches, the localizer signals will intersect about 7.77 miles from the runway thresholds (assuming colinear thresholds).

It's not quite as simple as that, since not all localizers widen equally as they get farther from the runway. The localizer is placed at the far end of the runway, and is calibrated to be 700 feet wide for full deflection at the threshold of the runway. So the longer the runway is, the narrower the beam will be (it varies between three and six degrees).

Worst case scenario: a six degree wide localizer. The runway centerlines are 4,300 feet apart, so the distance between full deflection on both localizers is 3,600 feet at the thresholds. (4,300 minus 350 from one side and 350 from the other). If my math is right, full deflections would intersect 5.6nm from the threshold. On the other hand, with a 3 degree localizer, interesection would be 11.25nm.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 21076 times:

It was a pretty cool sight to be on final at DFW and look out the window to see another md-80 at the same altitude, landing at the same time.


What the...?
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 21067 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
I don't know about the airfield elevation part - DEN can land triple parallel.

Right out of the .65! DEN is using Final Monitor Assist (FMA) in STARS even though they are running an ARTS 3E system.......I think that gets them the ability to do TRIPS.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineBooDog From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 21062 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
I don't know about the airfield elevation part - DEN can land triple parallel.


Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 13):
Right out of the .65! DEN is using Final Monitor Assist (FMA) in STARS even though they are running an ARTS 3E system.......I think that gets them the ability to do TRIPS.

35L and 35r are separated by over 5,000 feet. 34 is over 7,000 feet to the west of 35L. All that spacing is what allows the triples.

When DFW built 17L/35R in the mid nineties, they built it EXACTLY 5,000 feet from the nearest parallel runway.

[Edited 2008-06-18 20:24:47]


B1B - best looking aircraft ever.
User currently offlineP3Orion From United States of America, joined May 2006, 544 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 21058 times:

Depends on the operation. While stationed at NHZ ATCT/TRACON in the Navy, our parallels (19L/19R) were seperated by 500 feet (700' centerline to centerline). We were authorized to conduct simo's between IFR and VFR or VFR and VFR.

[Edited 2008-06-18 20:58:49]

[Edited 2008-06-18 20:59:34]


"Did he say strap in or strap on?"
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10352 posts, RR: 26
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 21032 times:



Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
That's a PRM approach, which allows for simultaneous approaches to parallel runways as little as 3,400 feet apart, or 3,000 feet apart if one of the courses is offset. Not all simultaneous approaches are PRM - those with spacing of over 4,300 feet don't need it.

These are instrument approaches, correct?

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
It's not quite as simple as that, since not all localizers widen equally as they get farther from the runway. The localizer is placed at the far end of the runway, and is calibrated to be 700 feet wide for full deflection at the threshold of the runway. So the longer the runway is, the narrower the beam will be (it varies between three and six degrees).

Ah, OK - thanks for the clarification.

Quoting Mir (Reply 11):
If my math is right, full deflections would intersect 5.6nm from the threshold. On the other hand, with a 3 degree localizer, interesection would be 11.25nm.

Damn. I was using 6 degrees, but I calculated from the approach end threshold, instead of the far threshold.



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20992 times:



Quoting BooDog (Reply 14):
35L and 35r are separated by over 5,000 feet. 34 is over 7,000 feet to the west of 35L. All that spacing is what allows the triples.

Respectfully, the field elevation of DEN requires a high resolution color monitor such as a PRM or FMA per the .65, unless of course the runways are minimum of 3 NM or more separation from each other.

From the 7110.65, para 5-9-7:

3. Triple parallel runway centerlines are at least 5,000 feet apart and the airport field elevation is less than 1,000 feet MSL.

4. A high-resolution color monitor with alert algorithms, such as the final monitor aid or that required in the precision runway monitor program shall be used to monitor approaches where:

(a) Triple parallel runway centerlines are at least 4,300 but less than 5,000 feet apart and the airport field elevation is less than 1,000 feet MSL.

(b) Triple parallel approaches to airports where the airport field elevation is 1,000 feet MSL or more require the high resolution color monitor with alert algorithms and an approved FAA aeronautical study.



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2124 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 20984 times:



Quoting BWilliams (Reply 1):
In ATL.. they don't have an option but to use parallel runways -- ALL the runways are parallel!

Same in Orlando, FL. All 4 runways at MCO are parrallel.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineVikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10352 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 20938 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 17):
Respectfully, the field elevation of DEN requires a high resolution color monitor such as a PRM or FMA per the .65, unless of course the runways are minimum of 3 NM or more separation from each other.

What is the reasoning behind the below 1000 MSL vs. above 1000 MSL?



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineIAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4790 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20898 times:



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 19):
What is the reasoning behind the below 1000 MSL vs. above 1000 MSL?

Have to have somebody 100% smarter than I answer that.....maybe just another one of those things that make you go hmmmm!!!!



Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
User currently offlineTimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6903 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 20895 times:



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 8):
Look at the new runways at IAD and ATL and they are well away from the ones they parallel.

They're 4300 ft away, or maybe a bit less.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 8):
places like LAX and ATL use the two outter runways for approaches to increase the seperation.

Forgot to check ATL, but the inners at LAX are 4500+ ft apart, so presumably separation isn't a problem.


User currently offlineBooDog From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 258 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 20878 times:



Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 17):
Respectfully, the field elevation of DEN requires a high resolution color monitor such as a PRM or FMA per the .65, unless of course the runways are minimum of 3 NM or more separation from each other.

From the 7110.65, para 5-9-7:

3. Triple parallel runway centerlines are at least 5,000 feet apart and the airport field elevation is less than 1,000 feet MSL.

4. A high-resolution color monitor with alert algorithms, such as the final monitor aid or that required in the precision runway monitor program shall be used to monitor approaches where:

(a) Triple parallel runway centerlines are at least 4,300 but less than 5,000 feet apart and the airport field elevation is less than 1,000 feet MSL.

(b) Triple parallel approaches to airports where the airport field elevation is 1,000 feet MSL or more require the high resolution color monitor with alert algorithms and an approved FAA aeronautical study.

Did not know that. Thank you.



B1B - best looking aircraft ever.
User currently offlineCosmicCruiser From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2255 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 20721 times:



Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 18):
All 4 runways at MCO are parrallel.

Most often one is used for landings and the closest adjacent one for t/os. Eg. CDG usually uses 27L for t/o and 27R ldg and 26L ldg and 26R t/o.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Minimum Distance Allowed For Parallel Runways?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Wake Turbulence From Parallel Runways posted Fri Mar 23 2007 19:52:03 by CoolGuy
Minimum Runway Length For 747 posted Wed Aug 9 2006 00:17:07 by Boston92
One ILS For Two Runways? posted Wed Apr 19 2006 00:09:07 by Timz
Parallel Runways - Safety Point Of View posted Thu Nov 11 2004 12:34:08 by HAWK21M
Question About Parallel Runways! posted Thu Feb 13 2003 18:30:05 by Spotterboy
Numbering Parallel Runways posted Mon Feb 12 2001 04:53:55 by Redngold
Close Parallel Runways, Continued posted Tue Oct 10 2000 01:55:23 by Timz
Minimum Take Off Distance For The 757 posted Wed May 16 2001 07:32:43 by ILUV767
Minimum A380 Landing Distance posted Fri Dec 7 2007 00:17:59 by ThreeFourThree
Max Distance For The Concorde? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 17:39:51 by 747LUVR
Parallel Runways - Safety Point Of View posted Thu Nov 11 2004 12:34:08 by HAWK21M
Question About Parallel Runways! posted Thu Feb 13 2003 18:30:05 by Spotterboy
Numbering Parallel Runways posted Mon Feb 12 2001 04:53:55 by Redngold
Close Parallel Runways, Continued posted Tue Oct 10 2000 01:55:23 by Timz
Minimum Take Off Distance For The 757 posted Wed May 16 2001 07:32:43 by ILUV767
Wake Turbulence From Parallel Runways posted Fri Mar 23 2007 19:52:03 by CoolGuy
Minimum Runway Length For 747 posted Wed Aug 9 2006 00:17:07 by Boston92
One ILS For Two Runways? posted Wed Apr 19 2006 00:09:07 by Timz
Parallel Runways - Safety Point Of View posted Thu Nov 11 2004 12:34:08 by HAWK21M
Question About Parallel Runways! posted Thu Feb 13 2003 18:30:05 by Spotterboy
Numbering Parallel Runways posted Mon Feb 12 2001 04:53:55 by Redngold
Close Parallel Runways, Continued posted Tue Oct 10 2000 01:55:23 by Timz

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format