SHUPirate1
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:29 am

God knows that SFO has some MASSIVE ATC problems, be it for fog reasons or whatever, but their air traffic problems due to their intersecting runways are terrible...why doesn't SFO use, say, 10R and 28R for departures, and 1R and 19R for arrivals...either that, or use 28R for heavies/narrows taking off and 10R for heavies/narrows landing, and use 1R for RJ's/props taking off and 19R for RJ's/props landing...this would seem to help out the ATC problems enormously...am I wrong?
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
timz
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:33 am

Is the disclaimer at the bottom of the post supposed to apply?
 
wilco
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:34 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:38 am

Use 1R for arrivals?!!??!?! Are you nuts! I have seen this happen twice, both times 747s with Kai-Tak-expereinced flight crews. It practically stopped traffic on 101 and had every Millbrae resident ducking for cover.

Keep in mind SFO is not the only airport in the area. A lot of the setup has to do with what is best for the entire region. (When you change arrivals at SFO you also have to change OAK, SJC, etc)
"Ever seen a grown man naked?"
 
SHUPirate1
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:42 am

Timz: First, for that comment alone, you have earned yourself a spot on my Respected Users list...expect to see an RR bump...

That said, I don't understand why, rather than delay every single flight to and from SFO by closing two runways, they can't simply have the flights operate from runways in opposite directions, as the runways are obviously far enough apart that under normal conditions, both can be used...and planes aren't going to hit each other on the ground unless one skids off the runway...
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
SHUPirate1
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:47 am

Wilco...I wasn't trying to specifically suggest using 1R for arrivals (and I don't know the neighborhood around SFO at all), rather, I was suggesting that they use the runways in opposite directions, rather than force two of the four runways to shut down, as they do in FLOW circumstances
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
wilco
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:34 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:52 am

Understood... but with FLOW conditions you generally have some sort of wind conditions that would favor one-direction for landing/take-off (not opposite directions). All I am saying is that you can't just arbitrarily pick runway configs w/o considering wind, area traffic and things like the big hill enroute to 1R/1L.
"Ever seen a grown man naked?"
 
SHUPirate1
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:56 am

Wilco-I chose 10R and 28R for departures because they are longer runways...
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
meister808
Posts: 924
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2000 11:45 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:57 am

I quite frankly like the idea of using 1R, simply b/c of the hill in the way and the interesting approach it creates  Wink/being sarcastic. Someone call me the next time it happens and I'll book it out there. Sounds like fun.

-Meister
Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
 
timz
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:10 am

Is it true that most (all?) airliners are not certificated to land or take off with a tailwind component exceeding 10 knots?

[Edited 2004-03-05 01:39:27]
 
atcboy73
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 10:09 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:17 am

Timz

I think AMR Eagle has that 10 knot rule.

I think the biggest problem with SFO is the fact that thier runways are too close together.
 
SHUPirate1
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:23 am

Atcboy-Which is why I suggest that they have the operations from opposite directions, specifically during FLOW conditions, so that both parallel sets of runways could still be used (obviously, Land and Hold Short must be used by the ATC's)
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
as739x
Posts: 4992
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:23 am

Oh SHUPirate where do I begin. Well lets start with this:There are only 3 runways at SFO with an ILS approach. That leaves out your plan right there. Only 28L 28R 19L have an ILS approach. 10L 10R are used at little as possible for arrivals and only have VOR and GPS approachs. 1L 1R have a very difficult approach with a circle over the hills and my house. The pattern to 1L 1R is actually the same approach as 28L 28R. The only difference is at 6 dme they begin a visual circle to land.
I could go on forever, but there is just no option. You also have to remember the winds are mainly from the west and northwest and in the summer get quite strong. Airplane have to land of course going into the wind and some have very limit ability with landing with a tailwind or crosswind. If you have any more questions let me know. I can explain more to you. Take care.
ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
wilco
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:34 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:32 am

I think you aren't hearing me. Its not JUST the best ground traffic scenario that is a factor... you have to look at weather and other traffic. If you have strong winds you simply can not take off in opposing directions. Secondly... if you have aircraft arriving SFO from two opposing directions and departing SFO from two opposing directions then SFO would have a monopoly in the bay skies. OAK needs airspace as does San Carlos, SJC etc.

I got to be honest. I love the idea. But practically it just won't work. Also, arrivals on 1R are pretty much the coolest thing you will ever see at SFO. Happens 1-2 times a year.

Regards...
"Ever seen a grown man naked?"
 
SHUPirate1
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:12 pm

Wilco-OK, fair enough...just figured I'd throw out something to the SFO traffic controllers, and I didn't realize the ILS thing (I was looking at airnav, but obviously not hard enough) and totally forgot about Oakland and San Jose...DUH!
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:13 pm

>>>SFO has some MASSIVE ATC problems, be it for fog reasons or whatever, but their air traffic problems due to their intersecting runways are terrible

>>>as the runways are obviously far enough apart that under normal conditions, both can be used

It was 3 years ago today that SWA operated its last flight at SFO (after 19 years there) so SFO delays are a subject I know well.

The use of intersecting runways is -NOT- what drives the delay situation there at SFO. The real "whatever" reason is in your second statement, i.e. the runway centerlines are fine for normal conditions (VMC), but for anything less than VMC, the delays come.

SFO's ability to handle traffic (airport acceptance rate, AAR) is usally about 60 per hour, and that's based on an optimum runway configuration of visual approaches to 28L and 28R, and departing on 01L and 01R. The ATC folks there do a masterful job of synching departures with arrivals, and it's pretty damn impressive. They'll have 2 aircraft position-and-hold on 01L/R (cocked) and just as soon as the two landing on 28L/R clear the intersection, ATC will launch the two departures off 01L/R with diverging turns once airborne. It's almost like watching cat shots on a carrier--it's so well orchestrated.

The problems start when aircraft approaching 28L/R lose the ability to shoot visual approaches, and the trigger for this is anything lower than about a 2,500 foot ceiling and/or 5 miles of visibility. Once they lose visuals (VAPs), you'd think the alternative is to simply go to ILS approaches to 28L and 28R, since they both have them installed. Problem is, to shoot parallel ILS approaches, you need a minimum of 2,500 feet between the runway centerlines, and 4,300 feet if shooting simultaneous ILS approaches. At SFO, you can't do either, since the 28L/R centerlines are only 600-700 feet apart.

When you lose the ability to do VAPs, SFO essentially becomes a single runway airport for landing, and the 60 AAR drops (rather suddenly) to 28-30. If they lose VAPs with 60 aircraft in the air, half of them are going to have to hold (or maybe divert) and anything that hasn't left it's departure point will get held on the ground (at LAX, PHX, wherever) until revised slot times are determined.

The old DEN Stapleton had the same sort of problem with 17R/35L and 17L/35R in IMC conditions, and they solved the problem by building the new airport on about 80 gazillion acres where runway separation is no longer a problem. There's been some discussion about moving SFO's 10L/28R further north, out onto new land they'd have to reclaim from the Bay, but that's years away, if ever.





ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:50 pm

The ATC folks there do a masterful job of synching departures with arrivals, and it's pretty damn impressive. They'll have 2 aircraft position-and-hold on 01L/R (cocked) and just as soon as the two landing on 28L/R clear the intersection, ATC will launch the two departures off 01L/R with diverging turns once airborne. It's almost like watching cat shots on a carrier--it's so well orchestrated.

Not really, but a pretty neat analogy for those with no CV experience.  Wink/being sarcastic

The problems start when aircraft approaching 28L/R lose the ability to shoot visual approaches, and the trigger for this is anything lower than about a 2,500 foot ceiling and/or 5 miles of visibility.

No, its a lot higher than that. We need to be visual the entire approach path to keep visual separation from the aircraft on the parallel approach. While it might be VFR at the field, if we can't keep visual separation with other traffic ATC is required to provide separation and the only way to do that is fore/aft spacing which screws up the departure timing you mentioned earlier. Virtually all pilots will "push it" to keep visual sight of each other so as to allow SFO the max capacity, but one can only "push it" so far and then.....  Crying

*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
bohica
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:58 pm

Keep in mind that the runway centerlines are only 700 feet apart.
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:14 pm

>>>Not really, but a pretty neat analogy for those with no CV experience.

That's why I said "almost"  Big grin


>>>No, its a lot higher than that.

The mins associated with the San Mateo AWOS were the ones I was recalling...  Big grin

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/index.php Then KSFO and look for the Quiet Bridge...

[Edited 2004-03-05 07:15:54]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:38 pm

Keep in mind SFO is not the only airport in the area. A lot of the setup has to do with what is best for the entire region. (When you change arrivals at SFO you also have to change OAK, SJC, etc)

Same thing applies with SEA and BFI since they are both 15 miles within each other.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
Londoncenter
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:53 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 9:03 pm

I have only flown into SFO once and cant really remember it but from an ATC point of view what your suggesting seems absolutely insane. Especially in bad weather, fog creates so many difficulties for ATC and having traffic arriving and departing on runways that face each other sounds plain crazy (no pun intended). That would mean an aircraft climbing out would do so directly towards the path of an arrival, and what about the missed approach procedures? An aircraft going around would point right at one descending, thats just not safe!

I'm sorry, but from where I'm standing, this sounds crazy!
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:03 pm

OPNLguy, what you're citing are the FAA published minimums. ATC and pilots try to operate to those minimums [the "push it" I mentioned] but seldom can do so because we can not maintain visual contact with other traffic the entire arrival...which starts much higher than those minimums. While the airport might be reporting wx at/above those published minimums, the arrival route might be much worse. ATC tries, and they do a darn good job, but SFO seldom operates at max capacity with wx at the published mins.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
atcboy73
Posts: 1084
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 10:09 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:01 am

SHUP

Sorry I haven't been following the conversation so please excuse me if this has already been covered.

ATC cant use land and hold short with military, air taxi or commercial air craft.

At least that was the last briefing I got.
 
smithfly114
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:00 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:06 am

I live in the bay area and am fascinated by the idea of 1R for arrival's! What were the conditions that required its use? When was the last time it happened? And lastly will someone please call/text message/email/fax/page me next time it happens! I wouldn't miss that for the world!
 
SHUPirate1
Topic Author
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:20 am

Londoncenter-Not quite...each runway pair would be used for either arrivals or departures (ie 1R and 19R for departures, 10R and 28R for arrivals), so a departure would never be coming at an arrival...additionally, as far as missed approach proceedures, a plane missing runway 28R could simply turn right, join the 1R departure stream, and then circle back around for either a 10R or 28R arrival...not as complicated as it sounds...

Atcboy-Are you sure? They use LAHSO at LGA all the time...
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
OnTheFly
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 1999 3:46 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:37 am

I've been spotting at SFO for over 10 years and have only seen 01R arrivals once. There was a stiff east wind that morning (a rarity in the Bay Area) and I assume that was the reason, along with VFR conditions. It's really amazing - the planes come in as if they're heading for 28L or 28R and make a sharp left turn over the peninsula and then a hard right to line up for 01R. Imagine a huge 744 roaring over your head at a couple of hundred feet! This was pre-9/11 so the old observation area was still open.
 
wilco
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:34 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:41 am

I have seen this as recent as last year. I got some bad pics of it (me in the foreground giving a dorky wave). But nonetheless a good pic if you want to know what it looks like. I'll try to scan it soon and will post it to this thread if it is still around.
"Ever seen a grown man naked?"
 
timz
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:10 am

How often are jets landing on SFO 1R? I'd say an average of less than once a year. In any given year I'd say it's 50/50 it won't happen at all. Same with landings on the 10s.

By the way, SFO runway centerlines are 750 feet. Also, for those that aren't familiar, we should mention that fog is actually pretty rare in the Bay Area. When people talk about SFO's problems during fog, they just mean SFO's problems when the ceiling is lower than 5000-6000 feet. Often the ceiling gets down to 3000 or so, eliminating parallel approaches, but the visibility underneath is likely 5-10 miles.
 
wilco
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 6:34 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:42 am

Timz- good info. Just to add one thing: The very few times the 10s are used for arrivals it is usally for a good amount of flights since it requires an entire rework on area traffic. In other words: The 10s are rarely used for arrivals (no more than 10 times a year from my experience). When they ARE in fact used, you see a good chunk of flights come in... maybe a dozen or so. When 1R is used for arrivals (like you said, less than once a year) it is only for one or two aircraft as the arrival pattern is the same as the 28s and it is easy to make a flight-by-flight arrival decision.

Timz... welcome to my respected user list.
"Ever seen a grown man naked?"
 
timz
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: SFO

Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:05 am

They were landing on the 10s during the morning of the Tuesday before Thanksgiving in 2002; I haven't seen it since. Anybody know of a date and time in 2003 or 2004 when SFO was landing on the 1s or 10s, so that we can look at it on Passur?
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:05 am

Saw this on another message thread on a.net and hopefully it clarifies what's being discussed here.

Check out: http://www.sfba.org/sfo/runways.htm which will show the current configuration, and then click on "propose [sic] configuration" to see what they apparently have in mind. Until I saw this, I had no idea that they planned to do more than just move 10L/28R further north.

AAR90,
I understand what you're trying to say as far as minimums versus reality. A similar situation exsists with us designating alternates (2000-3) and if someplace is OVC021, I'm not going to stand on technicalities and will go ahead and designate an alternate. Besides, Murphy's Law discates that the next hour will have it at OVC019 anyways...  Big grin Likewise, if I ever saw SFO reasonably close to that 2500-5, I fueled for the assumption that VAPs could be lost at any time, with the resultant airborne holding. I also watched the AWOS at the bridge for tell-tale signs.


Smithfly114,
What drives the use of 01L/R for arrivals are the surface winds, once they get high enough to exceed the max crosswind limit were one to be landing on 28L/R. Max crosswind capability varies by aircraft, but for the sake of simple generalizations, figure 30-35 knots. Landing on 01L/R is pretty rare, and about the only time you see it is every couple of years when a particularly stout front passes through the Bay area and drives the winds from the N-NNE at a steady 30 knots or higher. Ceilings are usually not a factor, since the front has already cleared them out. When the winds do come out of the N-NNE at such speeds, what they'll usually do is continue approaches towards 28L/R, and then "circle-to-land" to 01L/R.

Strong winds can also occur out of the S-SSW that exceed max crosswind for the 28s and cause the airport to land on the 19s. Ceilings and/or rainshowers are more commonly associated with this scenario, although one of the 19s does have a straight-in approach of some kind. (Can't recall if it was an ILS or LOC). There is no approach for the 01s due to terrain on that side of the airport.

Any runway configuration at SFO -other- than the optimum landing both 28s and departing both 01s is going to entail ATC delays...

Now, if they go with that proposed configuration.....






[Edited 2004-03-06 00:09:42]

[Edited 2004-03-06 00:16:21]
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
 
timz
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

RE: SFO Landing On The 1s

Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:22 am

Just for the record, though: when they're using the 1s for arrivals and most departures, even then nonstops to Asia might well use 28, or even 10 with an immediate left turn to heading 250 or so.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:00 am

OPNLguy,

...understand what you're trying to say as far as minimums versus reality.

I know you understand, but I wasn't sure about others...  Laugh out loud
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
OPNLguy
Posts: 11191
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 1999 11:29 am

RE: SFO ATC-Why Wouldn't This Work?

Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:04 am

I understand that you understand that I understand, understand?  Nuts

(Glad we cleared -that- up....)  Big grin
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AJMIA, boscmh, Cipango, devyanks90, flyboy80, Google [Bot], jetblastdubai, jfklganyc, jpetekyxmd80, meecrob, Prost, Rdeggendorfer, shamrock350, tcaeyx, thomasphoto60, uuzjdzm, Yahoo [Bot], Ytraveller, ZKLOU and 245 guests