I assume this violates FAA separation rules? Isn't it 1 mile separation minimum? Those runways are 743 feet apart centerline to centerline.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEE35V5m98Y

Perfectly legal under visual conditions. You can find plenty of pictures in the database. They also depart off the 1s like this fairly often.

I'm shocked, I thought there was a diagonal distance required even for VFR. That's nuts. I've never seen it that close myself and I fly a lot.

Flights at SFO landing on the 28s on visual conditions typically use the Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach (SOIA) to allow for better use of the 28s. I don't think I have seen them almost parallel to each other in quite a while as they are in the video... I think the SOIA approach requires the flights to be staggered?

9V-SPJ

I hate to cry safety, but I don't think two passenger planes flying 750 feet apart at 150-200 mph is safe.

enilria wrote:

I hate to cry safety, but I don't think two passenger planes flying 750 feet apart at 150-200 mph is safe.

Any less safe than two passenger vehicles flying down the road less than 8 feet apart at 60-70mph?

Once they are cleared for visual and have each other in sight they can start doing figure 8s for all the tower cares.

... it's a very interesting video though!

Perfectly safe and perfectly legal. That's what visual separation is all about. Some pilots are uncomfortable with it, some love it. As a controller at SFO, the closer they are to parallel the better because that gives us more of a hole to get the Rwy 01L/R departures out. This is our preferred approach and we will use it so long as we have ceilings above 4000', good visibility and favorable wind conditions.

SOIA would be the next preference but it does require a bit of a stagger. We can run SOIA with ceilings as low as 1600'.

Next we have CSP or .308 approaches. They can be run down to CAT 1 minimums but require a 1.5 mile stagger between the leading aircraft on RWY 28L to the trailing aircraft on RWY 28R.

"Sideby's" give us the best arrival rate, followed by SOIA and then CSP.

As far as the video goes, that looks like a perfectly executed sideby approach by all parties involved. Northern California Tracon, the pilots and SFO tower. That is exactly how we want it to be done.

And yes, the planes are going anywhere from 130-200 knots and they are only about ~700 feet apart (remember the runways are 750 feet apart centerline to centerline so wingtip to wingtip is even closer), their relative speed to each other is minimal as they are flying in the same direction afterall. It's basically like formation flight. You set one aircraft up on the approach and you have the other aircraft get visual when still under standard IFR separation rules (usually using 1000' of altitude). Then you put it on the pilot of the trailing aircraft to continue to maintain visual separation and descend while controlling their speed to achieve the sideby result. It's a beautiful thing when it works this well.

Yeah, I don't get how this video is surprising to any aviation fan.

It's completely normal for SFO in every way.

no need to start a thread to cry wolf for zero reason without any facts. Irresponsible almost.

[quote="rickabone"]Perfectly safe and perfectly legal. That's what visual separation is all about. Some pilots are uncomfortable with it, some love it. As a controller at SFO, the closer they are to parallel the better because that gives us more of a hole to get the Rwy 01L/R departures out.

Thanks for the great response, I really learned something on this thread!

Now imagine if OZ214 had had a double on that day!

rickabone wrote:

Perfectly safe and perfectly legal. That's what visual separation is all about. Some pilots are uncomfortable with it, some love it. As a controller at SFO, the closer they are to parallel the better because that gives us more of a hole to get the Rwy 01L/R departures out. This is our preferred approach...

Thanks Rickabone for the interesting insight!

One question though: is is somehow related to the aircraft type - say, you wouldn't prefer that with a B737 / A380 combo?

It's very common at SFO and I have experienced it many times, landing and taking off.

I think it's safer than simultaneous landings on intersecting runways! See this thread:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=776439

Parallel take-offs are cool too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEc-fsdeBgk

It's even cooler and more dramatic when two jumbos land simultaneously. It's also cool to witness the reactions of other passengers as a 747 drops in to view unexpectedly while landing.

The big problem with SFO is when they don't have clear skies... That when flights have to be majorly staggered on approach. This reduces the arrival rate and aircraft have to be held, sometimes for hours, at their departure point. With current technology the only way to solve this problem is to build a new runway or two out in the bay... And the treehuggers in SFO will never permit that.

iahcsr wrote:

The big problem with SFO is when they don't have clear skies... That when flights have to be majorly staggered on approach. This reduces the arrival rate and aircraft have to be held, sometimes for hours, at their departure point. With current technology the only way to solve this problem is to build a new runway or two out in the bay... And the treehuggers in SFO will never permit that.

It is not only treehuggers that care about the environment. And SFO is more limited by OAK across the bay. Where would you put the runway? You could extend the 1's so more heavies can take off from there but most people would not agree the pollution and other effects are worth it.

9V-SPJ wrote:

Flights at SFO landing on the 28s on visual conditions typically use the Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approach (SOIA) to allow for better use of the 28s

What's better about that use of the 28s?

Last I looked, the actual rule doesn't allow simultaneous ops when the runway edges are less than 600 ft apart-- so never have understood how SFO is legal.

Presumably airliners never land side by side at SNA, with runway centerlines 500 ft apart-- but do airliners land alongside Cessnas?

rickabone wrote:

It's a beautiful thing when it works this well.

And when it doesn't, we wind up with a ball of fire and aluminum. Happens 2-3x/day at SFO. (Kidding, of course)

No, seriously, if this were that unsafe, then why has SFO never, AFAIK, had two aircraft on parallel approach crash into each-other? It's safe because the pilots can see the other aircraft, because they are on their respective glideslopes, and because they have their procedures at the ready if one of them has to go around so that they'll turn away from the other aircraft and not towards it. I've lost count of the number of times I've been aboard aircraft doing this approach and it is SO cool from a passenger perspective. The other airplane doesn't even look that close. Best I ever experienced was landing next to a LH 744 from a UA 752.

b747400erf wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

The big problem with SFO is when they don't have clear skies... That when flights have to be majorly staggered on approach. This reduces the arrival rate and aircraft have to be held, sometimes for hours, at their departure point. With current technology the only way to solve this problem is to build a new runway or two out in the bay... And the treehuggers in SFO will never permit that.

It is not only treehuggers that care about the environment. And SFO is more limited by OAK across the bay. Where would you put the runway? You could extend the 1's so more heavies can take off from there but most people would not agree the pollution and other effects are worth it.

A new runway(s) could only happen by landfill in the bay obviously... And that is what will never be permitted to occur. I don't see this as a bad thing... Just a limitation.

BartSimpson wrote:

rickabone wrote:

One question though: is is somehow related to the aircraft type - say, you wouldn't prefer that with a B737 / A380 combo?

IF wake turbulence is an issue then the larger (wake category) aircraft cannot pass the smaller. They can get right next to each other and the smaller is allowed to pass the larger. At SFO we just went through "Wake ReCat" that established new wake turbulence aircraft categories and rules we need to follow but that is the general rule.

iahcsr wrote:

With current technology the only way to solve this problem is to build a new runway or two out in the bay...

With current technology that is true, but we are very close to new technology that will allow properly equipped aircraft to fly parallel, sideby approaches down to CAT 1 minimums. They are working on 'paired approaches.' Where the planes will basically 'talk' to each other. There will be a lead aircraft and the trailing aircraft will display airspeed, altitude and course guidance on the pilot's PFD that will allow them to pair up with the other aircraft even in IMC. This has been tested and has worked well in simulations but there is still a lot of actual flight testing that needs to be done before it can be approved and certified.

A few of my coworkers participated in the simulations on the controller side of things and seemed pretty optimistic about it becoming a reality, albeit in about 5 or more years.

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/fil ... paired.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp. ... er=5935382

LAS runs simul visuals to 01L/01R when the wind is strong out of the northeast. They're roughly 800' apart.

iahcsr wrote:

A new runway(s) could only happen by landfill in the bay obviously... And that is what will never be permitted to occur. I don't see this as a bad thing... Just a limitation.

I view it as a bad thing. SFO needs new runways or SOME system to allow continued operations when it's a little cloudy without an automatic 3-hour delay. As it is, I try to avoid SFO whenever I can, especially during the winter. OAK with its single runway is much more reliable. There was a proposal to build huge, floating runways out in the Bay, but nothing like that has ever been done before and I don't see how it could be made sufficiently bouyant that a fully-loaded A380 won't make it dip. Perhaps heavier aircraft could use the current runways and aircraft smaller than an A321 can use the floaters. But that's not likely, either.

There was the time I was flying back from SBA but the flight got delayed six hours. Had I known at the time it was announced that the delay would be that long, I would have asked them to refund my return leg, marched right over to the rental car counter, and rented a car to dead-head back home (and still I would have beaten my flight). But in typical airline fashion, it was an hour and half advisory, and then another hour and a half, and then another half hour, and so-on. Got home at 2AM and had to work the next day.

So my solution is to fly out of OAK when I can and when I can't, I try to make sure I can get into an airline lounge.

timz wrote:

9V-SPJ wrote:

Presumably airliners never land side by side at SNA, with runway centerlines 500 ft apart-- but do airliners land alongside Cessnas?

At SNA cessnas do land side by side, and take-off side by side with airliners in visual conditions. The approach and departure leg to 20L and 2R are offset by 15 degrees to the east. As far as I can tell, it's never planned but with the speed differences between aircraft and running two independent runways sometimes it happens that way.

FYI @SNA the runway centerlines are 525 feet apart, and anything larger than a 737-800 will block a runway from use when holding in-between the runways. There are no insturment approaches to the small runway, so the small runway is of limited use below 1000 feet ceiling, unusable as a runway below 500 feet celling.

flyPIT wrote:

As mentioned this is nothing new for SFO. However it was also commonplace at several other US airports with dependent parallel runways. Places such as EWR, BOS, DFW, and LAX:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Grumman-G-1159-Gulfstream-II-TT/150311

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Shuttle-by-United-%28United-Airlines%29/Boeing-737-522/25176

But it doesn't seem as common at these other airports as it used to. Anyone know why?

Does anyone know how to imbed photos from the A.net database into a thread?

Back in the 90s DFW used to do this a lot, especially the morning arrivals. It was an awesome site looking back after landing and seeing rows of landing lights four wide. With the new runway on the east side, they do do not do this anymore.

The part that is on the video is actually the mundane part of the operation. The "action", if any, takes place out over MENLO when the airplanes initially join up. The part on the video is no big deal, the speeds are already locked in and both airplanes are in final configuration. I'm not sure what legal separation standards you are speaking of. Both airplanes are on a visual approach with usually both, but definitely the in-trail aircraft maintaining separation. Taxing at LAX is more nerve racking then visuals into SFO. These are big airplanes, much of what you are seeing is an illusion. There is plenty of distance between the two airplanes.

This would never happen in the UK.

How did they both join final at almost the same time and altitude?

What about a burst tyre on landing, a go around of one or both aircraft (vortex), or a crash similar to the Korean 777, where the plane inverted and landed between the parallels.

uta999 wrote:

This would never happen in the UK.

How did they both join final at almost the same time and altitude?

What about a burst tyre on landing, a go around of one or both aircraft (vortex), or a crash similar to the Korean 777, where the plane inverted and landed between the parallels.

I guess that Delta 737, that is waiting to cross, had better be lucky.

uta999 wrote:

This would never happen in the UK.

How did they both join final at almost the same time and altitude?

What about a burst tyre on landing, a go around of one or both aircraft (vortex), or a crash similar to the Korean 777, where the plane inverted and landed between the parallels.

They wound up at the same altitude and on close parallel approaches because ATC put them there and the pilots are willing to maintain visual separation. Believe it or not, when I fly into SFO on a visual I'm trying to be as close to abeam the other aircraft as possible as I know it helps tower get departures out.

As to your other questions, a tire burst would be just as bad as any other airport with aircraft taxiing in proximity of runways. Go a rounds have published procedures so the aircraft don't conflict, when it comes to wake turbulence being abeam is better than one aircraft being in trail, and the Asiana accident was again something that could have been worse at any airport where aircraft hold short of the runway near the threshold (so nearly every airport where the same runway is used for departures and arrivals).

rickabone wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

rickabone wrote:

One question though: is is somehow related to the aircraft type - say, you wouldn't prefer that with a B737 / A380 combo?

IF wake turbulence is an issue then the larger (wake category) aircraft cannot pass the smaller. They can get right next to each other and the smaller is allowed to pass the larger. At SFO we just went through "Wake ReCat" that established new wake turbulence aircraft categories and rules we need to follow but that is the general rule.

Wake turbulence will not be an issue in parallel approaches because it is behind (and typically below) the leading aircraft. If they are, basically, side by side, you will not encounter it.

rcair1 wrote:

rickabone wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

IF wake turbulence is an issue then the larger (wake category) aircraft cannot pass the smaller. They can get right next to each other and the smaller is allowed to pass the larger. At SFO we just went through "Wake ReCat" that established new wake turbulence aircraft categories and rules we need to follow but that is the general rule.

Wake turbulence will not be an issue in parallel approaches because it is behind (and typically below) the leading aircraft. If they are, basically, side by side, you will not encounter it.

Yes, when they are side by side. It can become an issue if the larger wake category is ahead of the smaller one, however, which is why they are not allowed to pass as he said.

rcair1 wrote:

rickabone wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

IF wake turbulence is an issue then the larger (wake category) aircraft cannot pass the smaller. They can get right next to each other and the smaller is allowed to pass the larger. At SFO we just went through "Wake ReCat" that established new wake turbulence aircraft categories and rules we need to follow but that is the general rule.

Wake turbulence will not be an issue in parallel approaches because it is behind (and typically below) the leading aircraft. If they are, basically, side by side, you will not encounter it.

It also depends on the winds. A quartering tailwind can and has put the wake from one of the parallels right into the flight path for the other parallel. But even when physics says it won't be an issue, the rules are drawn up much more conservatively and that is what I was referring to.

uta999 wrote:

This would never happen in the UK.

How did they both join final at almost the same time and altitude?

What about a burst tyre on landing, a go around of one or both aircraft (vortex), or a crash similar to the Korean 777, where the plane inverted and landed between the parallels.

IF that is true then perhaps the UK could learn a thing or two about moving some metal

Seriously though, it doesn't happen that they both JOIN final "at almost the same time and altitude." In this video you are seeing them when they are already ESTABLISHED on final. They join final much further out and the procedure is that one aircraft will set up on final, while the aircraft for the parallel is still legally IFR separated (usually using altitude here at 1000' above the other aircraft that is more or less established on final). The controllers at NCT will get the pilot to see the aircraft that is established on final (in front of and below them), and then will tell them to maintain visual separation with that other aircraft. At that point it is on the pilots to keep the planes apart and they can get as close as they feel comfortable with short of actually trading paint. NCT will then allow that aircraft to descend and will control their speed in such a manner as to get the aircraft paired up with the one that was already established usually by the time they reach about a 5 mile final. This is why we need at least a 4000 foot ceiling to make sideby arrivals work at SFO. That's the normal technique we see but there are a few other ways to make it happen as well.

Web500sjc wrote:

@SNA the runway centerlines are 525 feet apart

If you go out and measure them, I'll bet they turn out to be 500 or 501 ft.

The rule seems to say simult ops aren't legal when either aircraft is a jet airliner and runways centerlines are less than 700 ft apart, and SNA is for sure less than that. Never have seen why simult ops are legal there, if they are.

ICAO Reduced Separation around the vicinity of the aerodrome in use (or the FAA equivalent):

Both aircraft have each other in sight and will remain visually separated,

The succeeding aircraft has the proceeding aircraft in sight, maintain visual separation,

Controller has both in sight (and can monitor them)

Obviously looks very unsafe, but is actually better to be alongside him than behind him, avoid less wake turb if alongside (or possibility of W/T). Pilots have the final say in the safety of their aircraft also, so it seems that these 2 guys are comfortable with this idea of an approach (and probably love the thrill of it to!)