It seems that whenever SFO does something as simple as a runway change, the airport get pretty big delays and there always seems to be diversions. Like just now, they did their runway change and SJC already is getting a diversion not too long after they changed.

Is it something with the design of the airport itself or its SIDs and STARs?

I think the problem is that when the weather gets bad as is happening now the parallel runways cannot be used for simultaneous landings because they are too close together. So I guess that is a design flaw.

AirCalSNA wrote:

I think the problem is that when the weather gets bad as is happening now the parallel runways cannot be used for simultaneous landings because they are too close together. So I guess that is a design flaw.

That is Exactly the problem. The only resolution is tech advances to allow safe use of parallel landings in low visibility conditions or add a forth runway with proper spacing. Said runway would require land filling the bay..... something environmentally not possible in California’s political mindset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BpDoaH8Hcs

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

Its safe to say that the FAA rather not have planes takeoff or land this close together even in VFR conditions.

It may be a flawed design, but where else are you going to go if you want to experience a parallel landing!

william wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BpDoaH8Hcs

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

Its safe to say that the FAA rather not have planes takeoff or land this close together even in VFR conditions.

Not sure why you believe that....the FAA is perfectly fine with VFR dual landings at SFO...they, along with the airlines, helped create the procedure.

It can be interesting at the gate after one of those arrivals. I had a very nicely dressed woman insist that I explain to her why "we almost crashed into another plane!" I gave her my best abbreviated explanation and concluded with - it is perfectly normal on a clear day in SFO. She got even more irate and assured me that "it's not normal, because she flys into SFO all the time!"

Um yeah, me too.......

The design is great on paper, not great in practice. Or really when you can't fly the visual approach. In late 2018/early 2019 they're opening a new RNAV GLS approach for RWY 19R from WESLA which is the last fix on the WWAVS arrival which is for southern arrivals. DAL and UAL (Maybe AAL?) all tested the approach in 737-900ERs. If they time the arrivals right they could easily reach 40-45 arrivals an hour on 10/19 ops compared to the current 20-25 for those same ops. Problem is how short 19R is, 7500 feet, though really any plane can land on it, if the runway is contaminated it could be a problem with aircraft floating or approaching too fast. Once the approach is approved the delays shouldnt be 3 hours when rain occurs, maybe an hour? Don't forget that 10R has an RNP approach with 396 DA which is pretty good if the winds favor it and the vis is there as there are no approach lights. 10L has a GPS approach with a bit higher minimums.

Starts on page 16 https://www.umwelthaus.org/media/8.ican ... _lines.pdf

United1 wrote:

william wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BpDoaH8Hcs

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

Its safe to say that the FAA rather not have planes takeoff or land this close together even in VFR conditions.

Not sure why you believe that....the FAA is perfectly fine with VFR dual landings at SFO...they, along with the airlines, helped create the procedure.

If given a CHOICE, I am sure the FAA ,airlines and pilots would rather further separation of aircraft. Do to SFO configuration one has to work with they have. Its a testament to all involve they make SFO work.............when weather allows. IAH has the same parallel takeoff ops.

barney captain wrote:

It can be interesting at the gate after one of those arrivals. I had a very nicely dressed woman insist that I explain to her why "we almost crashed into another plane!" I gave her my best abbreviated explanation and concluded with - it is perfectly normal on a clear day in SFO. She got even more irate and assured me that "it's not normal, because she flys into SFO all the time!"

Um yeah, me too.......

I am trying to imagine it now, ATL. Twin arrivals on the north side of the airport and twin departures on the south side. Imagine the increase in movements per hour for the world's busiest airport.

william wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BpDoaH8Hcs

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

Its safe to say that the FAA rather not have planes takeoff or land this close together even in VFR conditions.

Huh? Parallel landings happen all the time there. And the one video shows one of them.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

It may be a flawed design, but where else are you going to go if you want to experience a parallel landing!

LAX...occasional parallel landings or takeoffs there, maybe more likely a landing.

cschleic wrote:

william wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BpDoaH8Hcs

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

Its safe to say that the FAA rather not have planes takeoff or land this close together even in VFR conditions.

Huh? Parallel landings happen all the time there. And the one video shows one of them.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

It may be a flawed design, but where else are you going to go if you want to experience a parallel landing!

LAX...occasional parallel landings or takeoffs there, maybe more likely a landing.

You’re actually kind of right, I got to experience a parallel DY 787 takeoff as we landed at LAX yesterday, don’t know how I forgot lol!

https://s3.ezgif.com/save/ezgif-3-640cd0daff.gif

Perfect example is tonight. Had to do a down and back to SAN. I’m UA all the way, but when the weather is bad and they can’t do parallel approaches you are nearly guaranteed to have delays of an hour plus on most routes. That’s when a lot of us regular SFO fliers switch to WN out of OAK, which is exactly what I did tonight. My return flight to OAK landed perfectly on time, while the SFO flight that was supposed to take off the same time mine did landed less than an hour ago, which is three hours after my flight landed.

Anytime you have a ceiling below 3000 ft it almost takes off 20 flights per hour on the arrival rate, and any ceiling below 2000 ft you are guaranteed a ground delay program into SFO. The traffic demand plus the runway configuration neuter the arrival rate badly to where they can only handle 25-35 per hour.

For an airport with that many flights and that much traffic, a 25 arrival rate with a 1500 ft ceiling is very, very bad.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

but where else are you going to go if you want to experience a parallel landing!

...right "down the road" at LAX.

24L and 24R do parallel landings all the time.
Sometimes 25L and 25R, but not as often.

Pretty sure PEK does them quite a bit as well.

And these are of course just examples of parallel landings on runways in close proximity. In theory, any major airport with adequately separated parallel runways can have "parallel landings," e.g. ATL, ORD, DFW, DEN, etc.

What exactly is the problem with the environmental lobby, about land filling a few hundred meters of the Bay? Surely they know there is one of America's busiest airports there already. A new runway further out, would simply close an existing one. What damage would it do to the Bay floor? and think of all that fuel that is currently wasted holding in bad weather.

Perhaps a 'floating' runway, anchored to the seabed is feasible. The same type of new runway is probably needed at JFK too.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

It may be a flawed design, but where else are you going to go if you want to experience a parallel landing!

LAS 1L + 1R

centerline to centerline separation 925 feet

Earlier this year, I had recorded 94 airliners + 18 bizjets + 1 go around, on a Friday between 5:30 - 7:30 pm... 112, or 56 arrivals per hour! (not counting departures)

This occurs during northeasterly wind days, where departures use 7L and arrivals are staggered similar to SFO's 28L/R on 1L / R.

william wrote:

I am trying to imagine it now, ATL. Twin arrivals on the north side of the airport and twin departures on the south side. Imagine the increase in movements per hour for the world's busiest airport.

This makes no sense. ATL can already land three runways at once and depart two.

ATL can also depart three runways at once. Not common but possible during the mid-morning departure push if the airport is on a west flow.

Of course it is. There is no design, it just happened. Crossing runways that are not far apart, hills around the airport, nowhere to expand, huge demand that can only be accommodated on a clear day. What was planned?

Would it be possible at all to swap locations of 19L/1R with Taxiway L? That would separate the runways more but wouldn't require landfilling or losing a taxiway - although I'm not sure that would leave enough clearance on the new taxiway l between both runways.

mikegigs wrote:

Would it be possible at all to swap locations of 19L/1R with Taxiway L? That would separate the runways more but wouldn't require landfilling or losing a taxiway - although I'm not sure that would leave enough clearance on the new taxiway l between both runways.

Air Canada already does that with the 8's from time to time, don't see why it can't be done w 19L/1R.

In clear weather, SFO can accept 60 planes per hour. In marginal visibility (ceiling below 4,000ft but still VFR), the airport can accept 38 planes per hour. In Low visibility the airport can accept 30 planes per hour.

Between 9am and 3pm and 5pm and 10pm, more than 30 flights per hour are scheduled. Therefore if there is low visibility, there will be flow control.

Between 10am and 1pm, more than 38 flights per hour are scheduled. Therefore if there is marginal visibility, there will be flow control.

Diversions happen when weather degrades. If weather is forecast to be marginal, but then goes down to low, there will most likely be diversions between 10am and 1pm. Similarly if there is a wind shift and the runways approaches change, that reduces arrival rate temporarily and will cause diversions. Flow control usually affects flights that are less than 3 hours and arriving between 9am and 3pm. If you want to avoid any flow control, book a flight that arrives before 9am or is longer than 3 hours.

Airlines can solve this problem if they agree to slots that limit the airport to 30 flights per hour. They don't want to do that since low visibility is only 15% of the year. Therefore they are willing to accept some flow control delays.

Here's a great report describing how it all works: https://media.flysfo.com/media/sfo/medi ... imer_0.pdf

When LAX wanted to separate the northern runways many NIMBY communities lobbied against it but all this was swept aside when a federal report specifically mentioned that for safety reasons it was necessary to complete. Is there any such clause on filling in the bay that allows for safety considerations??

theSFOspotter wrote:

The design is great on paper, not great in practice. Or really when you can't fly the visual approach. In late 2018/early 2019 they're opening a new RNAV GLS approach for RWY 19R from WESLA which is the last fix on the WWAVS arrival which is for southern arrivals. DAL and UAL (Maybe AAL?) all tested the approach in 737-900ERs. If they time the arrivals right they could easily reach 40-45 arrivals an hour on 10/19 ops compared to the current 20-25 for those same ops. Problem is how short 19R is, 7500 feet, though really any plane can land on it, if the runway is contaminated it could be a problem with aircraft floating or approaching too fast. Once the approach is approved the delays shouldnt be 3 hours when rain occurs, maybe an hour? Don't forget that 10R has an RNP approach with 396 DA which is pretty good if the winds favor it and the vis is there as there are no approach lights. 10L has a GPS approach with a bit higher minimums.

Starts on page 16 https://www.umwelthaus.org/media/8.ican ... _lines.pdf

Landing on a 7,500 ft runway is no issue for today's airliners, even when wet. Many airports around the globe have runways of 7,500' or less and have regular commercial service all day long (think MDW, SNA, etc) without any issues. MDW can get wind, rain, snow, ice -- one remarkable incident by WN some years back. It's perfectly safe to operate on a 7,500 ft runway.

flyguy84 wrote:

william wrote:

I am trying to imagine it now, ATL. Twin arrivals on the north side of the airport and twin departures on the south side. Imagine the increase in movements per hour for the world's busiest airport.

This makes no sense. ATL can already land three runways at once and depart two.

Yes, I know, even in CAT III conditions three across. I am stating in VFR conditions, ATL could up the arrival rate to four at a time using parallel approaches on the north side, especially with west flow. Just saying its possible.

DFW used to, at times do parallel approaches before 17L/35R was built. But it would be staggered on approach.

william wrote:

I am trying to imagine it now, ATL. Twin arrivals on the north side of the airport and twin departures on the south side. Imagine the increase in movements per hour for the world's busiest airport.

That would actually make it worse.

tb727 wrote:

william wrote:

I am trying to imagine it now, ATL. Twin arrivals on the north side of the airport and twin departures on the south side. Imagine the increase in movements per hour for the world's busiest airport.

That would actually make it worse.

Why do you state that? Ground congestion? Planes landing on 26R could take the end around taxway and those landing on 26L can turn into the terminal complex.

[photoid][/photoid]

william wrote:

tb727 wrote:

william wrote:

I am trying to imagine it now, ATL. Twin arrivals on the north side of the airport and twin departures on the south side. Imagine the increase in movements per hour for the world's busiest airport.

That would actually make it worse.

Why do you state that? Ground congestion? Planes landing on 26R could take the end around taxway and those landing on 26L can turn into the terminal complex.

26L/R are too close for simultaneous arrivals, just like SFO. 26R, 27L and 28 simultaneous arrivals are the best that airport can do. Spacing is good enough for simultaneous parallel arrivals whereas the 26’s would have to be staggered.

The way the alleys are set up too work well for an aircraft entering from the North and South at the same time versus both entering the same side at the same time but I don’t think it would be a big deal.

That and the way banks are at ATL they don’t really need all 5 runways at full capacity for arrivals/departures at the same time.

tb727 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

william wrote:

tb727 wrote:

That would actually make it worse.

Why do you state that? Ground congestion? Planes landing on 26R could take the end around taxway and those landing on 26L can turn into the terminal complex.

26L/R are too close for simultaneous arrivals, just like SFO. 26R, 27L and 28 simultaneous arrivals are the best that airport can do. Spacing is good enough for simultaneous parallel arrivals whereas the 26’s would have to be staggered.

The way the alleys are set up too work well for an aircraft entering from the North and South at the same time versus both entering the same side at the same time but I don’t think it would be a big deal.

That and the way banks are at ATL they don’t really need all 5 runways at full capacity for arrivals/departures at the same time.

Interesting info, thank you.

Every if by rule you could land simultaneously on 26R and 26L you would become less efficient by losing 26L as a departure runway. If you push everything to 27R you lose the departure rate especially on a west flow because there is no end around taxiway. Arrivals from 27L and 28 have no option to cross 27R so departing aircraft have to stop.

uta999 wrote:

What exactly is the problem with the environmental lobby, about land filling a few hundred meters of the Bay? Surely they know there is one of America's busiest airports there already. A new runway further out, would simply close an existing one. What damage would it do to the Bay floor? and think of all that fuel that is currently wasted holding in bad weather.

Perhaps a 'floating' runway, anchored to the seabed is feasible. The same type of new runway is probably needed at JFK too.

The complete over the top wackiness of the environmental lobby in Northern California is hard to believe until you experience it first hand. I have some fruit loop tell me he would rather see 100 planes crash than have one animal harmed by a new runway. Sadly, his view is pretty common. I think your idea is great but it will never be approved. Toss in a healthy dose of NIMBYism and it's an uphill battle.

The demolition of the old Bay Bridge piers is an example of the opposition another runway is facing. The project is years late and $140 million over budget with environmentalists causing innumerable delays. The final plan involves special procedures to "minimize stress" to local wildlife. This includes canceling any planned implosions if an animal is spotted within 1 mile of the demolition zone. Don't get me wrong, I think we should do what we can to ensure we are good shepherds of this planet so the next generation is not living in toxic waste and breathing smog choked air. Still, we need to be pragmatic and realized it's a balancing act and not every cockroach can be saved when the benefit to society is great.

uta999 wrote:

What exactly is the problem with the environmental lobby, about land filling a few hundred meters of the Bay? Surely they know there is one of America's busiest airports there already. A new runway further out, would simply close an existing one. What damage would it do to the Bay floor? and think of all that fuel that is currently wasted holding in bad weather.

Perhaps a 'floating' runway, anchored to the seabed is feasible. The same type of new runway is probably needed at JFK too.

It would take about a square mile of landfill for an adequately spaced runway and taxiways. Previous discussions traded the salt ponds for the landfill, but even the trade is a tough sell.

Edit-- make that 25 square miles... and there was a proposal for floating runways.

Part of the problem is arrivals can’t be staggered on the 28s because space is needed to have departures on the 1s. Can’t be fixed.

bluejuice wrote:

uta999 wrote:

What exactly is the problem with the environmental lobby, about land filling a few hundred meters of the Bay? Surely they know there is one of America's busiest airports there already. A new runway further out, would simply close an existing one. What damage would it do to the Bay floor? and think of all that fuel that is currently wasted holding in bad weather.

Perhaps a 'floating' runway, anchored to the seabed is feasible. The same type of new runway is probably needed at JFK too.

The complete over the top wackiness of the environmental lobby in Northern California is hard to believe until you experience it first hand. I have some fruit loop tell me he would rather see 100 planes crash than have one animal harmed by a new runway. Sadly, his view is pretty common. I think your idea is great but it will never be approved. Toss in a healthy dose of NIMBYism and it's an uphill battle.

The demolition of the old Bay Bridge piers is an example of the opposition another runway is facing. The project is years late and $140 million over budget with environmentalists causing innumerable delays. The final plan involves special procedures to "minimize stress" to local wildlife. This includes canceling any planned implosions if an animal is spotted within 1 mile of the demolition zone. Don't get me wrong, I think we should do what we can to ensure we are good shepherds of this planet so the next generation is not living in toxic waste and breathing smog choked air. Still, we need to be pragmatic and realized it's a balancing act and not every cockroach can be saved when the benefit to society is great.

The preference of thousands of human lives over one animal is not a 'common view' but it's an eye-catching statement. Good job.
The issue is no longer an activist/NIMBY issue. It's legislation the City itself passed many years ago. No Bay fill for Airport runways. If none of those conditions existed, it would be a cost issue. What do you think the impact on CPE would be if, on top of a multi-billion dollar capital plan, they built a new runway? They wouldn't need it. Bye bye SW, B6, etc.

bluejuice wrote:

uta999 wrote:

What exactly is the problem with the environmental lobby, about land filling a few hundred meters of the Bay? Surely they know there is one of America's busiest airports there already. A new runway further out, would simply close an existing one. What damage would it do to the Bay floor? and think of all that fuel that is currently wasted holding in bad weather.

Perhaps a 'floating' runway, anchored to the seabed is feasible. The same type of new runway is probably needed at JFK too.

The complete over the top wackiness of the environmental lobby in Northern California is hard to believe until you experience it first hand. I have some fruit loop tell me he would rather see 100 planes crash than have one animal harmed by a new runway. Sadly, his view is pretty common. I think your idea is great but it will never be approved. Toss in a healthy dose of NIMBYism and it's an uphill battle.

The demolition of the old Bay Bridge piers is an example of the opposition another runway is facing. The project is years late and $140 million over budget with environmentalists causing innumerable delays. The final plan involves special procedures to "minimize stress" to local wildlife. This includes canceling any planned implosions if an animal is spotted within 1 mile of the demolition zone. Don't get me wrong, I think we should do what we can to ensure we are good shepherds of this planet so the next generation is not living in toxic waste and breathing smog choked air. Still, we need to be pragmatic and realized it's a balancing act and not every cockroach can be saved when the benefit to society is great.

Just a heads up they finished demolition of the bay bridge last week....a year ahead of their revised schedule. And yes they did delay the last implosion by an hour to let some seals clear the area. As a local I'm fine with that....

http://www.dot.ca.gov/oldbaybridgedemolition/

While I agree there are some who go overboard regarding environmental protection here in the Bay it's a fact of life that new runways will never happen at SFO. SF is an amazing place to live and if the worst thing we can say about it is SFO experiences a weather delay if a few clouds move in I think it's a fine trade off.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

It may be a flawed design, but where else are you going to go if you want to experience a parallel landing!

At any of the hundreds of airports that have parallel runways. ORD, LAX, DEN, DFW, ATL, JFK to name a few. Some of those can even do triple simult arrivals.

There's four big flaws in my book with SFO. The first is the obvious which is the narrow spacing between parallel runways. The second is the intersecting runways. This restricts capacity for four runways even in good weather. The third is that the configuration creates taxiway congestion, particularly when taking off. The last is that only the 28s are long enough for long-haul departures, creating another layer of capacity restriction by restricting arrivals on the 28s during that time.

LAX772LR wrote:

...right "down the road" at LAX.

24L and 24R do parallel landings all the time.
Sometimes 25L and 25R, but not as often.

Pretty sure PEK does them quite a bit as well.

And these are of course just examples of parallel landings on runways in close proximity. In theory, any major airport with adequately separated parallel runways can have "parallel landings," e.g. ATL, ORD, DFW, DEN, etc.

All the time? I've never seen parallel landings on one side at LAX, and when I search for examples there it appears very rare.

MSPNWA wrote:

The last is that only the 28s are long enough for long-haul departures, creating another layer of capacity restriction by restricting arrivals on the 28s during that time.

Only the longest hauls are restricted to the 28s. BA A380s and KLM 747s (amongst others) use the 1s periodically.

FoxtrotSierra wrote:

It may be a flawed design, but where else are you going to go if you want to experience a parallel landing!

BOS

LHR every morning 6am till 7am, though they still stagger them for some unknown reason. Apparently 4750' is just too close!

From an environmental standpoint, a solution like Haneda's newest runway would minimize impact IMO.

Yellow area would be landfill, red area over pillars.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1f01RnrLBEJWusyA1yaDSxOupE59TIIdK

This is a chicken and egg issue for SFO. Additional runways would allow better results during constricted weather operations but also increase the hourly normal ops which then makes SFO, as a gate restricted airport, under additional pressure to construct even more gates. Gates are a far larger issue with the only feasible area to construct is the UA maintenance base unless there is more fill used to accommodate additional gates.

uta999 wrote:

LHR every morning 6am till 7am, though they still stagger them for some unknown reason. Apparently 4750' is just too close!

The UK, unlike the FAA, follows ICAO Doc 9643, which is the manual on Simultaneous operations on parallel or near-parallel Instrument Runways (SOIR).

Basically, they need 5000 ft between the runways for fully independent ILS approaches.

http://www.heathrowappg.com/wp-content/ ... ssue-1.pdf

ICAO Document 9643 sets out requirements for the Simultaneous Operations on Parallel or Near
Parallel Instrument Runways (SOIR), including what precautions are necessary when the centre lines
of such runways are separated by less than 1,525m.   Such a separation (i.e. 1,525m) is the minimum
runway separation for fully independent operations and anything less required additional mitigation
or new regulations to fully utilise aircraft capability.  The centre lines of the north and south runways
at Heathrow are separated by c.1,410m, thereby precluding their use for simultaneous parallel
operations without mitigating aspects being provided.  

At OSH we sometimes land three planes Simultaneously. On the same runway!