Were KSFO simultaneous parallel arrivals that unsafe?

[cruiserandmax]

Since the FAA banned (or revoked the waiver for?) simultaneous parallel arrivals on 28L/28R at San Francisco (during VFR) we have been experiencing 2+ hour delays on many inbound flights due to limited slot times. I don't think schedules have fully adjusted yet. A repaving project on runway 1R is also exacerbating the problem. But the elimination of parallel arrivals alone has reduced arrival capacity from 56 to 33 arrivals per hour.

I am aware of occasional TCAS RA's when NorCal vectors flights on opposing sides onto to final near the same point. But besides those events I don't think there has ever been a serious incident during simultaneous parallel approach operation.

Is this mainly a reaction by the FAA to the increasing amount of press coverage of incidents? Or are close calls really that much on the rise?

 

[luvflyin]

Since the FAA banned (or revoked the waiver for?) simultaneous parallel arrivals on 28L/28R at San Francisco (during VFR) we have been experiencing 2+ hour delays on many inbound flights due to limited slot times. I don't think schedules have fully adjusted yet. A repaving project on runway 1R is also exacerbating the problem. But the elimination of parallel arrivals alone has reduced arrival capacity from 56 to 33 arrivals per hour.

I am aware of occasional TCAS RA's when NorCal vectors flights on opposing sides onto to final near the same point. But besides those events I don't think there has ever been a serious incident during simultaneous parallel approach operation.

Is this mainly a reaction by the FAA to the increasing amount of press coverage of incidents? Or are close calls really that much on the rise?

When did that happen? I think there was an incident a while back, months, not years ago, if I remember correctly. Whether or not it was the procedure itself at fault, or pilot/controller error I don’t remember. But there has been a move lately toward changing procedure to eliminate pilots/controller boo boos from leading to incidents. To wit, visual separation stuff.

 

[cruiserandmax]

When did that happen? I think there was an incident a while back, months, not years ago, if I remember correctly. Whether or not it was the procedure itself at fault, or pilot/controller error I don’t remember. But there has been a move lately toward changing procedure to eliminate pilots/controller boo boos from leading to incidents. To wit, visual separation stuff.

It happened a little over a month ago (in March)..

 

[Old97]

I say this facetiously, but kinda not - how many people do you want to kill at once?

 

[schmookeeg]

I mentally filed this as a fallout from ATC staffing failures, but... now thinking about that, I don't know why I did that.

 

[Tools]

No. Not unsafe. Problematic, but not inherently unsafe.

Atlanta has them. Supposedly because after 10-20 years of planning they put the new runway 100’ too close to the others… wow. Don’t really know this to be true…

But it causes A LOT of training issues and limitations. It’s not an unsafe event requiring all that mess. Theres something else, probably related to administrative issues.

 

[Roger Wilco]

AA5342 drove a nationwide review of how visual approach procedures are conducted, in light of the fact that a breakdown in the see-and-avoid method of traffic separation was considered to be a causal factor in the tragedy at DCA. I was based at SFO for 30 years, and considered its parallel approaches to be one of the most serious threats to be managed on every landing at that airport. It amazes me that SFO has not had a collision on those approaches, or at the runway intersections.

 

[midwestpa24]

The only thing I really wonder about now, how viable is SFO as a major hub with an arrival rate of 33 aircraft per hour. Will this be the catalyst to trigger a multi billion dollar revamp, expansion, or replacement for SFO?

 

[flyingron]

The only thing I really wonder about now, how viable is SFO as a major hub with an arrival rate of 33 aircraft per hour. Will this be the catalyst to trigger a multi billion dollar revamp, expansion, or replacement for SFO?

It's been floated as an idea, but they'll not only need to do an eminent domain taking of 30,000 acres of land (much belonging to Cargill salt), you'd need to fill that and make it suitable to support a runway.

 

[Roger Wilco]

It's been floated as an idea, but they'll not only need to do an eminent domain taking of 30,000 acres of land (much belonging to Cargill salt), you'd need to fill that and make it suitable to support a runway.

Around Y2K, there was a proposal to relocate 28R to increase spacing between runways. The plan called for filling-in the shallow waters of the Bay northeast of the airport and constructing a new parallel runway on the landfill. In order to address the concerns of environmental groups, the plan included a purchase of salt ponds south of the airport and returning them to their prior state as wetlands, and other environmental provisions. If I recall, the area of reclaimed wetlands would have exceeded the area of bay claimed for airport expansion. In addition, the resulting reduction in flight delays (long taxi times, airborne holding, delay vectors) that was envisioned would have caused a meaningful decrease in airborne pollutants and noise. The net impact over time would have yielded substantial environmental benefits.

But as anyone familiar with California politics can guess, the plan never got off the ground. Instead, the brilliant and virtuous political forces that call the shots in California decided to build a high-speed railway.