Every month I receive at least a couple emails of real pilots that encounter this situation. Some airlines allow pilots to set TCAS to TA ONLY at San Francisco only if the traffic is in sight and have been cleared for a visual approach. Having so many go arounds a week is really something to look at, don't you think?
I'm not sure what they can really do. Lot of traffic to get in with only two runways, congested airspace (Oakland and San Jose all operating in this same area), plus the reduced runway offsets. Maybe they can do some minor procedures changes on ATC side making sure traffic is called in sight and try to give ample room to avoid as many RAs as possible. Watching this traffic it seems approach was having a chain of events to deal with which is another thing they can probably review.
We don't change our TCAS settings, but if we have traffic in sight we don't have to respond to the RA. I've had to do RA's and was able to continue to land here and other times had to go around. Usually the go around is a faster jet approaching from behind on final and we just can't see them. I will typically configure in such a way that I can either stay fast and well ahead of pairing traffic or slow rapidly once speed assignment is lifted to keep them beside us and in sight.
@@joshr96 The real issue at SFO is the narrow spacing between the parallels runway. It doesn't even come near the recommander minimum spacing set forth in official guidlines (OACI not sure). This airport should have it's licence to operate twin runways pulled out from the FAA if the FAA was doing it's job.
@@Tony_Airlines When you get a TCAS RA, is it always guaranteed that the RA is about the traffic you have in sight, and not some other traffic that is going to hit you?
It honestly appears that SFO is operating on borrowed time. Normalisation of deviance seems to have infiltrated major areas of their operations and it feels like a matter of time until something catastrophic occurs. They seem to be heavily relying on big sky theory and pilot skill/professionalism to keep people safe, because most of the other safeguards have been whittled away to the point of ineffectiveness by now.
@@JM87Fly There is no deviance, they're using visual separation. If pilots can't avoid bumping into aircraft they have in sight we have much bigger problems.
As an SFO based United 737 pilot, we can disable our TCAS RA in visual conditions for SFO only if pre-briefed by the Captain when it's determined a nuisance RA is a "risk". However, if you receive a TCAS RA, even with traffic in sight, you must follow the maneuver to maintain separation, leading to the go arounds in the video (following usually leads you to be unstable for landing).. many pilots don't disable "RA mode" because they feel it's unsafe, or they aren't aware we have that allowance in our manual. NorCal Approach likes to closely space traffic to increase arrival rates which is great for decreasing flow times into SFO.
@ we got pretty close “in trail” a few times. As the “trailing aircraft” it’s our job to slow down to Vref+10..slow as we can go in a 767-400 with me driving.
The problem seems to be that SFO has designed its procedures on the assumption that pilots are inhibiting TCAS RAs and are solely maintaining visual separation, but not all pilots are doing that (presumably because their SOPs don't allow it). SFO's procedures simply don't work if you aren't inhibiting TCAS. They either need to convince everyone that it is safe to inhibit TCAS or they need to change their procedures.
Yeah, that seems to be the case. I get that they can use high-resolution radar to achieve safety without TCAS. However, I'm guessing the airlines just don't have confidence in the FAA with all the near misses. The FAA won't get sued if there is a crash, and won't lose business. The airline will. For them it makes sense to just reduce the effective capacity of the airport rather than trusting the FAA. I feel like not having near misses on the runways every couple of weeks would probably make airlines more willing to trust the FAA to keep planes separated...
I get where the airlines are coming from and having pilots just abide by RA no matter what creates the most safe environment. You just want quick reactions and no second guessing wasting precious seconds to avoid a possible collision. Now for SFO case I don't think these aircraft are at risk of colliding, but I do think they are riding the edge of safety margins to squeeze out as much volume given the limited runways and offset. A rule of going to TA only once visual with traffic and both are established on LOC might not be a bad idea, but seems a long shot to get FAA and airlines on the same page here. This is really mostly an issue with the visual approaches.
@@joshr96 The safest thing to do is to not take off in the first place, so there has to be an acceptable level of risk. I'm not qualified to say whether the risk from inhibiting TCAS in these situations is acceptable, but there needs to be a consistent decision on that. Having the airport and the airlines making different decisions on what is an acceptable risk inevitably results in go arounds.
Near Lake Constance? Wasn’t that where a russian tupelav plane and a cargo plane collided mid air? If I remember correctly it killed somewhere between 50-100 people.
@sirtango1 yes, main casual factor being that one of the aircraft followed ATC instructions instead of those from TCAS, if they'd followed TCAS then the collision would not have happened. Since then it is nearly universal procedure that pilots will exclusively follow TCAS instructions (in the event of a conflict), and that if controllers are informed of a TCAS RA they do not issue any instructions to the aircraft until it reports 'clear of conflict'. So the ATCO issuing instructions after being told 'TCAS RA' is quite staggering really.
@@StringyPete "aircraft followed ATC instructions instead of those from TCAS..." True, but that was more complicated. The Swiss controller handled two sectors simultaneously because his mate was "resting", and he didn't hear the report about the TCAS warning twice, but gave instruction affirming the previous instruction. A very dishonourable work. Died 22 adults and 49 children.
Doesn't every pilot around the world wish they had been part of their air force/navy's demonstration team? SFO is doing them the favor of the experience.
I work at SFO and today i witnessed a BA FLT 285 an A380 do a go around after the mains were on the ground. The aircraft was landing on 19 L. A very unique situation if you're familiar with the runways at SFO. Hope it is documented on this channel.
@jaysmith1408 why not set one for arrivals and one for departures? You might still have issues with separation for a goaround, but you would reduce the number of gos in the first place.
My planespotting crew is at SFO 2 - 3 times a week and go-arounds are almost a part of the daily routines there. With the winds are marine layer, overcast I can understand why the pilots are not willing to take the chance that they can continue the approach after receiving a TA. For us spotters, parallel landings, or double-doubles as we call them look cool, but safety should prevail.
TCAS is caused by the narrow runway separation of 28L & 28R. In 2001 local voters rejected a measure that would have built new runways to modern standards - this is the result, 20+ years later.
I'm one of those who watches this channel but doesn't know much about aviation, so I usually learn from the comments. Having a hard time with this one.
The controllers were doing the normal thing but TCAS can be finicky sometimes and give off alerts when there isn't necessarily an imminent collision. So part of the reason controllers give traffic calls and use visual separation is to give the pilot more information with which to make a decision on the TCAS alerts (and to eliminate other separation requirements, which expedites the traffic flow), but airline company policy and other factors might force the pilot to follow the TCAS system's recommendation even though the pilot knows the threat is not real. It's a complicated situation for sure.
TCAS is a system that monitors traffic and alerts pilots about nearby traffic. An RA (resolution advisory) is when the system senses an imminent collision. It will give the pilots a maneuver to perform (climb or descend) to avoid the collision. The system will give the other plane the opposite instruction.
@@zachgrantson6155 thank you! I normally look things up but was short on time today. So it seems to be that it is fairly normal for those systems to alert when flying into San Francisco? And that pilots just have to find ways to deal and maybe ignore the alerts? I seems to remember that there are two runways side by side, but I don't know if that might cause planes to be too close and trigger those alerts.
Lot of operators, especially foreign carriers, do not allow the use "TA only" mode even in visual conditions, and it's due to various safety reasons. It's also one extra step to remember after let's say a go around, under a busy phase, to switch it back to TA+RA. It's not a checklist item to switch the TCAS between TA and TA+RA, it's something you need 99% of the time. The traffic configuration of SFO is just a disaster waiting to happen.
Doesn’t seem to be mentioned here but San Francisco (and much of the northwest) has seen very bad weather this week including as I type. Rain, clouds, wind. This is causing major flight issues.
TCAS designed to avoid major aircraft accidents that usually kill a lot of people, but let’s just try and ignore it at SFO. Except for the FAA, other regulators would be crashing down on such an airport.
I think ATC's only mistake here was how they handled SKW4655--trying to have him maintain visual from an aircraft that will clearly fall in behind him is not going to work. Asking SKW3841 to also maintain visual could've eliminated the conflict, especially considering 4655 was going 60 knots faster and 3841 got them in sight...
I filled a report a couple weeks ago for a similar issue. They keep bring guys in from the north telling us to expect the bridge visual and then clearing us to join the LOC. We need to be doing PRM approaches or SOIA procedures like Denver did.
48 thumbs up on this comment (plus the author) indicate to me that there are a lot of lookie-loo's out there who don't know a whole lot about air traffic management. This operation was being performed when they had only primary radar targets to vector. To my knowledge there has never been an accident attributed to these procedures at SFO. They have been running "side-by visuals" ever since visual separation has been authorized. When they added heavies to the criteria we had to adjust and figure out a way to insure that the big guy always trailed the "large" one, even if it was by only a target width. My friend Mike "OB" O'Bryan tells the story when he was working local at SFO and a newbie (at least to SFO) Speedbird pilot came on the tower frequency and the first thing out of his mouth included words to the effect that this was a dangerous operation. The first thing out of OB was "Speedbird 123, go around". Speedbird asked why and OB said that he was not going to be a party to any illegal operation. Problem solved.
@kjay5056 You've got the wrong guy. I'm retired now, but I have 34 years of airline experience and 24,000 hours. I've been to SFO dozens of times and have earned the right to call it as I see it.
@@vaska00762 I thought that the FAA wasn't allowing simultaneous approaches for non-US airlines, after that incident at SFO with a long-haul airliner hitting the embankment in a visual approach.
@RichFreeman SFO or not, many airlines will not allow visual separation, especially at night. Many airline SOPs have been written considering decades of incidents and root cause analyses. And when considering things like the Swiss Cheese Model, I'm sure decisions to allow deviation from SOPs are not just forbidden, but may even invite disciplinary action.
@@Plutogalaxy Sure, and managing simultaneous approaches requires good airmanship, among other things. The FAA just doesn't trust the culture of pilot training elsewhere. Maybe they have a list of exceptions these days.
@@vaska00762 Yup, and if I were running those airlines I certainly wouldn't allow visual separation. I'm not sure I'd allow ground-based radar separation either (where the pilots monitor a second frequency for breakaway instructions). Ultimately it comes down to whether you trust ATC to keep planes separated. In the last year we've had many incidents of US ATC failing to do this. Often mishaps were prevented because pilots detected an issue before ATC did. I'm guessing that the airlines aren't going to come out and say it, but they're treating the FAA as a threat to be mitigated, and writing their SOPs accordingly.
Why was Skywest 4655 handed off to Norcal Departure, next minute SFO tower is trying to contact them - am I right in thinking tower is on a different Freq to norcal departure?
It’s still happening. Now they’re coming in from the north and all flights are landing on those two shorter runways. I just watched about four or five planes go around. Listening to the tower. It seems as if there’s definitely some visibility issues. People aren’t saying the runway under the window.
The IFR approaches from the north are usually for bad weather (as in the last few days at SFO). Those are different from the visual approaches being discussed here. Go arounds may happen on those approaches JUST due to bad weather.
IMO the US does this as a matter of routine. Why do you think we see these incidents every few weeks? Outside the US you don't do things like issue a landing clearance to a runway that has a plane taking off on it. You'd issue an approach clearance, and then once the way is clear, you issue a landing clearance, and then you don't go ahead and issue a bunch of ground crossing clearances before it touches down. One thing at a time, and if you can't auction off as many landing slots, then that just means that passengers will pay more for them until they approve more runways.
Approve more runways - LOL, take a peek at a map of the SF bay. Visual separation is a completely fine solution to the volume problem given the weather conditions most of the time.
@@RichFreemantypical NPC comment. Euro poors get very angry that we Americans have a better way of clearing planes. Tower is responsible for planes in a certain radius and it’s not dangerous to clear multiple planes to land.
@@RichFreeman I’m all for efficiency, but I agree with you. The way the US issues clearances can be a little cowboy, and taxi instructions should come as the aircraft reaches taxi speed. I once had a controller issue taxi instructions while we were decelerating through 100 kts on the landing roll. I ignored the controller until we were at taxi speed and then requested they say all again. Pretty amateurish from a controller at a major international airport.
Thank you! It was stressful and comical at the same time. We were surprised to see the traffic that was on our right now ahead and above of us on the left side. Just another day in SFO.
When I did my first type rating this summer (Citation), I was required (by my company) to do a PRM approach on my checkride. Was told that SFO was one of only a handful of airports in the US that use the PRM approach. But now I'm told that they no longer do them? I wonder why? And would SOP's allow for RA's to be disabled on a PRM? (Coincidentally, I was recently returning on pt. 121 from training and the 28R traffic on final parallel to us went around...I asked the crew after we landed if that was a "PRM breakout" and they looked at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears ;-)
Yeah at my company we fly these in TA only if you forget and get an RA you're required to comply unless it commands a descent below 1000AFE then execute a go-around...Surprised United doesn't have the same policy since they have such a big presence in SFO
It's copletely stupid to issue tight 90°+ turns onto final to have the aircraft turning on, right beside an aircraft on the parallel. At least, stagger the inbounds on the parallels.
When is it going to be understood that the current configuration of KSFO is unusable? While it makes for exciting video and photography, the proximity of the parallel runways is such that it will only take a minor error on the part of a pilot for a catastrophe that has long been predicted.
These comments crack me up. A lot of ppl aren’t taking into account of SFO’s surrounding geography and history. There’s literally no way to replace the visual approach procedure because there’s no room. We’re fairly unique for parallel runways being so close to each other. Add in our small footprint and the fiercely protected bay waters that surround us (at one point, there was talk of filling in the bay to the north of the field so we could relocate RWY 28R), the visual approach is the only compromise we have. It ain’t perfect. If the flow into SFO isn’t carefully managed… we’ll, you get this. But it’s better than the alternative- throttle down activity allowed into SFO.
Actually the SKW4655 was supposed to be visually separated, and went through the final. ATC still had them separated by altitude. SKW3041 was very situational aware. Kudos to her! I think that altitude separation is typical until the planes are establshed on final.
Nothing you said in any way, shape, or form, discredits my assertion that 4655 was turned late (at least as per this FR24 playback). However, I just look at a radar display and vector to parallels all day long using combinations of visuals, ILS, and multiples types of RNAVs, so don’t take my word for it.
TA=traffic advisory RA=resolution advisory RA will provide a vertical command to follow to avoid traffic, TA only announces “traffic” and highlights the potential conflict aircraft.
@@WillyGrippo some newer aircraft have the programming to follow it automatically. Most will just give you an indication of a target vertical speed or pitch attitude and an aural call out climb or descend.
Interesting that they also cut the radio transmissions short, not even telling the winds for landing clearances, which is very useful/common info given by ATC worldwide.
Amateur aviation geek here. Can someone explain why the AF call sign has an X in the flight number? The daily CDG-SFO’s flight number on the AF website is just AF83. I know what the heavy means but am lost on the X. Thanks!
accordint to flightradar AF83 has callsign A83M AF83 is flight number and callsign is usually one letter more for example AAL callsign is AA in flight number DLH callsign is LH flight number etc, but shorter flights within Europe from airlines like Ryanair, Easyjet, Wizzair and many more are different It is usually like this FR8 is Ryanair flight but Ryanair for this flight uses callsign RYR28XN.
Man seems like there was plenty of space for him to have one loop around and create some distance? Why were they trying to get them to land wing tip touching 😂 there must have been a bet in the tower
At SFO they try to get parallel arrivals, because then they can get two planes off on the crossing runways. I think policy is that they can't require wingtip-to-wingtip (with obvious separation) but it works best if that happens.
Surely they should sequence so that aircraft join the localiser (left then right) alternately, if that makes sense... same separation with the one ahead on the same runway but clear of anything joining from the other side.
Crazy idea.... why don't they have a shortened runway landing so the glide-slope gives several hundred feet (or more) of vertical sep right when they meet.
@@atubebuff At a 3 degree glide slope, you get 300 feet for every nautical mile, which is practically nothing. You'd lose almost the whole runway just to get a little extra. But, unless visual separation is being applied, they have to maintain proper separation between the aircraft until both aircraft are established on their respective approaches.
In the first 13 seconds of the video I already hear an ATC no-no: NEVER give instructions when an aircraft reports they're responding to a RA. They fly the RA, not the controller instructions.
TCAS is Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System. You're probably conflating it with GPWS, Ground Proximity Warning System. TA is Traffic Advisory; to let them know that air traffic is around. RA is Resolution Advisory; to give them actions on how to avoid a collision either to climb, descend or level off.
RA = Resolution Advisory Despite the term "advisory" it is very much a requirement to follow it (permitting the usual emergency exceptions per pilot discretion). RAs supercede ATC instructions, which is especially emphasized in training since the 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision. Pilots of transport-category aircraft are bound by the approved Operational Procedures of their airline, which *may* include an allowance for disregarding RAs if there is visual contact with the conflicting traffic and adequate separation can be maintained. Changing those operational procedures is a non-trivial effort involving the governing aviation body(s) for a given airline (e.g. FAA, EASA).
Controllers shouldn’t be giving any instructions to an aircraft on an RA…. ‘Roger’ should be the reply. Then when they report ‘clear of conflict’ they should be giving instructions. Normalisation of deviance is what happens at SFO. It sets a dangerous precedent
@@rodcoulter997 Visual separation requires having the other aircraft in sight visually. If you lose sight of the other aircraft, you cannot maintain it.
In this case, UAL 2633 should have REDUCED IAS to maintain separation with UAL 2305. And, 2301 should slowed “slightly”…avoiding a costly and increased risk GA.. YOU are flying the jet, NOT ATC. FLY IT.
@ +-10 knots….is FAR acceptable…even +- a tad more if “operational necessity”..personally done this 100s of times with PAA, F9, CAL, and UAL to make it work.. ATC does NOT fly the Jet…you do.
Feel the comments on arrival rates at SFO quite amusing. This landing rate shown here is pitiful compared to Gatwick or Heathrow, and even then it still manages to be unsafe. You can pack at 4 miles, on a single runway and have the same landing rate with the same number of aircraft shown here. There's zero reason for this to happen at all. Controllers asking for visual separation is a declaration of losing the plot. Controllers get paid to control, not to hand over responsibility. Totally get this happens in the states, but it's laughable.
There are four runways. Two roughly west to east parallel runways are used for departure and two roughly south to north parallel runways are used for landing and departure.
@ You won’t see arrivals to 1L/R…..think “terrain”….i was a 121 WideBody driver for 34 yrs…more ops at KSFO than any other place in the World…I know KSFO. R U 121 qualified?….NEVER departed the 1s in a WIDEBODY…a 757-200/300..yes. A 767..NO.
Something needs to happen, this is not a sustainable way to run an airport🤦♂️ Do airlines already add an extra surcharge to SFO tickets for the to-be-expected go-around fuel? 🤓
Takeoffs happen on the other two runways. Pairs of jets landing at about the same time allows a gap for two takeoffs before another pair of landings. If landings alternated on runways 1L and 1R every 30 or 40 seconds, there wouldn't be enough time for takeoffs.
The only fix for these issues is capping the number of arrivals. Let the airlines bid for arrival slots and when they are filled, that's it. This should be done at all airports across the country. Then when the people get upset they can't travel other than driving, maybe, just maybe, we'll see some serious advances in high-speed train travel on dedicated tracks. There's no longer any excuse for the U.S. to be decades behind with true high-speed rail.
@@plcwboy That may be true for some places but there are vast areas of the country that wouldn't present any more challenges than other systems have faced. Even if the train wasn't running at top speed continually a system of dedicated passenger tracks would increase ridership. Amtrak sucks because they are at the mercy of for-profit freight trains that always get preference.
@@thefencepost the "it's so stupid that the US doesn't have high speed rail" contingent seems to be willfully ignorant of actual geography. It is 200 miles from Frankfurt to Munich. It is 2000 miles from Chicago to Los Angeles. There is nothing remotely similar about US travel and EU travel. European countries have population density ten times what most of the US has. Simple facts that make the transportation needs vastly different, and makes different modes of transport practical. Long distances make air superior to rail. Scarce population makes auto superior to rail. Conversely, the distance of most freight transport in EU is measured in hundreds of miles. Average freight transport is measured in thousands of miles. For this reason, freight in EU generally travels by truck, while much freight in US travels by rail or by water. A rational analysis makes it obvious why each region has the transportation characteristics that it does.
@@plcwboy I did not say and I am not saying there is no place for commercial aviation. Distance traveled is a valid reason to have the option of flying. But unless we intend to double or triple the number of commercial airports in America the system will reach a physical limit on the number of aircraft arriving and departing. As is happening at SFO in this video. I'm saying there is no good reason we can't have high speed rail from Boston all the way to Miami. And Chicago to New Orleans. Even several dedicated passenger lines that aren't high speed can be part of the solution. Get people on rails made for them, not on for-profit freight rails. When you are prevented from flying due to limited number of seats, and the market demand value of those seats is more than you can afford, rail becomes a very viable alternative. We have subsidized the commercial aviation business to the tune of tens of billions of dollars for the last 70 years. It's time we did the same for rail. And please don't assume I hate airplanes. On the contrary I love to fly in General Aviation aircraft. That's why I subscribe to this channel.
This is on the airlines. SFO is what it is. Simultaneous landing has existed forever, it’s rarely IMC, and Tower is equipped with all the cool toys to keep planes separated enough. Quirky airports have special guidelines and airlines should adapt or pay the price in jet fuel. There is no safety concern here.
What is to be expected with busy parallel approaches, it's inevitable! Everyone seems to know the problem, but nobody is willing to make a decision to fix it. Where is the FAA on this issue?
It is politics. Voters want things to remain safe while having more flights and a lower cost. They also want a $1T deficit to have no consequences. Politicians know that reality is not going to bend to popular sentiment, but their jobs will, so they just play the game knowing that the worst that could happen to them is losing their jobs, which is what will happen anyway if they don't give voters what they want in the short term. No politician is going to OK eminent domain for likely hundreds of low income apartments/etc to expand the airport, and then you have new approach routes over new neighborhoods that will cause complaints.
@@marlonstjohn I'm OK with either. Couldn't do any worse job than has been. I don't know, maybe Kamala could handle it, I hear she is looking to move up from fry cook. What do you think?
@@EdOeuna even worse controlling when your reaction to the first RA is to issue instructions to the aircraft that will be following mandatory instructions from TCAS designed to avoid a collision.
They’re deliberately placed side-by-side so that between every pair of 28 arrivals, there are dual departures of the 01s. That’s what’s most efficient, and SAFE, believe it or not.
Man it's unbelievable the amount of stupid comments on here. It's better not to say anything and they not know you're stupid, than to say something that confirms it.
Aviate! If you have visual contact, do some of that pilot sh*t, and avoid the other plane. Continue. It irritates me to no end that Navy pilots can land a whole carrier airwing without saying a word on the radio but we stuggle with basic VFR approaches like this.
What it is with KSFO and all the RA and go arounds? KATL operates 5 runways at the same time and they don't have that problem. If KSFO is that busy, why don't they use one runway for take offs and the other for landings?
@@kjay5056 Yeah, a little educated about the worlds busiest airport. Yeah, we do have a bit of airspace to play with, but it would be nice if we had, oh, say something like the Pacific Ocean for longer finals and separation? I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around WHY KSFO even allows 2 aircraft to come within setting off the RA when landing. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, "why don't we space out the aircraft and use 28L for landings and 28R for takeoffs"? KATL uses 26L & 27R for takeoffs and 26R & 27L for landings, as well as using 28 for both. I guess trying to squeeze in all those planes at KSFO and getting RA's daily make sense! My apologies if I offend anyone here.
@@michaelmartin8036 Have you bothered to pull up flightradar and watch SFO operations? Normal procedure is 28R/28L for landing and 1R/1L for takeoff. The problem is the parallel runways are so close together that RA's are inevitable. Especially in IMC. What needs to happen is a runway reconfiguration, but politics got in the way.
Every month I receive at least a couple emails of real pilots that encounter this situation. Some airlines allow pilots to set TCAS to TA ONLY at San Francisco only if the traffic is in sight and have been cleared for a visual approach. Having so many go arounds a week is really something to look at, don't you think?
Setting up the Swiss cheese…
Really increases that carbon footprint - don't tell Greta Thunberg!
I'm not sure what they can really do. Lot of traffic to get in with only two runways, congested airspace (Oakland and San Jose all operating in this same area), plus the reduced runway offsets. Maybe they can do some minor procedures changes on ATC side making sure traffic is called in sight and try to give ample room to avoid as many RAs as possible. Watching this traffic it seems approach was having a chain of events to deal with which is another thing they can probably review.
We don't change our TCAS settings, but if we have traffic in sight we don't have to respond to the RA. I've had to do RA's and was able to continue to land here and other times had to go around. Usually the go around is a faster jet approaching from behind on final and we just can't see them. I will typically configure in such a way that I can either stay fast and well ahead of pairing traffic or slow rapidly once speed assignment is lifted to keep them beside us and in sight.
@@joshr96 The real issue at SFO is the narrow spacing between the parallels runway. It doesn't even come near the recommander minimum spacing set forth in official guidlines (OACI not sure). This airport should have it's licence to operate twin runways pulled out from the FAA if the FAA was doing it's job.
watering down TCAS through this practice seems like it's something that will be mentioned in the list of causes for some future accident
Visual separation is completely fine in this scenario, the problem is incompatible SOPs.
@@ca_pilot This. If every airline did TA only, and if their unions agreed that's what they should do, there wouldn't be a problem
@@Tony_Airlines When you get a TCAS RA, is it always guaranteed that the RA is about the traffic you have in sight, and not some other traffic that is going to hit you?
It honestly appears that SFO is operating on borrowed time. Normalisation of deviance seems to have infiltrated major areas of their operations and it feels like a matter of time until something catastrophic occurs. They seem to be heavily relying on big sky theory and pilot skill/professionalism to keep people safe, because most of the other safeguards have been whittled away to the point of ineffectiveness by now.
@@JM87Fly There is no deviance, they're using visual separation. If pilots can't avoid bumping into aircraft they have in sight we have much bigger problems.
"Normalization of deviance" will be one phrase in NTSB's report after two aircraft crunch into each other on approach to SFO.
As an SFO based United 737 pilot, we can disable our TCAS RA in visual conditions for SFO only if pre-briefed by the Captain when it's determined a nuisance RA is a "risk". However, if you receive a TCAS RA, even with traffic in sight, you must follow the maneuver to maintain separation, leading to the go arounds in the video (following usually leads you to be unstable for landing).. many pilots don't disable "RA mode" because they feel it's unsafe, or they aren't aware we have that allowance in our manual. NorCal Approach likes to closely space traffic to increase arrival rates which is great for decreasing flow times into SFO.
@@aaronwcary Exactly…definitely a “nuisance” flying in WideBody formation. Which looks really kool actually. Especially at night.
@@rodcoulter997 fortunately, they won't pair widebodies with anyone due to the wake turbulence category
@ gotcha…was on the 73 also.
To be clear, Norcal is just trying to get all the traffic for everybody that’s purchased a ticket :)
Shouldn’t blame them for the volume 😅
@ we got pretty close “in trail” a few times. As the “trailing aircraft” it’s our job to slow down to Vref+10..slow as we can go in a 767-400 with me driving.
The problem seems to be that SFO has designed its procedures on the assumption that pilots are inhibiting TCAS RAs and are solely maintaining visual separation, but not all pilots are doing that (presumably because their SOPs don't allow it). SFO's procedures simply don't work if you aren't inhibiting TCAS. They either need to convince everyone that it is safe to inhibit TCAS or they need to change their procedures.
Yeah, that seems to be the case. I get that they can use high-resolution radar to achieve safety without TCAS. However, I'm guessing the airlines just don't have confidence in the FAA with all the near misses.
The FAA won't get sued if there is a crash, and won't lose business. The airline will. For them it makes sense to just reduce the effective capacity of the airport rather than trusting the FAA.
I feel like not having near misses on the runways every couple of weeks would probably make airlines more willing to trust the FAA to keep planes separated...
I get where the airlines are coming from and having pilots just abide by RA no matter what creates the most safe environment. You just want quick reactions and no second guessing wasting precious seconds to avoid a possible collision. Now for SFO case I don't think these aircraft are at risk of colliding, but I do think they are riding the edge of safety margins to squeeze out as much volume given the limited runways and offset. A rule of going to TA only once visual with traffic and both are established on LOC might not be a bad idea, but seems a long shot to get FAA and airlines on the same page here. This is really mostly an issue with the visual approaches.
@@joshr96 The safest thing to do is to not take off in the first place, so there has to be an acceptable level of risk. I'm not qualified to say whether the risk from inhibiting TCAS in these situations is acceptable, but there needs to be a consistent decision on that. Having the airport and the airlines making different decisions on what is an acceptable risk inevitably results in go arounds.
@joshr96 honestly, if I were in charge I'd ban visual approaches entirely.
@@RichFreemanLol, glad you’re not in charge, then.
"TCAS RA"
"Well ok here's a bunch of instructions for you"
My brother in christ, have you not heard of Überlingen?
Near Lake Constance? Wasn’t that where a russian tupelav plane and a cargo plane collided mid air? If I remember correctly it killed somewhere between 50-100 people.
@sirtango1 yes, main casual factor being that one of the aircraft followed ATC instructions instead of those from TCAS, if they'd followed TCAS then the collision would not have happened. Since then it is nearly universal procedure that pilots will exclusively follow TCAS instructions (in the event of a conflict), and that if controllers are informed of a TCAS RA they do not issue any instructions to the aircraft until it reports 'clear of conflict'. So the ATCO issuing instructions after being told 'TCAS RA' is quite staggering really.
@@StringyPete I remembered the name because this was not long after 9/11 and kinda wondered if it was happening somewhere else.
Nope I'm not German then again we can land at night on a visual unlike luftansa
@@StringyPete "aircraft followed ATC instructions instead of those from TCAS..."
True, but that was more complicated. The Swiss controller handled two sectors simultaneously because his mate was "resting", and he didn't hear the report about the TCAS warning twice, but gave instruction affirming the previous instruction. A very dishonourable work. Died 22 adults and 49 children.
SFO ATC - Because everyone enjoys formation flying.
Crashing in formation- not so enjoyable though.
Doesn't every pilot around the world wish they had been part of their air force/navy's demonstration team? SFO is doing them the favor of the experience.
Gotta squeeze those near-formation departures in between the formation arrivals.
@@Steve-cg8ek
A few dimples and dents never stopped the blue angels or the thunderbirds.
SFO strikes again. Top #1 of most famous videos on Vasaviation
JFK and SFO
@@cheapercharlieSFO is worse
@@kaamsogrimmJFK is juggling 5 hatchets and SFO is like juggling a tennis ball. SFO has zero excuses being so screwed up all the time.
I thought it was the vids featuring the jerk controller at San Carlos (who probably used to be an SFO controller).
@@gregheyheyhey classic
I work at SFO and today i witnessed a BA FLT 285 an A380 do a go around after the mains were on the ground. The aircraft was landing on 19 L. A very unique situation if you're familiar with the runways at SFO. Hope it is documented on this channel.
i had that once a couple of years ago... the pilot just told us that they "saw the runway too late" (the cloud cover was indeed a bit tricky lol)
You ain't seen nothin' till you've seen a Runway 1 arrival operation.
@ seen it used to live in San Mateo
There has got to be a better way to offset these parallel approaches to prevent this.
Two issues with this
Halves the spacing for crossing departures
The departure would be climbing into an aircraft on the go
@jaysmith1408 why not set one for arrivals and one for departures? You might still have issues with separation for a goaround, but you would reduce the number of gos in the first place.
There is: FLY THE JET doing a VISUAL APP.
@rodcoulter997 it's 10:30pm. Visual is fine until it's not. How many RAs do you need before it becomes a problem? Do you need to see a midair first?
@@MeerkatADVthey use both crossing runways for departures. They need all four runways and your suggestion reduces them to two.
SFO approach motto: BECAUSE WE CAN!
Cheese is supposed to have holes!
SFO approach motto: I hope your life insurance policy is up to date.
My planespotting crew is at SFO 2 - 3 times a week and go-arounds are almost a part of the daily routines there. With the winds are marine layer, overcast I can understand why the pilots are not willing to take the chance that they can continue the approach after receiving a TA. For us spotters, parallel landings, or double-doubles as we call them look cool, but safety should prevail.
TCAS is caused by the narrow runway separation of 28L & 28R. In 2001 local voters rejected a measure that would have built new runways to modern standards - this is the result, 20+ years later.
yeah, lots of places do simultaneous parallel approaches, but SFO is only 750 feet apart....yikes.
Why not establish a staggered forward distance between the parallels?
As soon as you said "local voters" I knew things would be hosed up.
@@glorbnic They do this sometimes. I don't know why they don't do it all the time.
@glorbnic they can’t always do that because then they would get very few to no departures off the intersecting runways.
I'm one of those who watches this channel but doesn't know much about aviation, so I usually learn from the comments. Having a hard time with this one.
The controllers were doing the normal thing but TCAS can be finicky sometimes and give off alerts when there isn't necessarily an imminent collision. So part of the reason controllers give traffic calls and use visual separation is to give the pilot more information with which to make a decision on the TCAS alerts (and to eliminate other separation requirements, which expedites the traffic flow), but airline company policy and other factors might force the pilot to follow the TCAS system's recommendation even though the pilot knows the threat is not real. It's a complicated situation for sure.
If it's any consolation, the FAA has a hard time with this one, too. But ask questions - there are a ton of people here who can answer them.
TCAS is a system that monitors traffic and alerts pilots about nearby traffic. An RA (resolution advisory) is when the system senses an imminent collision. It will give the pilots a maneuver to perform (climb or descend) to avoid the collision. The system will give the other plane the opposite instruction.
@@zachgrantson6155 thank you! I normally look things up but was short on time today. So it seems to be that it is fairly normal for those systems to alert when flying into San Francisco? And that pilots just have to find ways to deal and maybe ignore the alerts? I seems to remember that there are two runways side by side, but I don't know if that might cause planes to be too close and trigger those alerts.
Lot of operators, especially foreign carriers, do not allow the use "TA only" mode even in visual conditions, and it's due to various safety reasons. It's also one extra step to remember after let's say a go around, under a busy phase, to switch it back to TA+RA. It's not a checklist item to switch the TCAS between TA and TA+RA, it's something you need 99% of the time. The traffic configuration of SFO is just a disaster waiting to happen.
We all meet again for our weekly SFO TCAS RA vid!
Doesn’t seem to be mentioned here but San Francisco (and much of the northwest) has seen very bad weather this week including as I type. Rain, clouds, wind. This is causing major flight issues.
Yes, it's atypically bad even for late November. The weather is going to be worse Thanksgiving week, too.
Said in the video: "Airport in sight"
Saw the title and thought this was a "rerun"....
Happens every week, if not everyday.
Same, i was like "Is this a reupload?" Reader, it was not a reupload.
TCAS designed to avoid major aircraft accidents that usually kill a lot of people, but let’s just try and ignore it at SFO. Except for the FAA, other regulators would be crashing down on such an airport.
Profit always comes before safety in Murica. Safety is for commies
Coping with functionally obsolete infrastructure. SFO wasn't designed to modern standards for parallel runways and certainly didn't foresee TCAS.
I think ATC's only mistake here was how they handled SKW4655--trying to have him maintain visual from an aircraft that will clearly fall in behind him is not going to work. Asking SKW3841 to also maintain visual could've eliminated the conflict, especially considering 4655 was going 60 knots faster and 3841 got them in sight...
I filled a report a couple weeks ago for a similar issue. They keep bring guys in from the north telling us to expect the bridge visual and then clearing us to join the LOC. We need to be doing PRM approaches or SOIA procedures like Denver did.
This pattern is always a problem at SFO... just an accident waiting to happen. Should be holding if more separation isn't possible on the parallels.
Weird that the big accident they *did* have recently wasn't a result of the pattern
Would have to cut the rate in half for that... and that ain't happening.
48 thumbs up on this comment (plus the author) indicate to me that there are a lot of lookie-loo's out there who don't know a whole lot about air traffic management. This operation was being performed when they had only primary radar targets to vector. To my knowledge there has never been an accident attributed to these procedures at SFO. They have been running "side-by visuals" ever since visual separation has been authorized. When they added heavies to the criteria we had to adjust and figure out a way to insure that the big guy always trailed the "large" one, even if it was by only a target width. My friend Mike "OB" O'Bryan tells the story when he was working local at SFO and a newbie (at least to SFO) Speedbird pilot came on the tower frequency and the first thing out of his mouth included words to the effect that this was a dangerous operation. The first thing out of OB was "Speedbird 123, go around". Speedbird asked why and OB said that he was not going to be a party to any illegal operation. Problem solved.
It's as if Newark and San Francisco are racing to be the site of the next major incident.
And angry JFK controller is unamused that they were not included
@@cheapercharlie the JFK controller would be angry is JFK was included also. I swear the JFK controller have to kick a puppy before every shift.
@@Steve-cg8ek 😆
What a cluster-[expletive]!
Says the uneducated and uninformed of SFO procedures.
@kjay5056 You've got the wrong guy. I'm retired now, but I have 34 years of airline experience and 24,000 hours. I've been to SFO dozens of times and have earned the right to call it as I see it.
Lovely. Flying there after TDay.
I was under the impression most airlines have their TCAS on TA only while landing in SFO.
Not all airlines allow it in their SOP, especially not European airlines, and especially, especially not at night.
@@vaska00762 I thought that the FAA wasn't allowing simultaneous approaches for non-US airlines, after that incident at SFO with a long-haul airliner hitting the embankment in a visual approach.
@RichFreeman SFO or not, many airlines will not allow visual separation, especially at night.
Many airline SOPs have been written considering decades of incidents and root cause analyses. And when considering things like the Swiss Cheese Model, I'm sure decisions to allow deviation from SOPs are not just forbidden, but may even invite disciplinary action.
@@Plutogalaxy Sure, and managing simultaneous approaches requires good airmanship, among other things. The FAA just doesn't trust the culture of pilot training elsewhere. Maybe they have a list of exceptions these days.
@@vaska00762 Yup, and if I were running those airlines I certainly wouldn't allow visual separation. I'm not sure I'd allow ground-based radar separation either (where the pilots monitor a second frequency for breakaway instructions).
Ultimately it comes down to whether you trust ATC to keep planes separated. In the last year we've had many incidents of US ATC failing to do this. Often mishaps were prevented because pilots detected an issue before ATC did.
I'm guessing that the airlines aren't going to come out and say it, but they're treating the FAA as a threat to be mitigated, and writing their SOPs accordingly.
Why was Skywest 4655 handed off to Norcal Departure, next minute SFO tower is trying to contact them - am I right in thinking tower is on a different Freq to norcal departure?
It’s still happening. Now they’re coming in from the north and all flights are landing on those two shorter runways. I just watched about four or five planes go around. Listening to the tower. It seems as if there’s definitely some visibility issues. People aren’t saying the runway under the window.
The IFR approaches from the north are usually for bad weather (as in the last few days at SFO). Those are different from the visual approaches being discussed here. Go arounds may happen on those approaches JUST due to bad weather.
Definitely a meathead moment lol. I understand that schedules are tight, but sometimes ATC push the envelope a little too much.
IMO the US does this as a matter of routine. Why do you think we see these incidents every few weeks? Outside the US you don't do things like issue a landing clearance to a runway that has a plane taking off on it. You'd issue an approach clearance, and then once the way is clear, you issue a landing clearance, and then you don't go ahead and issue a bunch of ground crossing clearances before it touches down. One thing at a time, and if you can't auction off as many landing slots, then that just means that passengers will pay more for them until they approve more runways.
Approve more runways - LOL, take a peek at a map of the SF bay. Visual separation is a completely fine solution to the volume problem given the weather conditions most of the time.
@@RichFreemantypical NPC comment. Euro poors get very angry that we Americans have a better way of clearing planes. Tower is responsible for planes in a certain radius and it’s not dangerous to clear multiple planes to land.
@@RichFreeman That's why you are constantly delayed going into European airports. They work out of holding stacks.
@@RichFreeman I’m all for efficiency, but I agree with you. The way the US issues clearances can be a little cowboy, and taxi instructions should come as the aircraft reaches taxi speed. I once had a controller issue taxi instructions while we were decelerating through 100 kts on the landing roll. I ignored the controller until we were at taxi speed and then requested they say all again. Pretty amateurish from a controller at a major international airport.
SKW4655 approach was botched but SKW3841 stayed cool and handked it beautifully.
Botched...that was F'n SLOPPY Airmanship. 3841 stayed kool though !
Thank you! It was stressful and comical at the same time. We were surprised to see the traffic that was on our right now ahead and above of us on the left side. Just another day in SFO.
When I did my first type rating this summer (Citation), I was required (by my company) to do a PRM approach on my checkride. Was told that SFO was one of only a handful of airports in the US that use the PRM approach. But now I'm told that they no longer do them? I wonder why? And would SOP's allow for RA's to be disabled on a PRM? (Coincidentally, I was recently returning on pt. 121 from training and the 28R traffic on final parallel to us went around...I asked the crew after we landed if that was a "PRM breakout" and they looked at me like I had lobsters crawling out of my ears ;-)
what is it gonna take for SFO to get their *constant* ATC and sequencing problems fixed??
More real estate between 28L & 28R. 🙂
A bit of political will and a large pile of money to reconfigure the runways.
Yeah at my company we fly these in TA only if you forget and get an RA you're required to comply unless it commands a descent below 1000AFE then execute a go-around...Surprised United doesn't have the same policy since they have such a big presence in SFO
Soon as I saw Air Canada on the screen, I thought, oh God, what are they going to do this time?
SFO doing SFO things again.
Is there any way to compare the number of go-arounds at SFO with other airports of similar volume?
It's copletely stupid to issue tight 90°+ turns onto final to have the aircraft turning on, right beside an aircraft on the parallel. At least, stagger the inbounds on the parallels.
Not to mention having 3 aircraft strung out on final approaches to the same runway, all cleared to land.
Nice video
Maybe a better sequencing plan ??? 🤔
The airport is maximizing how many flights can takeoff and land. Even with these go arounds, any sequencing changes will reduce that total number.
Pilots aren’t following instructions. The procedures state to switch TCAS to TA only.
@ interesting 👍
@@alexmcintosh4783 Which procedures state that? Is it in a NOTAM or on the approach plates?
Aaaalrighty!
LHR can only dream of the sort of capacity they could get if they were allowed to land parallels like this
Why should they dream of this? In 2023 Heathrow had 454 000 movements and SFO just under 385 000.
@@barbarus459 yes but LHR is capacity constrained due to limited landing slots, SFO isn't there just isn't as much demand.
What sfo needs is a new runway to separate the distance between runways….
When is it going to be understood that the current configuration of KSFO is unusable? While it makes for exciting video and photography, the proximity of the parallel runways is such that it will only take a minor error on the part of a pilot for a catastrophe that has long been predicted.
It's 100% understood, there just isn't a viable workaround for the air traffic system.
So happy we have PBS now…😊
I was thinking...I didn't hear them clear United 2381 to land, they better check...I'm glad they did.
The weather and winds are a mess due to the storm, presumably that has something to do with it.
These comments crack me up. A lot of ppl aren’t taking into account of SFO’s surrounding geography and history.
There’s literally no way to replace the visual approach procedure because there’s no room. We’re fairly unique for parallel runways being so close to each other. Add in our small footprint and the fiercely protected bay waters that surround us (at one point, there was talk of filling in the bay to the north of the field so we could relocate RWY 28R), the visual approach is the only compromise we have.
It ain’t perfect. If the flow into SFO isn’t carefully managed… we’ll, you get this. But it’s better than the alternative- throttle down activity allowed into SFO.
Problem is most people on here aren't familiar with ATC procedures and make comments out of their a$$
Someone forgot about SKW4655 and turned them way too late. 😏 As compensation, here’s your free go-around. At least 3041 was pretty chill about it.
Actually the SKW4655 was supposed to be visually separated, and went through the final. ATC still had them separated by altitude. SKW3041 was very situational aware. Kudos to her! I think that altitude separation is typical until the planes are establshed on final.
Nothing you said in any way, shape, or form, discredits my assertion that 4655 was turned late (at least as per this FR24 playback). However, I just look at a radar display and vector to parallels all day long using combinations of visuals, ILS, and multiples types of RNAVs, so don’t take my word for it.
TA-only solves this problem for us in VMC conditions when able to maintain visual.
This week on Air Crash Investigation...
would it kill this controller to speak slightly slower
christ, tower needs to ADJUST SPEED of the incoming - one 10kts faster one 10 kts slower - or does KSFO needs RVSM-type special TCAS ?
It seems that the only thing that could make flying in and out of SFO any worse is if Aerosucre flew there.
That converging vectored traffic can’t be SOP, can it?
Non - staggered approach seems rather dangerous - Very professional pilots ! Damn - sketchy ?
Would one of you kind aviators mind explaining the difference between a TCAS RA and a TA to us land dwellers?
"Resolution Advisory" means you're going to hit each other. "Traffic Advisory" means you're close to each other and need to watch out.
@@MeerkatADV Thank you! :)
TA=traffic advisory
RA=resolution advisory
RA will provide a vertical command to follow to avoid traffic, TA only announces “traffic” and highlights the potential conflict aircraft.
@@user-TJ365 @MeerkatADV Thanks very much! Does an RA actually take over control and execute the move? Or is it still on the pilot?
@@WillyGrippo some newer aircraft have the programming to follow it automatically. Most will just give you an indication of a target vertical speed or pitch attitude and an aural call out climb or descend.
im beggining to think that aerosucre started an atc course
Send This Trancription to JFK’s “controllers” (With ALL the QUOTES in the WORLD) !
Interesting that they also cut the radio transmissions short, not even telling the winds for landing clearances, which is very useful/common info given by ATC worldwide.
4: 14 I wonder what happened with SkyWest 4655. Lol.
Amateur aviation geek here. Can someone explain why the AF call sign has an X in the flight number? The daily CDG-SFO’s flight number on the AF website is just AF83. I know what the heavy means but am lost on the X. Thanks!
European airlines usually add letters to their callsigns
accordint to flightradar AF83 has callsign A83M AF83 is flight number and callsign is usually one letter more for example AAL callsign is AA in flight number DLH callsign is LH flight number etc, but shorter flights within Europe from airlines like Ryanair, Easyjet, Wizzair and many more are different It is usually like this FR8 is Ryanair flight but Ryanair for this flight uses callsign RYR28XN.
Man seems like there was plenty of space for him to have one loop around and create some distance? Why were they trying to get them to land wing tip touching 😂 there must have been a bet in the tower
At SFO they try to get parallel arrivals, because then they can get two planes off on the crossing runways. I think policy is that they can't require wingtip-to-wingtip (with obvious separation) but it works best if that happens.
I would be fired if gave crew any instruction in case of TCAS RA.
Surely they should sequence so that aircraft join the localiser (left then right) alternately, if that makes sense... same separation with the one ahead on the same runway but clear of anything joining from the other side.
Then you would never have departures off the 1s, they squeeze out departures between each landing pair.
Crazy idea.... why don't they have a shortened runway landing so the glide-slope gives several hundred feet (or more) of vertical sep right when they meet.
@@atubebuff At a 3 degree glide slope, you get 300 feet for every nautical mile, which is practically nothing. You'd lose almost the whole runway just to get a little extra. But, unless visual separation is being applied, they have to maintain proper separation between the aircraft until both aircraft are established on their respective approaches.
In the first 13 seconds of the video I already hear an ATC no-no: NEVER give instructions when an aircraft reports they're responding to a RA. They fly the RA, not the controller instructions.
why don't they just stagger the turn on's like other airports that run simul dep ops?
What does the RA in TCAS RA mean?
(I know Terrain Collision Avoidance System, I think, but haven’t yet heard the RA part)
Resolution advisory. Like it's just friendly advice.
TCAS is Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System.
You're probably conflating it with GPWS, Ground Proximity Warning System.
TA is Traffic Advisory; to let them know that air traffic is around.
RA is Resolution Advisory; to give them actions on how to avoid a collision either to climb, descend or level off.
RA = Resolution Advisory
Despite the term "advisory" it is very much a requirement to follow it (permitting the usual emergency exceptions per pilot discretion). RAs supercede ATC instructions, which is especially emphasized in training since the 2002 Überlingen mid-air collision. Pilots of transport-category aircraft are bound by the approved Operational Procedures of their airline, which *may* include an allowance for disregarding RAs if there is visual contact with the conflicting traffic and adequate separation can be maintained. Changing those operational procedures is a non-trivial effort involving the governing aviation body(s) for a given airline (e.g. FAA, EASA).
Thank you! I’m grateful for the answers
Here we go again.....
Tower is playing goldfish with flights? Only pairing up company flights...
Controllers shouldn’t be giving any instructions to an aircraft on an RA…. ‘Roger’ should be the reply. Then when they report ‘clear of conflict’ they should be giving instructions. Normalisation of deviance is what happens at SFO. It sets a dangerous precedent
Imagine if it was computer controlled instead. Perfect separation.
Yup that's great until you have an emergency or 2 and the computer is not programmed for that.
@@kjay5056 just maybe that would be considered as part of the design. just maybe
If they would just turn down the sensitivity on TCAS they could pack em in even tighter..🤔
I'm surprised that a TCAS RA isn't an automatic go around for United.
Interesting how they report acknowledging visual separation for plane BEHIND them.
@@gregdildine99 U can see them on the TCAS…u know exactly how far.
@@rodcoulter997 Visual separation requires having the other aircraft in sight visually. If you lose sight of the other aircraft, you cannot maintain it.
SFO is gonna have it happen …
In this case, UAL 2633 should have REDUCED IAS to maintain separation with UAL 2305. And, 2301 should slowed “slightly”…avoiding a costly and increased risk GA.. YOU are flying the jet, NOT ATC. FLY IT.
What if they were told to maintain speed until certain point?
@ +-10 knots….is FAR acceptable…even +- a tad more if “operational necessity”..personally done this 100s of times with PAA, F9, CAL, and UAL to make it work.. ATC does NOT fly the Jet…you do.
One day, TCAS is going to fail, and shit is going to hit the fan.
Feel the comments on arrival rates at SFO quite amusing. This landing rate shown here is pitiful compared to Gatwick or Heathrow, and even then it still manages to be unsafe. You can pack at 4 miles, on a single runway and have the same landing rate with the same number of aircraft shown here. There's zero reason for this to happen at all.
Controllers asking for visual separation is a declaration of losing the plot. Controllers get paid to control, not to hand over responsibility. Totally get this happens in the states, but it's laughable.
Guess he was unaware of the location of the other aircraft.
Here’s an idea, 1 runway for departures and 1 for takeoffs that’s way we’re not constantly cutting people off on final and parallel landing.
@@loveslakers126 RWY 1L/R DEPS is normal OPS unless WX or WIDEBODY flights.The 1s aren’t long enough for the HEAVIES.
There are four runways. Two roughly west to east parallel runways are used for departure and two roughly south to north parallel runways are used for landing and departure.
@@tedthurgate Except when the weather demands the reverse, like today.
@@rodcoulter997 787s can take off from the 1s? I swear i've even seen a 380 land on 19L
@ You won’t see arrivals to 1L/R…..think “terrain”….i was a 121 WideBody driver for 34 yrs…more ops at KSFO than any other place in the World…I know KSFO. R U 121 qualified?….NEVER departed the 1s in a WIDEBODY…a 757-200/300..yes. A 767..NO.
SFO being SFO.
I always thought NorCal tried to stagger the two finals…. Guess not.
Usually.
I think they slightly stagger, but they need to get departures out on the crossing runways.
TA ONLY. (IYKYK)
Something needs to happen, this is not a sustainable way to run an airport🤦♂️ Do airlines already add an extra surcharge to SFO tickets for the to-be-expected go-around fuel? 🤓
only at SFO
This paralell approach is bizarre
Takeoffs happen on the other two runways. Pairs of jets landing at about the same time allows a gap for two takeoffs before another pair of landings. If landings alternated on runways 1L and 1R every 30 or 40 seconds, there wouldn't be enough time for takeoffs.
Had one a few weeks ago not a big deal traffic in sight. Cleared for a visual. You can continue. It’s standard practice @ SFO.
Gave he a headache just watching.
Piloting is not as stressful.
My god, first couple of second are horrible, TCAS RA only has one controller response, Roger.
The only fix for these issues is capping the number of arrivals. Let the airlines bid for arrival slots and when they are filled, that's it. This should be done at all airports across the country. Then when the people get upset they can't travel other than driving, maybe, just maybe, we'll see some serious advances in high-speed train travel on dedicated tracks. There's no longer any excuse for the U.S. to be decades behind with true high-speed rail.
"High speed rail" is about 1/3 of fast enough to work with US geography.
@@plcwboy That may be true for some places but there are vast areas of the country that wouldn't present any more challenges than other systems have faced. Even if the train wasn't running at top speed continually a system of dedicated passenger tracks would increase ridership. Amtrak sucks because they are at the mercy of for-profit freight trains that always get preference.
@@thefencepost the "it's so stupid that the US doesn't have high speed rail" contingent seems to be willfully ignorant of actual geography. It is 200 miles from Frankfurt to Munich. It is 2000 miles from Chicago to Los Angeles. There is nothing remotely similar about US travel and EU travel. European countries have population density ten times what most of the US has. Simple facts that make the transportation needs vastly different, and makes different modes of transport practical. Long distances make air superior to rail. Scarce population makes auto superior to rail. Conversely, the distance of most freight transport in EU is measured in hundreds of miles. Average freight transport is measured in thousands of miles. For this reason, freight in EU generally travels by truck, while much freight in US travels by rail or by water. A rational analysis makes it obvious why each region has the transportation characteristics that it does.
@@plcwboy I did not say and I am not saying there is no place for commercial aviation. Distance traveled is a valid reason to have the option of flying. But unless we intend to double or triple the number of commercial airports in America the system will reach a physical limit on the number of aircraft arriving and departing. As is happening at SFO in this video. I'm saying there is no good reason we can't have high speed rail from Boston all the way to Miami. And Chicago to New Orleans. Even several dedicated passenger lines that aren't high speed can be part of the solution. Get people on rails made for them, not on for-profit freight rails. When you are prevented from flying due to limited number of seats, and the market demand value of those seats is more than you can afford, rail becomes a very viable alternative. We have subsidized the commercial aviation business to the tune of tens of billions of dollars for the last 70 years. It's time we did the same for rail. And please don't assume I hate airplanes. On the contrary I love to fly in General Aviation aircraft. That's why I subscribe to this channel.
This is on the airlines. SFO is what it is. Simultaneous landing has existed forever, it’s rarely IMC, and Tower is equipped with all the cool toys to keep planes separated enough. Quirky airports have special guidelines and airlines should adapt or pay the price in jet fuel. There is no safety concern here.
What is to be expected with busy parallel approaches, it's inevitable! Everyone seems to know the problem, but nobody is willing to make a decision to fix it. Where is the FAA on this issue?
It is politics. Voters want things to remain safe while having more flights and a lower cost. They also want a $1T deficit to have no consequences. Politicians know that reality is not going to bend to popular sentiment, but their jobs will, so they just play the game knowing that the worst that could happen to them is losing their jobs, which is what will happen anyway if they don't give voters what they want in the short term.
No politician is going to OK eminent domain for likely hundreds of low income apartments/etc to expand the airport, and then you have new approach routes over new neighborhoods that will cause complaints.
Is Hulk Hogan going to be the next FAA administrator or is it Kid Rock? I can't remember.
@@marlonstjohn I'm OK with either. Couldn't do any worse job than has been. I don't know, maybe Kamala could handle it, I hear she is looking to move up from fry cook. What do you think?
SFO has a capacity issue
If SFO would be an Asian airport, they would just build 2 more well spaced runways into the Bay...
Quite a few US airports do.
@@EndofDescentwell if Oakland is able to build their 3rd terminal as well as modernize more facilities, hopefully traffic moves back to Oakland.
@@ToothlesstheNightFury510 Doubtful. Its a passenger choice issue.
Not very good ATCing if you’re being traffic in so close that they both get TCAS RA’s.
@@EdOeuna even worse controlling when your reaction to the first RA is to issue instructions to the aircraft that will be following mandatory instructions from TCAS designed to avoid a collision.
Seems like SFO needs better tools to help stagger arrivals so they don’t end up side by side.
They’re deliberately placed side-by-side so that between every pair of 28 arrivals, there are dual departures of the 01s. That’s what’s most efficient, and SAFE, believe it or not.
Man it's unbelievable the amount of stupid comments on here. It's better not to say anything and they not know you're stupid, than to say something that confirms it.
SFO strikes again. Regular contributor on VAS🤦♂️
Cluster! Controller training in progress??
Normalization of deviance, anyone?
Risk acceptance?
@@lol_tr0l Right. I bet some Lufthansa pilot would give a phone number to ATC to make a call after landing after multiple TCAS events.
Aviate! If you have visual contact, do some of that pilot sh*t, and avoid the other plane. Continue. It irritates me to no end that Navy pilots can land a whole carrier airwing without saying a word on the radio but we stuggle with basic VFR approaches like this.
What it is with KSFO and all the RA and go arounds? KATL operates 5 runways at the same time and they don't have that problem. If KSFO is that busy, why don't they use one runway for take offs and the other for landings?
ATL has miles and miles of airspace. Get a little educated before making these "intelligent" comments.
@@kjay5056 Yeah, a little educated about the worlds busiest airport. Yeah, we do have a bit of airspace to play with, but it would be nice if we had, oh, say something like the Pacific Ocean for longer finals and separation? I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around WHY KSFO even allows 2 aircraft to come within setting off the RA when landing. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, "why don't we space out the aircraft and use 28L for landings and 28R for takeoffs"? KATL uses 26L & 27R for takeoffs and 26R & 27L for landings, as well as using 28 for both. I guess trying to squeeze in all those planes at KSFO and getting RA's daily make sense! My apologies if I offend anyone here.
@@michaelmartin8036 Have you bothered to pull up flightradar and watch SFO operations? Normal procedure is 28R/28L for landing and 1R/1L for takeoff. The problem is the parallel runways are so close together that RA's are inevitable. Especially in IMC. What needs to happen is a runway reconfiguration, but politics got in the way.