Planes get Very Close to Each Other during Approach at SFO!

Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASAviation
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/

[@VASAviation]

Any real pilots here that usually fly into SFO that can enlighten me on how you fly visuals for both 28s? Because both approaches for UAL2366 look really similar to me but they had to resolve a TCAS RA on the first one but not on the second one? Do your company SOP allow to disregard RA if you have the traffic in sight?

[@Jdrew27]

I can't speak on all airlines, my airline says if we get an RA but have visual contact with the aircraft that is causing the RA and we can confirm it will not be a conflict we can disregard. If we loose visual contact with that aircraft we have to respond. As aircraft slow to final approach speed one can be faster or slower than the other and loose visual separation because the slower aircraft might get blocked with your own wing. In this scenario looks like united lost visual contact because skywest was lower and in front so maybe blocked by the nose.

[@saxmanb777]

Approach advises us the location and type of aircraft will be our “partner” for the visual. Once we both advise that we have each other in sight, we are cleared for the visual approach. Most of use the ILS as backup. We’re expected to maintain visual separation. My previous airline allowed us to disregard RA’s if we had unequivocally identified the other aircraft. Denver, landing 16’s is also a common place for RA’s but we didn’t go around.

[@nathanmcguire932]

Sometimes the TCAS software on one plane is more sensitive than on another.

[@rubenvillanueva8635]

It seems that SFO is having the same problems the old Denver airport had. The airport built in the 1950s, the lateral separation between runway center lines does not meet the criteria for IFR simultaneous landings. Therefore they push for the visual approaches, where the criteria drops down to 700 feet between runway center lines. At the old Denver airport, they staggered the arrivals, to give somewhat of a semblance of lateral separation. It could be quite busy as one is crossing over the apch lights, looking at the rwy, and wondering where the other aircraft is could be a factor.

[@copilot8]

On a visual Tower usual has us maintain visual separation with traffic. At my airline, SOPM says that if we can visual acquire an aircraft during an RA we may continue so long as no hazard exists. However it can be very difficult to maintain visual separation as approach speeds vary. A 737 is usually has a significantly faster vref than an E175 so in this example it’s very possible that they lost visual separation with the ERJ. It’s annoying but not uncommon.

Love all the "clealan"-s in the subtitles, LOL!

[@__globalcitizen__]

Enunciate... Enunciate! Hahaha...

[@__globalcitizen__]

But in all seriousness, is it that difficult to enunciate clearly especially when dealing with people from all different parts of the world?

[@staceygrahame2504]

VAS you made me chuckle with your subtitles - the way many different ways you spelled the very rushed and unclear ‘clear to land’ commands didn’t go unnoticed. 😂😅

[@alexandernordstrom1617]

Runway two eight left Cthulhu

[@cageordie]

Remember a couple of weeks ago when there was a lot of discussion about ATC giving a Lufthansa A350 a long delay for not agreeing to a night visual approach to SFO because his company didn't allow it? So here we are with SFO approach showing how near misses happen when your runways are too close and the controllers aren't responsible for maintaining separation either. Probably not a completely fair way of putting it, but maybe now you appreciate why Lufthansa doesn't want their aircraft taking this risk.

[@TheGospelQuartetParadise]

That was actually a 747-8

[@EmotionalWeather]

The Lufthansa pilot was in the wrong, though. Visual approaches are not a problem for LH, just visual sep at night. In theory.

[@hem8515]

The only way SFO can maintain an acceptable arrival rate is by using visual separation like this. Unfortunately the airport was not designed for high volume traffic like we have today. The parallel runways are just too close to each other. Maintaining visual separation with another aircraft is not difficult to do provided both pilots have the conflicting traffic and are sure they are looking at the correct airplane. The failsafe is the go around. A missed approach is always the answer if the pairing traffic gets too close. In my opinion the Lufthansa policy is overly restrictive. After all, we are pilots. We should be capable of seeing the runway, flying the aircraft, and monitoring the proximity of the conflicting aircraft to a successful landing.

[@jazzi_0453]

​@@EmotionalWeatherThat's exactly what the pilot said. How was he wrong?

[@nmart1538]

I think humans, particularly men aren’t very good at recognising when something has escalated into a bad idea. Pilots are pretty good at picking up a bad situation but especially in the USA it seems like a lot is left up to pilots or controllers personal responsibility and judgement. It leaves room for the once in a career mistake to lead to completed disaster. Just because it’s possible is it really a good idea every day of the year. In Australia or Europe it just wouldn’t happen because the risk management culture wouldn’t allow it. SFO is a disaster waiting to happen but Americans just accept that and will blame the pilot or controller responsible when it finally happens and then change nothing.

[@SeaHusker54]

I can see why Lufthansa didn't want to fly the visual approach at night now....

[@erauprcwa]

They should've requested the ILS earlier...

[@hamzaadleo6319]

737MAX pilot here. SFO can be a mess sometimes. They always like to get traffic in very tight paralleling runways 28L and 28R. It’s also hard to keep a visual on your assigned traffic with a dozen others in the circuit. Always be on TA only mode going in.

[@leerex9959]

I saw multiple incident videos at SFO lately. lufthansa that doesnt get let into sequence, a double go around due to tower prioritising planes on ground for takeoff instead of landing, another incident where landing aircraft needed to go around because tower told southwest to line up and wait and simultaneously clearing incoming aircraft to land and yet blaming the plane on the runway why it is on the runway lined up and waiting and now this. What is up with these controllers?

[@VASAviation]

That TA mode is company SOP?

[@urke367]

Nothing to do with this situation.But one question,can a b738max depart with tora 2085m,temperature 14,qnh 1018,nose wind 4kt?

[@TheFamilyman7]

Wouldn't a converging LDA for one of the rwys solve this? I get ATC sequencing like this for wake turbulence considerations vs staggering.

[@CharlieFoxtrot00]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@TheFamilyman7in the mid 90s there was an LDA to 28R that was slight offset to the existing course, but laterally offset by several thousand feet and you’d fly visual for the last several miles. Later, it was used with a special “Bay ILS 28L” for simultaneous parallel approaches. I have the old plates from 1993 and 1994. That antenna was well north of the airport, near the water, I can’t verify, but it looks like a possible position for the antenna was a pad at N37.6355, W122.3828. Then, in the mid 2000’s, they added another LDA antenna that was much closer, laterally, but offset 3.01°. I haven’t seen a public plate published for that one in years, but the antenna is still there, in the crook to the NE of the intersection of taxiways Lima and Charlie (the structure is built right over the beach). Those seemed to disappear in the last 5 or so years. I’m pretty sure this was all obviated by the rise of RNAV and RNP(AR). GLS is available there now, too, but I don’t know who is equipped and authorized to use it.

[@majordhom5463]

SFO here we go again! Cleraland, cleruland

[@cheapercharlieiii]

I was laughing with his interpretation of those clear to lands

[@EmotionalWeather]

I always hate on the subtitles on this channel, because there are usually many mistakes in every video. But that was just super funny 😂

[@scandinavianaviator8141]

The way these pilots mumbles, it could as well have been Cleruland😂

[@soramame7528]

Honestly, planes on parallel approaches are so close together. I’m a 737 Captain and I feel uncomfortable.

[@A.J.1656]

If they keep you side by side, you can maintain visual, but once you get configured for landing, a relatively small differential in speed makes it real easy to lose visual contact at such a close range. The FMS bridge visual has the right making a kinda dogleg to final inside where the final approach fix would be, so closing that last bit of horizontal separation happens right around the time everyone is configuring for landing.

[@eeassa]

I was inbound into SFO about 15 years ago about 9pm on a Saturday night on 28R. Heavy driving rain and swirling wind. I swear to God I could count the rivets on the plane to my left.

[@rodcoulter997]

Hey…that was me……lol….

[@user-gm9cx3bt1f]

Very similar incident in October between a united flight from RNO and an AA Airbus. I started taping when I wasn't sure whether the AA flight would turn or touch wings absolutely crazy to learn that this way of lining up for the parallel landings is rather the norm.

[@davedarling4316]

It's called "Closely Spaced Parallel Approach", and it's pretty much the only way to get significant traffic into SFO. When the weather gets nasty, they have to cut it down to a single approach, and acceptance rates plummet. I think the airport is old enough that they didn't build runways as far apart as they like to now...

[@dashriprock4308]

It's an acquired taste, so to speak.

[@cheapercharlieiii]

That airport is stacked with traffic.

[@sarahalbers5555]

Always.

[@SYDAirlineEnthusiast]

At least it is not like the New York area or Chicago area where the air traffic or even the ground traffic are super messed up.

[@Nielsen.Brian.P]

You'd figure they could do a better job adjusting the incoming flight's speeds to stagger them slightly if they sense a situation where the parallel arrivals might cause TA issues

[@xenadu02]

No, takeoffs are lined up on the 1s so as soon as both parallel aircraft pass the runway intersections the lined up aircraft are given parallel takeoff clearance. They are require to be ready to takeoff immediately too. You'll hear controllers remind pilots "no delay". Same for runway crossing clearance. The sequence will be packed with aircraft spaced out on approaches for an hour or more and if you block a runway forcing a go-around it can have a domino effect delaying 40 other aircraft. This is required to keep up with the traffic volume. There is no suitable land to expand or move SFO, nor to build an additional airport - we have three large international ones already. You'd have to bulldoze half a suburb city to make the room. The undeveloped land is all heavily mountainous or so far away there's no point.

[@RV2023A]

It is really dangerous that the air traffic controller does not clearly say 'clear to land'. For any foreign pilot this kind of slang word use by ATC is really unsafe.

[@CptMichael]

I also noticed that

[@johndeever]

“Klaa-an” 😮

[@Tortuguita117]

@@FitmanFatty yep

[@michaelbonaga343]

If they talk to an international mostly I’ve notice they treat them different than SKW or UAL or other American airlines

[@TonyTheYouTuba]

Yeah notice how deliberately clearly the pilot of 2366 does his readback after that mess at 00:50

[@AirTCO]

European ATC here. I have a heart attack every time i see US ATC issuing same level for 2 traffic coming that close before final. even thought they had visual.

[@simonoberhofer4956]

If find their lack standard phraseology even more concerning.

[@RiverRaid82]

not to mention that all aircraft are cleared to land. In my country it's not allowed to clear the next ac to land until the first one has vacated the runway

[@FishFind3000]

@@RiverRaid82they do that at ORD, when your bringing in a plane every minute you gotta stack them in there.

[@RiverRaid82]

@@FishFind3000 Well, at other dense airports (egll e.g.) they handle the amount without this -for me- crazy practice.

[@mcnugget3851]

@@RiverRaid829/10 of the 10 busiest airports are in the US, it’s not the same level of traffic

[@briansmyla8696]

clelulan. Love it.

[@nerdtalker2]

It's obvious to me at this point that another disaster at SFO is a matter of when rather than if, and sooner rather than later. Horrifying watching the normalization of obvious risk, even more so considering how much I wind up flying in and out of there.

[@qwerty112311]

Right, because hundreds of thousands of landings performed without a separation-related crash shows just how dangerous it is. Oh wait. You’re dumb. Risk isn’t being normalized, everything involves risk. Since the start of time it has, and until the end of time it will. The current level of risk has been in place for a long time and without a single fatality.

[@STOVL93]

I understand it looks alarming if you think this is a new procedure, but it’s not.

[@aviationinc9524]

This is why I spot at SFO. Every time I go I get tons of GA's and content its amazing

[@dannysnyder6791]

SFO needs substantial investment to improve the runway situation so the parallel runways can be used simultaneously even in IMC. The delays through there when it's foggy are ridiculous and if they could fly precision ILS approaches to both runways in each pair simultaneously, things would be so much smoother.

[@davedarling4316]

That's a very serious amount of money and work. I've no idea how that could be paid for.

[@xenadu02]

You need 3400ft of separation between runways to allow parallel ILS approaches. It isn't a matter of money. There just isn't the land for that. Actually let me amend that statement: you'd need to pay to deck over the entire runway area and figure out ramps or aircraft elevators to move aircraft to the ground level for all taxiing. Then you could move the runways further apart. I can't even imagine the cost of a project like that.

[@OliverWode]

and everybody was hating on Lufthansa few weeks ago ugh..

[@TheJainmehul]

Only Americans hating tbh

[@__globalcitizen__]

​@@TheJainmehulyep...!

[@BeersNBullshit]

For the second one - I`ve been told that there`s a big push in the industry for being fully stable on approach from the start of the approach, and not trying to resolve stability mid-approach. Coming in as a passenger in to ONT a few weeks ago, we went around for being unstable, first time that's happened in more than a decade of flying in to Ontario, so it seems as though this is going to happen more and more.

[@ghostrider-be9ek]

@@FitmanFatty what happened on Asiana 214 is so ridiculously stupid that it should be treated the same as accident in Russia or Africa - where no one cares to learn.

[@SYDAirlineEnthusiast]

Thar second go around is not the atc’s fault. It’s the pilot’s and has nothing to do with separation rules.

[@BeersNBullshit]

Where did I say it was ATCs fault? I said it was because of unstablized approaches

[@nothingtoseehere93]

Another sfo incident? I’m shocked!

[@ghostrider-be9ek]

not even an incident this time - just a go around, but agree, KSFO is another disaster in waiting.

[@dew9103]

0:50 lol that reminds me of that LA tower that have to give the clearance 3 times because he cant stop mumbling

[@joebutler144]

Standard SOP is when close parallel visuals are in use to switch your TCAS to TA only. 2 for 2 for UNITED.

[@darklordojeda]

There's a small golf course right in the landing pattern of SFO, I've been quite concerned at times seeing how close some of these smaller passenger planes get to each other, or appear to get to each other. Not surprised at all hearing this comm. There's 2 runways and planes come in side by side sometimes. Easy to see how a pilot who's not familiar with the area could cross over.

[@dashriprock4308]

Stay on the localizer for each runway, if they are operational. There is no place to move this airport, kind of like SAN.

[@robertmog4336]

Let's just bring them all in side by side.

[@ColorNerdChris]

Correct. This is a feature, not a bug- it allows spacing for departures on the intersecting runways. Controllers, airport managers, and airlines are all making the best use of sub-optimal runway geometry.

[@robertmog4336]

@@ColorNerdChris OK, that explains a lot - thank you. A few decades ago, I sat at a fab Mexican restaurant with a big viewing glass watching them come in for landings. It was quite beautiful, particularly near sunset.

[@mikemolloy2978]

Ah, expedition at the risk of safety, the american way. ​@@ColorNerdChris

[@ColorNerdChris]

@@mikemolloy2978 no.

[@ColorNerdChris]

@@robertmog4336 Similarly I used to have a favorite coffee shop next to (then) Miramar NAS - Fightertown USA with a fantastic view of the traffic pattern full of Tomcats and Hornets

[@lcf34]

"Tower, my wingtips are touching Skywest's, so I'd kindly like to go around please". Exquisite pilot.

[@imaPangolin]

Pretty clear it’s too much reliance on visual separation and not enough actual separation. Not a good look.

[@BayAreaTraveler]

This is quite common and standard at SFO to maintain visual. As I understand, you can’t have the planes separated too much cuz of wake turbulence from the other aircraft so they need to fly in formation so to speak almost next to each other. Also, if you separate them, there be no gap for departing flights to takeoff from the 1’s.

[@sjm18pars]

The infamous 28 left.

[@Thuraash1]

I'm pretty sure this exact thing happened for UA1434 on 12/24. On that flight, the UA aircraft was on the right, and the other airplane seemed to be maybe a half mile to our 10 o'clock. Hard to tell; it was dark a f. But we started the go around at probably about the same spot the pilots in this video did. Something is screwy with SFO traffic.

[@dantc2403]

"Cldln" - Ancient SFO proverb

[@brucestambaugh]

Why don't they time the parallel landings to alternate a few seconds apart instead of landing simultaneously?

[@analogman9697]

Makes too much sense.

[@BeersNBullshit]

to give spacing for takeoffs/landings on crossing runways

[@ColorNerdChris]

You are asking the right question: They are pairing up the aircraft landing on the 28s to create a gap from which they can perform takeoffs in those gaps on the intersecting runway 1s. You see DAL2250 depart in this gap at 1:49 This way, controllers, airport management, and airlines are all making the best use of the runway geometry.

[@brucestambaugh]

@@ColorNerdChris Thank you.

[@MultiMrAsd]

Landing a few seconds apart on parallel runways will cause the second plane to fly trough the first one’s wake turbulence. That’s really dangerous and the reason for the larger spacing between runways on more modern airports. Since the runways are to close in SFO they are forced to do this more complicated (and dangerous) approach

[@sb859]

Yeah, I love going belly up to a 787 that's only 500 feet away from in a turn to final, at night, or sunset which is even worse. SFO...

[@STOVL93]

Think about it this way. Any type of transportation involves risk. Side by approaches look scary, but there are hundreds upon hundreds of them made at SFO every day and there have been for decades. The FAA and NTSB have learned from a hundred years of aviation to create the safest mode of transportation in the world. You’re safer on an American air carrier than you are in a car, on a ship, or even riding a bicycle. The pilots and controllers all handled this interaction flawlessly. Anyone who watches SFO regularly knows that TCAS RAs on final are a regular occurrence here. TCAS wasn’t designed with two aircraft flying approaches 700 feet apart in mind, and depending on the circumstances flight crews might be required to respond even when they have the other aircraft in sight and are comfortable with the spacing. When the weather is poor SFO is forced to run ILS and arrival delays back up for hours, but when the weather is good the pilots and controllers all work hard to get their passengers in on time. The only fatal crash at SFO in living memory was Asiana flying a perfectly good 777 into the ground because they were unable to simply hand fly the plane. Let’s have a little respect for the proficiency and professionalism of all the pilots and controllers who use these procedures safely every day to get people where they’re going 😁

[@racheeeed]

"You’re safer on an American air carrier than you are in a car, on a ship, or even riding a bicycle", that is not a relevant comparison by any measure. Are you safer on an American air carrier than on any other international or especially European air carrier should be the goal you aim for. The fact of the matter is you are removing one layer of the Swiss cheese model of safety in exchange for what exactly ? More planes per hour meaning more profit, at the end of the day. The slow decay in the safety culture in America is a train wreck waiting to happen.

[@STOVL93]

I agree that the system as a whole is stressed, but this isn’t an example of it.

[@gregheyheyhey]

OK, let's say we do what you ask. How precisely would you suggest that SFO accommodate the necessary number of flights to transport the passengers who want to fly in and out of the most important technology center on the planet? @@racheeeed

[@racheeeed]

See, that is precisely the line of reasoning that leads to the erosion of the safety culture. There is no "necessary" number of flights, there's only a maximum number of flights and you have to accept that. Once you're at maximum capacity within your defined safety parameters you can increase capacity with additional infrastructure, not with relaxed standards, because "most important technology center" or whatever. I've never been to SF and I'm neither an airport designer nor in charge of California's infrastructure so i don't have a magic solution for you, sorry. My point is simply that safety should never be compromised for profit, or for anything else for that matter. @@gregheyheyhey

[@rodcoulter997]

All 100% correct.

[@asikkalanpuisetrattaat5176]

”Clelaran” was actually a more correct transcription for that

[@robbyallen5421]

I flew into SFO last week and after an 11 hour flight had to go around due to getting too close to another aircraft that wasn’t getting off the runway in time.

[@SYDAirlineEnthusiast]

It’s always only 28L landing traffic that does the go arounds at sfo.

[@erauprcwa]

The thing that sucks about the visual approaches to 28L/R is that on the visual approach for 28R, it points you directly at the parallel traffic and you don't fully line up with the runway until you're about 5 miles from touchdown. If you don't switch your TA/RA to TA only (airplane dependent) you may get a RA and as such, you will have to execute a go around. It's annoying because of how close the runways are to each other. Approach wants everyone to maintain a certain speed until a certain point, as such, it will put both airplanes flying right at each other and confuse the computer system, regardless if you have them in sight.

[@russell2952]

Cletalan. Only thing left to do is for Webster's to add it to the dictionary.

[@yooein]

cledla, cletalan, cledula

[@PiperAircraft]

I think it is only a matter of time when a visual night approach in combination with separation loss at SFO will go wrong! Profit (airport capacity and flow of planes) is more important than safety until we have a midair. I dont get it why US airlines do not stop this night separation rule (as Lufthansa did) before we have an accident?

[@gregheyheyhey]

They've been doing this for decades.

[@don_5283]

@@gregheyheyhey Everyone "has been doing this for decades" right up until the disaster that inevitably makes everyone ask "how could they think this was okay?!"

[@gnsgml11]

Got my CPL, couldn't get a job and now doing ATC training. Is it better to have both planes laterally like that than having them go in one at a time? Just wondering how wake turbulence would affect these aircrafts since both planes had to go around

[@michaelbonaga343]

Different rules apply for heavies they’re accounted for on approach to not overtake the pairing aircraft, if they’re not heavy since the wake goes directly behind the aircraft it usually doesn’t affect the planes side by side Having them go side by side in pairs allows for a more efficient operation that can launch more departures

[@staceygrahame2504]

This seems to be happening a lot at SFO in recent times. Considering their last history, it’s a little concerning to keep seeing.

[@Benis650]

Hey the way UAL2366 & SKW5592 landing is pretty much the same as the UAL2400 & SWA597, why did they got TCAS alarm..?

[@saxmanb777]

It usually does not set off, but it doesn’t every once in a while.

[@TheReduxGB]

It was a larger separation the second time around so it saw no conflict. Although we don't know if it did or did not trigger the second time, as it could have been the reason for the unstable approach.

[@docnele]

It seems to me that I am watching and reading more and more about runway incursions, close calls and TCAS alerts from entire of United States big centers. Is it necessary to have "an air disaster that changed the entire industry" when signs are already present that it is bound to happen?

[@TheGospelQuartetParadise]

The question I would have is what time of day/evening/night this happened? I heard good night in one ATC sequence. I think any flights into SFO at night should be ILS. That Bay Area marine layer can drop in, or broken cloud layers can come in over the airfield. I watch a regular SFO plane spotting stream and a couple of weeks ago on a partly cloudy day there were like 4 go arounds within the span of one hour. At night? I'm sure you all remember the time Air Canada almost landed on the taxiway. I have seen the tower sometimes space landing traffic with no margin for error. They automatically assume that the traffic on the 1s will clear the intersecting runways prior to the landing traffic touching down, but suppose the departing traffic on the 1s has to abort the takeoff? Usually our stream has ATC on the channel so we can hear exchanges. I usually have LiveATC set to ground, because there have been some issues with taxiing. I lived in the Bay Area for 40 years and used to go there for 3 - 4 hours a couple of days and sit at the departure end of 1R before 9/11. I keep hearing that 99% of airport towers are not fully staffed, so let's hope it won't be an incident resulting in loss of life that puts a priority on filling those staffing shortages. Shouldn't there be colleges for training air traffic control?

[@suratroadkingpvtltd5769]

They force visual because the ATC does not want to be responsible for anything while taking credit for running a busy airport successfully. Typical ATC leeches.

[@LilJollyJoker]

0:50 "cleralan" instead of "cleared to land." It is crazy this channel has at least 1 typo in every vid. Does it hurt to take a few minutes to rewatch the video for errors before posting them?

[@Winglets68]

Usually change to TA only going into SFO

[@gregbrothers5431]

Seems crazy to me that in the air you need 5 miles, but on landing you only need 750 ft of separation. With how busy and landlocked SFO is, I dont see any other way to do it though.

[@chrisschack9716]

3 miles in closer proximity to the radar, or vertical, or visual separation.

[@STOVL93]

Yeah, 1,000’ is legal vertical separation. 750 isn’t such a stretch.

[@MidEx216]

3 and 5 mile separation minima are radar separation. The targets on radar are about 1/2 mile in diameter, and they have about a 2 second refresh rate. When things move to the visual range, you see what’s happening in real time, and real distances, so those minima drop down to all but nothing

[@gregbrothers5431]

@@STOVL93 planes close in at around 4000 feet per minute vertically (45 miles/hr) but almost 1100 miles/hour laterally.

[@STOVL93]

@@gregbrothers5431or 0 ft/mn if they’re parallel

[@ghostrider-be9ek]

0:50 - LOL = caption is "clearalan" .... which is exactly correct as tower doesent annunciate words properly.

[@v1ohno]

Depends on the company SOP to deal with an RA when you are confident that target is the one you see. My company, one of the ones in this video, allows you to continue as long as you can maintain visual separation. If you lose it and receive an RA then you must respond. My understanding is some of the other SOPs out there require you to respond WHENEVER an RA is received just in case it’s caused by something you’re not looking at or for. Denver has had a problem with this lately as well. As a result my company pushed a bulletin stating that when conducting certain visual approaches into DEN that you should continue whether you see the traffic or not. I’m guessing SFO will see something similar in the future, but unlike DEN, SFO has lots more GA flying around the bay which might make the FAA and operators reluctant to provide that guidance.

[@flightTime123]

Almost every airline in the US has you turn on RA’s when doing visuals into SFO. Otherwise they’d be going off multiple times an hour. I’m fairly certain UA is one of them, being a hub for them. This crew must’ve not read the note.

[@scotty523]

Where’s the time stamp that’s often in the corner? Both SWA/AAL were on the FMS Bridge Visual approach, something SKW5592 didn’t have/couldn’t execute in the same manner. IMO, ATC got sloppy by putting them below/ahead of UAL2366 especially when they couldn’t do FMS bridge visual.

[@vananything]

I could be out of date on this, but isn't TCAS supposed to be turned off during parallel approaches? Getting within RA distance seems pretty normal…

[@subliminalvibes]

Approaching LAX a pilot would normally _ignore_ TCAS warnings if they have visual on the other craft, but for each of these go-arounds they lost visual due to different speeds and therefore _cannot_ ignore TCAS warnings. Under no circumstances would they turn off TCAS system. I'm not a pilot but I'm pretty sure the logic holds true.

[@erauprcwa]

RA... You must comply with, also unless it's company procedure, you don't change your TA/RA randomly...

[@XionUnjust]

American 1308 definitely did NOT say that they had United in sight at any point...

[@monocogenit1]

Crazy they have to report the reason why the went around.

[@CapStar362]

in ground school, regarding SOIA, i was taught that RA/TA should be set to TA Only because of spacing for SFO Operations, should i had ever become a Airline pilot or flying into CLE/SFO and if airport problems arise, ATL should they have to shut down runways and forcing the usage of only half the runways on the north side the 2 southern runways, excluding the newest 5th runway 10/8. i know DAL SOP is TA Only for SFO and CLE. United SOP is TA Only for SFO and CLE. AA, Southwest, basically all the United States airlines run the SOP for this reason. both SFO and CLE have NTZ Protection under PRM and SOIA Ops established that one runway will always bring you down to final at a angle. Atl is unique should operations dictate due to problems on the ground, they can operate the 2 northern runways and the 2 original southern runways under SOIA as well if needed, they have done this at least once in the last 20 years.

[@scotty523]

SFO PRM/SOIA discontinued…

[@CapStar362]

@@scotty523 when?

[@Airman_Fu]

Pushing Tin.

[@hirodriguez6985]

What a mess here, the United 2400, I bet he did a go arround for been to close to the other traffic, no so much for been unstable. The people criticized the Lufthansa pilot for fallowing a company rule, not to accepts cisial approach at night. Some times not even in day time visual approaches are a good idea.

[@thilomanten8701]

Artificial island in the bay, parallel runway and 4300ft. apart. Problem solved...oh I can see an army of environmentalists coming straight for me!

[@gregheyheyhey]

We can't even get them to let us push 28R 500 feet further into the Bay.

[@petertarantelli]

I know they’re not trying to put these heavies side-by-side on this approach. My question, why don’t they stagger them a bit using speed? That’s two go-arounds for two United fights.

[@GWNorth-db8vn]

They are trying to put them side-by-side. That's how SFO does it.

[@petertarantelli]

@@GWNorth-db8vn I realize that but two go-arounds almost back-to-back? I’m just saying maybe they should TRY to stagger them.

[@GWNorth-db8vn]

@@petertarantelli - They have to maintain four miles separation between each plane and anything behind it. If they stagger them it would be a single line with the same spacing as the pairs have now. They can't just have them come in a mile apart in large part because of wake turbulence spreading into the next approach path. Two together make one mess. bringing them in pairs doubles the airport's capacity.

[@petertarantelli]

@@GWNorth-db8vn maybe these two United pilots weren’t used to it?

[@GWNorth-db8vn]

@@petertarantelli - This happens all the time. They're allowed to ignore the TCAS alarms as long as they have visual contact with each other. Big birds wallow like old Chevy's when they slow down, and they'll get a bit too close and one will bail. They don't do this when they're not busy, of course. They also pair takeoffs for the same reasons.

[@JLUY-gd5ql]

Couldn’t they make the arrivals with different speeds so it can lead to staggered parallel approaches?

[@VASAviation]

No, that wouldn't work at SFO

[@AnantKumarS]

Why do they have to put aircrafts exactly side by side on parallel approach Why not have them staggered like rest of the airport in the world

[@zacharypiech2930]

JC, SFO AGAIN.

[@BritishAirwaysCaptin]

I think in the 10 times I’ve been to SFO 80% of the time we would get an RA in a visual. TA only is your friend

[@raymoland]

My airline allows us to disregard an RA provided we are certain that we have the conflict aircraft in sight. RAs are not uncommon on this approach. Given that on radar UA seems to be slightly behind SkyWest, I can't understand why they followed the RA guidance. SFO cannot function unless they are able to do these simultaneous close visual approaches.

[@suratroadkingpvtltd5769]

Then maybe SFO needs to allow for instrument guided landings instead of forcing pilots like that Lufthansa to just wander about because they don't want to do their jobs properly

[@-Bill.]

Then maybe they need to expand another airport nearby and start flying there, they are going to keep pushing things until two planes clip and fall out of the sky. SFO shows up on this channel probably the most of any airport. I'm not a pilot but I thought TCAS warnings were auto ignored within a certain distance of the airport? How long is the parallel approach and could they maybe limit the time spent in conflict by altering the glideslope angles for the two parallel runways? Make one a little steeper and one a little shallower so they aren't at the same altitude the whole time.

[@EdOeuna]

That’s changing airline policy because of poor infrastructure, which isn’t productive in the long run.

[@hirodriguez6985]

​@@suratroadkingpvtltd5769Absolutely agree with you. They shouldn't be forcing visual approaches specially at night, when you don't have a good perspective how far or close is the other traffic. They force visuals to transfer all the responsibility to the pilots and relief the controllers of workload.

[@raymoland]

@suratroadkingpvtltd5769 they can do instrument landings but the runways are too close together to do parallel approaches which is why there are always long delays when the weather is poor. So solutions are, cut the number of allowed flights drastically, raising airfares to and from SFO, build a new runway in the bay which would cost billions, take decades and not be approved, or build a new airport altogether, small problem, there is no space. So instead they do the best they can with the hand they are dealt.

[@jakecostello8400]

Oh look it’s SFO again

[@STOVL93]

It’s almost like Viktor has something against them 🤔 Maybe he got a 3 hour delay last time he flew through because they were running ILS instead of visual 😂

[@tchevrier]

Why do they land them side by side instead of giving a little bit of stagger.

[@VASAviation]

To allow depatures off runways 1s

[@tchevrier]

@@VASAviation seems like the airport might be getting a little too small for the amount of traffic.

[@restojon1]

Keep rolling them dice 🎲

[@gregheyheyhey]

It's what we all do every day...

[@teamscrew]

Why don’t they stagger them rather than have the end up basically side by side every pair? That’s unsettling

[@gregheyheyhey]

Because of flights departing on 1L and 1R.

[@joshuapatrick682]

Man, could you imagine living in San Francisco and not being a millionaire…. That must be awful.

[@firas6852]

For me, as an european ATC Geek, this is unprofessional traffic management. Two planes so close at almost the same level during approach is, in my oppinion, playing with lives. Yes, american airspace is busy but first priority should be saftey, not as many planes as possible is in the shortest possible time !!

[@fatherpuck]

This is not a controller or SFO issue. They're doing fine here

[@MahBor]

Here we go again! I’ve lost count atp

[@eagle1107flyer]

😂😂😂Clerelan

[@eagle1107flyer]

0:50

[@organfreak1212]

That's why I never have any traffic in sight when coming into SFO at night, even if I do.

[@mikelavelle5019]

Because the 2 little dots became 1 big dot.

[@albertoperez-eo1yz]

I think sfo has PRM or SOIA approachs and atc and pilot nedds to comply With it

[@saxmanb777]

This wasn’t a PRM or SOIA approach.

[@scotty523]

PRM/SOIA discontinued.

[@JohnDoe-sg1pd]

United must be in contract negotiations 😂

[@brunotcs]

clelan

[@MrBryan86]

Only a matter of time before something serious happens in one of these overly congested airports in the US.

[@comrademustard8902]

It's 2023 and they still say "clearuland" instead of "cleared to land" like they have socks in their mouth

[@ColoredPancake]

What I don’t get is: there are certainly other very busy airports out there operating 2 close runways at the same time, how do they manage no incidents and this one isn’t able to?

[@VASAviation]

There is no airport with such close runways as SFO

[@jaymonty6530]

This is a non event. Planes land 750ft apart every day at SFO. Someone forgot to put their TCAS into TA only when landing and it went off, then you have no choice but to react. They went around and shot the approach again. No big deal. SFO has its problems, but the sideby landings is not one of them. Not once in the years of doing it have airplanes scraped paint.

[@KukosEQ]

Its just a matter of time when a midair will happen in USA. The way ATC separate the traffic is unheard anywhere else.

[@STOVL93]

Yeah, they’ve only been doing it this way for the last 65 years in the US. Should start falling apart any day now…

[@sugaloaf567]

It wasn’t really an issue in this case but it’s crazy to me how quickly and inarticulately some US ATC speak. I am a native English speaker and I found these guys harder to understand than the Swiss ATC in the video from Geneva a few days ago, who were speaking with quite distinct French accents. If I was a US pilot I would be asking these tower controllers “confirm cleared to land?” as maybe a hint that “clululun” doesn’t cut it.

[@BluePlanet88]

Thankfully there was no aircraft departing from runway 28 at the same time.

[@EdOeuna]

Not responding to the RA first time is pretty sloppy.

[@michaelmartin8036]

Yeah, nothing like x2 TCAS at KSFO where the tower just acts like it's another day in Kalifornia!

[@STOVL93]

Should they be audibly panicking on frequency? Not sure what else they could do here.

[@michaelmartin8036]

@@STOVL93 I wouldn't say panicking, but at least acknowledge there was a possible TCAS.

[@STOVL93]

@@michaelmartin8036He did. The ignorance in these comments is off the wall.

[@ATCcjm]

A little too clickbait on this one. What’s your issue with it? SFO has been doing side by side approaches for many many years. If it’s simply because they responded to an RA, that happens more often than you think. Happens quite a bit in enroute with planes climbing/descending at good rates on top of each other. No rules were broken or conflicts in this video. Just standard ops.

[@VASAviation]

Well, for me it's a conflict if a traffic needs to respond to an RA. My company SOP says to file a report if we respond to an RA. I want to know the procedure from companies that use to operate at SFO and from pilots that fly there regularly. If you are one, please share your knowledge. If you are not, then you just know what you read or hear on LiveATC.

[@ATCcjm]

@@VASAviation I am a controller so I know a little bit more than what a I hear on LiveATC . I just gave examples above of RA’s that aren’t necessarily conflicts. Depending on closure rates, tcas can be set off when in fact the planes are actually separated. Is that what happened in this case? Not sure I wasn’t there, but neither were you. You just heard it on LiveATC and automatically assumed by your title that it’s a conflict when in reality it’s pretty much a normal procedure.

[@jazzi_0453]

If your enroute traffic gets RAs often then you're not a good controller. Give traffic information if they're approaching other traffic with high rates so they reduce it. TCAS is always serious.

[@ATCcjm]

@@jazzi_0453 lol how is it bad controlling? I can’t control a planes vertical speed. If we’re going to play that game, maybe it’s bad pilot skills. Why would you be descending at a high rate with only 1000ft to go?

[@jazzi_0453]

@@ATCcjm Of course you can assign rates of climb/descend? And maybe the pilot isn't aware of the restricting traffic and hoping for continuous climb/descend? Never got a TCAS RA because of that. Traffic info isn't hard.

[@DomManInT1]

Seems like visual separation at SFO is not working out so well. But, they will keep doing it until someone dies.

[@STOVL93]

Not working out so well? Literally tens of millions of arrivals have landed at SFO over the years without a single collision 😂

[@DomManInT1]

@@STOVL93 2 close calls in 2 months is working out well. Maybe your goal before making changes is a crash a day?

[@STOVL93]

This wasn’t a close call.

[@Thissapunyo]

Doh, 3 in a row, are they doing it on purpose?

[@markhamstra1083]

If you mean three nearly simultaneous landings on the parallel runways, then yes, they are definitely doing that on purpose. Planes abeam of each other do not cause wake turbulence issues for each other, but planes separated or staggered along the parallel runway axes can. The intention is to have pairs of planes landing nearly simultaneously while maintaining visual separation, but occasionally one can lose sight of its parallel partner, resulting in a go-around.

[@Thissapunyo]

@markhamstra1083 Interesting, but it seemed that the tcas system was freaking the pilots out, certainly the first one 'dealing with ra' can't be easy to ignore?

[@markhamstra1083]

@@Thissapunyo Read some of the many comments on this video by pilots who have to deal with this regularly. Essentially, if the TCAS is telling you something but you are looking out the window at the plane that is landing parallel to you and can see that there is no problem, then there is no problem. If, however, you lose sight of your pair partner (e.g. it slides aft of you or under your wing) and the TCAS gives you an RA, then you can end up going around and telling the tower that you had to deal with an RA. No freaking out involved, just routine operations.

[@EWR787Driver]

Dude……turn the transponder to TA only. If you have the traffic and airportvin sight, you don’t need the transponder in TA/RA mode. You were of course, told to maintain visual separation.

[@jazzi_0453]

Armchair pilot. What if he lost visual contact? Then you comply with the RA.

[@EdOeuna]

Many / most airlines won’t allow this. Ignoring TCAS is also ignoring the fact that ATC or the infrastructure needs urgent upgrade.

[@EWR787Driver]

It’s a common practice. Field in sight, traffic in sight and in SFO,s case, bridges in sight. You are taking responsibility for the TCAS. It allows more traffic to move in and out of a specific airport in an hourly time frame. Not VFR, TA/RA stays on and ATC increases separation.

[@jadziadax8658]

@@EdOeuna The airport needs upgrading by building one or two more runways out in the bay.

[@MarkPollard]

Not going TA only coming into SFO? Amateur hour!

[@1320fastback]

Why not zipper them?

[@mgzuck]

Need them together to make space for the departures off the 1s. Usually a pair land on 28s, then a pair depart on the 1s before the next pair get there.

[@Q1776Q]

Instead of doing the 'visual' just keep them on the ILS approach

[@Jdrew27]

Visual separation for aircraft required when lined up on the same runway is 3 miles. When issued an approach the separation required is now 5 miles. This slows the entire operation down. Next time SFO goes into actual IFR conditions watch how many delays will transpire. They will start flow and start slowing aircraft already enroute. The ones still on the ground will get a wheels up time meaning you are now late leaving late getting in etc

[@sushi777300]

Sloppiness seems quite dangerously common among US ATC staff

[@goincd3]

No sloppiness from the controllers here. Touchy tcas.

[@suratroadkingpvtltd5769]

​​@@goincd3did the controller actually clear the flight to land, while being verbally clear?

[@benchoflemons398]

Atc is not privatized in the USA. US airspace is also very busy.

[@kellyem33]

This practice at SFO will npt end well. 1.5 minute extension for the right side, staggering them. What on earth are they thinking.

[@haroldlipschitz9301]

No choice, they are using the intersecting runways for departures simultaneously

[@lostinasia25]

Back in the day about 46 years ago an Air Force ATC Controller said he would vector aircraft into bad weather just for fun..... I'm sure at night ATC might be doing this just for fun also. Too many side by side coming in the same hour. Tower can call Approach and request more spacing of arrivals or they can adjust speed to FAF. On ILS SFO is required to use proper spacing when using both 28's for IFR approaches.

[@rubenvillanueva8635]

Had I known that idiot in the USAF, I would have booted his ass out of the Rapcon!

[@STOVL93]

This post sounds schizophrenic

[@tomcat1319]

That approach is just too close! I see a mid air collision coming in the future! 200 feet apart is too close!

[@mendel5106]

The ATC controller was clueless, and the pilot had to do the job for him. Thank goodness for TCAS and that pilots should and do override ATC when they get a TCAS alert and do the resolution of the TCAS instead of continuing instructions by ATC.

[@STOVL93]

Mmhmm. I’m sure the professional controller was the one who’s clueless and not the professional KZbin commenter…