Why Landing at San Diego's Airport is So Hard

[@timothypropst238]

Landed many times at SAN in Airbus and didn’t find it that challenging. The challenging part was getting stable prior to 1000’ AGL especially with a 3.3° glidepath.

[@EricaCalman]

@@timothypropst238 When the weather is good (which it usually is) it’s a little harder than average but not that bad. When it gets hard is when the ceilings get low which they often do because of our marine layer. The DA for the RNAV-Z is 621 ft and the MDA for all the other approaches is 680, and the most overcast is usually about 1500 but sometimes it dips much lower and between that and the traffic volume going to a single runway is when it gets difficult. There is an LPV for the RNAV-Z that goes down to 262 but that’s a little risky, although it is usually possible to use it to get down if necessary.

[@gilles5974]

I had heard that it was challenging to land there and also had the opportunity to see the planes landing when I was there a few years ago but now I understand a lot better why it is so difficult. Looking forward to taking off from beautiful San Diego next March after my cruise on the Panama Canal. Thank You for your excellent explanations!

[@EricaCalman]

Thanks! I'm so glad you found it informative!

[@justinrandall9358]

@@EricaCalman Your Welcome

[@dwaynevanmeerten9696]

This approach is not difficult at all. It just takes proper planning and execution. I will give you the perspective from an active airline pilot that flies into this location on a regular basis ( I just landed there two days ago). There is an ILS to KSAN but only to runway 9. We almost never do the localizer approach to 27 as we have the RNAV (RNP) Z approach that gives us vertical guidance. If you're coming from the north you'll join the approach at KLOMN intersection on the downwind leg. If you're coming from the east you'll join the approach from LYNDI intersection. In general you'll slow to 210 knots on the downwind. On base, you'll start extending your flaps and slats and slow to 170. SoCal will usually want you to keep your speed of 170 until REEBO or a five mile final. The approach is a bit steeper as it is a 3.5 degree glidepath instead of the usual 3 degree. For this reason the plane will not slow as easily (depending on what you're flying). You just have to plan for this and extend your landing gear a little earlier to get the drag required to get slowed while maintaining a 3.5 degree glideslope. The biggest threat is the parking garage that is just prior to the airport. For this reason, there is a displaced threshold. Again, this approach is slightly more challenging with the steeper glide angle, but by no means hard or difficult, even if you're doing the visual approach. It's all about energy management and using your drag devices at the appropriate time. In my opinion, landing at places like Orange County (SNA) or Burbank (BUR) are more challenging than San Diego to tell you the truth.

[@EricaCalman]

I mean it’s not that bad no but definitely a bit harder than average. Runway 9 and its ILS are seldom available, RNAV or GPS for 27 aren’t bad but are a bit steep and non-precision which is a somewhat dicey combo. Again, not super crazy but it presents a challenge. When landing here gets really hard is when there’s low cloud ceilings and a westerly breeze, which fortunately doesn’t happen every day but it’s by no means rare. Usually conditions facilitate either going visual well above MDA or an outright visual approach or if it’s foggy wind is dead calm and 09 can be used. Most days are either clear or overcast at about 1,500 ft with a steady wind from the west. That and dealing with both Miramar and the border but those aren’t a big deal just make the class B shaped weird.

[@dwaynevanmeerten9696]

@@EricaCalman Well, the title of your video suggests to your audience that is hard. It is not and many pilots do it everyday. I am very familiar with landing in San Diego. I do it all the time in various weather conditions in a real 737. I don't quite understand why you feel landing on 27 with low cloud ceilings and a westerly breeze is really hard. I don't know if you've had actually flight training or are a sim pilot only. As a suggestion in the simulator, try extending your landing gear a bit early and get slowed. SoCal will usually ask you to hold 170 knots until 5 miles from the runway. This can be done as long as you get your drag devices out earlier than usual.

[@EricaCalman]

Well it's a combination of (a) it's what I'd always heard, (b) watching landings over the years and seeing how often people go missed and (c) one occasion where I was a passenger and we went missed like 3 times trying for 27 before landing on 09 using the ILS. I've only trained as a VFR pilot in real life so my only time flying IFR or anything faster than 140 kts is in the simulator but it still seems like the hard part is the minimums, terrain and ceilings. Idk, maybe it's what I learned as a kid before GPS was as good as it is today and even that flight I was on was in 2011 and things have continued to improve. In the sim though I don't have much trouble slowing down, I have trouble getting sight of the runway above DA or at least an AGL altitude that doesn't make me pretty nervous.

[@richardtibbitts3841]

Actually, the parking garage, although it is admittedly a problem (especially if you don't fly into San Diego that frequently) does not affect the approach. The reason for the displaced threshold on Runway 27 is the hills to the east of the airport and the obstructions built on them decades ago.

[@justinrandall9358]

This Makes Me Think Of Hong Kongs Kai Tak Airport That Was Also A Dificult Landing Because Of The Weather And The Mountains And The Water

[@dtopolski1]

Never mind the hill sir! There is an Alaska 737-900 on the blast pad!!! LOL!!!

[@EricaCalman]

Oh yeah lol, it's actually fine for them to line up before the displaced threshold but I was a little low and flying a larger airplane so it was a little too close for comfort, good thing its a simulator with no airplane-airplane collision physics XD

[@jbrown3547]

@@EricaCalman It is not fine for them to line up before the threshold.

[@solefinder3708]

@@jbrown3547 Yep, that pilot was Mr Smith, from the Matrix, trying to take over that program.

[@hugoburchartz2678]

Hi Erica. I think you’re right about SAN. Burbank is hard due to terrain, also John Wayne. KSAN is like landing in a shoe box, with traffic from Coronado, Montgomery, Gillespie, Brown and TJ. Worked at the MCRD Marina for many years. Seen a lot of wild landings on the approach to runway 9 during weather as they come over Pt. Loma. The JAL and BA big boys eat up a lot of runway. Loved the Condor A340 takeoffs. Enjoyed watching your video. Two thumbs up!

[@EricaCalman]

Thanks!

[@larrymeyer6006]

Did it years ago in a B727 and before GPS aid. Piece of cake.

[@EricaCalman]

What was the visibility/ceiling?

[@JamunaJivanadas]

The roof of the parking garage is an awesome spot to watch the planes land.

[@gerardmoran9560]

I did plenty of approaches and landings at SAN. Not an especially challenging airport, despite terrain on final. It's annoying to think that local officials permitted the construction of a garage in the flight path that resulted in a displaced threshold eliminating otherwise useable runway.

[@cag1970]

Some years ago, History aired a special on the world's most extreme airports, and KSAN was number-ten on the list, in part because of that parking deck in the approach path. Definitely not as extreme as the altiports at Courchevel, France or Lukla, Nepal, or the old Kai Tak Airport in Hong Kong, based on what I know about all of them, but still an interesting approach even from the perspective of a flight simulator. I may download Flightgear myself and give it a spin.

[@EricaCalman]

Yeah the parking structure is pretty close but the buildings themselves aren’t really the main problem, it’s the terrain and the occasional low ceilings that make it hard, but IFR flying doesn’t make for as visually compelling of a video haha.

[@WWPlaysHoldem]

Fly a 3 degree glide slope and the plane doesn’t care what is below it.

[@stevebalt5234]

Well said

[@EricaCalman]

Well (a) it’s 3.5 degrees (b) technically it does care even aerodynamically because of the ground effect and (c) the occupants care which is why the GPWS exists

[@dashriprock4308]

@@EricaCalman The first time that I flew in there as a passenger was an eye-opener. Kind of frightening. Watching a DC-10 land there at night from the freeway (south) was exciting. It came from JFK. I saw a 787 Dreamliner (BAW) en route to SAN from LHR on Flight Radar 24 the other morning.

[@ChrisCrosdale]

Not recommended this for real air traffic, but in MSFS you can sort of cheat the system because there is a GPS waypoint ("ZOLPA") right on the Runway 27 threshold. However, you need to have more altitude than the required minimum at the previous waypoint ("REEBO") of 2000ft to get the right glideslope angle. If you are at around 2500ft at REEBO and use VNAV to ZOLPA (set to around 20ft), it will bring you all the way down to the runway. It's helpful, because a lot of times with live weather, you can't see the runway until you're really close because of a coastal marine layer and fog and it's easy to overfly the runway.

[@jungfaha]

Great vid thank you. what software are you using. you mentioned its open source. thanks

[@EricaCalman]

@@jungfaha flightgear www.flightgear.org/download/

[@mattewert6980]

Have you flown a real a320 and b737 with similar flight hrs? What are you basing your opinion on which is the better aircraft?

[@EricaCalman]

@@mattewert6980 general consensus, they are both good airplanes. As a loose rule of thumb Boeing makes better long haul airplanes and airbus makes better short haul but they obey the same laws of physics and have customers that pay for the same type of fuel so there’s a lot of convergent design. More people seem to prefer a 320, I actually like the 737 better but a lot of people like side stick and a320 is usually a tiny bit more efficient for the same range and cabin layout.

[@SimpilotFSX]

I use RNAV(GPS) 27 or RNAV(RNP) 27 that have both horizontal and vertical guidance to runway 27. It works great in X-Plane 12 and MSFS.

[@EricaCalman]

Those are both options but they are considered non-precision approaches, as is the localizer/DME approach I was semi demonstrating. In both cases I believe the MDA is the same at 680 ft.

[@dwaynevanmeerten9696]

It works great in real life too. Highly recommended.

[@KeithDavey2014]

Flying next to buildings is no problem at all. They really are a non-factor. What makes SAN challenging is that the field is shorter than normal with a higher FPA. Its RWY27 is also a non-persision approach which use to be very man power intensive to fly correctly. Today the RNAV approach is fairly easy.

[@EricaCalman]

Yeah its a bunch of things all of which originate from the terrain, not the buildings. Steeper FPA, lack of ILS glide-slope, large traffic volume on a single runway, frequent low ceilings due to marine layer etc. RNAV Z works pretty well most days but is a (relatively) recent addition.

[@normaninsandiego7061]

Welcome to San Diego

[@johnhanson9245]

You mentioned that 2 red and 2 white lights mean you are on a proper decent rate...Not correct...It means you are on proper Glide Slope...To maintain proper glide slope you have to be on glide slope AND have/maintain proper decent rate..ie. a stabilized approach..

[@EricaCalman]

Yeah I misspoke, on glide slope is more correct. Being on glide slope and on correct approach speed result will result in a proper decent rate and vice versa though.

[@ericjones7769]

That Delta was a A321 not a A320

[@EricaCalman]

Oh, yeah good catch I guess A320 family would be more accurate than the A320 specifically.

[@clist9406]

San Diego approach to 27 never made since to me , seems like it would be better to maintain altitude and 180 back and land on 9

[@EricaCalman]

So if the wind is dead calm or less than 5 knots that could work but landing downwind is always risky and combine that with the hill that makes landing on 27 so hard the margins for a go-around become dangerously thin. If the wind accommodates landing on 09 they just do that but sea breeze almost always blows in from the west.

[@EricaCalman]

and in either case you'd want to use the 09 ILS and approach from the west and if you got visual high enough I guess you could fly a visual pattern to land on 27 but using the 27 localizer and then the 09 ILS would never really make sense, and if you can do that you can probably do a visual into 27

[@stevebalt5234]

What software is this?

[@EricaCalman]

@@stevebalt5234 flightgear www.flightgear.org/ which is free and open source

[@donschwartz1118]

If Boeing would get their act together they would build a better jet than Airbus. That's why, until this whole debacle with the Max, more airlines flew Boeing. Until now the 737 was the most successful jet made. I don't know what you base your opinion on

[@EricaCalman]

I mean "better" is kind of subjective, I actually like the 737 better but by most of the metrics the airlines care about (which are mostly cost based) the A320 family is a tiny bit better. Better fuel economy, easier maintenance, faster turnaround, etc, all by a narrow margin but measurably so. Plus a lot of people prefer side stick and fly by wire ( I don't but I'm not most people). They're both good airplanes and both have their fans, the A320 is just a bit better by the numbers.

[@francescoavila6960]

Landing there is so hard it's accomplished 200 times 0:35 a day and there has never been a life lost..PSA 182 doesn't count

[@davidrutherford9633]

How do you know that the Airbus is better than the 747. You sound like you are on the anti Boeing bandwagon and talking stuff you do not really know except from the other you'tube experts

[@EricaCalman]

Not at all, I think the 777 and 787 are leagues above the a330 and a350, and the 738-700/800/900 are thoroughly decent airplanes they just aren’t AS good as the A320 neo, and of course everybody knows why the max is trash.

[@EM-od6gu]

San Diego is Americas Kai Tak lol

[@datainmotion]

"I fly flight simulator, so I'm an expert".

[@EricaCalman]

@@datainmotion never said I was. whether something is “hard” is a bit subjective but as far as I can tell nothing I said is factually inaccurate (except for narration errors corrected by onscreen text)

[@byronjaffe518]

Not really that more difficult then any airport

[@EricaCalman]

In good weather it’s a minor challenge due to the 3.5 degree glide slope, in bad weather it gets hard, although as GPS has gotten better it’s become easier. Stuff comes up though, like right now the RNAV Z is unavailable due to construction.

[@ChuckDizzle04]

That is not how you pronounce the word cyan haha

[@EricaCalman]

Oh did I say Kay-yan lol?

[@ChuckDizzle04]

@@EricaCalman yeah like the pepper so I was like wait what?? haha

[@davemail]

Cyan Pepper 😅

[@davidrutherford9633]

Just remember the hood folks in San Diego continue to vote down all new airport at San in their elections. And it was the San Diego city government that allowed the building in the runway path to be built in the first place.

[@EricaCalman]

Bruh they approved it in 1928 when San Diego was tiny, and there aren’t many votes on relocating cause where are you gonna put it?

[@Niteowlette]

​@@EricaCalmanexactly! Downtown San Diego has been there since the Spaniards landed, lol! Same with Burbank airport. The airport was there when nothing but orchards and farms surrounded the area.

[@dashriprock4308]

A great disservice. Too bad San Diego cannot use Miramar instead, but...coastal defense.

[@kg40025]

Not hard to fly at all.

[@peterferguson-mccardle1959]

Whilst Americans sometimes have the most annoying, boring voices, (certainly in this case) it must be said that the quality of the graphics on this are dire! But notwithstanding all of that, who would have allowed a city to expand right on the glide slope of an airport? Absolutely ridiculous!