Folks,
The KSFO operations are justified by long demonstration of successful operation, around 60 years?? I would think that the KSFO simultaneous arrivals and departures on intersecting runways would give some people the willies.

Indeed, all these operations were established long before naysayers could think up all sorts justifications as to why things can't be done.

KSFO is by no means the only US airport with relatively close spaced runway operations, you just get on with it.

Probably a good example of the US "Can do" spirit, versus the more recent spirit of "can't do" elsewhere. A very practical approach to ATC aircraft handling is characteristic of the US, as opposed to the "can't do" theoretical approach more common in large parts of the world.

For Australian readers, not long after WWII, an Australian National Airlines (ANA) DC-4 hit trees on a departure on 28s, going out through the "Gap", not adhering closely enough to the track based on the GAP NDB, and arrived back on the ground with a bit of pine tree lodged in the LE of the wing, between two engines. Some few years later, a BCPA (British Commonwealth Pacific Airways) on arrival for 28s, hit the ridge quite close to Woodside, Half Moon Bay from memory. Shortly thereafter, QANTAS took over the route.



An equal rights demonstration at work --- giving GA such access in Australia would be anathema to "professional" pilots.

pattern is full. Okay, in that image, but in the video, the ac appear almost parallel?

I was just under the impression at there was a minimum sep...and closely space parallel are considered a single runway for spacing?

underfire,
Certainly, in this case, and other I know in US, the answer is no. On a visual approach ATC is not providing separation.
If it becomes IMC, movement rates, of course, drop, and the whole exercise becomes a tad more complicated, but still always works well.
Given considerable disparity in approach Vref. speeds and actual profiles, it is common to overtake or be overtaken.
Have a look at the lateral spacing of the runways at KLAX, and it is operationally possible to have aircraft in parallel on approach on all four runways. If you want to find a case of seriously "up close and personal" try John Wayne International, although the length of one runway does limit the size of aircraft using it.

SFO uses the PRM approaches only when the weather is in the 1200 / 2 vicinity and slightly above. This corresponds to the minimums for the LDA-PRM 28R approach. Significantly better ceiling and vis (that is to say 85 percent of the time) will get you vectors for the parallel visuals described in previous posts, whereas weather below that value will be below minimums for the LDA-PRM 28R approach and turn the operation into non-PRM (staggered) parallel CAT 3 ILS approaches.

Been flying in there very regularly (widebody) for a few years and hardly ever see the PRM procedure, can count the number of times on one hand. The dependent visuals where they precisely time your base leg vector to point you RIGHT at the guy you are following so you CAN'T POSSIBLY miss him, are the standard and a lot of fun.

SFO becomes much more sporty right before a cold frontal passage when the winds crank out of the southwest at 35+ knots off the hills, and you land into them on the 19's.

And regarding GA in the USA, I learned to fly in the Bay Area many moons ago, and used to take adventurous students into SFO to do night touch and goes around 2AM when the traffic load was light. In the world prior to high-speed Internet and LiveATC, they could only collect the landing fee if you stopped, you see.

The sportiest time I've had out of SFO was taking off on 19L. Some of the worst turbulence I've ever had the pleasure of being PF for. Aiming straight at some very big hills I couldn't see. 28L/R arrivals are a complete doddle compared to that

Get with the program, Leddie. The "tiddler" I was referring to was a 737. :rolleyes:

BTW, what was the message in your gibberish about "28s"? :confused:

Dont get me wrong, I see how it can work very well, I just see all of the places where the CSPR procedures are such an issue with all of the separation criteria. (the cant do as mentioned)

I cant remember, but at SFO, is it the PRM right approach offset 15 degrees?

The LDA-PRM 28R is actually only 3 degrees off from the runway heading, but physically offset from the centerline so that it guides you to a point about 1000 feet to the right of the runway, on about a 4 mile dog-leg final. The final maneuvering portion is visual and feels pretty similar to the last minute "sidestep to 28L" landing that you may get off a visual approach from time to time. Just look out the window, remember your non-moving point aiming technique, mind your speed, and land.

Bloggs,
Clearly, only a person of your of your limited comprehension would have a problem with my comments.

back to Boeing,
Mercifully, very rare, because when the wind required it, the turbulence was guaranteed. In the good old B707, it was a serious test of manhandling muscle, if I may use such a politically incorrect term.

On a par with a 30kt+ NW at NZWN, for those who have had the "pleasure".

Visual procedure, separation minimum is don't hit the other guy...