Post

Conversation

Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
FAA banned parallel landings permanently, will be bad for SFO (max landings drop from 54>36/hr) Given the topography of SFO, we have 2 parallel runways 750’ apart. There was an accident at DCA last year, now the FAA is mandating staggered approaches :(
The media could not be played.
From
Sheel Mohnot
476.5K
Views
View quotes
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
The whole thing is dumb tbh - the incident at DCA happened at night, between a jet and a military helicopter. We’ve been doing parallel landings for 60 years at SFO without issue.
@SecDuffy
said the DCA crash set the course for him to reform the FAA. Regulatory overreach IMO
10K
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
Sec Duffy focused on stupid shit like this instead
Quote
Secretary Sean Duffy
@SecDuffy
The FAA is working on changing PBI’s airport code RIGHT NOW… the name change to Donald J. Trump International Airport already official!   Stay tuned 👀 @FAANews x.com/erictrump/stat…
17K
Allison Braley 🦊
@allisonbraley
Explain it like I'm 5... How does a jet smacking into a military craft on approach because it didn't see it lead to banning all parallel landings? ATC is controlling the landings on both, so there's no risk of not seeing it, right?
8.2K
Sheel Mohnot
@pitdesi
FAA’s logic is: visual separation as a safety mechanism failed catastrophically at DCA last year. We shouldn’t keep relying on it as the primary safeguard for flights… so staggered landings :(
7.3K
Zachary Kimball
@zacharykimball
Unfortunately the impact will be even larger than this suggests. SFO relies on parallel *landings* on one set of rwys in order to coordinate parallel *takeoffs* on the other set. So this ban has huge ripple effects. With TCAS, the rule seems excessive. Esp in VMC.
1.2K
dopefish
@dopefish224
There was some great ATC audio of this guy that wanted the ILS at SFO in the middle of the day. The controller was like "uhhh, i mean if you want to hold for a bit I can, like, try to sequence that"
627
Dane R Willette 🇺🇦
@DaneWillette
So because Duffy and Rs can't run an agency or keep a government open and well staffed, they're just going to make air travel worse? I think we need to bring him back
Image
533
Worm Runner
@_WormRunner_
This is good, there have been many close calls with these sorts of approaches, another midair is now much less likely because of this
407
Alexander Lacherbauer
@lacherbauer
Quote
Alexander Lacherbauer
@lacherbauer
SFO needs real expansion, no more stopgaps. Relocating and extending the runways is necessary for proper separation and to boost airfield capacity. We need to ignore the environmentalists and obstructionists. We have to stop being afraid to build and start prioritizing progress. x.com/Flighty/status…
Image
50
romes
@JGintheflesh
This will result in a loss of system efficiency and the airlines are foo g to be up our asses for not pushing the arrival rates. The airlines bottom lines will be affected and there will be delays to the system. Albeit small but they can domino
786
Liam
@pseudocrazy
This administration is having the FAA disrupt airports in blue cities/states as much as possible and then will blame the blue mayors/governors of these states for the delays. The airports should push back and sue the FAA. Parallel landings were allowed up until now. What is the
668
Michael Perozziello
@MichaelPerozzi1
There was an accident at DCA…but there are not parallel runways there. In DC area, only IAD (1/19) has parallels (BWI does too, sort of. The parallel is a GA runway-15/33). DCA accident was a mid-air between mil helo and a/c..but had nothing to do with parallel runways.
10
Heshie Brody
@heshie
what’s your take on the ATC should be automated? I haven’t done enough research on the topic, but I’m curious if you have since it makes a lot of sense to me since there’s so much to track at a time
423
CDR Michael G. Brattland, USN (Ret.)
@mgbrattland1
Bad decision considering the successful history on this specific procedure which has nothing to do with the conflict between IFR landing traffic and another aircraft flying through the control zone on a FAA approved route which might have been off altitude and did not see and
422
MJ
@YoshkaMJ
Good thing we have the San Francisco Bay Oakland international airport to pick up the load
1.3K
Roger
@Roger_ClaySvcs
I have one concern with staggering approaches…… wake turbulence…. In approaches where the wind is anywhere from 15° to 45° off the runway alignment, the wake from one aircraft can drift into the path of another when you’re low and slow-the worst timing.
619
Kumar🇺🇸
@datarade
@grok
do an analysis on Sheel's airplane FAA insight and as well plz analyse Austin, Houston, Dallas, NYC, and Miami/Fort lauderdale airports and give me a breakdown of the impact to each.
2K
Nils Bunger
@NilsBunger
It’s gonna be bad for us passengers. But there were really unsafe practices related to this like denying inbound flights an ILS approach even at night. We avoided a massive disaster in 2017 because of visual approaches at night by the skin of our teeth.
963
Кеvin Mc 🇺🇸 🇺🇦 🇮🇱
@pacgator77
Doesn't seem like it'd cost that much time for a 60 second stagger between landings. If the lead plane experiences a problem and winds up veering into the parallel runway, having a second plane in landing mode seems not worth the risk.
379
Лаика Союз
@LaikaSoyuz
RNAV Z approaches that tie to the final fix on the arrival. Control speeds from each side & I bet the result is as efficient as the simultaneous parallels. SFO does the most last second vectoring & runway changes I’ve ever dealt with. Right up there with DEN. Hate both airports
362
LZ Seishi🇭🇰😈
@LzSeishi
Is there no cost-befit calculated on this as part of the decision? Even a fake one?
2
Rachel Keuler
@rkeuler
But this is one of the coolest things about landing at SFO! It’s wild watching another plane land parallel to yours at the same time from your little window.
476
Trent Harvey
@TheTrentHarvey
Permanently is a long time and potentially a misrepresentation. They implemented a Safety Measure alongside some runway construction. They could easily remove the measure after some more evaluation, after the runway construction ends, or when controller staffing improves.
1K