"Maintain visual separation - But don't turn away from a conflicting plane!"

[fleckenmann]

This is how it is done under common ICAO rules almost everywhere else except the FAA Cowboycountries

[Evan]

Actually, I have more concerns with that Tower controller than with the pilot. And more concerns with the SYSTEM at SFO than with any particular person operating in that system, be it ATC or pilot.

Regarding the tower controller:

TWR: United 1603, turn left at Delta
UA1603: We'll turn off on Tango, we are not going to make Delta
TWR: Delta is past Tango

No, it is not. Not if you just landed on 28L. Tango is a diagonal taxiway that crosses Delta at about the right runway edge line of 28L. So you land in 28R, Delta is past Tango, but if you land on 28L as UA1603 did, Tango is past Delta.

TWR: Air Canada 765, at Tango cross RWY 28L
AC765: At Tango cross 28L
TWR: Air Canada get of the runway! Hawaiian 12 heavy go around
TWR Air Canada 765, next time you need to exit the runway Is there a reason why you didn't cross the hold-shot bars?
AC765: We were told to cross the runway but no further clearance. We had a tow coming towards and we didn't know if the tow was cleared to cross in front of us. That's why we stopped.
TWR: And you stopped but didn't ask anyone? The clearance was to cross which is to clear the hold bars as appropriate

Well, let's see, you just clear me to cross the runway, you don't tell me what you want me to do next, I am supposed to clear the bars but there is a tow coming that we don't know if they are cleared to cross in front of us and we don't want to crash with it. And, what else? Oh yes, did I mention that Tango bifurcates, correction, TRIFURCATES at the hold short line, and none of these 3 lines is Tango? Which of the 3 lines was I supposed to follow while clearing the hold-short line? Any of the three and I would have violated my taxi clearance.

But no, AC765 very smartly ends the discussion there with just a "Roger that"

Both pilots were smart in not engaging in discussions with ATC when "provoked".

This was the approach controller, not TWR, but...

After UA turns back to the original "downwind" and advises the controller...
APP: United 1603, climb and maintain 5000. If you need like a 12 miles final you need to let me know before I turn your base

That's not what I said. I don't need a 12-miles final, I just need you not to turn me directly into another plane that is flying the parallel and that, if we are lucky, our wingtips will end up just a few 100's ft one form the other.

But no, United just said "Ok, climb and maintain 5000".

Going to the SFO system...

28L and 28R are just 750 ft away. The wingspan of a 737 (or 1/2 wingspan times 2, one 1/2 for each plane) is about 120 ft, so you have just 630 ft from wingtip to wingtip. That's not a lot when approaching at 140 kts, and even less with bigger planes. And ATS loves to put planes as much next to each other as the manage to, because in this way they have more window to clear take offs on the intersecting runways. 28L and 28R also have the thresholds exactly next to each other (no staggering), so having 2 planes next to each other in parallel approaches also mean that they will be at the same altitude. That triggers a lot of TCAS RA's that end up in go arounds. Some companies opted to instruct pilots to select TCAS TA-only mode when operating visual parallel approaches in SFO. Others instruct to keep RA's armed, the logic being that if you get traffic alert in short final that's not the best moment to evaluate and decide if it is coming from the plane next to you or from some other traffic of which you don't even know about. I once suggested that ATC should aim to keep a small staggering, even if just 0.5 miles (which is about 15 seconds) but was burned alive for how much that would affect operations and the airport capacity by delaying all take-offs for 15 seconds cumulative.

From what you’ve told us, I would agree that operations is setting up dangerous situations but when in need of clarity, I would expect the crew to query the tower immediately rather than stop on an active runway and say nothing. So I think this was a failure on everyone’s part.

I lived in San Fran for years and flew quite a bit into SFO, and quite often we would be lined up parallel to the arrival on the parallel runway during final. I also remember this at MSP but with greater lateral separation. The weather at SFO was often IMC from the daily fog layer and arrivals were restricted to a single runway, causing me to end up orbiting in some holding pattern on a few occasions. On one occasion, we were eventually diverted to Sacramento, only to discover that the airport lacked an airstairs large enough for a 757 and then the really bad news that the plane was out of booze. We had to refuel, take off and return to the same holding pattern before landing at SFO about two hours late.

So, yes, the design of the airport is a big problem (there was always talk of widening the runway separations, but it never went anywhere). And I’m sure this causes pressure on the controllers to instruct pilots to operate outside their comfort zone. I think it’s essential that pilots have the final authority in this case.

[bstolle]

If you perceive an unsafe situation, you are going to do what you need to keep your flight safe.

I think you (and others in this thread) are interpreting way too much into this dangerous/emergency' situation. I'm 100% that we aren't talking about the danger of a mid air collision.
IMO this danger existed at no point.
Usually you simply try to maintain a separation that's big enough to avoid a TCAS RA and you having to file a boring report after the landing/trip.

[bstolle]

Bernt: I have seen airliners approach 30 degrees of bank during landing maneuvers (at STL with our close parallel runways) so to Gabieee’s point maybe he couldn’t steepen the bank, but (to your point) I might have lessened the bank and told ATC I needed to aim a little behind the guy (and perhaps overshoot the centerline and come back and get everything done nice and pretty and stabilized without “punting” and messing up ATCs sequences.

Even 30° isn't a limit, you could increase the AOB to 45°, and/or climb/descend. Don't know about SFO, but on most airports with parallel runway ops, overshooting the centerline is the only really big no-no.

[fleckenmann]

AOB of 45 degrees in a commercial airliner ?? Ever flown in one ? SOP ever heard of ?

[3WE]

Don't know about SFO, but on most airports with parallel runway ops, overshooting the centerline is the only really big no-no.

Please explain.

WHAT I SEE IN THIS PARTICULAR CONTEXT is two planes getting “paired up” to parallel runways…one on final and the other coming in “on base” on a converging course WITH EVERYONE VISUAL.

Unitred felt he was pointing too closely at the plane on final…I’d think he could loosely fanagel himself slightly BEHIND the other plane as opposed to banking steeper and maybe losing sight…

Important bottom lines: I’m talking out my ass. I hear you loud and clear that it SEEMS like the guy had “room to maneuver” (including more flaps and slowing), just saying that the other planes are further out on final, giving him room to wiggle in, much like my STL TWE ATR guy got to do.

Obviously, crossing into the other final WITH A PLANE NEARBY IS A NONO. But if no one’s there, so what?

Appreciate the discussion.

[Evan]

Don't know about SFO, but on most airports with parallel runway ops, overshooting the centerline is the only really big no-no.

1603 still overshot the centerline by a wide margin but without parallel traffic.

[bstolle]

Obviously, crossing into the other final WITH A PLANE NEARBY IS A NONO. But if no one’s there, so what?

Simple reason, IF you do, you can expect to call a phone number and/or answer a written complaint from ATC concerning pilot deviation.