Oh SFO tower

Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Do your airlines have a threat-plan-consideration model for briefing? Or some very close variation?


I don't see how ya can't anticipate - and plan for - a runway change (especially one that is the same runway other side, eg SFO 28L and 28R, SEA 16L and 16C).
Click to expand...

I bet you could come up with a scenario where a runway change could cause more than a 2 minute delay if you thought really hard about it.
 
zmiller4 said:
I bet you could come up with a scenario where a runway change could cause more than a 2 minute delay if you thought really hard about it.
Click to expand...
That’s easy. Sometimes it’s faster to taxi to the runway which is further away than to change on the fly (ha!) and have to redo everything.
 
I’m curious to hear what @ChasenSFO thinks about both the SFO thing and the SQL thing.

I love SFO, because according to the 7110.65, AIM, all the airport design rules about the parallel runways being closer than 4500 ft, etc, it shouldn’t be able to handle the traffic that it does. It gets away with it through converging simultaneous charted visual approaches that rely on the pilots accepting visual separation with the traffic to the parallel before getting too close, local controller telling you “don’t pass the guy on final for the parallel”, local blasting off departures side by side on 1L/1R basically in formation (but it’s ok because the 7110.65 says you can do it if they’re turning away from each other and diverging by more than X degrees) while two other airliners are on short final in formation for the 28s. It’s awesome, but it only works because the “localisms” and exceptions to rules are letting them get away with making an airport handle twice the amount of traffic it’s technically designed to handle, at least on paper. Really they should have built another parallel runway out in the bay on fill greater than 4500 ft away, but the are wouldn’t allow it so they make do with what they’ve got. Like touching the brakes and coming to a stop at O’Hare if you can’t get a word in on ground, all it takes is for someone to refuse a visual separation or not get the bridges and the airport in sight or for the weather to turn IMC and their traffic capacity basically gets cut in half.

As far as treating 28L and 28R as interchangeable departure runways during west flow, that’s a localism that’s based on them not knowing which arrival runway will have a a bigger hole on final they can slot you in and they decide at the last possible moment. If they just dedicated one runway to arrivals and one to departures it would become more predictable, but by smearing them across both they probably eek out more capacity. If finding out your departure runway at the last possible second is not conducive to 121 ops, it’ll probably take ASAPs and meetings between the airlines and the facility to come up with a better system. But keeping in mind that their localisms are what keeps the airport capacity as high as it is, and airlines benefit from higher capacity and on time departures, I’m a bit suspicious that some of your companies (especially the ones with big SFO bases) aren’t slightly biased to maintain the status quo. :)

As for SQL, it’s a contract tower. Big-ish airplanes operating off a comparably tiny runway. Close proximity to SFO complicates the class D airspace and where to put all the traffic. The place has a ton of local procedures that aren’t written down anywhere official. Besides the “Diamond shaped waterway” noise abatement departure, they didn’t even used to have official TEC routes. I took a tower tour there ~15 years ago and found the coveted unofficial TEC/preferred IFR routes laminated into the table (they weren’t published in the AF/D yet) and the consensus at the time was there was no way to know them unless you were locally based and had the tribal knowledge. Finally, as far as I know there’s STILL no way to legally depart IFR off runway 30. There’s an obstacle departure procedure off Rwy 12 but Rwy 30 is NA. Therefore they do an unofficial / uncharted hybrid VFR to IFR departure off Rwy 30, that’s given verbally by the controller. The local pilots association charted it with heavy caveats:

You don’t depart IFR. You are VFR until crossing the OAK R-165 on right downwind, and I think you receive your actual IFR clearance from Norcal departure on downwind (those in the know correct me if I’m wrong).

Edit: Hoo boy, after listening to that twin Cessna thing all the way through it’s clear he just punched direct to KBFL into ForeFlight and expected the controllers to tell him what to do. Pretty shocked he didn’t bust the bravo on the way out. Oh well rich people gonna do rich people things, at least he was apologetic.
 
Last edited:
zmiller4 said:
I’m sorry you’ll never make it to your dream airline, but you don’t need to spam the forums with non-event atc tapes.
Click to expand...

I get that people like to dish on CC, but why make it personal? I very often do not agree with him, and it hurts when he says transphobic or homophobic things, but even so he rarely makes it personal, and then only after extreme provocation. (Most of the provocation he gets he ignores...)

Boris Badenov said:
Obviously one considers the possibility. That's not company-dependent. You're not any smarter, institutionally, than anyone else. But I'm still mystified as to how the runway being "similar" makes the runway change any less (or more) complex. Like, what changes (about the changes), whether it's going from 28R to 28L or going from 28R to 36, which is, let's say, 3000ft shorter?
Click to expand...

At my old airline, in my old plane? 3000' shorter might mean takeoff 1 versus takeoff 2, different flex temp / target n1, flaps 4 versus flaps 2, all of which are major configuration changes that can cause the takeoff config to dump if the plane is feeling ornery. Different heading bug setting, likely a different departure transition, possibly a different departure frequency. Also different headwind/crosswind/tailwind components to consider.

It also will typically involve enough time to make and brief those changes or, if able, to just set the brake and reconfigure.
Same runway, same direction, same length (ish, 11,870 vs 11,381), nearly the same EFP, almost certainly the same flex temp/flap setting/windshear. Obviously everything is going to be verified, salient points touched on, and appropriate checklists run with due care, but that's the difference. Again, my old plane, my old op.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Obviously one considers the possibility. That's not company-dependent. You're not any smarter, institutionally, than anyone else. But I'm still mystified as to how the runway being "similar" makes the runway change any less (or more) complex. Like, what changes (about the changes), whether it's going from 28R to 28L or going from 28R to 36, which is, let's say, 3000ft shorter? All of the monkey-motion is the same. Pull the numbers out of the ACARS, put them in the box. Verify the numbers. Brief the runway and the departure, run the checklist. Someone up above mentioned something like "well, you don't have to move the heading bug (much)!" Ok, good call, we just saved half a second. What am I missing? Every runway is discrete, whether they're right next to each other and exactly the same length, or across the field, pointed in a totally different direction, and radically different in length.

I mean maybe in the charter days it would have made a difference for me (although I wonder whether that would even still be true). Like we could have said "we have the performance for the short one, we can obviously take the long one that goes in the same direction and has the same winds", esp. since we were radar power every time. But with de-rated power and runway-dependent SIDs, I just cannot workout exactly what you're pointing at when you suggest that they "should have been faster" because they were told to maybe expect a runway change. It takes how long it takes.
Click to expand...

Because on the 737, a lot more things will require changing.

28L to 28R, heading and courses can stay at 284 deg. Flaps will stay the same (5 usually for us). Accel height most likely the same. EO SID the same - already briefed.

But a change from 28L to 01L at SFO? EVERYTHING will change. Heading and courses from 284 to 014. Flaps will change, probably a flaps 10-25 takeoff. EO SID - entirely different, requires new briefing. First fix will change. SID might change too, along with altitude. The FOs hand will be spinning a lot more dials now with this runway change.


There's a HUGE difference. A change from 28L to 28R and 16L to 16C is far, far easier than a different runway number change (eg, switching now to 34s at SEA or 01L at SFO).



At SFO, I've never gotten a taxi to 28R via C. That seems to be a widebody thing. As a narrowbody 320/737, I've always only gotten F to 28L, and then been changed to 28R. My standard at SFO in this configuration is to brief 28L. As a threat and consideration, I say potential change to 28R. IF so, looks like the following stay the same: heading, course, first fix same, SID top altitude, flaps, accel heights, and EO SID the same. The differences look like Vspeeds slighty different and potentially a different stab trim setting. You change, execute, accept speeds, and then we'll verify together. You good with that? I have yet to have a FO with a problem with that.

I have a visual verification myself. Starts at MCP right to left, altitude, heading, V2, and both courses - all set. PFD baro accel height set both sides to new runway. Leg page, verify new runway and first fix, then N1 page and takeoff to make sure speeds and flaps good, set, and stab trim setting set. Done.
 
OK let's walk through this, step by step. ATC says "Hey clowns, you're not launching from 28R, you're launching from 28L because hahahaha screw you". They're the same length. It's like 50ft to taxi over to the other one. Here's what happens, where I work.

1) The Captain says "(*$#(*$$#"
2) I acknowledge the transmission
3) I punch up the performance on ACARS. Maybe I already did that because the ATIS told me to on minute 4. That saves possibly 20 seconds, max.
4) *BING* the performance comes up.
5) *BING* the performance gets auto-loaded in to the FMS. I hit "accept". Or it doesn't, and I re-enter the runway/intersection in to the runway field and 95% likely it auto-loads.
6) I print the performance
7) The Captain reads off the numbers from the (old) load manifest and (new) performance, I verify them in the FMS
8) The PF briefs the new runway, new departure, new engine-out, and new performance information. PNF verifies *those*. This is going to take a minute (or two, or more), because there's *no reason* to assume that the departure is the same. It probably isn't.
9) Everyone takes a couple of seconds to make sure they're not missing anything
10) "Runway/performance change checklist".
11) "Before takeoff checklist"

These are EXACTLY the same steps we would take in any runway or performance change circumstance. Send us across the airport, or make us take off from the same runway, but from an intersection that's 20ft shorter, makes no difference.

How is it different where you work?
 
At best you’ve loaded 28R in the secondary flight plan and load it with a couple of key pushes, but I’m still going to have to re run a checklist and also verify that all the points are correct on the rnav departure. If it were me I’d make sure that we had the same flap setting numbers for both runways. Best case scenario it’s a lot of button pushing and heads down when you shouldn’t be.
 
Boris Badenov said:
OK let's walk through this, step by step. ATC says "Hey clowns, you're not launching from 28R, you're launching from 28L because hahahaha screw you". They're the same length. It's like 50ft to taxi over to the other one. Here's what happens, where I work.

1) The Captain says "(*$#(*$$#"
2) I acknowledge the transmission
3) I punch up the performance on ACARS. Maybe I already did that because the ATIS told me to on minute 4. That saves possibly 20 seconds, max.
4) *BING* the performance comes up.
5) *BING* the performance gets auto-loaded in to the FMS. I hit "accept". Or it doesn't, and I re-enter the runway/intersection in to the runway field and 95% likely it auto-loads.
6) I print the performance
7) The Captain reads off the numbers from the (old) load manifest and (new) performance, I verify them in the FMS
8) The PF briefs the new runway, new departure, new engine-out, and new performance information. PNF verifies *those*. This is going to take a minute (or two, or more), because there's *no reason* to assume that the departure is the same. It probably isn't.
9) Everyone takes a couple of seconds to make sure they're not missing anything
10) "Runway/performance change checklist".
11) "Before takeoff checklist"

These are EXACTLY the same steps we would take in any runway or performance change circumstance. Send us across the airport, or make us take off from the same runway, but from an intersection that's 20ft shorter, makes no difference.

How is it different where you work?
Click to expand...
As a non-121 guy, that description kind of matches my preconceived notion. I would think you would have to re-check *everything*, and I would think that that is the big time suck. If all the *stuff* turns out to be mostly the same as the original runway you'll save a little bit of time not changing those items, but it all still all has to be checked and verified, doesn't it?

I'm having a difficult time picturing doing a brief while still in the chocks where you cover all the details of departing from either runway, including what stays the same, and what items change. Way, way too many ways for that to go tango uniform I would think.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Good times, 21st century, good times. I'd say it's all downhill from here!
Click to expand...
It's been downhill from here since the 1980s - at least.

It just seems faster now 'cause the snowball is bigger... and closer - if one lacks perspective to give sense of scale. History lessons can help with that math and art.
 
Last edited:
…..lots of words about how a runway change is done at different shops….
Click to expand...

All well and good. Do what you need to do, just do it off the runway.

That’s the crux of the issue here, on both ends of the equation. None of this situation would’ve been an issue if both ends of the equation followed this.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
@form810 yes, on the 737 it's fairly simple.

Route page. 28L execute. N1. Takeoff page. Accept.

Done.

(Assuming you don't have to change the VNAV E/O Accel height, if you do, next page and enter the value).

Now it's just verifying time.

Heading, Alt, V2 on MCP,
Baro accel on PFD,
Flaps, stab trim, first fix in FMS.
Discuss E/O
Click to expand...
Thanks.

I'm really not to be argumentative here, but isn't MOST of that stuff included in briefing that the crew was supposed to have accomplished previously.

I mean, "brief both runways" means (to me anyway) have all that other stuff done for both sides and be ready to punch a runway into the box. All the other stuff kinda sorta probably maybe IS the BRIEF, yeah?
 
Boris Badenov said:
OK let's walk through this, step by step. ATC says "Hey clowns, you're not launching from 28R, you're launching from 28L because hahahaha screw you". They're the same length. It's like 50ft to taxi over to the other one. Here's what happens, where I work.

1) The Captain says "(*$#(*$$#"
2) I acknowledge the transmission
3) I punch up the performance on ACARS. Maybe I already did that because the ATIS told me to on minute 4. That saves possibly 20 seconds, max.
4) *BING* the performance comes up.
5) *BING* the performance gets auto-loaded in to the FMS. I hit "accept". Or it doesn't, and I re-enter the runway/intersection in to the runway field and 95% likely it auto-loads.
6) I print the performance
7) The Captain reads off the numbers from the (old) load manifest and (new) performance, I verify them in the FMS
8) The PF briefs the new runway, new departure, new engine-out, and new performance information. PNF verifies *those*. This is going to take a minute (or two, or more), because there's *no reason* to assume that the departure is the same. It probably isn't.
9) Everyone takes a couple of seconds to make sure they're not missing anything
10) "Runway/performance change checklist".
11) "Before takeoff checklist"

These are EXACTLY the same steps we would take in any runway or performance change circumstance. Send us across the airport, or make us take off from the same runway, but from an intersection that's 20ft shorter, makes no difference.

How is it different where you work?
Click to expand...


Our data is preloaded. If you left with 28R and now get 28L:

Enter 28L on the route page and execute, the performance data is already loaded in the box too, just hit N1 page, go to takeoff, and hit “accept.”

It makes for a quicker operation.

We aren’t waiting for ACARs to come back with data.
 
Boris Badenov said:
OK let's walk through this, step by step. ATC says "Hey clowns, you're not launching from 28R, you're launching from 28L because hahahaha screw you". They're the same length. It's like 50ft to taxi over to the other one. Here's what happens, where I work.

1) The Captain says "(*$#(*$$#"
2) I acknowledge the transmission
3) I punch up the performance on ACARS. Maybe I already did that because the ATIS told me to on minute 4. That saves possibly 20 seconds, max.
4) *BING* the performance comes up.
5) *BING* the performance gets auto-loaded in to the FMS. I hit "accept". Or it doesn't, and I re-enter the runway/intersection in to the runway field and 95% likely it auto-loads.
6) I print the performance
7) The Captain reads off the numbers from the (old) load manifest and (new) performance, I verify them in the FMS
8) The PF briefs the new runway, new departure, new engine-out, and new performance information. PNF verifies *those*. This is going to take a minute (or two, or more), because there's *no reason* to assume that the departure is the same. It probably isn't.
9) Everyone takes a couple of seconds to make sure they're not missing anything
10) "Runway/performance change checklist".
11) "Before takeoff checklist"

These are EXACTLY the same steps we would take in any runway or performance change circumstance. Send us across the airport, or make us take off from the same runway, but from an intersection that's 20ft shorter, makes no difference.

How is it different where you work?
Click to expand...
That all makes perfect sense if that is your procedure. I'm not judging the procedure. I'm just trying to point out that most of what you've just enumerated was supposed to have been previously briefed. Isn't that what "BRIEF BOTH RUNWAYS" means? Sorta the civvy version of Ready 5 or Ready 15?

Ok, now to judge the procedure. Wow! You guys at the airlines need MUCH smarter boxes. Have you considered "The Box" V2.0? It rocks.
 
form810 said:
That all makes perfect sense if that your procedure. I'm not judging the procedure. Still, I think the difference here is that most of what you've just indicated was supposed to have been previously briefed. Isn't that what "BRIEF BOTH RUNWAYS" means?
Click to expand...
In this case I am ignoring that particular instruction. I will be PREPARED for a runway change. We will talk about the possibility of a runway, and get performance for that runway. But if there's two different sets of engine out procedures, I want in my head the most recent one discussed. I don't want to have to think if it's a left or right turn. Basically it comes down to being on the same page with your crewmember.
 
ASpilot2be said:
In this case I am ignoring that particular instruction. I will be PREPARED for a runway change. We will talk about the possibility of a runway, and get performance for that runway. But if there's two different sets of engine out procedures, I want in my head the most recent one discussed. I don't want to have to think if it's a left or right turn. Basically it comes down to being on the same page with your crewmember.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. If it is not possible for airline crews to actually pre-brief more than one take off runway at a time, then instead of us debating this here, I think the airline unions should get on this with the FAA, render this request unavailable to ATC, and allow all the airline pilots to live happily ever after with phat stacks.

As an aside, when they sneak stuff like this into the, er, "remarks" section of an ATIS, does that render this information an instruction, an advisory, or a NOTAM?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top