FAA Restricts SFO Landings

New FAA landing restrictions at San Francisco International Airport will cut arrival capacity by one-third.

Shutterstock [Sundry Photography]
Gemini Sparkle

Key Takeaways:

  • The FAA has implemented new landing restrictions at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) due to safety concerns, coinciding with an ongoing runway repaving project.
  • These changes, including a permanent ban on simultaneous "side-by-side" landings on closely spaced parallel runways, will reduce SFO's arrival capacity by one-third, from 54 to 36 flights per hour.
  • The FAA stated that previous visual separation procedures, which allowed for efficient landings, no longer meet current safety standards, necessitating staggered approaches and increased separation between aircraft.
  • The restrictions are expected to significantly increase delays and disproportionately impact major carriers at SFO, such as United Airlines and Alaska Airlines.
See a mistake? Contact us.

The Federal Aviation Administration has imposed new landing restrictions at San Francisco International Airport, a move expected to reduce arrival capacity and increase delays in the coming months.

The changes, announced Tuesday, are tied to safety concerns and come as a major runway repaving project is already underway, according to Reuters. Together, the factors will cut SFO’s arrival rate from 54 flights per hour to 36, or about a one-third reduction.

At the center of the new policy is a permanent ban on “side-by-side” simultaneous landings on the airport’s closely spaced parallel runways, even in clear weather. Instead, the FAA said it will require staggered approaches, increasing separation between aircraft.

SFO’s parallel runways are spaced about 750 feet apart and have long relied on visual separation procedures to maintain efficiency. The FAA said those procedures no longer meet current safety standards.

United Airlines and Alaska Airlines are expected to feel the greatest impact, as they make up a significant share of traffic at the airport.

The FAA said the decision follows recent safety reviews and broader concerns about aircraft separation, including incidents involving close proximity between aircraft and helicopters near major airports.

Amelia Walsh

Amelia Walsh is a private pilot who enjoys flying her family’s Columbia 350. She is based in Colorado and loves all things outdoors including skiing, hiking, and camping.

Continue discussion - Visit the forum

Replies: 4

  1. I don’t know…just seems strange that the photo accompanying this article on new landing restrictions at SFO would show two aircraft TAKING OFF. I suppose the number of take offs would also be impacted by the landings reduction (can’t take off if you haven’t landed first), but still.

  2. I’ve been operating close parallel visuals into SFO for nearly three decades, always enjoyed the view. The only issues occur when someone forgets to disable RA advisories by switching their TCAS mode selector switch to “TA only;” physically or mentally.
    Unless California suddenly develops the political will to build runways into the Bay (they won’t), this will cripple SFO and drive more traffic to OAK and SJC.

  3. I flew smaller jets and turboprops into SFO for 30 years using the side by side 28 visuals. You wanted to either be virtually right next to the other plane or 5 miles back because the middle ground was wake turbulence territory. I would not want to be staggered 1-2 miles behind a large jet, especially if I’m the one landing on 28L because the prevailing wind is frequently from the north or northwest. Unintended consequences ofthe new policy?

  4. Avatar for cri1 cri1 says:

    Ha, you’re funny Piper Dude. Just like the short hand comm language and the world of acronyms we live in, the aviation world assumes those in the community are above average intelligence. Landing fees, landing restrictions are inclusive of and cover all use, landing, taxi, take off, ground crew etc. landing restrictions in one fell swoop limits/controls overall operations so they can accomplish the repaving. I believe once the field MX is completed it will return to normal.
    Lynx 211 is correct, spacing is important. I’m sure that’s be accounted for, at least I’d hope.

Sign-up for newsletters & special offers!

Get the latest stories & special offers delivered directly to your inbox

SUBSCRIBE

Please support AVweb.

It looks like you’re using an ad blocker. Ads keep AVweb free and fund our reporting.
Please whitelist AVweb or continue with ads enabled.