this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
375 points (96.5% liked)

Mildly Interesting

17477 readers
459 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] syd@lemy.lol 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (10 children)

Is this standard procedure or an emergency situation?

OMG I wasn't expecting this much answers! Thank you all ๐Ÿ™

[โ€“] Hayduke@lemmy.world 47 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

SOP (like 99% sure). Many airports have parallel runways with more than enough clearance for two simultaneous landings. I have been a passenger in this scenario at least four times that I can think of, and I don't fly that much. I think those were in Denver, SFO and LAX. I don't recall there being any situation that would be considered an emergency on any of those.

[โ€“] wren@sopuli.xyz 5 points 11 months ago

Yeah, this is SFO and these runways are 750 ft / 230 m apart. Definitely not a lot of room for error, but the telephoto zoom makes this look a lot closer than it really is

[โ€“] Trollception@lemmy.world 31 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The runways are likely pretty far apart. Telephoto lenses compress depth and make objects appear closer to each other. It's why telephoto lenses are used for portraits to make facial features look more attractive and with slightly less depth.

[โ€“] someguy3@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well you use 50 mm (in the old system) because that was considered the "correct" perspective. Less would give you the fisheye lense distortion.

[โ€“] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[โ€“] jelloeater85@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

50 on a 35 with some 800 in the back... โค๏ธโค๏ธโค๏ธ

[โ€“] Luckybuck@ttrpg.network 15 points 11 months ago

So the Alaska is a e175 which is about 70 people vs the United which is about 170 people. It looks close because of the angle and some camera tricks. Landing on parallel runways happens all the time.

They are called Precission radar monitoring approaches and they start doing them when things get super congested. Requires us to listen to another radio so atc can tell us to break-out if someone crosses the no go zone in between the runways.

[โ€“] Dave@lemmy.nz 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I've done this (sitting in a passenger seat), it's normal. This video is a bit of an optical illusion, the planes are nowhere near as close as they look.

There are certain airports where it's standard procedure.

[โ€“] Eylrid@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

Landing an airplane from a passenger seat takes mad skill! Respect!

[โ€“] protist@mander.xyz 4 points 11 months ago

Likely just an issue with the perspective of the video, I bet these planes have plenty distance between them if you were to see them from the front

[โ€“] OrekiWoof@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

It looks dangerously close due to the camera lens.

In reality it wasn't.

[โ€“] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 1 points 11 months ago

Captain Joe has a good video on PRM and SOIA approaches.

[โ€“] wren@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Not necessarily standard, but not likely an emergency. Loads of places have the setup required for parallel landings / takeoffs, it's just usually more efficient to have them alternating

Here's a list of the places that have parallel runways (bottom of the page)