• syd
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago
    edit-2
    10 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Is this standard procedure or an emergency situation?

    OMG I wasn’t expecting this much answers! Thank you all 🙏

    • Hayduke
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      edit-2
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

      • WrenEnglish
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        10 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        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

    • Trollception
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      edit-2
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

      • someguy3English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago
        link
        fedilink

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

    • Old_Dude
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Looks like San Francisco. There are two main runways there, this is common. I think it’s just time and chance to land at the same exact moment like this.

      • Phillip J Phry
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        10 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        SFO was my first thought too. It’s usually not quite this well timed in my experience; this is still a cool shot to catch.

    • Luckybuck
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

    • Dave
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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.

      • Eylrid
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        10 months ago
        link
        fedilink

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

    • protistEnglish
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      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

    • OrekiWoof
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      It looks dangerously close due to the camera lens.

      In reality it wasn’t.

    • rockSlayer
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago
      edit-2
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      My thoughts too. I figured that the FAA would prevent this from happening for any reason except emergencies

      Edit: c’mon folks, I’m not asserting that this is an emergency or that this is against regulations. I thought it was, but if this is a normal landing then it’s simply a surprise to me that it happens.

    • Jo Miran
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      10 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      That has to be an emergency. I can’t see how any pilot would risk it unless they had to.

      • someguy3English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        10 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        The runways are probably 300 m apart.

        • Jo Miran
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Ah, so it’s perspective trickery. Still scary AF to watch.