214 points

It’s an optical illusion. The planes aren’t really that close together. The person who shot the video is using a telephoto lens and is zoomed way in. This compresses the space and flattens it out so it’s hard to judge distance. Also the plane in front is smaller than the one in the back which heightens the illusion. It’s a really cool shot!

permalink
report
reply
51 points

Comparing the engine sizes or counting the windows really shows that the back plane is probably double the size of the front plane.

Cool illusion.

permalink
report
parent
reply
26 points

The one in back is a larger 737, the other is a smaller Embraer.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

This is what I came here for. Thank you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Definitely the windows, but recent planes have gone with huge turbines so it’s not the most reliable tell. I don’t know Airbus well but the turbines on a 737-800 or Mac are pretty big compared to a - 300 or A320

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Wait a minute, are you telling me that the hobbit actors weren’t really that small?

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

No they were, Peter Jackson just had his actor’s legs cut off for the movie

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Guy heard the stage expression “break a leg” and kept thinking about it for too long.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I mean, it’s rare enough that 2 planes land at the same time. They are definitely “close” but probably some 200m apart.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It’s not as rare as you may think. I used to work at a weather service office located right near the end of one of the runways at IAD and it would happen a few times a day if the airport was busy and the winds were such that they were coming in from our side.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Interesting. Thank you for correcting me. TIL

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points
*

Is this standard procedure or an emergency situation?

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

permalink
report
reply
48 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Gotta love the nifty fifty.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It looks dangerously close due to the camera lens.

In reality it wasn’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

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)

permalink
report
parent
reply
-6 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

The runways are probably 300 m apart.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Well, now I need to see commercial airplane drag racing.

permalink
report
reply
8 points

SFO

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I’m more concerned about thos birds flying around the airport.

permalink
report
reply

Mildly Interesting

!mildlyinteresting@lemmy.world

Create post

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.

Community stats

  • 2.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 530

    Posts

  • 12K

    Comments