Large Transport
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Confusion
ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Airport; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Manuals; Procedure
For at least the past year and maybe longer SFO has occasionally conducted 'parallel dependent ILS approaches to 28L and 28R' in certain weather conditions. During this same time they have not used the ILS/PRM 28L and LDA/PRM 28R approaches at all.According to the AIM; in order to conduct parallel dependent ILS approaches the runways have to be separated by at least 2;500 feet; unless the airport has obtained specific approval. The runways in SFO are separated by only 750 feet. It seems improbable that SFO got an FAA waiver to reduce the standard 2;500 feet all the way down to 750 feet. After all; the whole genesis of the PRM approaches in SFO (that they are apparently no longer using) came about because the close proximity of the runways prevented parallel instrument approaches of any kind; hence the offset LDA/PRM for 28R and the straight-in ILS/PRM for 28L.So did SFO get a waiver to do these parallel dependent ILS approaches to 28L and 28R? And if so; perhaps there should be something on the 10-7 page telling us about it. Furthermore; since this was about the only airport where we actually conducted PRM approaches (that they are apparently no longer using); maybe we can stop wasting training time and money doing the PRM thing every year in the simulator.If they didn't get a waiver; then what exactly is going on here?
A pilot reported questioning if SFO has a waiver (due to displaced landing threshold) to conduct parallel dependent ILS approaches.