Talk:San Diego International Airport

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro Edit[edit]

A quick look at this talk page will reveal the previous intro description of SDIA as "the busiest, most difficult single runway in the world" has met with some controversy over the way it may be interpreted by those without aviation expertise. I have, in the past, defended this description and its placement in the article intro. However, over time I have come to perceive some issues with it. Namely that it is, well, in all likelihood not true.

SDIA is not the busiest single runway in the world. Each of the runways at London Heathrow see more traffic per day than SDIA's, and as noted in the article both Mumbai Airport and London Gatwick are busier in passenger numbers. As for difficulty, SDIA does not have the steepest approach into a commercial airport in the world (both London City Airport and Aspen/Pitkin County Airport are steeper), a variety of airports have shorter landing areas, and several are more well known for challenging tailwinds (such as Madeira Airport). To be the busiest, most difficult single runway in the world sets an extremely high bar, one that veers into hyperbole. This not not helped by the source being an SD community planning group member with no aviation background, nor evidence of having surveyed airports worldwide before proclaiming SDIA as outdoing every other airport on the planet in busyness and difficulty.

But removing all mention of SDIA's landing approach from the intro, as others have suggested, would not be appropriate. It is one of the more distinctive features of the airport, and commonly mentioned in discussions about SDIA. I have attempted to edit the intro into a form which strays clear of dubious opinions and sticks closer to citable facts for which SDIA's landing approach is well known for.Voteins (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claims about the airport challenges[edit]

There are editorial claims made in the description of the airport that should be removed. The claim is based on a 10 year old editorial that is not even a mainstream news source. This part should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.16 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given your edit history I believe this is the portion of the description you are disputing: 'Due to the short usable length of the runway, proximity to the skyscrapers of Downtown San Diego, and steep landing approach as a result of the nearby Peninsular Ranges, SAN has been called "the busiest, most difficult single runway in the world." SAN operates in controlled airspace served by the Southern California TRACON, which is some of the busiest airspace in the world.', and that your reasoning is that it inappropriately portrays KSAN as being dangerous.
It is worth noting the section does not contain the word danger or dangerous, and no portion of the page implies that KSAN is unacceptably hazardous to passengers or local residents. KSAN maintains FAA approval of its safety, as do all US airports, and an airport failing this is unusual enough that it may be assumed a US airport is meeting this standard unless otherwise stated within the article. The description of KSAN as 'the busiest, most difficult single runway in the world' is extremely well cited, with numerous independent sources using this phrase, and both these sources and the page itself give detailed descriptions of how these various operational factors make KSAN a 'difficult' airport.
Voteins (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of "dangerous" comes from the opinion piece used as the source (11), showing clear bias. The rest of the supporting documentation is simply flight procedures and general information, it bolsters nothing. It does not support being "well cited" either. These are contrary to the claim of "well cited". The entire segment of the entry is meant to sensationalize. Orange County is short (5700-feet). Burbank is short (6886-feet). Chicago/Midway is short and difficult due to weather (6522-feet), something San Diego does not encounter. San Diego has a 3.5-degree approach angle, a normal approach angle (See FAA Order 8260.3d - Section 2-6, Approach Category D aircraft - https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/Order_8260.3D_vs3.pdf). Further, Runway 27 now has an RNP approach providing an instrument approach to Runway 27 that was not available before. The airport supports Japan Airlines, Lufthansa and British Airways. If the runway were "short" or "difficult" these airlines wouldn't be operating there. It also wouldn't have an RNP approach.

Per Wikipedia rules sources are not required to be unbiased. The term "busiest, most difficult single runway in the world" is by its nature a reflection of an opinion, but the page as it stands provides citations and justifications for this claim. In addition KSAN has been identified as a Special Qualification Airport by the FAA and thus requires additional training before commercial pilots are allowed to land there[1], Honewell Aerospace identified it as one of the top ten most difficult airports in the US[2], and in the past KSAN was identified as the 5th most dangerous airport in the country by newspaper survey of US airline pilots [3]. This provides a great deal of backup to the claim that KSAN represents a "difficult" airport beyond the single phrase in this particular piece.
In response to your specific claims: "Short" is a relative term, but other publications have used it to describe KSAN's rwy 27 [4]. Unlike the other airports you cite KSAN handles larger widebody aircraft, which can be a factor in determining the relative shortness or longness of a given runway. A 3.5 degree approach angle is unusually steep, 3 degrees is considered ideal and the FAA disallows precision approaches on angles greater than 3.2 degrees (see FAA 8260.3d as you cited). KSAN is the only one of the top 30 busiest US airports to lack a precision approach on its primary runway. Rwy 27 has possessed an instrument approach for decades, namely a loc/dme approach, and as such the addition of the RNP approach does not fundamentally alter the challenges associated with the airport. The RNP approach also possesses similar minimums to the older loc/dme approach, and thus performs almost identically to the older procedure with a slightly lessened workload on the pilot during initial approach/decent. Which airlines choose to service an airport is not considered proof that an airport is "easy" to land at, only that in these airlines' calculation it is safe and economically viable for them to operate from. All the airlines you mention previously serviced Kai Tak Airport, whose approach was extremely well documented as being challenging and technically complex and yet continued to see service for many decades.
Voteins (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The poster you have responded to is actually quite correct.

The article used from the LA Times is 30-years old. At the time of the LA Times article, the approach slope to San Diego was 4.6-degrees – arguably the most difficult approach for any commercial airport in the US. This is where much of the claims about San Diego’s difficulties hinge on. The extent of special crew requirements is limited to chart publications regarding terrain and pilot familiarity of close in terrain. Flight procedures once had a notice of erroneous terrain warnings with the GPWS. These notes have since been removed from the procedures. There are also multiple airports on that list that no one seems to consider complex or dangerous like San Francisco, yet it is listed for the very same reason. I'm also unsure that the statement "Sources are not required to be unbiased". That's just weird when it can be condradicted.

Your response states that a 3.2-degrees approach angle disallows precision approaches, this is factually inaccurate. RNPs with 0.1 level tolerances are precision approaches. As per the chart in section 2-6-2 of FAA Order 8260.3, the upper limit is 3.5-degrees, not 3.2. ILS is no longer limited to 3.1-degrees either (the old upper limit - there was never a 3.2-degree limit), and if the FAA wanted to they could probably install one now. No commercial airport I am aware of supports CAT E which is limited to 3.1-degrees. The visibility is controlled by obstacles, likely there is one, that penetrates the 20:1 or 34"1 surface. It has nothing to do with the approach angle.

As a final note, I definitely wouldn’t compare San Diego to Kaitak. It’s simply not a valid comparison for any airport except maybe Toncontin. Kaitak had a curved final segment with a modified ILS system and was incredibly dangerous. That simply isn’t the case with San Diego.

Much of the claims simply do not hold up anymore and are based on dated information that likely doesn’t take into account current conditions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.16 (talk • contribs)

The LA Times article is on the older side, if you can provide some sources that the approach slope into KSAN was steeper in the 1980s and that pilots consider it less difficult now that would impact its relevance. On the special crew requirements, as you would know they aren't available publicly and thus can't be cited on Wikipedia beyond that they exist for KSAN. Unfortunate because a comparison between the different SCRs would add some clarity, but with a non-public source anyone with access could claim something was on it and there would be no way for those on the outside to disprove it. Also just as a note, SFO has played host to both of the the two worst near disasters in recent memory and thus might not be the best example to give in this situation.
Allowing bias in sources is just a general wikipedia rule, based on the general theory that every source has some level of bias and so arguing over what is or isn't biased is just a distraction. The point is not if a source is biased, but if its inclusion in the article makes the article biased. Given it's non-expert nature that particular source is less than ideal, but seeing as the alternative would be to cite the expert opinions of the pilot survey of KSAN being "dangerous" rather than merely "difficult" I'm not sure that would be an improvement. The best solution would be to find an expert source saying that landing at KSAN is easy or at least not difficult, but through as much research as I can do I haven't found a single one. Ultimately that's really what this whole thing is about, we have some fairly reliable third party sources stating that KSAN is a challenging airport and nothing saying it isn't beyond the opinions of some anonymous online posters.
3.2 degrees was a typo, thanks for catching that. I read through 8260.3d and apparently you and the previous poster were right about 3.5 degrees being the new limit. Very ironic, KSAN went through a great deal of trouble adding 200ft the displaced threshold of RWY 09 just a few years ago because a 3.1 degree approach under the old displaced length would have required lopping off the top story of Point Loma HS. The FAA still can't install an ILS though as ground obstructions would reflect the signals and drive the VNAV haywire. The Part 77 obstacles are indeed the same for both the old LOC/DME approach and the new RNP one (it's the trees in Balboa Park for the record). Unfortunately I'm also relying on non-public sources for that info and so those can't go in the article either. Regardless, 3.5 degrees is steeper than the average approach and thus still worthy of mention.
KSAN's current zulu RWY 27 RNP is not a precision approach. The lowest LDA minimums are very deliberately 0.11 to avoid classifying it as such. In any case the DH is nearly identical to the LOC/DME's MDA (600' vs 680'). Pilots still hand fly while "landing in a teakettle" during final, just as described by the pilot in the LA Times article.
I didn't intend to compare Kai Tek and KSAN, I was merely using it as a counterexample for a single section of the previous poster's argument. He was claiming that if airlines were willing to fly into KSAN that proves it's perfectly safe, and I replied that this argument is wrong since those same airlines were decidedly willing to fly into an airport universally considered challenging and borderline dangerous. It's not the sort of proof that could justify changing the article.

I reached out to a former colleague who has this to say regarding SAN:

“On the issue of the threshold displacement for Runway 9 the project served two purposes: It allowed the approach slope to be reduced from 3.22-degrees to 3.1-degrees and the threshold crossing height (TCH) to be reduced from 85-feet to 55-feet. This was prior to the allowance to have a 3.5-degree slope which changed in October 2015. They moved the threshold in 2013. The approach slope for Runway 9 is not controlled by the school as mentioned. The coordinates for the obstacle that controls the approach angle for Runway 9 is located at the following coordinates (32 44 33.96N, 117 13 28.62W). Its height is 238’ MSL. Visibility minimums are standard, however CAT II/III minimums are prevented by a flagpole just west of and near the airport.”

“On Runway 27, there are no trees that play role in the minimums or approach angle. There is a building that controls the approach slope to Runway 27 located at the following coordinates (32 43 40.91N, -117 9 54.67W). Its height is 226’-MSL. The visibility for all approaches is controlled by a telephone pole at the following coordinates (32 43 48.74N, 117 9 53.79"W). The airport has stated that this pole will be removed by the utility company sometime in the future. When this pole its, the RNP minimums will drop to 250-feet and ¾-mile. It’s limited to ¾-mile due to 34:1 penetrations. Localizer minimums will drop to 500-feet and 1-mile.”

“The person appears be confusing space based procedures with conventional procedures. RNP procedures do not have the same terminology as ground based, but RNP .11 is a precision equivalent. RNP .3 is non-precision. A precision approach is one that has horizontal and vertical guidance, period. ILS will not cause the RNAV to go haywire. ILS and RNAV are not interrelated, but they can combined (required to be available) for special minimums. Glideslopes are usable to airports provided the propagation area is clear. If a 3.5-degree slope can be supported, so too can a glideslope component of an ILS. They can even be steeper if needed provided there are no propagation issues. While not under the FAA purview, London City airport uses a 6-degree glideslope. The issue is most likely where to place the glideslope antenna. Typical installations are 300-400-feet from the runway centerline, which would be too close to a taxiway at SAN to allow planes to taxi. Additionally, an RNP and LDA are not interrelated. Performance based approaches are a replacement for precision and non-precision approaches. LDA’s are non-precision as are Localizer minima. The RNP’s at Lindbergh do not require ground aids to be in service for coupling as mentioned above. RNP .11 is a precision equivalent with positive vertical and horizontal guidance to the threshold, it’s an issue of obstacle penetration at SAN controlling visibility. Users to not have to fly the visual segment by hand. Full CAT I approaches are supported by RNP .11. Currently, there is no support for CAT II/III as GBAS is required. This remains under development.”

Also note, below is an old article that describes the 4.5-degree slope for Runway 27 from 1988:

Quote: “At most airports, the angle of approach is 3 degrees. But the terrain around Lindbergh requires a steeper descent of roughly 4.5 degrees, aviation officials said.”

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-07/news/mn-1499_1_san-diego-airport — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.16 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the difference between a 3.0-degree approach angle and 3.5-degrees is 53-feet at 1-nautical mile, which is negligible. 4.5 would have been 159-feet, clearly providing a challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.16 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you and your collegue's comments, although I will state that based upon my knowledge they are not completely accurate. I don't think an argument over the unverifiable contents of non-public documents or trolling through the FARs to fact check each other is going to get anywhere important, so I'll try to get back to the point of whether to include the line 'SAN has been called "the busiest, most difficult single runway in the world."' in the lede. Unfortunately, almost nothing within the points any of us have raised so far are considered valid arguments on Wikipedia. Specifically we're breaking the rules against synthesis of published material, which would mean that we as wikipedia editors can't take data like the FARs or TERPs and make judgment calls as to what is or isn't "difficult". That would be an opinion, and on wikipedia editors are meant to only serve as collectors of information (even if that information itself might be biased, because what constitutes bias is in itself an opinion).
Now I've heard several pilots say that KSAN isn't particularly difficult myself, but I've spent a ton of time searching online for a reliable source saying KSAN is an easy airport to land at (or even not particularly challenging), and I have yet to find a single one. There's a documentary, an avionics manufacturer's listing, and a slightly out of date LA times survey of experts stating KSAN is harder to land at than the average airport, and against that we've got a bunch of anonymous online opinions (which would include mine, yours, your colleague's, and anyone posting on AvWeb/PPRuNe). We've also got an [Tribune article] which describes the final approach into KSAN as "about as white-knuckle as it gets at major U.S. airports. But this hair-raising landing belies the fact that Lindbergh Field is still very safe". So there are some good sources for saying KSAN is safe, but challenging. Personally I believe that a US airport being safe is common enough to simply go unsaid, and so the most reasonable thing to say about KSAN given our current sources is simply that it's challenging. Voteins (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My source is an FAA TERPS Specialist that was based in the Seattle Office that worked specifically on SAN between 2013 and 2015. I will have to insist that your understanding is wholly inaccurate, particularly with regard to what controls the approaches into the airport. It simply doesn't hold up and your avoidance of it is telling, never mind my source which is not an opinion. Its also disingenuous to be dismissive of FAA regulatory guidance in an effort to substantiate your opinion. Finally, I honestly cannot believe that your are holding an opinion piece with higher regard that a news article that lays out the complexity that existed 30 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.16 (talk • contribs)

What you say may very well be true; you are obviously sincere. But as an encyclopedia we can only include information here that has been PUBLISHED in reliable sources. We cannot include material that is sourced to a person who told us this, or even our own personal experience. We can only use published sources. See WP:Verifiability, one of the cardinal principals of Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The changes are published. The approach had a 4.5-degree slope 30 years ago. Today it is 3.5. I provided a source for it above and the current flight procedures are evidence of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.16 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, and the fact that there has been a significant change in the flight procedures coming into KSAN does indeed throw some doubt onto continued relevance of the LA times article. But the fact that KSAN's approach angle has changed does not in itself prove anything, and as I've said multiple times before the classification of KSAN as a "challenging" airport does not solely rest upon this single source. There's a 2011 documentary stating KSAN as the #10 'Most Extreme' airport in the world and there's a 2017 classification by an avionics manufacturer stating that KSAN is one of the 10 hardest airports to land at in the US, both of which specifically mention KSAN's steep approach as a factor in their categorizations.
It's important to understand that on Wikipedia you are not allowed to cite your own opinions or unsourced opinions of your friends/colleagues, no matter what qualifications either of you might possess. That KSAN's approach angle has changed from 4.5 degrees to 3.5 degrees is a citable fact. That a 4.5 degree approach slope is difficult and a 3.5 degree approach slope is not difficult, in the absence of a verifiable third-party source explicitly stating so, is an opinion and not citable. For many who are legitimate experts in their own field but new to editing Wikipedia the stringent requirement to cite verifiable third party sources can often seem capricious, but understand there is no sure-fire method to verify someone's identity and credentials online. Wikipedia does not have a team of experts to confirm anyone is who they say they are, and editors can and have lied about having expertise they do not process in the past. I want to make it clear that no one is accusing you of lying, but editors have lied in the past and so as a rule this sort of information isn't allowed on wikipedia. As it stands no one has yet present citable information that the approach to KSAN is not difficult, and people have presented citable information stating that it is, and so based upon this the sources point towards that KSAN represents a difficult approach. Voteins (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/opss%20guidance/specialairportlistrevisionfeb2010.htm
  2. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/lists/revealed-the-hardest-us-airports-to-land-at/
  3. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-26/local/me-1461_1_dangerous-airports
  4. ^ http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-26/local/me-1461_1_dangerous-airports

I watched the documentary you speak of, and unfortunately it just doesn't hold up.

These are far more difficult airports, and any reasonable person would agree they are far more difficult than San Diego:

https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/worlds-scariest-airports-landings#norway-sandane-airport https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2018/11/08/the-17-most-dangerous-airports-in-the-world-and-why-you-must-experience-them/#15729eda2a8f https://www.baatraining.com/22-most-challenging-runways-in-the-world/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/article/the-most-dangerous-airports-in-the-world/ss-AAAdCFd#image=21 https://wanderwisdom.com/transportation/Most-Dangerous-Airports

Further, this article suggests its the 7th safest airport, ironically in the same year as the 2011 documentary:

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/tourism/sdut-how-does-san-diego-fare-on-airport-safety-2011aug03-story.html

Suggest the following be added to offer some balance:

“Despite its history of being considered a challenging airport, significant changes have occurred over the years mitigating much of the concerns people have suggested about the airport. Its now even considered one of the top 10 safest airports in the country (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/tourism/sdut-how-does-san-diego-fare-on-airport-safety-2011aug03-story.html). The approach slope for Runway 27 was lowered from 4.5-degrees (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-04-07/news/mn-1499_1_san-diego-airport) to 3.5-degrees in the late 1990s through the use of improved visual guidance equipment (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-23/news/mn-6384_1_parking-garage). In addition, GPS approaches have been added, including an RNP procedure that provides vertical guidance for the first time to Runway 27, similar to an ILS (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/flight_info/aeronav/procedures/application/?event=procedure.results&nasrId=SAN#searchResultsTop).”

I believe balance is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.16 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for relocation proposal content[edit]

  • Press release from Congressman Bob Filner, September 25, 2003

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca51_filner/20030925airport.html

  • "Filner keeps Imperial County on list of possible airport sites: Desert location still a long shot"

Jeff Ristine, San Diego Union Tribune, May 3, 2005.

  • Float Incorporated: Floating Ocean Real Estate

http://www.floatinc.com/Floatport.html

Tobycat 20:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there also a proposal at one point to make Mirimar a dual-purpose airport?

Also, someone should add some text discussing the fact that the landing approach to SAN is one of the most challenging because of the rather steep glideslope, built-up downtown, and relatively short runways.

Nsayer 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was a proposal in the early 1980s to have a joint use airport with Tijuana, Mexico. The proposed project was dubbed "Twin-Ports." There would have been an airport built along the border connected by taxiways to Tijuana's existing General Abelardo L. Rodríguez International Airport. The proposal was given some serious consideration, however due to the problems with illegal human and drug trafficking through the border, the idea was scrapped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trewells (talk • contribs) 12:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC-7)


The issue of replacing or relocating SAN will be debated until the end of time. The terrain and lack of land available makes this a moot point. Unlike cities that are located inland, it is impossible to go west because of the ocean, improbable to go south because of the mountains on approach (Brown Field in the South Bay was looked at), improbable to go east because of mountains and/or desert and improbable to go north due to lack of available land. SAN will forever be the airport for San Diego and it will always lack the ability to have regular intercontinental service because weight restrictions and noise restrictions. San Diego would be an ideal city for an alternative point for Asian service but it will never happen because of SAN's size. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trewells (talk • contribs) 13:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC-7)


I understood Gatwick (UK) to be the world's busiest single-runway airport. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.52.215.232 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC-7)

Gatwick has two runways:

http://gc.kls2.com/airport/LGW

Location City: London, Surrey, England, United Kingdom Name: Gatwick ICAO / IATA: EGKK / LGW

Details Type: Airport (Aerodrome, Airfield) Latitude: 51°08'53"N (51.148056) Longitude: 0°11'25"W (-0.190278) Datum: WGS 1984 Elevation: 202 ft (62 m) Timezone: UTC+0 (DST+1) Runways: 2 Longest: 10364 × 148 ft (3159 × 45 m) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.201.43 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC-8)

Message to IP address 71.136.142.2[edit]

This message is for the poster with IP address 71.136.142.2. Please adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV policies with respect to your edits about Miramar dual use. Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a place for future speculation and opinion, and it is certainly not a place to further agendas. That said, please restrict your additions to this section to facts. Thank you.

--IRelayer 19:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storage Area Network is 10**6 times more important[edit]

SAN technology is used in millions of offices and companies AROUND THE WORLD! The obscure aviators-only code of a second-tier US domestic airport does not hold a candle to it in importance. SAN should point to Storage Area network, because this is en.wikipedia.org, not us.wikipedia.org! 195.70.32.136 17:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAN is not an "obscure, aviators-only code" - frequent travelers around the world know and use three-letter IATA airport codes to refer to cities and airports. A Google search for SAN reveals that San Diego International Airport is the first search result. Primary topic disambiguation is clearly called for in this case. FCYTravis 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The airport code SAN was used before a Storage Area Network was even thought of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of "Relocation proposals" section[edit]

The "Relocation proposals" section of this article, in particular the first paragraph, seems rather biased towards making a pro-new airport argument. Sources for various claims such as capacity need to be cited, and I'm not sure how "To claim otherwise is absurd" can pass for non-neutral. Tagged for POV check. -- Hawaiian717 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. It was atrocious. I removed the worst of the opinionated language and authoritative predictions of the future. The section now needs references. I removed the POV tag and replaced with with an "unreferenced" tag. Hopefully you will agree this is a step in the right direction. I'll try to help with the references when I have more time. Johntex\talk 02:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better, thanks. I'll also look and try to dig up some references. -- Hawaiian717 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Capacity References:

http://www.san.org/documents/planning/airport_planning/SDBoard_Meeting_FINAL_060704v6.pps

http://www.san.org/documents/planning/airport_planning/SAN_Aviation_Activity_Forecasts_June_04.pdf

Full Relocation Study Data:

http://www.san.org/airport_authority/archives/index.asp


Reference Floating Airport: There is no proof of such "public" interest, only that of a handful of nut jobs who offer no proof that the concept would work and are now trying to push the idea. It was fully rejected by the Airport Authroity on merits so unless they plan on building it themselves, it's not happening as the Airport Authrity is the controlling agency. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.3.201.43 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC-8)


Single runway airport[edit]

London Gatwick has 2 runways, according to London Gatwick Airport--Arado 09:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second is a standby runway, only in use if first is not available for use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooljuno411 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 18 July 2008
Still one more than SAN.173.30.145.40 (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin Atlantic Service[edit]

Are we absolutly sure that Virgin Atlantic Airways will start service to San Diego in 2008. All of their aircraft are long haul wide-body aircraft and the largest plane that I know of that can land and stop at SAN effectively is the Boeing 767. Other planes however can land, but must come in at the lowest manuverable speed. So all I'm saying is, would Virgin Atlantic be able to service this airport? And London Gatwick has a maintenence runway for backup if there is an accident on the main runway. 76.88.107.42 23:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've tagged both Virgin Atlantic and Virgin America as needing citations. As far as larger aircraft go, the problem I've usually heard is more of an issue of being able to take off with a sufficient payload to actually make money on a long haul flight. FedEx regularly uses the DC-10 into SAN, and British Airways used to use the 747-400 (flying to and from Phoenix) and the 777-200 (nonstop to and from London; initially Gatwick and later Heathrow) into SAN. -- Hawaiian717 00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Virgin America Service is confirmed as starting 2/12/2008 - I think someone got this confused w/ Virgin Atlantic... a search of the internet returns NO confirmation or rumor of service to KSAN... DELETED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.162.58 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC-8)

Top 30 Airport/2006 Records[edit]

San Diego made the 2006 list for the top 30 busiest airports in the United States, with a rank of 30. The ranking was determined by the amount of passengers that pass through the airport annually. San Diego International was ranked #1 on the list of the busiest uni-runway airports in the United States. --Press208 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not a blog. While interesting, this info really has no place on this Talk page. Try airliners.net or some other forum. If you do think it's worth inclusion, just add to it to the article in a relevant section.Thedjb 05:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Curfew[edit]

The article claims that arrivals are allowed in the airport at all times. However, I was on a flight that was diverted to Ontario because a delay pushed the landing after 11:30 PM. Can we get claification on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.126.148 (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From [1]:
Arrivals are permitted twenty-four hours a day, and emergency mercy, and some governmental operations are exempt from the curfew.
It seems to me that when a SAN flight diverts to ONT or another airport it is because the airport has gotten fogged in and is blow the ILS minimums for runway 09. I was on a flight a few years ago that was delayed and landed at SAN around 2:30am. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
US532 lands every morning at 1:13a.m., so indeed, flights come in at all hours. I do believe, however, this is the last (or first) inbound of the day.Thedjb (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Maps[edit]

I don´t know how to edit these but CMH, PIT, and soon CLE have to be removed. More importantly, I think these maps can create confusion between non-stop and direct destinations. For example, MEX is a one-stop (SJD), direct, no-plane-change AM destination. It might lead some readers to believe that it is a non-stop destination due to the way it is shown here. I suggest that we either fix this error (but there may be others like it) or replace the map with one similar to the one on the O'Hare page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.122.249 (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2008

I have made the updates. Sox23 23:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now, MKE needs to be removed since AirTran has ended service. Thanks. Deus Caritas Est (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate Airport[edit]

I think the wording of this section needs to be changed because it sounds misleading. Tijuana's airport's existence does not depend solely on the lack of international flights from San Diego. Rather, it serves the more than one million people who live there and on the side, it handles many Southern Californians, most of whom are headed to Mexican destinations since the domestic (Mexican) flights offered from TIJ are cheaper and more convenient (non-stop, etc) than international ones departing from the US. Furthermore, I suggest shifting the information about flights to Tokyo and Shanghai to go after the Mexican destinations. Currently, it sounds as if its primary focus is intercontinental flights when in reality it is domestic (Mexican) flights. In fact, part of the reason why Tijuana has intercontinental flights is Mexico City's high altitude which diminishes the performance of aircraft, thus requiring a fuel stop-over on the way to Asia.Deus Caritas Est (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why is Tijuana even listed under SAN? It is not an alternate airport to SAN. It's in another country and there is not any sign of a partnership between the organizations that operate the airports. Furthermore, no US carrier is goign to set up shop there creating a secondary market for San Diego. It could be refered to as a nearby commerical airport, but certainly not an alternate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.203.104.162 (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tijuana International Airport is listed as an alternate because it is right next door. Literally, the airport is right on the border. Easy access for Americans. There are even shuttle bus services running between the US and TIJ. Because of the close proximity to SAN, it can be more of an option for San Diegans than John Wayne Airport in Orange County. Also, information about flights to Narita was changed because this is no longer the case unfortunately, at least on Aeromexico like the article used to mention. Flights to Narita or Shanghai are primarily routed through either Mexico City or Los Angeles (LAX). --Uncle Bex (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But its not an alternate airport because its in another country. You can't even divert a plane there from SAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.229.128 (talk) 04:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convair at SAN[edit]

Convair built passenger jets at Lindbergh Field in the 1950s and 1960s. Check Convair 880 and Convair 990. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.151.197 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered species habitat[edit]

I think it should be noted that Lindbergh Field is the only airport that I know of that sets aside a portion of its infield as a seasonal nesting area for an endangered species called the California Least Tern. 68.111.246.29 (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information blanking[edit]

I have recently reverted information removal by an IP user. The user did not provide an edit summary for the two edits that were made, and did not give a good reason why the information should be removed. If that IP user would like to discuss improving the article by removing said information I would like to provide this section for that discussion. Thank you. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low IFR/fog and 9/27 operation[edit]

I've reverted runway usage quite a few times by people who keep quoting that one pilot-column writer in USA Today that SAN goes to east runway in fog. For the record, there is dense fog this morning and SAN is in 9/27 operation until the ceiling goes up to 700 feet or so. If there's any doubt, looking up flight tracks and ATC recordings (publicly available on the internet) for Monday morning, April 26, 2010 will be more reliable than one pilot. HkCaGu (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last edit. A lot of that information isn´t necesary though a half sentence sumary makes the paragraph stronger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in line on the runway with mediocre fog and had them start switching operations. It is actually pretty interesting when they have planes taking off towards and the east, and west, and landing from the east and west. venomgyz (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up some changes that have taken place and published in the charts.[edit]

Also gave a better explaination of the reverse flow.

SAN is in east to west flow below 2 miles vis for 27. Some carriers will use 27 for departures due to weight penalties while everyone else uses 9 for arrivals and departures. This occurs about 6% fo the time at the airport (one day where the vis was marginal isn't very reliable either). Also cleaned up new approach info, and delcared distance info that was recently published in the charts Ruwnay 9 is now 1,121 feet shorter than runway 27 mathematically, but not physically. Under "Relocation" the sentence stated that the airport claimesd it would reach capacity in 2015-2022. That's not what the source says. What is says is that it will be constrained, meaning congested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.229.128 (talk) 04:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ILS does not exist for runway 27[edit]

There is no ILS approach from the east. I think this is useful information that should be included on the wiki. This is one of the reasons why during fog conditions they will require reverse operations. In fact, even during bad weather, if you can not spot the runway within a certain threshold a pilot is required to declare a missed approach. You can see the specifications here: http://www.airnav.com/airport/KSAN

venomgyz (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'World's busiest single-runway airport'. Also - Stansted issue[edit]

This is inaccurate: Gatwick is also single-use and carries nearly twice as many passengers. Equally, when I was checking the CAA Statistics on 2010 airport use I saw that London Stansted (also single-runway) carried 18,562,000 passengers in 2010 Link here- more than the 18.3m quoted for San Diego in this article. Any suggestions on that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.17.22 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is innacurate. San Diego had 18.9 million passengers in 2010 not 18.3 million. It was listed that San Diego was the second busiest behind Gatwick, which it still is (even though Gatwick technically has two runways) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego also has about 40,000 annual operations more than Standsted. In 2010, San Diego had over 190,937 operations where Standsted had 155,140. Therefore, San Diego is busier in terms of operations and passengers than Standsted. http://www.san.org/sdia/at_the_airport/education/airport_statistics.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing Area[edit]

Removed "viewing area" section. It talked about people viewing planes then went off on a strange tangent about Miramar and the military that made no sense at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.2 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Climb Gradients[edit]

It appears from the departure proceedure charts that the obstruction issue is improved a slightly. Updated this info. Could be a result of the airport wanting to improve the capability for British Airways that operates with a weight penalty. The 777-200ER has a Max takeoff weight of 656,000-pounds for 5,000 miles but it's limited to about 600k at SAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.206.245 (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Diego International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Diego International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate name[edit]

I see that the name "Lindbergh Field" has been removed from the lead section. This appears to be in violation of the guideline WP:OTHERNAMES. The name can be verified in multiple reliable sources and should be re-added. What are your thoughts on this @MelanieN:?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching this, RCLC! I see it was removed way back in July [2] and I totally missed it. I will restore it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on San Diego International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on San Diego International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of second level to Terminal 1 for Jetways?[edit]

When I first arrived in San Diego in April of 1975, I departed the plane via "airstairs" to the tarmac, then walked into the terminal at ground-level. I believe Terminal 1 then looked much as it did when first built (http://departedwings.com/The%20Airports/SAN/San%20Diego.html).

I'm trying to remember when the construction of the second story was started. I do recall some flights when the ground-level gates were a mess due to the construction above. I also remember the first time I went "upstairs" to board via a jetway, though I'm not sure of the date (perhaps in 1977?).

Is this history known or available? My searches have failed to locate it online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcunning (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, it was right after the PSA merger with USAir. The west concourse was done first and paid for by USAir. The other was done right after and paid for by United, Continental and TWA. If I recall, the airport leveraged T2 (then 5 or so years new) in order to close each concourse for construction as it could not be done while the gates were in use. There were a lot fewer flights back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.234.16 (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on San Diego International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter terminal closure reasons?[edit]

Does anyone know why the commuter terminal close down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 02:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:San_Diego_International_Airport&oldid=1204854991"