Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

onemileatatime.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 413 posts

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#11

Post by wtallis »

snypher wrote: post #9
riversflow wrote: post #8

I see this as a reap what you sow moment for Lufthasa. Why should ATC at a busy airport be so accommodating? Lufthasa is the one making this hard on everyone. I used to watch both these airports fairly frequently from Oyster bay regional park, they are both super busy with flights often lining up to the horizon.

“okay, you promised me 10 minutes, that ran out four minutes ago, so how many more minutes?” Seems to me that ATC need to get it together also.

Yeah, whether Lufthansa's polices are reasonable or excessively cautious is debatable, but the ATC here obviously gave unambiguously wrong information about the delay.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#12

Post by kayodelycaon »

jtagen wrote: post #3

I wonder if it was an option to say "okay", continue circling, then declare a fuel emergency and land. Seems like ATC was being a dick here. Not sure: 1) How long this would take 2) If this actually endangers anyone/anything

Declaring a fuel emergency when your alternative is only a few miles away is bound to get someone in trouble.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#13

Post by dxf »

kokken wrote: post #5

I’m sure the industry has standards for assigning blame, but it looks to me that ATC is clearly being assholes here. Even from this article that clearly seems to think Lufthansa is in the wrong I walked away with a feeling that ATC and small town cops are one and the same.

The current top comment on the article explains the situation, and ATC are "not being assholes here":

>NorCal had a new interpretation of ILS approaches come down several months ago that tied the controllers hands with regards to ILS approaches during visual conditions... The controllers were issued guidelines that if it’s busy and an aircraft is unable to comply with the approaches advertised on the atis or maintain visual separation that its better to hold them until there is adequate space on final as it’s more unsafe to start vectoring 30/40 different aircraft to build the required hole for the 1 aircraft who’s company has a lame rule

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#14

Post by kayodelycaon »

kokken wrote: post #5

I’m sure the industry has standards for assigning blame, but it looks to me that ATC is clearly being assholes here. Even from this article that clearly seems to think Lufthansa is in the wrong I walked away with a feeling that ATC and small town cops are one and the same.

ATC wasn’t been an asshole. The airspace was extremely busy and there wasn’t space between arriving flights for anyone to make an instrument landing.

In order to make instrument landing, dozens of other planes would have to be moved out of the way.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#15

Post by YeBanKo »

Pilots can be d*cks, but recently there was a string of ATC related incidents, where ATC show questionable judgment and become too "moody" too soon. Here is another example: https://twitter.com/jasonrosewell/status/1733645088473989245 JBU going too slow, instead of assigning a new speed and then scolding the pilot, ATC starts giving the attitude before telling him what he wants.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#16

Post by durandal1 »

kokken wrote: post #5

I’m sure the industry has standards for assigning blame, but it looks to me that ATC is clearly being assholes here. Even from this article that clearly seems to think Lufthansa is in the wrong I walked away with a feeling that ATC and small town cops are one and the same.

Norcal is an amazing bunch of people with a high stress life-and-death job. They're incredibly accommodating, but when the system is at capacity it's at capacity. SFO is a very special airport with a traffic flow much higher than its footprint would normally allow. Since there is pretty nowhere for it to expand, the only option would be to reduce the number of slot times, which for a business hub like SFO would be terrible.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#17

Post by noxvilleza »

riversflow wrote: post #8

I see this as a reap what you sow moment for Lufthasa. Why should ATC at a busy airport be so accommodating? Lufthasa is the one making this hard on everyone. I used to watch both these airports fairly frequently from Oyster bay regional park, they are both super busy with flights often lining up to the horizon.

This wasn't some new policy of Lufthansa though, apparently it's their SOP for basically all airports. Outside the US, I'm not sure if visual approaches are all that common for (heavy) aircraft at night. Overall, the reason that SFO wants visual approaches is to increase rate of landing, and the reason that Lufthansa wants ILS is to increase safety -- your phrasing "Lufthasa is the one making this hard on everyone" just seems wrong, having more safety seems totally justified and reasonable here.

I'm actually surprised SFO still allows visual approaches at night after that Air Canada 759 flight nearly landed on the taxiway ~5 years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGQlQFn0euI).

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#18

Post by jMyles »

riversflow wrote: post #8

I see this as a reap what you sow moment for Lufthasa. Why should ATC at a busy airport be so accommodating? Lufthasa is the one making this hard on everyone. I used to watch both these airports fairly frequently from Oyster bay regional park, they are both super busy with flights often lining up to the horizon.

> Why should ATC at a busy airport be so accommodating?

Is it really so much to ask that an ILS-equipped airport... provide an ILS approach?

I'm generally on your side here; the controllers did a good job with what resources they had. But there seem to be an awful lot of oddities / operational hangups through NorCal TRACON.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#19

Post by kayodelycaon »

wtallis wrote: post #11
snypher wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“okay, you promised me 10 minutes, that ran out four minutes ago, so how many more minutes?” Seems to me that ATC need to get it together also.

Yeah, whether Lufthansa's polices are reasonable or excessively cautious is debatable, but the ATC here obviously gave unambiguously wrong information about the delay.

Delays are estimates. They can’t be guaranteed. All it takes is one other plane to be slow to act.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#20

Post by Zetobal »

dxf wrote: post #13
kokken wrote: post #5

I’m sure the industry has standards for assigning blame, but it looks to me that ATC is clearly being assholes here. Even from this article that clearly seems to think Lufthansa is in the wrong I walked away with a feeling that ATC and small town cops are one and the same.

The current top comment on the article explains the situation, and ATC are "not being assholes here": >NorCal had a new interpretation of ILS approaches come down several months ago that tied the controllers hands with regards to ILS approaches during visual conditions... The controllers were issued guidelines that if it’s busy and an aircraft is unable to comply with the approaches advertised on the atis or maintain…

Just tell the pilots that the ATC in NorCAL is also bound to policies and they have to divert. No need to be a dick.
Post reply on HN