A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion • Hacker News Board

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#91

Post by throwbadubadu » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:09 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #68

reso wrote: post #45

> Pilot: If we are not set up for base soon, we will have to declare a fuel emergency and that would really fuck up your sequence. > Controller: What is your divert field? > Pilot: Oakland > Controller: Ok you need vectors to Oakland? > Pilot: No, my company forbids visual separation at night, what is the problem here? > Controller: I can't have this conversation with you. You either divert to Oakland or you can cont…

If there was a fuel emergency the pilot would have declared a fuel emergency. This was more him getting pissy for having to wait. Big jets normally have enough extra fuel to circle for hours without a problem.

Depends on some factors, but required and also common is 30/45 minutes, +10% longer flights, before diversion (that fuel not included).

Recently experienced a closed airport, needed to divert, and even with chances high that we need to circle again for a while, we only took 1 hour fuel for circling before 2nd divert (and luckily made it after 40 minutes). It was no big jet, but some bigger especially cannot even land with too much fuel.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#92

Post by trentnelson » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:10 PM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #71

markus92 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilot was bluffing. If they call an emergency, they can do whatever they want. But they can't just call a fuel emergency if they have enough fuel to divert to a viable alternate - that's not how the system is supposed to work. They're supposed to divert if they get close to minimum fuel and can't land at their primary airport. Of course, if it's a real emergency they can call any emergency (weather at alternate preve…

It's a safety issue when the plane is getting low on fuel and the crew are fatigued from a long international flight, and the only reason they're being told no is because of policies designed to maximize airport/airline profits. Controllers had hours of notice the flight would need an ILS approach. They petulantly ignored it because ILS approaches take up more space in the pattern, which means less landings per hour,…

“Visual approaches in use” is less labor intensive for ATC than instrument approaches in visual conditions. It also allows for higher flow.

Bit on the hyperbolic side implying visual approaches push the system to the breaking point.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#93

Post by shkkmo » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:10 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #64

michaeljx wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, despite the tower not being able to create a gap for 30+ minutes,which although extreme may be understandable due to SFO being the way it is, another major factor was the fact that the tower was unable to provide a realistic estimated time to enter the circuit. That is completely unacceptable.

The controller tried to give an estimated time, but that original estimate was blown out of the water by the other planes in the queue taking longer than expected, and the controller didn't have time to keep trying to give an updated estimated time to the one plane in the queue that wanted to do things the hard way (that also, due to circumstances within its own control, departed its original airport late and arrived…

Your framing here is weird and doesn't match the facts. The airplane didn't want to do anything. Its pilots were following a mandatory company safety policy.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#94

Post by kimixa » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:10 PM UTC

kiratp wrote: post #78

Hansenq wrote: post #29

There's a follow up video to the one linked in the story that provides a lot more context missing in this piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zHxdn8oz20 Basically, SFO normally does VFR parallel approaches at night. Approach sequences these approaches miles beforehand, so there can be a chain of 10-20 aircraft all sequenced to land before responsibility is even transferred to SFO's tower. The incident happened du…

The FAA themselves recommend that foreign pilots do not use visual approaches at SFO. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/faa-wants-foreign-...

Was that referring to the Primary Glide Slope Indicator being out of order at the time though? I find the article a little unclear if that's a general recommendation even if all the aids are functional for a visual approach.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#95

Post by ripper1138 » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:11 PM UTC

babyshake wrote: post #35

This is coming from someone who only has experience as a commercial flight passenger, but I would expect AI to be very promising for ATC. Obviously there are various concerns ranging from potential attack vectors and the need for failsafes if any automated system fails, but has this been explored?

This is the type of take that proves AI is in a hype bubble right now.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#96

Post by trentnelson » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

KennyBlanken wrote: post #73

CaliforniaKarl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The video posted by u/hansenq showed what flows were like, with traffic from the east sequenced as far out as Salt Lake City. It probably would’ve needed coordination with Oakland, LA, and Salt Lake centers

This flight came from Germany. They had hours of notice to find it an ILS slot in the pattern.

That’s not how ATC works. First come, first served.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#97

Post by FireBeyond » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

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?

Apropos of the other issues already being well debated:

1. ATCs role is to facilitate use of the airport.

2. They/the airport are being paid by Lufthansa to do so:

~$4,000 landing fee based on the OEW + 5% fuel being 340,000lb at $9.11/1000 lb.

~$800 for up to 8 hours at a gate (or a flat rate of $36,000/mo per aircraft for a frequently visiting ship).

~$1,000 for common use of terminal facilities (for airlines that don't have dedicated terminals - often with internationals, where they have the common check in area that is used by multiple airlines).

And that's not all the charges the airline gets from the airport, that's just the majority of the charges for "1 aircraft, 1 landing/departure" at SFO.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#98

Post by throwbadubadu » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:14 PM UTC

babyshake wrote: post #35

This is coming from someone who only has experience as a commercial flight passenger, but I would expect AI to be very promising for ATC. Obviously there are various concerns ranging from potential attack vectors and the need for failsafes if any automated system fails, but has this been explored?

That is satire, right? We can discuss more/better automation and tooling aids and planning aids and whatever tech.. there are so many options you can bring in there before even thinking of any $+#(&#&$ AI in safety critical things?! Exploring what, the many ways it could hilariously fail?

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#99

Post by db48x » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:15 PM UTC

reso wrote: post #45

> Pilot: If we are not set up for base soon, we will have to declare a fuel emergency and that would really fuck up your sequence. > Controller: What is your divert field? > Pilot: Oakland > Controller: Ok you need vectors to Oakland? > Pilot: No, my company forbids visual separation at night, what is the problem here? > Controller: I can't have this conversation with you. You either divert to Oakland or you can cont…

Declaring a fuel emergency doesn’t mean that they have run out of fuel, or that they will run out of fuel soon. It means that if even they diverted to their alternate right now, they would expect to go below their reserve fuel level before they could land. The reserve fuel level is there to give them an extra half hour or more of flight time. Absent some mechanical problem with the engines, or a fuel leak, declaring a fuel emergency would mean that the pilots waited too long at their destination airport before thinking about diverting. You’re supposed to simply divert _before_ you would need to declare an emergency, rather than declare an emergency simply in order to skip ahead in line.

There was no risk of a crash in this circumstance, because the plane still had plenty of fuel to divert to their alternate and land before going into their final reserve.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#100

Post by StopHammoTime » Tue, Dec 19, 2023, 10:15 PM UTC

Just a clarifier for everyone - a fuel emergency is not what you think it is. They don’t run until the last drop. While it indicates the aircraft should be handled without delay, it’s also not going to fall out of the sky immediately either.

A fuel emergency would never be severe enough that they would be forced to land at SFO in this situation. In fact, if they were truly forced to land the pilots would lose their jobs because they left it way too late. Oakland was always a reasonable option.

Finally, fuel emergencies are not actually a standard call. It is a thing that is adhered to in the industry as courtesy. Unless there is a malfunction with the fuel system (which would be a mayday call) then it is mostly avoidable.