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

131–140 of 413 posts

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#131

Post by bombcar »

trentnelson wrote: post #86
KennyBlanken wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're leaving out that they had a filed flight plan which for an international flight means controllers had many hours of notice as to when the flight was scheduled to arrive and that they would be looking for an ILS approach and it was the responsibility of approach controllers to have a spot in the pattern for them. They arrived in the area on time, and controllers had not allocated it a spot, which is why the pil…

ATC works on a first come, first served basis. (Unless you’re Air Force 1/2, or a survival flight, or declare an emergency.) So just being in the system hours beforehand doesn’t really mean much. ATC don’t plan ahead based on what’s in the system, per se.

Which is why you circle until low fuel, pan-pan, and land.

Calvin knew it: https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1988/05/15

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#132

Post by koyote »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #117
kabes wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lufthansa does what the FAA recommends and SFO had air canada almost landing on the taxiway because of the visual approach not too long ago. So calling it an asshole move is turning things around.

So punish everyone because of Air Canada's fuck-up?

There have been two major incidents around landing at SFO in the last decade, one involving fatalities.

Prioritising safety by requesting to land using ILS after a 12 hour flight should not be seen as 'punishing' everyone else.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#133

Post by epolanski »

StopHammoTime wrote: post #100

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 j…

A fuel malfunction does not lead to a mayday, there's a PAN PAN first.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#134

Post by khuey »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #120
khuey wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flight's scheduled arrival time of 6:15 PM puts it well into darkness for much of the winter.

You know I thought you were right but apparently for that day sunset was 6:30PM. https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/san-francisco?month=10

Sure, but my point is that this flight arriving in darkness is not something they never would have considered when planning the route and setting company policies prohibiting visual approaches at night.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#135

Post by wkat4242 »

Animats wrote: post #36

There's a better discussion of the Lufthansa situation at [1]. ILS landings require more spacing. The ILS system itself just shows the way to the runway, not what other aircraft are doing. In a visual approach in busy conditions, the pilot can see the aircraft ahead. In an ILS approach, it's assumed that they can't. This leads to ATC wanting to use visual approaches to get more planes landed. [1] https://ops.group/bl…

Maybe there should be a class for visual ILS with the same separation as visual approaches and less chance of error.

Just like visual VFR exists. It would make the use of ILS in these situations easiest.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#136

Post by lmm »

trentnelson wrote: post #92
KennyBlanken wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

It's not unusual for a safety measure to be labour intensive and/or reduce flow.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#137

Post by intrasight »

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…

So perhaps "frustrating" - but still the correct decision

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#138

Post by happytiger »

ak217 wrote: post #123
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…

I think the FAA leadership is ultimately in the wrong for allowing their area of responsibility to deteriorate to the point where a controller and a pilot were put in this situation. They have a controller shortage that they are not doing enough to fix, and they have a troublesome airport with limited capacity to accommodate traffic, that they are being too bureaucratic about fixing. The controllers at SFO have used…

This is right on point. This issue is squarely on the FAA and they need to provide better guidance to controllers and pilot. Great comment.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#139

Post by ak217 »

trentnelson wrote: post #86
KennyBlanken wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're leaving out that they had a filed flight plan which for an international flight means controllers had many hours of notice as to when the flight was scheduled to arrive and that they would be looking for an ILS approach and it was the responsibility of approach controllers to have a spot in the pattern for them. They arrived in the area on time, and controllers had not allocated it a spot, which is why the pil…

ATC works on a first come, first served basis. (Unless you’re Air Force 1/2, or a survival flight, or declare an emergency.) So just being in the system hours beforehand doesn’t really mean much. ATC don’t plan ahead based on what’s in the system, per se.

I keep seeing this repeated, but it's obviously not true. ATC does not work on any such basis.

ATC's job is to safely and efficiently route the traffic. Different traffic may have different needs, and if unexpected needs arise, ATC has broad discretion on whether or how to accommodate them. But being the first in line, or anywhere else in line, doesn't mean much if you're holding up other traffic - as demonstrated in this incident!

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#140

Post by lmm »

wkat4242 wrote: post #135
Animats wrote: post #36

There's a better discussion of the Lufthansa situation at [1]. ILS landings require more spacing. The ILS system itself just shows the way to the runway, not what other aircraft are doing. In a visual approach in busy conditions, the pilot can see the aircraft ahead. In an ILS approach, it's assumed that they can't. This leads to ATC wanting to use visual approaches to get more planes landed. [1] https://ops.group/bl…

Maybe there should be a class for visual ILS with the same separation as visual approaches and less chance of error. Just like visual VFR exists. It would make the use of ILS in these situations easiest.

From other posts it sounds like SOIA is the "right" solution here, but SF has not reenabled it post-COVID, perhaps due to labour shortages.
Post reply on HN