161–170 of 413 posts
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pilots and controllers who are already in short supply? That’s the problem, the individual actors are helpless in a system optimized against them. Certainly, the FAA is a contributing factor through wages and working conditions leading to controller shortages, but airlines can also do more to better accommodate pilots. This is a system headed to failure, with those responsible not making responsible choices and who w…
The FAA (and specifically Transport Secretary Buttigieg) hold all the cards here. That they're not doing more to address the issues speaks volumes about the FAA's mission and abrogation of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if there is any mechanism that reconfirms landing slots (and other aspects of the flight plan) still being available after a delayed takeoff for cases like this. Is it really just a matter of taking off and hoping for the best, or did somebody in the chain of granting a take-off clearance miss something?
I've had flights that were delayed, and then during the start of the boarding process, we had to stop and switch to a different aircraft, because the delay meant we'd be too loud for the noise curfew when we arrived, so we needed to take a quieter plane. That was a domestic flight into a small airport (LGB), but I imagine there's something to manage total flight volume in general; there's certainly exception handling…
I wonder if an updated (international) flight plan is checked for projected congestion levels (based on other flight plans?) at all and can be declined for that reason?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe SFO is already over capacity and can’t safely take the traffic assigned to it?
Then it's literally ATCs responsibility to inform the incoming aircraft of that. That's why there's a diversion airport.
From a safety perspective, this all seems to have worked as intended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Lufthansa should not be dispatching flights to arrive at SFO at the busiest time of night if their pilots aren’t prepared to do the approaches everyone else is doing. This isn’t a foreign vs. domestic carrier thing. British Airways, Air India, EVA, etc. etc. all have pilots prepared to execute night visual approaches and do so every night at SFO.
- "their pilots aren’t prepared to do the approaches everyone else is doing" Is this is a fair framing? My read of it is that Lufthansa's enforcing a minimal standard of safety—one that's higher than both other airliners' and the ATC's. They're not incapable of doing visual landings at night; rather, they have a policy banning it in non-emergency situations. It (naively) seems reasonable to me not to budge on this ki…
It seems very clear from the transcript that the pilots are just working with a stupid rule, not that they are incapable of actually doing it.
A pilot who could only land with the help of ILS couldn’t possibly be assigned to a transcontinental flight that lands in the evening right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pilots and controllers who are already in short supply? That’s the problem, the individual actors are helpless in a system optimized against them. Certainly, the FAA is a contributing factor through wages and working conditions leading to controller shortages, but airlines can also do more to better accommodate pilots. This is a system headed to failure, with those responsible not making responsible choices and who w…
The FAA (and specifically Transport Secretary Buttigieg) hold all the cards here. That they're not doing more to address the issues speaks volumes about the FAA's mission and abrogation of it.
There aren’t enough controllers (possibly budget). The ones who are are horribly overworked and it’s an ultra-high stress job.
Between that and pay they can’t recruit more to ease the burden. But the existing ones are burning out, making things worse.
Maybe better equipment could lessen the load, but that’s big money too.
Is there a simple rule change that can fix this other than limiting the number of flights? I doubt it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pilots and controllers who are already in short supply? That’s the problem, the individual actors are helpless in a system optimized against them. Certainly, the FAA is a contributing factor through wages and working conditions leading to controller shortages, but airlines can also do more to better accommodate pilots. This is a system headed to failure, with those responsible not making responsible choices and who w…
The FAA (and specifically Transport Secretary Buttigieg) hold all the cards here. That they're not doing more to address the issues speaks volumes about the FAA's mission and abrogation of it.
(1) hire enough people to perform the ops
(2) hire enough people to update and modernize the policy
Any other solution that doesn't emphasize building up the human capital is easy to argue against, IMO. You simply cannot draw from an empty well, and you really really don't want text GPTs attempting to land you no matter how well-intentioned the fine-tuning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Lufthansa should not be dispatching flights to arrive at SFO at the busiest time of night if their pilots aren’t prepared to do the approaches everyone else is doing. This isn’t a foreign vs. domestic carrier thing. British Airways, Air India, EVA, etc. etc. all have pilots prepared to execute night visual approaches and do so every night at SFO.
- "their pilots aren’t prepared to do the approaches everyone else is doing" Is this is a fair framing? My read of it is that Lufthansa's enforcing a minimal standard of safety—one that's higher than both other airliners' and the ATC's. They're not incapable of doing visual landings at night; rather, they have a policy banning it in non-emergency situations. It (naively) seems reasonable to me not to budge on this ki…
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,…
Crew fatigue is not an ATC concern. Long haul flights like this carry relief pilots and have crew rest facilities so fatigue shouldn't be an issue in the first place. Controllers mostly work for the FAA. They have volume goals to meet, but they aren't accountable to airport or airline management for profit targets.
Overall it feels like a punitive measure against Lufthansa, rather than spending the time to get them an ILS clearance. For reference the flight is usually a 6:45p arrival but was very late on the evening in question.
18:45
18h45
A quarter to seven in the evening