The bigger issue here is that the ILS is being set aside in favor of visual approaches in order to slot in a few more approaches per hour. What's the point of equipping SFO with ILS if it's just going to sit idle?
[deleted]
A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
201–210 of 413 posts
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not how ATC works. First come, first served.
No, that's also not how it should work. Airports have a certain capacity, that's why you use slot allocations at crowded ones. You can say that day was so botched that they blew the one plane in fav of all the others, but that is not how it should work, telling a plane with an allocated slot you cannot even have a realistic estimate when we will fit you in.
[deleted]
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The ATC should have just told them that, from the get go. They know exactly how many aircraft are headed their way, the pilot doesn't
I'm pretty sure they did.. the article says controller told them there would be "extended delays". Sounds like the pilot just got impatient when ATC couldn't get him on the ground after 10 minutes.
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
They arrived in the area on time Huh? They arrived way outside their window. I realize they also left MUC late, but still.
This is obviously referring to the fact that they arrived on time with respect to their updated schedule post delayed departure.
it's not about arriving "on time", it's about telling approach what they needed early so approach can fit the request into their plan. and, at least according to the initial video, they didn't until they were being given vectors for the approach.
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#205Regardless of what everyone is saying about the controller, I think the pilots behavior was disrespectful (to both ATC and to the lives of those on their plane) and unprofessional.
You don’t get to cry wolf and cut the line because you were late and want preferential treatment. Go to Oakland as told, wait, or declare an actual emergency for emergency procedures to be run for you.
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also this crash that happened while ILS was broken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 This was ultimately pilot error but also due to the fact that the pilots were not as accustomed to doing visual landings.
Pilots are not going to be accustomized of visual landings in case of emergency, if you have a corporate policy that forbids them in controlled setting! This one is bizzare, not only European pilots on average have less experience than US ones, but they are not allowed to gain experience by corporate policy. (This one coming from a country where aviation is a big mess)
You do not train with passengers on board, period.
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#207What’s the big deal? Sounds like everything got negotiated just fine. SFO couldn’t accommodate an ILS landing at the moment, the Lufthansa flight required landing sooner, so they diverted. Some people got inconvenienced? That’s a shame.
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#2081/ Visual vs instrument approach. The main difference in this case is separation requirements that ATC must provide. Specifically, under IFR rules ATC mus provide 3 miles / 500 feet altitude separation minimum. For visual approaches, the separation is responsibility of the pilots and this enables parallel runway landings at SFO with much shorter intervals (there is a version of parallel landings with instrument appro…
Yes. I got the feeling that the pilot was playing the cry-wolf game with the threat of declaring fuel emergency. ATC then responded with, ok, divert. It’s a case of FAFO.
100%
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
“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.
Like, not running tests gets your code to prod faster
Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion
#210> 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…
> This is tough for me to wrap my head around.
It's pretty easy to explain: the controller took the pilot at his word, and immediately offered the fastest and safest option to get them on the ground, which was to land at Oakland. The runway thresholds at SFO and OAK are less than ten miles apart.