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

371–380 of 413 posts

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#371

Post by ExoticPearTree »

alistairSH wrote: post #145
karcass wrote: post #33

I got my pilot's license in the Bay Area and transited SFO's class bravo frequently. The region has one of the world's most complex airspaces (a B, two Cs, and a crap-ton of Ds), and SFO has a mind-boggling amount of traffic for an airport of its size. Based on my lived experience in that airspace, I think ATC did the best they could in a tough position, and I think that Lufthansa asking for special treatment is the…

I think that Lufthansa asking for special treatment is the asshole move Lufthansa’s rules shouldn’t have been a surprise to anybody here. The route isn’t new and operates on the edge of daylight much of the year. And IIRC, the FAA actually recommends foreign airlines adopt visual approach procedures at SFO, so … how does that make Lufthansa the assholes?

Because it is an FAA recommendation, not a rule. Lufthansa decided that they only do ILS at night and NorCal was not in a position to give them that in the near future because it would disrupt the flow of airplanes that could visual approaches at night and require less separation.

I am not 100% sure about the following but I think ATC instructions trumps company rules any day.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#372

Post by FabHK »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #59
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…

Those aren’t the options presented, you’re being dramatic. The pilot has the options to wait or divert, no matter what the controller says, in any situation where they cannot get into an airport. There is no risk of crashing here. The pilot cannot call the controllers bluff and declare a fuel emergency to land at SFO because Oakland is so close and it would be unprofessional. The controller doesn’t have time to expla…

> The controller doesn’t have time to explain why the previous estimate was wrong or discuss company policy.

Absolutely. ATC might have been less helpful than possible here, maybe because they had too much on their plate. In that case, if they waste further time on long discussions and get behind on their other planes, the whole carefully juggled sequence might break down, sending many planes to holding or even their alternate.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#373

Post by psd1 »

konschubert wrote: post #370
dmurray wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's keep in mind that SFOs "standard operations" is purely economical, it's about making more landings so the airport earns more money. Having more, and more regular, landings is also in the greater public interest, so long as you agree with air travel at all. If SFO changed their rules and could accommodate fewer landings, fewer people would get to travel to San Francisco and more of them would be delayed. It se…

Why do automatic landings require wider separation than visual approaches? If anything, shouldn’t it allow for more dense approaches, since the computer has more situational awareness?

Where did you get "automatic"? "ILS" means the pilot flies on instruments.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#374

Post by freeopinion »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #344
perihelions wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- "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…

You are right to a certain point, but all you are required is to follow the airplane in front of you and land. It's a dumb simple requirement. If it was such a big issue, FAA would have put a stop to it at SFO, but just because one Air Canada flight tried to land on the taxiway does not make it a safety critical issue. Mistakes happen all the time. Asking for an airport to break its arrival sequence because your airl…

Yes, mistakes happen all the time. One aspect of the aviation industry that I have always noted is the reluctance to adopt this as an excuse for failure. When a pilot pushes Button X instead of Button Y, it isn't just chalked up to pilot error. Somebody asks why Button X and Button Y are arranged right next to each other to begin with. Why was a situation created in which "pilot error" becomes so easy? Then things are changed so that such pilot error becomes harder and less likely.

It's an admirable thing when somebody has to go out of their way and go through some contortions to make critical mistakes.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#375

Post by freeopinion »

david422 wrote: post #227
perihelions wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- "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…

I dunno. If everyone is doing 75 on the freeway, "safest" might be 65, but you can also create more unsafe conditions by not matching the speed of all the other traffic.

This is a very popular argument. I run into it a lot. I have been criticized for following the speed limit when there were six vehicles spaced across five kilometers. It seems I am expected to speed up to match the one vehicle that passed me.

If nobody obeys the speed limit and it is in fact safer to exceed the speed limit, why do we have speed limits? Why does the government make it illegal to do the safest thing? And why does the public put up with it? Why is there no MADD-like organization protesting the insane government policies that put everybody at risk?

I don't have any data to show that 65 is safer than 75, or to show that 75 is safer than 65. I don't know if speed limits are based on any real safety data. But I'm pretty sure that your rationalization is not. This is my little (misguided) campaign to combat that argument. Even if 95% of the population embrace it as a plausible excuse for breaking rules and to malign rule-keepers.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#376

Post by pdonis »

danielschonfeld wrote: post #363
pdonis wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> American Airlines (at JFK) proved you can call emergency just because you feel like it with no repercussion. I don't think it's that simple. In the AA case you refer to, the pilot was concerned about the high crosswind on the runway ATC wanted him to land on, so he declared an emergency so he could land on a safer runway. Crosswind landings are dicey at the best of times, and I suspect that if the AA pilot didn't g…

Following along that logic. Nobody would fault the LH pilot for a similar judgement call requiring an immediate landing at the closest suitable airport, namely SFO. ATC was in the wrong here and the attitude displayed was neither called for nor professional.

> Nobody would fault the LH pilot for a similar judgement call

Bad analogy. The LH pilot's reason for asking for an ILS approach was company policy; he made no claim that he was unable to make a visual landing safely because of actual conditions, only that his company wouldn't allow him to make a visual landing as a matter of policy.

> ATC was in the wrong here and the attitude displayed was neither called for nor professional.

Many other posters in this discussion have pointed out aspects of the situation that make it clear that it wasn't that simple.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#377

Post by alistairSH »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #371
alistairSH wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that Lufthansa asking for special treatment is the asshole move Lufthansa’s rules shouldn’t have been a surprise to anybody here. The route isn’t new and operates on the edge of daylight much of the year. And IIRC, the FAA actually recommends foreign airlines adopt visual approach procedures at SFO, so … how does that make Lufthansa the assholes?

Because it is an FAA recommendation, not a rule. Lufthansa decided that they only do ILS at night and NorCal was not in a position to give them that in the near future because it would disrupt the flow of airplanes that could visual approaches at night and require less separation. I am not 100% sure about the following but I think ATC instructions trumps company rules any day.

Understood, but I don’t think that makes Lufthansa the asshole here.

Between Lufthansa seemingly unaware of this situation in NorCal, and the ATC being prickly about it (the indefinite holding when they clearly had no intention of slotting them in), there’s plenty of assholes being assholes.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#378

Post by jquery »

filleduchaos wrote: post #305
jquery wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After that extra 4 minute delay, the pilot made a bluff because he had get-there-itis and the ATC controller called the bluff. Honestly I don't see what the controller did wrong here. If anything was unprofessional it was threatening to call an emergency and then arguing with ATC

How is it get-there-itis for a pilot to have to remind air traffic control that they have not provided an update they are supposed to have provided? Honestly I'm a little confused by some of the sentiment around this situation. Air traffic control is a service that airlines pay for, not little gods that cannot be questioned.

"if we are not set up for base soon, we will have to declare fuel emergency and that would really ** up your sequence" - pilot

That is 100% out of line. But the ATC handled it super professionally and offered them vectors to their alternate. The article suggests that ATC should've let the pilots declare a fuel emergency instead?

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#379

Post by jquery »

danielschonfeld wrote: post #364
jquery wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An aggressive pilot that declares an emergency simply to avoid diverting won't be a pilot for long. The ATC did nothing wrong.

I beg to differ. He didn’t divert, a diversion was pushed down his throat. It’s also arguable that the diversion was the lesser safe course of action given his location.

"if we are not set up for base soon, we will have to declare fuel emergency and that would really ** up your sequence"

At that point ATC offered vectors to the alternate. A diversion was never pushed down his throat.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#380

Post by dekhn »

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…

A bit of an aside, but: I live and drive along 101 south of SFO, and you can literally see this chain of landings- typically if I can see the plane flying between San Mateo Bridge and SFO, I can see the next pair of planes, and at night/clear weather, I can see one or two more pairs.

I went to check flightradar but I can see right now they are landing planes in the opposite configuration (approaching from the northeast instead of the south east), I guess because of wind conditions (see Operational Flow, https://www.flysfo.com/about/community-noise/noise-office/fl...).

Post reply on HN