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

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#411

Post by lowbloodsugar » Sat, Dec 23, 2023, 2:20 AM UTC

Ekaros wrote: post #311

lowbloodsugar wrote: post #10

Seems like Lufthansa has decided it's not able to land planes at SFO at night.

They decided that they don't want to be part of preventable accident.

Their article implied that every other airline was happy with the procedure, so it seems like Lufthansa decided that they don't want to train their pilots. Was this an exceptional day at SFO? From my experience of SFO, doesn't seem like it (too many planes, too little time).

So are you saying that it's just dangerous to fly on the other airlines into SFO?

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#412

Post by david422 » Mon, Dec 25, 2023, 12:32 AM UTC

freeopinion wrote: post #375

david422 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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? A…

It's literally the premise of the article though. One airplane not matching the other traffic creates a larger problem.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#413

Post by filleduchaos » Wed, Jan 03, 2024, 2:36 AM UTC

leodag wrote: post #410

filleduchaos wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Describing this as "barging in" is rather strange to me. The aviation industry is neither a charity nor the average software engineering shop; not only is air traffic control something that airlines pay for, this is far from the first or the last time that Lufthansa will fly into SFO.

Now I am confused - I have no actual knowledge on this but on the post there is a comment from an experienced pilot saying the opposite: > [...] But IMO ATC was absolutely not doing what they are supposed to do. Air traffic control is literally a service provided to and paid for by the airlines.

...how is that the opposite of what I said?