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

341–350 of 413 posts

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#341

Post by affyboi »

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?

I mean, yes. Every single time there’s an aviation incident there’s an extremely thorough investigation and generally a set of concrete recommendations to go along with it.

Pilots are human, automated systems fail, and the goal is to maximize safety because these fuckups mean that 200-300 people on a single plane might die (or more if a plane crashes into another or into a populated area) and these safety regulations have saved a lot of lives.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#342

Post by ExoticPearTree »

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 listened to the first YT video from VASAviation and then the followup video that is very long with a lot of explanations.

I think Lufthansa was in the wrong here: - they knew SFO does visual parallel landings, and ILS is provided if able and it does not interrupt the flow of planes - pilots attitude was not very professional and they started on the wrong foot with "you told us 10 minutes that ended 4 minutes ago" - then they told ATC they're gonna fuck up their sequence - then they started complaining again that why is everyone sequenced before them even though ATC told them that they will be cleared once there's a hole in the arrivals sequence long enough to accommodate an ILS landing, and the new estimate was 15-20min more

It is a requirement for pilots to know how an airport operates and what to expect when they get there or depart.

I guess in the end Lufthansa needs to send pilots with better manners to SFO and put more fuel in their airplanes in case they need to wait for a gap in the arrival sequence to accommodate ILS.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#343

Post by logifail »

cwillu wrote: post #255
notwhereyouare wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The flight was initially supposed to leave Munich at 4:20PM, but only departed at 6:30PM The flight was supposed to arrive in San Francisco at 7PM, but ended up landing in Oakland at 9:43PM, after a 12hr13min flight" Don't think they intended to arrive at the busiest time

Arriving two hours late is a predictable consequence of leaving two hours late; this couldn't have been a surprise to the flight crew.

> this couldn't have been a surprise to the flight crew

...nor to the airport

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#344

Post by ExoticPearTree »

perihelions wrote: post #155
ralph84 wrote: post #146

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…

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 airline has a different policy than the airport is bonkers.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#345

Post by CaptainZapp »

ra7 wrote: post #192
FireBeyond wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should ATC at a busy airport be so accommodating? Apropos of the other issues already being well debated: 1. ATCs role is to facilitate use of the airport. 2. They/the airport are being paid by Lufthansa to do so: ~$4,000 landing fee based on the OEW + 5% fuel being 340,000lb at $9.11/1000 lb. ~$800 for up to 8 hours at a gate (or a flat rate of $36,000/mo per aircraft for a frequently visiting ship). ~$1,000 f…

This is great information. Are these pricing details publicly available for airports?

Here are the charges for Zurich airport (PDF)[0].

It's extremely detailed and I would assume every major airport publishes them.

Also, let's just say that landing a heavy plane after midnight gets very, very expensive.

[0] https://media.flughafen-zuerich.ch/-/jssmedia/airport/portal...

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#346

Post by ExoticPearTree »

cycomanic wrote: post #256
ralph84 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, Lufthansa can make up whatever rules they want for “safety”. Safest would be to not venture 7 miles above the arctic at 500mph at all. But if their rules are obviously in conflict with the standard operations at an airport, it’s on Lufthansa to adjust not everyone else. You can’t barge in and expect to get ATC priority on account of “company policy” or suddenly there’d be a lot of company policies requiring onl…

Let's keep in mind that SFOs "standard operations" is purely economical, it's about making more landings so the airport earns more money. Now you might be happy to compromise your safety so others can earn more money, I think many others are not. It's also not like SFO doesn't have other LH flights arriving who all have the exact same rules, so it could've hardly come as a surprise. Finally, the pilot was in some way…

> Finally, the pilot was in some ways quite considerate. He could have just waited and declared a fuel emergency that would have really screwed things up for ATC.

Not really, he would have been sent packing very fast to OAK which is just 10NM from SFO.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#347

Post by jakub_g »

systemvoltage wrote: post #320
Cacti wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FAA budget in 2016 was $15.8B. In 2023 dollars, this is equivalent to about $20B. The current budget is $18.6ish.

Mostly going to inadequate and incompetent new hires. We're not selecting based on merit and competence. We make a big deal out of interview process in Software engineering. But when it comes to critical life/death situation jobs, we don't.

> "inadequate and incompetent new hires" *

*citation needed

From what I've read last week [0], the main problem is that there's not enough (qualified) candidates being hired, and current ATC employees are routinely working 6d x 10h weeks.

Stressed & overworked employees doesn't seem like a great solution to critical life/death situation either.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38587340

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#348

Post by briandear »

ralph84 wrote: post #146
ak217 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Commercial pilot here. The Lufthansa prohibition on night visuals isn’t a new thing. Proper flow control when that airplane entered US airspace could have ensured correct spacing long before the aircraft entered ZOA (Oakland ARTCC) airspace. That NorCal approach expected to give the Lufthansa a night visual is puzzling because anyone that has worked in an approach control at night would know that it’s common for many operators especially biz jet operators and Lufthansa to have a operational prohibition on night visuals (many operators also have prohibitions on night circling approaches, but these aren’t common in large airliner airports.)

Flow Control is also part of the problem: they knew that aircraft was en route many hours before, they should have sequenced the airplane correctly. But this is also a result of staffing and priorities at the FAA. Buttigeg is essentially incompetent. A small town mayor of debatable accomplishment in even getting road potholes repaired being elevated to lead the U.S. Dept of Transportation was mind-blowing. If he deserved any cabinet role, HUD would have been the closest fit, but we all know that all presidents have a tendency to appoint people as political favors rather than subject-matter excellence.

Ask controllers and pilots who have been in this business for more than a few years and the giant belly-flop of the FAA is profound. Controllers are far less experienced and greatly overworked than they were pre-2020.

And interestingly, the FAA does not follow ICAO rules for visual approaches — the international standard requires consent of both the pilot and ATC — it’s not something that ATC initiates unilaterally. For those interested, here is a helpful document on the consequences of the FAA/ICAO differences: https://ops.group/blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/21atsbl04-...

And here is an article that is significantly more informed on this incident than some frequent flyer blog written by backseaters rather than aviation professionals:

https://ops.group/blog/us-visual-approaches-lh458/

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#349

Post by briandear »

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…

The FAA deviating from ICAO standards for visual approaches is more bonkers.

Re: A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

#350

Post by briandear »

ralph84 wrote: post #178
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…

Sure, Lufthansa can make up whatever rules they want for “safety”. Safest would be to not venture 7 miles above the arctic at 500mph at all. But if their rules are obviously in conflict with the standard operations at an airport, it’s on Lufthansa to adjust not everyone else. You can’t barge in and expect to get ATC priority on account of “company policy” or suddenly there’d be a lot of company policies requiring onl…

You might be interested to know that the FAA doesn’t follow standard ICAO procedures for visual approach clearance. So when SFO “rules” are in conflict with how the entire rest of the world handles visual approach clearances, perhaps the FAA is the one that needs to get their act together.
Post reply on HN