5 ms·

This same airport had a crash during visual approach during the day no? Seems wild to give huge delays to anyone not willing to do a visual approach, it's clear

This same airport had a crash during visual approach during the day no? Seems wild to give huge delays to anyone not willing to do a visual approach, it's clearly pressuring pilots to accept the visual approach when they may not be comfortable with it. And I do believe the atc has to provide accurate (to their knowledge) accounts of what the delay is, to ensure flights can divert before being out of fuel. Even saying 'we don't know how long the delay is' is at least information. It seems incredibly clear from the logs the controller was being an ass as well. No need to go 0-100 part when asked about how long the delay is, pilots literally need that information.

dehrmann 3y ago
> This same airport had a crash during visual approach during the day no? I did a quick google and couldn't find this.
- baggy_trough 3y ago
  Presumably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214
  - ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
    That's it, not sure what they googled, it comes up first when searching San Francisco airplane crash...
    - dehrmann 3y ago
      I was expecting something more recent.
- pedrocr 3y ago
  This seems like one of the reasons for the policy to always use ILS at SFO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759 "The NTSB determined the probable cause was the Air Canada flight crew's confusion of the runway with the parallel taxiway, with contributing causes including the crew's failure to use the instrument landing system (ILS), as well as pilot fatigue. A retired pilot stated the runway confusion that almost happened "probably came close to the greatest aviation disaster in history"[2][3][4][5] as five airplanes and potentially over 1,000 passengers were at imminent risk of a disaster greater than the Tenerife airport disaster."
m-ee 3y ago
SF politics come into play here as well. There’s been talk of expanding the runways so visual approaches wouldn’t be needed for decades now, but Aaron Peskin seems to have made it his personal issue to kill it at every opportunity.
- brigade 3y ago
  Have there been any serious proposals or discussion in the last two decades? SFO’s current master plan estimates a growth of 50% more passengers and aircraft operations before maxing the current capacity.
  - m-ee 3y ago
    Not since the original proposal ~20 years ago, Peskin has made comments since reiterating that he wouldn't let it happen. We may not be at capacity but SFO has a pretty terrible on time percentage, and traffic slows massively when there's bad weather.

dehrmann 3y ago

> This same airport had a crash during visual approach during the day no? I did a quick google and couldn't find this.

baggy_trough 3y ago
Presumably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214
- ApolloFortyNine 3y ago
  That's it, not sure what they googled, it comes up first when searching San Francisco airplane crash...
  - dehrmann 3y ago
    I was expecting something more recent.
pedrocr 3y ago
This seems like one of the reasons for the policy to always use ILS at SFO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759 "The NTSB determined the probable cause was the Air Canada flight crew's confusion of the runway with the parallel taxiway, with contributing causes including the crew's failure to use the instrument landing system (ILS), as well as pilot fatigue. A retired pilot stated the runway confusion that almost happened "probably came close to the greatest aviation disaster in history"[2][3][4][5] as five airplanes and potentially over 1,000 passengers were at imminent risk of a disaster greater than the Tenerife airport disaster."

m-ee 3y ago

SF politics come into play here as well. There’s been talk of expanding the runways so visual approaches wouldn’t be needed for decades now, but Aaron Peskin seems to have made it his personal issue to kill it at every opportunity.

brigade 3y ago
Have there been any serious proposals or discussion in the last two decades? SFO’s current master plan estimates a growth of 50% more passengers and aircraft operations before maxing the current capacity.
- m-ee 3y ago
  Not since the original proposal ~20 years ago, Peskin has made comments since reiterating that he wouldn't let it happen. We may not be at capacity but SFO has a pretty terrible on time percentage, and traffic slows massively when there's bad weather.