13 ms·

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 htt

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 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 during a particularly busy landing time at SFO, so there was indeed a massive chain of aircraft coming in to land. Lufthansa was the only aircraft asking for ILS. Because ILS needs greater separation, that would require breaking the chain of approaches, sequencing a single ILS approach, then resuming. The chain of landings already sequenced takes priority, so Lufthansa would have to wait 30+ minutes for a gap to appear. By the time that gap appeared, Lufthansa had just decided to divert to Oakland. If Lufthansa had arrived a bit earlier or a bit later, they would have been sequenced just fine. ATC could have been a bit more accommodating in rerouting their divert to SFO as soon as the a gap appeared, but Lufthansa was also the only airline requesting ILS, and they're already dealing with sequencing 20+ aircraft during a busy time. It's not clear who's in the wrong here; just an unintended consequence from many well-intentioned decisions.

michaeljx 3y ago
From what I understand, despite the tower not being able to create a gap for 30+ minutes,which although extreme may be understandable due to SFO being the way it is, another major factor was the fact that the tower was unable to provide a realistic estimated time to enter the circuit. That is completely unacceptable.
- CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
  If you mean “traffic pattern” (from https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg_10-12-17.pdf https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg_10-12...), that is also something you would do visually, which I don’t think Lufthansa would accept. As for not being able to give an accurate estimate, that is not for the on-the-radio approach controller to calculate, given their view of the airspace. The video posted by parent shows how long the inbound flows were (at least on the east side); approach wouldn’t have seen that. The coordination necessary to get an accurate estimate should’ve involved managers, which might be affected by the current shortage (see https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211838624/air-traffic-controllers-shortage-close-calls-senate-safety-near-miss-senate https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211838624/air-traffic-contro...).
  - michael_j_x 3y ago
    I meant for the ATC to provide a descent estimate of when Lufthansa should be expected to enter the AERODROME TRAFFIC CIRCUIT (since you want tolink the FAA glossary) in order to land (they had them on a hold pattern for 35+ minutes). This is independent of whether the approach is IFR or VFR. A TOWER controller has all the information necessary to calculate that estimate, and should be expected to do so, the same way a stock trader is expected to calculate PnL of their positions on the fly given the current stock price.
    - jcrawfordor 3y ago
      Most of the queue would have been with approach, not tower. The aircraft sequenced to land were split across at least two controllers, tower and approach, and possibly more than one approach controller depending on how SFO splits them up. I would expect approach to be able to provide a reasonable estimate but it seems like in this case the estimate was found to be four minutes off, which seems totally within the bounds of a reasonable estimate from an approach controller. The traffic pattern (US term) isn't really a factor here either way, airliners flying visual still usually use charted routes (like the instrument procedures) or radar vectors rather than the pattern. Remember that the pattern is only about one mile out from the field. By the time airliners are that close they're probably cleared.
      - wtallis 3y ago
        > but it seems like in this case the estimate was found to be four minutes off No, I don't think you are being at all accurate about characterizing that; maybe you lost count of the delays. After being told to wait ten more minutes, the pilots waited an extra four minutes before pressing for an update, and got told to wait another 10-15 (or f off).
    - p3n1s 3y ago
      Aerodrome traffic circuit is the ICAO term for traffic pattern, which is it what it is called in the US (it may be in the glossary but the point is that manual uses "traffic pattern" repeatedly). And this "traffic circuit" you refer to is almost always a VFR thing, as IFR approaches use specific charted procedures that generally do not end with a traffic circuit. https://skybrary.aero/articles/aerodrome-traffic-circuit https://skybrary.aero/articles/aerodrome-traffic-circuit
- paxys 3y ago
  I found that part delightfully ironic, because it's basically a meme that whenever a flight is delayed ground staff/pilots will always tell passengers "we'll just be off in just a few minutes" over and over again regardless of how long the delay is going to be.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  The controller tried to give an estimated time, but that original estimate was blown out of the water by the other planes in the queue taking longer than expected, and the controller didn't have time to keep trying to give an updated estimated time to the one plane in the queue that wanted to do things the hard way (that also, due to circumstances within its own control, departed its original airport late and arrived outside of the window where SFO could have accommodated its silly request without any delays).
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    Your framing here is weird and doesn't match the facts. The airplane didn't want to do anything. Its pilots were following a mandatory company safety policy.
    - gamblor956 3y ago
      My framing here is literally based on the transcript of the conversation between the pilot and ATC. Its pilots were following a mandatory company safety policy. This is not true, because if it was true the pilot would already have diverted to Oakland per "mandatory" company "safety" policy when he was first told that they would not be able to accommodate his non-standard request to disrupt the twenty plus planes that were already in the queue. It's not the ATC's fault the pilot didn't manage his plane's schedule properly.
      - shkkmo 3y ago
        > first told that they would not be able to accommodate his non-standard request Now you are just making things up. Please go take a chill pill and stop spreading misinformation. Edit: You may not be aware of the international differences in views on visual approaches. Requesting ILS is far from the "silly request" you seem to be trying to mock. This doesn't mean that ATC was wrong to make the decisions that they did, but it does mean it is a reasonable safety request to make. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47638/why-are-visual-approaches-in-the-us-preferred-by-us-pilots-but-not-european-p https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47638/why-are-v...
CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
One useful part of that video is how they play clips of ATC telling flights to “join the localizer”. SFO has two published visual approaches (https://www.airnav.com/airport/KSFO https://www.airnav.com/airport/KSFO, scroll to the bottom): Both visual approaches have pilots fly to intercept their runway’s localizer, the part of the ILS equipment that provides lateral positioning, relative to the localizer’s centerline (which is generally coincident to the corresponding runway’s centerline). So, by flying the published visual approach and remaining “on the localizer”, you have separation from the planes on the parallel runway. What’s missing is careful monitoring and separation, and that’s what Lufthansa wanted. It’s worth noting that SFO does have a Simultaneous Offser Instrument Approach procedure: See https://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/afs420-84-1.pdf https://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/afs420-84-1.pdf (detail) or https://www.flysfo.com/sites/default/files/PRM_SOIA_version_1_0.pdf https://www.flysfo.com/sites/default/files/PRM_SOIA_version_... (summary). But that procedure requires, among other things, additional controllers handling approach and monitoring. SFO might not have the spare controllers right now.
- lxgr 3y ago
  I vaguely remember reading somewhere that SOIA in SFO was discontinued during the pandemic and hasn’t returned so far.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
You're leaving out that they had a filed flight plan which for an international flight means controllers had many hours of notice as to when the flight was scheduled to arrive and that they would be looking for an ILS approach and it was the responsibility of approach controllers to have a spot in the pattern for them. They arrived in the area on time, and controllers had not allocated it a spot, which is why the pilot sounds a bit peeved when told there isn't a spot. When he asks for one and they tell him that they can't give an estimate, that's the second strike. Strike three was telling him to fuck off ("what's your alternate, sir?") Controllers pulled a power play to bully him for wanting an ILS approach that reduces airport traffic capacity (larger separation distances) and in the process created a risk compounding another risk (a fatigued long-distance flight crew.) This is how crashes happen. All because the airport and airlines want to shove more flights through the airport to make more money. The sad thing is that they'll get away with it because we have a massive shortage of controllers right now (because they're underpaid and overworked. Thanks, Reagan.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- MBCook 3y ago
  Arrived on time? They left hours late from the departing airport.
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    Flight plans get updated when plans are delayed on takeoff. SFO should have had the arrival time from the updated flight plan for quite a while.
    - MBCook 3y ago
      Makes sense. Thanks. That is weird then that SFO wasn’t ready.
      - V-eHGsd_ 3y ago
kiratp 3y ago
The FAA themselves recommend that foreign pilots do not use visual approaches at SFO. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/faa-wants-foreign-pilots-to-use-gps-instruments-to-land-at-sfo/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/faa-wants-foreign-...
- kimixa 3y ago
  Was that referring to the Primary Glide Slope Indicator being out of order at the time though? I find the article a little unclear if that's a general recommendation even if all the aids are functional for a visual approach.
- antonjs 3y ago
  If I remember correctly, this Lufthansa flight usually arrives during the day, when the company permits visual approaches, but had a delayed departure, which is what let to their policy prohibiting visual approaches and the bad timing with the huge chain of other arrivals.
  - khuey 3y ago
    The flight's scheduled arrival time of 6:15 PM puts it well into darkness for much of the winter.
    - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
      You know I thought you were right but apparently for that day sunset was 6:30PM. https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/san-francisco?month=10 https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/san-francisco?month=10
      - khuey 3y ago
        Sure, but my point is that this flight arriving in darkness is not something they never would have considered when planning the route and setting company policies prohibiting visual approaches at night.
mitchellh 3y ago
A small nitpick: the other aircraft were doing _visual_ approaches, not VFR approaches. A visual approach is a type of instrument approach operated under IFR regulations. Practically, this has no affect on your comment. Just pointing this out in case its interesting to you or others (if you didn't know this already).
- Hansenq 3y ago
  ooo thanks. Too late to edit now but appreciate it! Not a pilot currently; just very interested and will probably get one in my lifetime.
- kqr 3y ago
  Does this mean controllers still have a responsibility of separating aircraft under a visual approach? (A comment in a sibling thread mentioned that Lufthansa pilots are allowed visual approaches, but are not allowed to be responsible for visual separation at night.) Edit: sounds like visual approach means ATC do not have responsibility for separation. I thought the entire point of IFR (which – according to you – visual approach falls under) was that ATC is responsible for separation!
gkedzierski 3y ago
Did you mean visual approach, not VFR?
ak217 3y ago
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 a number of tools to address the handicap, but the FAA recently put a lid on that by forbidding side-by-side IFR/VFR approaches while also failing to authorize custom precision landing procedures like SOIA. The request for ILS is entirely reasonable in this context, and the decision to hold the flight out of the sequence is also reasonable in the context, but to hold the flight with no updates for half an hour is not reasonable and to require it to divert is not reasonable either. The FAA should be held responsible for planning things better than this.
- happytiger 3y ago
  This is right on point. This issue is squarely on the FAA and they need to provide better guidance to controllers and pilot. Great comment.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Pilots and controllers who are already in short supply? That’s the problem, the individual actors are helpless in a system optimized against them. Certainly, the FAA is a contributing factor through wages and working conditions leading to controller shortages, but airlines can also do more to better accommodate pilots. This is a system headed to failure, with those responsible not making responsible choices and who won’t be held accountable when failure occurs (hundreds of passenger air transport deaths).
    - r00fus 3y ago
      The FAA (and specifically Transport Secretary Buttigieg) hold all the cards here. That they're not doing more to address the issues speaks volumes about the FAA's mission and abrogation of it.
intrasight 3y ago
So perhaps "frustrating" - but still the correct decision
lisper 3y ago
> Lufthansa was the only aircraft asking for ILS. Another important detail: they did this because it was company policy, not because it's what the pilots wanted. The pilots would have been more than happy to do a visual approach. IMHO the blame lies with the Lufthansa corporate office. (And FWIW, I am a private pilot.)
- fsckboy 3y ago
  I agree that Lufthansa has to accept the repercussions of their policy, and if somebody asks me for a favor and says they need to because "it's their policy", I'd squint pretty hard at them, that's not really the jurisdiction of policy. For all the people who believe that the policy is the safest and safety comes first, that's a fine opinion, but if other people don't agree to that tradeoff (absolute safety versus demands on a crowded airport timeslot) you have to accept that, you can't impose your opinion about safety on everybody else's schedule. I can also see that the air traffic controller might have messed up. Perhaps they intended to squeeze Lufthansa in when they told them to wait, and maybe they forgot and didn't, and then when pressed they got irritated, that's how overworked people typically would react; but still it was their call. Perhaps this flight is never late so they never encountered this situation before. We can't expect everything to go smoothly all the time, so we don't necessarily need policy changes because of what happened, simply adjust what expectations we should have. And if Lufthansa expects future conflicts, now is the time to work it out with the appropriate parties (i.e. not the whole internet)
strangemonad 3y ago
The key bit of information missing here and from all these replies is that Lufthansa’s no SFO night time VFR policy was a reaction to and SFO and NorCal notice requiring this limitation from inbound international carriers after a few incidents but the requirement of how to implement this was ambiguous and Lufthansa is complying as best they can
YPPH 3y ago
>It's not clear who's in the wrong here; just an unintended consequence from many well-intentioned decisions. Attention should be given not just to what was said, but how it was said. It is obvious the controller was frustrated. It conveys the impression that at least part of his decision-making was influenced by spite and not good intentions.
- jquery 3y ago
  The controller was frustrated? I didn't detect that at all. I only detected frustration by the pilot when he started swearing and making threats.
relix 3y ago
I don’t think this makes much sense in the real world. Shit happens and plans change. What if an aircraft needs to do a go-around, do they suddenly face 45m of delay or immediately need to divert, because The Sequence is immutable? No, they’d move things around a bit. SFO decided that this plane wasn’t going to land there as soon as they asked for ILS, instead of doing their job and making a gap.
- ExoticPearTree 3y ago
  > What if an aircraft needs to do a go-around, do they suddenly face 45m of delay or immediately need to divert, because The Sequence is immutable? You would be surprised, but if it is a busy time, they will not be put in the sequence right away and will be put at the back of the line, which will take as long as it is going to take. If you do a go around, you will be passed to APP which will decide what to do with you.
ExoticPearTree 3y ago
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.
- jquery 3y ago
  I don't understand why what seems like such obvious common-sense about this flight is so controversial. Is it the lack of deference ATC gave the pilots, treating them like equals instead of superiors?
dekhn 3y ago
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/flight-patterns-operations https://www.flysfo.com/about/community-noise/noise-office/fl...).

michaeljx 3y ago

From what I understand, despite the tower not being able to create a gap for 30+ minutes,which although extreme may be understandable due to SFO being the way it is, another major factor was the fact that the tower was unable to provide a realistic estimated time to enter the circuit. That is completely unacceptable.

CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
If you mean “traffic pattern” (from https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg_10-12-17.pdf https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg_10-12...), that is also something you would do visually, which I don’t think Lufthansa would accept. As for not being able to give an accurate estimate, that is not for the on-the-radio approach controller to calculate, given their view of the airspace. The video posted by parent shows how long the inbound flows were (at least on the east side); approach wouldn’t have seen that. The coordination necessary to get an accurate estimate should’ve involved managers, which might be affected by the current shortage (see https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211838624/air-traffic-controllers-shortage-close-calls-senate-safety-near-miss-senate https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211838624/air-traffic-contro...).
- michael_j_x 3y ago
  I meant for the ATC to provide a descent estimate of when Lufthansa should be expected to enter the AERODROME TRAFFIC CIRCUIT (since you want tolink the FAA glossary) in order to land (they had them on a hold pattern for 35+ minutes). This is independent of whether the approach is IFR or VFR. A TOWER controller has all the information necessary to calculate that estimate, and should be expected to do so, the same way a stock trader is expected to calculate PnL of their positions on the fly given the current stock price.
  - jcrawfordor 3y ago
    Most of the queue would have been with approach, not tower. The aircraft sequenced to land were split across at least two controllers, tower and approach, and possibly more than one approach controller depending on how SFO splits them up. I would expect approach to be able to provide a reasonable estimate but it seems like in this case the estimate was found to be four minutes off, which seems totally within the bounds of a reasonable estimate from an approach controller. The traffic pattern (US term) isn't really a factor here either way, airliners flying visual still usually use charted routes (like the instrument procedures) or radar vectors rather than the pattern. Remember that the pattern is only about one mile out from the field. By the time airliners are that close they're probably cleared.
    - wtallis 3y ago
      > but it seems like in this case the estimate was found to be four minutes off No, I don't think you are being at all accurate about characterizing that; maybe you lost count of the delays. After being told to wait ten more minutes, the pilots waited an extra four minutes before pressing for an update, and got told to wait another 10-15 (or f off).
  - p3n1s 3y ago
    Aerodrome traffic circuit is the ICAO term for traffic pattern, which is it what it is called in the US (it may be in the glossary but the point is that manual uses "traffic pattern" repeatedly). And this "traffic circuit" you refer to is almost always a VFR thing, as IFR approaches use specific charted procedures that generally do not end with a traffic circuit. https://skybrary.aero/articles/aerodrome-traffic-circuit https://skybrary.aero/articles/aerodrome-traffic-circuit
paxys 3y ago
I found that part delightfully ironic, because it's basically a meme that whenever a flight is delayed ground staff/pilots will always tell passengers "we'll just be off in just a few minutes" over and over again regardless of how long the delay is going to be.
gamblor956 3y ago
The controller tried to give an estimated time, but that original estimate was blown out of the water by the other planes in the queue taking longer than expected, and the controller didn't have time to keep trying to give an updated estimated time to the one plane in the queue that wanted to do things the hard way (that also, due to circumstances within its own control, departed its original airport late and arrived outside of the window where SFO could have accommodated its silly request without any delays).
- shkkmo 3y ago
  Your framing here is weird and doesn't match the facts. The airplane didn't want to do anything. Its pilots were following a mandatory company safety policy.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    My framing here is literally based on the transcript of the conversation between the pilot and ATC. Its pilots were following a mandatory company safety policy. This is not true, because if it was true the pilot would already have diverted to Oakland per "mandatory" company "safety" policy when he was first told that they would not be able to accommodate his non-standard request to disrupt the twenty plus planes that were already in the queue. It's not the ATC's fault the pilot didn't manage his plane's schedule properly.
    - shkkmo 3y ago
      > first told that they would not be able to accommodate his non-standard request Now you are just making things up. Please go take a chill pill and stop spreading misinformation. Edit: You may not be aware of the international differences in views on visual approaches. Requesting ILS is far from the "silly request" you seem to be trying to mock. This doesn't mean that ATC was wrong to make the decisions that they did, but it does mean it is a reasonable safety request to make. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47638/why-are-visual-approaches-in-the-us-preferred-by-us-pilots-but-not-european-p https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/47638/why-are-v...

CaliforniaKarl 3y ago

One useful part of that video is how they play clips of ATC telling flights to “join the localizer”. SFO has two published visual approaches (https://www.airnav.com/airport/KSFO https://www.airnav.com/airport/KSFO, scroll to the bottom): Both visual approaches have pilots fly to intercept their runway’s localizer, the part of the ILS equipment that provides lateral positioning, relative to the localizer’s centerline (which is generally coincident to the corresponding runway’s centerline). So, by flying the published visual approach and remaining “on the localizer”, you have separation from the planes on the parallel runway. What’s missing is careful monitoring and separation, and that’s what Lufthansa wanted. It’s worth noting that SFO does have a Simultaneous Offser Instrument Approach procedure: See https://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/afs420-84-1.pdf https://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/techrpt/afs420-84-1.pdf (detail) or https://www.flysfo.com/sites/default/files/PRM_SOIA_version_1_0.pdf https://www.flysfo.com/sites/default/files/PRM_SOIA_version_... (summary). But that procedure requires, among other things, additional controllers handling approach and monitoring. SFO might not have the spare controllers right now.

lxgr 3y ago
I vaguely remember reading somewhere that SOIA in SFO was discontinued during the pandemic and hasn’t returned so far.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

You're leaving out that they had a filed flight plan which for an international flight means controllers had many hours of notice as to when the flight was scheduled to arrive and that they would be looking for an ILS approach and it was the responsibility of approach controllers to have a spot in the pattern for them. They arrived in the area on time, and controllers had not allocated it a spot, which is why the pilot sounds a bit peeved when told there isn't a spot. When he asks for one and they tell him that they can't give an estimate, that's the second strike. Strike three was telling him to fuck off ("what's your alternate, sir?") Controllers pulled a power play to bully him for wanting an ILS approach that reduces airport traffic capacity (larger separation distances) and in the process created a risk compounding another risk (a fatigued long-distance flight crew.) This is how crashes happen. All because the airport and airlines want to shove more flights through the airport to make more money. The sad thing is that they'll get away with it because we have a massive shortage of controllers right now (because they're underpaid and overworked. Thanks, Reagan.)

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
MBCook 3y ago
Arrived on time? They left hours late from the departing airport.
- shkkmo 3y ago
  Flight plans get updated when plans are delayed on takeoff. SFO should have had the arrival time from the updated flight plan for quite a while.
  - MBCook 3y ago
    Makes sense. Thanks. That is weird then that SFO wasn’t ready.
    - V-eHGsd_ 3y ago

kiratp 3y ago

The FAA themselves recommend that foreign pilots do not use visual approaches at SFO. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/faa-wants-foreign-pilots-to-use-gps-instruments-to-land-at-sfo/ https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/faa-wants-foreign-...

kimixa 3y ago
Was that referring to the Primary Glide Slope Indicator being out of order at the time though? I find the article a little unclear if that's a general recommendation even if all the aids are functional for a visual approach.
antonjs 3y ago
If I remember correctly, this Lufthansa flight usually arrives during the day, when the company permits visual approaches, but had a delayed departure, which is what let to their policy prohibiting visual approaches and the bad timing with the huge chain of other arrivals.
- khuey 3y ago
  The flight's scheduled arrival time of 6:15 PM puts it well into darkness for much of the winter.
  - TaylorAlexander 3y ago
    You know I thought you were right but apparently for that day sunset was 6:30PM. https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/san-francisco?month=10 https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/san-francisco?month=10
    - khuey 3y ago
      Sure, but my point is that this flight arriving in darkness is not something they never would have considered when planning the route and setting company policies prohibiting visual approaches at night.

mitchellh 3y ago

A small nitpick: the other aircraft were doing _visual_ approaches, not VFR approaches. A visual approach is a type of instrument approach operated under IFR regulations. Practically, this has no affect on your comment. Just pointing this out in case its interesting to you or others (if you didn't know this already).

Hansenq 3y ago
ooo thanks. Too late to edit now but appreciate it! Not a pilot currently; just very interested and will probably get one in my lifetime.
kqr 3y ago
Does this mean controllers still have a responsibility of separating aircraft under a visual approach? (A comment in a sibling thread mentioned that Lufthansa pilots are allowed visual approaches, but are not allowed to be responsible for visual separation at night.) Edit: sounds like visual approach means ATC do not have responsibility for separation. I thought the entire point of IFR (which – according to you – visual approach falls under) was that ATC is responsible for separation!

gkedzierski 3y ago

Did you mean visual approach, not VFR?

ak217 3y ago

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 a number of tools to address the handicap, but the FAA recently put a lid on that by forbidding side-by-side IFR/VFR approaches while also failing to authorize custom precision landing procedures like SOIA. The request for ILS is entirely reasonable in this context, and the decision to hold the flight out of the sequence is also reasonable in the context, but to hold the flight with no updates for half an hour is not reasonable and to require it to divert is not reasonable either. The FAA should be held responsible for planning things better than this.

happytiger 3y ago
This is right on point. This issue is squarely on the FAA and they need to provide better guidance to controllers and pilot. Great comment.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Pilots and controllers who are already in short supply? That’s the problem, the individual actors are helpless in a system optimized against them. Certainly, the FAA is a contributing factor through wages and working conditions leading to controller shortages, but airlines can also do more to better accommodate pilots. This is a system headed to failure, with those responsible not making responsible choices and who won’t be held accountable when failure occurs (hundreds of passenger air transport deaths).
  - r00fus 3y ago
    The FAA (and specifically Transport Secretary Buttigieg) hold all the cards here. That they're not doing more to address the issues speaks volumes about the FAA's mission and abrogation of it.

intrasight 3y ago

So perhaps "frustrating" - but still the correct decision

lisper 3y ago

> Lufthansa was the only aircraft asking for ILS. Another important detail: they did this because it was company policy, not because it's what the pilots wanted. The pilots would have been more than happy to do a visual approach. IMHO the blame lies with the Lufthansa corporate office. (And FWIW, I am a private pilot.)

fsckboy 3y ago
I agree that Lufthansa has to accept the repercussions of their policy, and if somebody asks me for a favor and says they need to because "it's their policy", I'd squint pretty hard at them, that's not really the jurisdiction of policy. For all the people who believe that the policy is the safest and safety comes first, that's a fine opinion, but if other people don't agree to that tradeoff (absolute safety versus demands on a crowded airport timeslot) you have to accept that, you can't impose your opinion about safety on everybody else's schedule. I can also see that the air traffic controller might have messed up. Perhaps they intended to squeeze Lufthansa in when they told them to wait, and maybe they forgot and didn't, and then when pressed they got irritated, that's how overworked people typically would react; but still it was their call. Perhaps this flight is never late so they never encountered this situation before. We can't expect everything to go smoothly all the time, so we don't necessarily need policy changes because of what happened, simply adjust what expectations we should have. And if Lufthansa expects future conflicts, now is the time to work it out with the appropriate parties (i.e. not the whole internet)

strangemonad 3y ago

The key bit of information missing here and from all these replies is that Lufthansa’s no SFO night time VFR policy was a reaction to and SFO and NorCal notice requiring this limitation from inbound international carriers after a few incidents but the requirement of how to implement this was ambiguous and Lufthansa is complying as best they can

YPPH 3y ago

>It's not clear who's in the wrong here; just an unintended consequence from many well-intentioned decisions. Attention should be given not just to what was said, but how it was said. It is obvious the controller was frustrated. It conveys the impression that at least part of his decision-making was influenced by spite and not good intentions.

jquery 3y ago
The controller was frustrated? I didn't detect that at all. I only detected frustration by the pilot when he started swearing and making threats.

relix 3y ago

I don’t think this makes much sense in the real world. Shit happens and plans change. What if an aircraft needs to do a go-around, do they suddenly face 45m of delay or immediately need to divert, because The Sequence is immutable? No, they’d move things around a bit. SFO decided that this plane wasn’t going to land there as soon as they asked for ILS, instead of doing their job and making a gap.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago
> What if an aircraft needs to do a go-around, do they suddenly face 45m of delay or immediately need to divert, because The Sequence is immutable? You would be surprised, but if it is a busy time, they will not be put in the sequence right away and will be put at the back of the line, which will take as long as it is going to take. If you do a go around, you will be passed to APP which will decide what to do with you.

ExoticPearTree 3y ago

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.

jquery 3y ago
I don't understand why what seems like such obvious common-sense about this flight is so controversial. Is it the lack of deference ATC gave the pilots, treating them like equals instead of superiors?

dekhn 3y ago

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/flight-patterns-operations https://www.flysfo.com/about/community-noise/noise-office/fl...).