3 ms·

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...
    • fsckboy 3y ago
      if you are not willing to accept "no", you are not making a request, you are making a demand.