3 ms·

> This is tough for me to wrap my head around. It's pretty easy to explain: the controller took the pilot at his word, and immediately offered the fastest and

> This is tough for me to wrap my head around. It's pretty easy to explain: the controller took the pilot at his word, and immediately offered the fastest and safest option to get them on the ground, which was to land at Oakland. The runway thresholds at SFO and OAK are less than ten miles apart.

bombcar 3y ago
Exactly. ATC called his bluff and won. Note the pilot was not willing to even dare to break his company rules and do a visual, so why should ATC break theirs?
- cycomanic 3y ago
  No ILS is not an ATC rule, it's simply a way to get more flights to land (increasing airline/airport profits) and putting responsibility on the pilot (not ATC). Lufthansa has the policy exactly so that pilots do not get bullied into taking a visual approach, by ATC.
  - jcalvinowens 3y ago
    Most pilots would prefer a visual approach given the choice. I doubt this pilot actually believed it would be unsafe to fly the visual at SFO that evening: given the dozens of other jets actively doing it, that would be absurd. He was just following his company policy. If he had a real emergency that required him to land immediately, I'm almost certain he'd have flown that emergency landing visually. I don't know for sure... but on a modern jet, I suspect he was able to contact his employer during that long hold to ask, and they told him "yes, we really want you to divert if you can't get the ILS". Either way, if there's any fault here, IMHO it's on his employer not doing their homework and putting their pilot in a no-win situation.
- nohat00 3y ago
  The Lufthansa pilot was like the guy who drives the Google bus in the carpool lane at the speed limit, slower than the cars in the other lanes.
- jcalvinowens 3y ago
  > ATC called his bluff and won. I wouldn't put it like that. I think the pilot probably genuinely believed that diverting him would be much more of a problem for ATC than working him in, and was trying to make sure the controller understood he was going to need to divert soon.

bombcar 3y ago

Exactly. ATC called his bluff and won. Note the pilot was not willing to even dare to break his company rules and do a visual, so why should ATC break theirs?

cycomanic 3y ago
No ILS is not an ATC rule, it's simply a way to get more flights to land (increasing airline/airport profits) and putting responsibility on the pilot (not ATC). Lufthansa has the policy exactly so that pilots do not get bullied into taking a visual approach, by ATC.
- jcalvinowens 3y ago
  Most pilots would prefer a visual approach given the choice. I doubt this pilot actually believed it would be unsafe to fly the visual at SFO that evening: given the dozens of other jets actively doing it, that would be absurd. He was just following his company policy. If he had a real emergency that required him to land immediately, I'm almost certain he'd have flown that emergency landing visually. I don't know for sure... but on a modern jet, I suspect he was able to contact his employer during that long hold to ask, and they told him "yes, we really want you to divert if you can't get the ILS". Either way, if there's any fault here, IMHO it's on his employer not doing their homework and putting their pilot in a no-win situation.
nohat00 3y ago
The Lufthansa pilot was like the guy who drives the Google bus in the carpool lane at the speed limit, slower than the cars in the other lanes.
jcalvinowens 3y ago
> ATC called his bluff and won. I wouldn't put it like that. I think the pilot probably genuinely believed that diverting him would be much more of a problem for ATC than working him in, and was trying to make sure the controller understood he was going to need to divert soon.