A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

https://onemileatatime.com/news/lufthansa-a350-oakland-diversion/

by ghgr • 3 years ago

248 398 3 years ago

jtagen• 3 years ago

I wonder if it was an option to say "okay", continue circling, then declare a fuel emergency and land. Seems like ATC was being a dick here.

Not sure: 1) How long this would take 2) If this actually endangers anyone/anything

kabes2• 3 years ago

Problem is that emergencies also involve a lot of paperwork and delay for the pilot.

kspacewalk2• 3 years ago

Seems like ATC has dozens of airplanes to route and cannot give preference to those who have the strictest company policy and complain the loudest.

FireBeyond3• 3 years ago

They can and do all the time. ATC would also have known the previous shift that this flight was late and would require it.

As for requiring it on company policy, I'm not entirely sure that our ATC policies should focus on "well, you don't need to be that safe".

kayodelycaon5• 3 years ago

Declaring a fuel emergency when your alternative is only a few miles away is bound to get someone in trouble.

JAlexoid4• 3 years ago

The fuel emergency would have been literally a result of the ATC staff. Instead of this back and forth, the answer should have been - we cannot take you on ILS in the next X time, consider diverting.

Giving the sense of "we'll take you in within X minutes" to the pilot is disingenuous at best. ATCs job is literally safety.

renewiltord• 3 years ago

If you get to that point and you haven't diverted you're losing your job AFAIK. "I just followed instructions and ended up in an emergency" won't fly. ATC isn't flying the plane.

kokken• 3 years ago

I’m sure the industry has standards for assigning blame, but it looks to me that ATC is clearly being assholes here.

Even from this article that clearly seems to think Lufthansa is in the wrong I walked away with a feeling that ATC and small town cops are one and the same.

dxf• 3 years ago

The current top comment on the article explains the situation, and ATC are "not being assholes here":

NorCal had a new interpretation of ILS approaches come down several months ago that tied the controllers hands with regards to ILS approaches during visual conditions... The controllers were issued guidelines that if it’s busy and an aircraft is unable to comply with the approaches advertised on the atis or maintain visual separation that its better to hold them until there is adequate space on final as it’s more unsafe to start vectoring 30/40 different aircraft to build the required hole for the 1 aircraft who’s company has a lame rule

Zetobal• 3 years ago

Just tell the pilots that the ATC in NorCAL is also bound to policies and they have to divert. No need to be a dick.

JAlexoid4• 3 years ago

The ATC should have just told them that, from the get go. They know exactly how many aircraft are headed their way, the pilot doesn't

kayodelycaon5• 3 years ago

ATC wasn’t been an asshole. The airspace was extremely busy and there wasn’t space between arriving flights for anyone to make an instrument landing.

In order to make instrument landing, dozens of other planes would have to be moved out of the way.

sccxy• 3 years ago

ATC was more incompetent than asshole.

wkipling2• 3 years ago

Yeah but that's their job

durandal1• 3 years ago

Norcal is an amazing bunch of people with a high stress life-and-death job. They're incredibly accommodating, but when the system is at capacity it's at capacity. SFO is a very special airport with a traffic flow much higher than its footprint would normally allow. Since there is pretty nowhere for it to expand, the only option would be to reduce the number of slot times, which for a business hub like SFO would be terrible.

aaronbrethorst• 3 years ago

This feels 'of a type' with the rest of the crisis in the United States's air traffic control system. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/02/business/air-traffic-cont...

riversflow• 3 years ago

I see this as a reap what you sow moment for Lufthasa.

Why should ATC at a busy airport be so accommodating? Lufthasa is the one making this hard on everyone.

I used to watch both these airports fairly frequently from Oyster bay regional park, they are both super busy with flights often lining up to the horizon.

snypher• 3 years ago

“okay, you promised me 10 minutes, that ran out four minutes ago, so how many more minutes?”

Seems to me that ATC need to get it together also.

wtallis3• 3 years ago

Yeah, whether Lufthansa's polices are reasonable or excessively cautious is debatable, but the ATC here obviously gave unambiguously wrong information about the delay.

seanmcdirmid• 3 years ago

Or maybe SFO is already over capacity and can’t safely take the traffic assigned to it?

noxvilleza3• 3 years ago

This wasn't some new policy of Lufthansa though, apparently it's their SOP for basically all airports. Outside the US, I'm not sure if visual approaches are all that common for (heavy) aircraft at night. Overall, the reason that SFO wants visual approaches is to increase rate of landing, and the reason that Lufthansa wants ILS is to increase safety -- your phrasing "Lufthasa is the one making this hard on everyone" just seems wrong, having more safety seems totally justified and reasonable here.

I'm actually surprised SFO still allows visual approaches at night after that Air Canada 759 flight nearly landed on the taxiway ~5 years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGQlQFn0euI).

jaywalk3• 3 years ago

your phrasing "Lufthasa is the one making this hard on everyone" just seems wrong, having more safety seems totally justified and reasonable here.

It's so "justified and reasonable" that nobody else does it. Maybe it's not quite so justified or as reasonable as you think.

raverbashing2• 3 years ago

reason that Lufthansa wants ILS is to increase safety

Yes because "more technology is more better" right? And forgetting about how to do things by hand (or eye) doesn't pose a risk to anyone neither

A visual approach is no more unsafe than an ILS one in good weather. Sure, ok, the caveat here is "at night" but I don't think the multiple pilots that were doing it at the time were being risky on purpose

(and people are quoting Asiana, but understand that fumbling a visual approach landing is not a thing that should be common)

Analemma_2• 3 years ago

I'm actually surprised SFO still allows visual approaches at night after that Air Canada 759 flight nearly landed on the taxiway ~5 years ago

The Air Canada incident happened because one of the runways at SFO was closed for maintenance, and after it happened the FAA specifically updated their regulations to require ILS when there's a possibility of runway confusion. There's no reason to think VFR landings at SFO are unsafe in normal conditions.

mjevans2• 3 years ago

I'm surprised a computer assisted landing sequence can't _increase_ the rate of landed planes, though I assume doing so would require subordinating all the inbound aircraft to the local traffic control system.

brigade• 3 years ago

Instrument approaches are the norm in Europe, visual approaches are the norm in the US. Visual approaches can and normally do still use ILS when possible; SFO's incidents were when ILS was out of service (Asiana 214) or not engaged (Air Canada 759)

Which is why ATC obliquely asked whether Lufthansa bans visual approaches altogether, or simply requires the use of ILS. If it had been the latter, that's fully compatible with normal SFO operations.

jMyles2• 3 years ago

Why should ATC at a busy airport be so accommodating?

Is it really so much to ask that an ILS-equipped airport... provide an ILS approach?

I'm generally on your side here; the controllers did a good job with what resources they had. But there seem to be an awful lot of oddities / operational hangups through NorCal TRACON.

kayodelycaon5• 3 years ago

ILS approaches require far more separation than visual ones.

jaywalk3• 3 years ago

With every other plane on visual, they can't just stick an ILS approach in there without messing everyone else up.

thrill• 3 years ago

"Why should ATC at a busy airport be so accommodating? Lufthasa is the one making this hard on everyone."

It is literally ATC's job to facilitate the safe separation of aircraft. Note I said facilitate, not ensure, because ensuring safe separation and operation remains in the cockpit. When a pilot arrives at an airport and requests a specific approach, whether that reason is company policy or the limitations of weather, it is ATC's job to accept that request or deny it, and not to beat around the bush suggesting doing one thing and calling it another. When they give an expected time for something the pilot makes decisions in the cockpit if that new limitation will work with whatever limitations already exist. If ATC is not operating honestly then that should be viewed as what it is - a compromise of safety, and a petty unnecessary one at that. If ATC is unable to accommodate the request then it needs to be stated so explicitly and as soon as possible because lives are literally part of the equation. Air traffic can be lined up from SFO all the way back to London and that still doesn't change ATC's responsibilities one bit. ATC does not "accommodate" because that implies they exercise some arbitrary discretion and not clear binary criteria.

hugh-avherald• 3 years ago

ATC is responsible for separation of IFR aircraft in Class C and Class B airspace (which this almost certainly was).

FireBeyond3• 3 years ago

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 for common use of terminal facilities (for airlines that don't have dedicated terminals - often with internationals, where they have the common check in area that is used by multiple airlines).

And that's not all the charges the airline gets from the airport, that's just the majority of the charges for "1 aircraft, 1 landing/departure" at SFO.

ra7• 3 years ago

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

pixl972• 3 years ago

And if the separation delay caused by this one aircraft caused another one or two aircraft to delay instead?

Unfortunately this airport sounds like it's seriously overcrowded and not designed well for the amount of traffic it's getting.

supportengineer• 3 years ago

Driving south on a clear night on Highway 101, from SFO on down, is a neat experience because you can see these planes lined up clearly for about 20 miles. All the way down to the South Bay and beyond.

lowbloodsugar2• 3 years ago

Seems like Lufthansa has decided it's not able to land planes at SFO at night.

Ekaros2• 3 years ago

They decided that they don't want to be part of preventable accident.

lowbloodsugar2• 3 years ago

Their article implied that every other airline was happy with the procedure, so it seems like Lufthansa decided that they don't want to train their pilots. Was this an exceptional day at SFO? From my experience of SFO, doesn't seem like it (too many planes, too little time).

So are you saying that it's just dangerous to fly on the other airlines into SFO?

YeBanKo3• 3 years ago

Pilots can be d*cks, but recently there was a string of ATC related incidents, where ATC show questionable judgment and become too "moody" too soon. Here is another example: https://twitter.com/jasonrosewell/status/1733645088473989245 JBU going too slow, instead of assigning a new speed and then scolding the pilot, ATC starts giving the attitude before telling him what he wants.

jMyles2• 3 years ago

The bigger issue here is that the ILS is being set aside in favor of visual approaches in order to slot in a few more approaches per hour.

What's the point of equipping SFO with ILS if it's just going to sit idle?

kayodelycaon5• 3 years ago

ILS is needed when conditions don’t allow visual approaches. Like, clouds existing.

jaywalk3• 3 years ago

Clouds at SFO???? Never!

CaliforniaKarl5• 3 years ago

Charted/Published visual approaches use the localizer part of the ILS equipment, and pilots have the option of using the glide slope.

“ILS” is equipment, but it’s also procedures and (increased) spacing (compared to visual separation).

kortilla• 3 years ago

It’s not “a few”. Parallel landings allow double the throughput.

daedalus_f• 3 years ago

Like in the youtube video's comments section, I suspect everyone on HN is going to assume that the ATC was simply being petty, and perhaps that was the case. But...

We don't know what the approach into SFO looked like that night, but you can bet it was busy. VASAviation videos are often highly misleading in this regard. Most of the talk on the ATC frequency is cut (sometimes explicitly, sometimes not) leaving just that relevant to the videos content, the time is compressed and they only plot a few of the planes involved, making the airspace look clear.

My understanding is that SFO often has two closely spaced parallel runways taking arrivals. The visual approach is preferred because then the pilots on parallel approaches keep visual separation from each other, allowing more frequent landings. An ILS approach requires more space between planes (because ATC remains responsible for separation). Hence, the Lufthansa had to wait for a gap big enough to fit that ILS approach in, or the whole stack of planes lined up for the approach would have to be juggled - how feasible that would be I don't know.

antonjs2• 3 years ago

VASAviation has a video on this incident with commentary from a NorCal controller, showing the (large amount of) inbound traffic. [1]

[1] https://youtu.be/4zHxdn8oz20?si=6ENIvIot7Q3LSJHO

aworks• 3 years ago

Interesting.

I live in West Menlo Park and often see planes overhead coming from the West or Northwest to the Bay. I didn't fully understand they may need to slot into a really long flow from the East and even the South.

The prior Philippine Airlines flight did get ILS due to a temporary gap. Lufthansa wasn't as fortunate. The guy on the video didn't think anyone was at fault based on his interpretation and the comments from his insider.

Hansenq2• 3 years ago

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 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• 3 years 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.

CaliforniaKarl5• 3 years ago

If you mean “traffic pattern” (from 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-contro...).

paxys2• 3 years 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.

gamblor9562• 3 years 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).

CaliforniaKarl5• 3 years 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, 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 (detail) or 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.

lxgr4• 3 years ago

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

KennyBlanken4• 3 years 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.)

MBCook4• 3 years ago

Arrived on time? They left hours late from the departing airport.

bilbo0s• 3 years ago

They arrived in the area on time

Huh?

They arrived way outside their window. I realize they also left MUC late, but still.

trentnelson3• 3 years ago

ATC works on a first come, first served basis. (Unless you’re Air Force 1/2, or a survival flight, or declare an emergency.)

So just being in the system hours beforehand doesn’t really mean much. ATC don’t plan ahead based on what’s in the system, per se.

jcrawfordor2• 3 years ago

The flight plan factors into flow timing, which is used to manage capacity, but there's no reservation of a landing time. Flight plan timings aren't accurate enough for that to be feasible when you have landings at close to one a minute.

The flow timing rate used for approaches to SFO during visual conditions is based on visual approaches, so this particular aircraft didn't fall into the expectations used for that planning mechanism. Even then it's not a forward looking plan, just a rate limit on arrivals that causes departure clearances to be delayed. I'm not even sure if it works for international flights.

TacticalCoder• 3 years ago

I think the real issue is they promised 10 minutes max then once 15 minutes elapsed and the pilot complained, tower told the pilot to GTFO. It just feels wrong.

toast03• 3 years ago

Are controllers expected to manage the details of the take off and landing queues and also expected to be be looking quite a bit upstream to see what's coming up and check the details of the flight and company policies?

I suspect the controller assumed this flight would use visual separation, like everyone else, when it entered the landing queue; and the pilot expected to use ILS, like everywhere else given the conditions, when it entered the landing queue. The difference in expectations became apparent only when clearance was given, at which point there's not enough flexibility to accommodate an ILS landing, and it's hard to guess when there will be a place to slot it in. Diverting to Oakland and repositioning later is a reasonable, if not optimal outcome.

My guess is, if either side had mentioned their expectations when the flight entered approach control, and it had been cleared up then, it would have been quite possible to get an ILS landing on the first go round. (ATIS recordings did say simultaneous visual approaches)

redtriumph• 3 years ago

Citation for Reagan comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Contr....

ww5202• 3 years ago

The flight was delayed for several hours on takeoff and arrival, making their flight schedule less useful.

0xBDB• 3 years ago

Why are we thanking Reagan (sarcastically)? The mandatory retirement age for air traffic controllers is 56 and he fired them all 42 years ago. Presumably none of them were prepubescent, so they wouldn't be working today.

kiratp• 3 years ago

The FAA themselves recommend that foreign pilots do not use visual approaches at SFO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/faa-wants-foreign-...

kimixa• 3 years 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.

antonjs2• 3 years 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.

throw0101b2• 3 years ago

The FAA themselves recommend that foreign pilots do not use visual approaches at SFO.

In 2013, temporarily:

They also can use an instrument system called a glide slope indicator, although that has been out of service in San Francisco since June 1 because of ongoing runway improvements.
The FAA said all foreign carriers should continue to use alternate instrument approaches until the glide slopes return to service in late August.

* https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/faa-tells-foreign-pilo...

mitchellh• 3 years 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).

Hansenq2• 3 years 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.

kqr7• 3 years 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• 3 years ago

Did you mean visual approach, not VFR?

ak2172• 3 years 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• 3 years 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.

ralph842• 3 years ago

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.

gumby• 3 years ago

they have a troublesome airport

What is troublesome about SFO? I’m not a pilot (or in any way connected to flying except as a passenger) so airports are basically a black box to me.

AmVess• 3 years ago

FAA is completely asleep at the wheel in most areas it governs. Youtube is filled with ATC simply refusing to do their jobs, and under no circumstances should exchanges like this should be allowed to happen.

There's an ATC shortage, but so what? There's an even larger shortage of safety which needs to be addressed, and FAA are doing nothing at all.

duxup• 3 years ago

If there were more controllers would that change anything?

The volume of flights and their chaining flights wouldn’t seem to change in that case would it?

glcihgnwe• 3 years ago

There are plenty of well-qualified applicants to be air traffic controllers, but they were born White or Asian and the Government is illegally reserving the jobs for favored ethnicities. https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/16/faa-should-rely-on-ab...

intrasight• 3 years ago

So perhaps "frustrating" - but still the correct decision

lisper• 3 years 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.)

fsckboy2• 3 years 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• 3 years 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

YPPH2• 3 years 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.

jquery9• 3 years 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• 3 years 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.

ExoticPearTree10• 3 years 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.

ExoticPearTree10• 3 years 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.

jquery9• 3 years 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• 3 years 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/fl...).

YeBanKo3• 3 years ago

Maybe the reason why Lufthansa does not allow visual approach at SFO at night, could be after the Air Canada near miss.

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.

FAA changed the rules for SFO and made visual approaches forbidden at night "when an adjacent parallel runway is closed" [2]. Maybe Lufthansa plays it safe and requires ILS for all long haul night landings.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_759

[2] https://www.flightglobal.com/faa-changes-san-francisco-landi...

koyote2• 3 years ago

There's also this crash that happened while ILS was broken: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214

This was ultimately pilot error but also due to the fact that the pilots were not as accustomed to doing visual landings.

thriftwy3• 3 years ago

Pilots are not going to be accustomized of visual landings in case of emergency, if you have a corporate policy that forbids them in controlled setting!

This one is bizzare, not only European pilots on average have less experience than US ones, but they are not allowed to gain experience by corporate policy.

(This one coming from a country where aviation is a big mess)

smcin• 3 years ago

Asiana 214 crashed (in broad daylight and perfect visibility) because Asiana pilots were overused to landing on the autopilot, which was off on this landing; also because they ignored the "sink rate" warning going off for a minute.

Not because landing at SFO is particularly dangerous.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214#Cra...

philip1209• 3 years ago

I can't find a source, but I thought I read somewhere that these policies came following the Asiana Flight 214 crash [1], during which a plane did a visual approach to SFO instead of ILS. My understanding was that there was a rule change requiring ILS approaches at night at SFO, then the airlines implemented policies duplicating the rules in their policies, but then the rules were revoked - still leaving airline policies in place.

Anybody have any sources on this?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214

Miiko• 3 years ago

This is very unlikely, because Asiana 214 crash happens in broad daylight at 11:28am, so it could not possibly trigger a rule forbidding visual approach at night.

wkipling2• 3 years ago

Asiana crashed due to poor FMA mode awareness.

karcass• 3 years ago

I got my pilot's license in the Bay Area and transited SFO's class bravo frequently. The region has one of the world's most complex airspaces (a B, two Cs, and a crap-ton of Ds), and SFO has a mind-boggling amount of traffic for an airport of its size. Based on my lived experience in that airspace, I think ATC did the best they could in a tough position, and I think that Lufthansa asking for special treatment is the asshole move. If they demand ILS in VFR conditions, they should schedule their arrival times to less-busy times.

mandevil• 3 years ago

They normally do- this flight left MUC two hours late which was why it was part of the VFR landing sequence on this one day and is not normally a problem.

KennyBlanken4• 3 years ago

And the flight is twelve hours, with a filed flight plan. None of the controllers were even on-shift when SFO knew they'd need to have an ILS slot for the flight. That's why the pilot is exasperated when he finds out there isn't one.

It's like calling a year in advance for a dinner reservation and showing up and having to wait 45 minutes for your table "because it's a really busy night."

chris_va• 3 years ago

I also fly a bit in the bay area ...

ATC is supposed to accommodate to the best of their ability. Accommodating here could have been just waiting for a natural gap (which is what I think happened), but I think ATC should have just called Oakland center immediately and had a gap created for 10-20 minutes in the future. It is not like they were the only aircraft on the ILS approach that evening... Though, as I am not a norcal controller, maybe that is against policy.

CaliforniaKarl5• 3 years ago

The video posted by u/hansenq showed what flows were like, with traffic from the east sequenced as far out as Salt Lake City. It probably would’ve needed coordination with Oakland, LA, and Salt Lake centers

kabes2• 3 years ago

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.

ShadowBanThis014• 3 years ago

So punish everyone because of Air Canada's fuck-up?

alistairSH2• 3 years ago

I think that Lufthansa asking for special treatment is the asshole move

Lufthansa’s rules shouldn’t have been a surprise to anybody here. The route isn’t new and operates on the edge of daylight much of the year.

And IIRC, the FAA actually recommends foreign airlines adopt visual approach procedures at SFO, so … how does that make Lufthansa the assholes?

throw0101b2• 3 years ago

And IIRC, the FAA actually recommends foreign airlines adopt visual approach procedures at SFO, so … how does that make Lufthansa the assholes?

In 2013, temporarily:

They also can use an instrument system called a glide slope indicator, although that has been out of service in San Francisco since June 1 because of ongoing runway improvements.
The FAA said all foreign carriers should continue to use alternate instrument approaches until the glide slopes return to service in late August.

* https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/faa-tells-foreign-pilo...

ExoticPearTree10• 3 years ago

Because it is an FAA recommendation, not a rule. Lufthansa decided that they only do ILS at night and NorCal was not in a position to give them that in the near future because it would disrupt the flow of airplanes that could visual approaches at night and require less separation.

I am not 100% sure about the following but I think ATC instructions trumps company rules any day.

babyshake• 3 years ago

This is coming from someone who only has experience as a commercial flight passenger, but I would expect AI to be very promising for ATC. Obviously there are various concerns ranging from potential attack vectors and the need for failsafes if any automated system fails, but has this been explored?

hef19898• 3 years ago

Current AI is nowhere close to be good enough for that. After all, there are literally hundreds of lives at stake every given minute, not sure you want some whacked together ML model or other run your aircrafts landing approach in bad wheather and high traffic.

ripper1138• 3 years ago

This is the type of take that proves AI is in a hype bubble right now.

throwbadubadu4• 3 years ago

That is satire, right? We can discuss more/better automation and tooling aids and planning aids and whatever tech.. there are so many options you can bring in there before even thinking of any $+#(&#&$ AI in safety critical things?! Exploring what, the many ways it could hilariously fail?

rsynnott• 3 years ago

Oh, my, AI really is becoming the new blockchain, isn’t it?

Animats• 3 years ago

There's a better discussion of the Lufthansa situation at [1]. ILS landings require more spacing. The ILS system itself just shows the way to the runway, not what other aircraft are doing. In a visual approach in busy conditions, the pilot can see the aircraft ahead. In an ILS approach, it's assumed that they can't. This leads to ATC wanting to use visual approaches to get more planes landed.

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

wkat4242• 3 years ago

Maybe there should be a class for visual ILS with the same separation as visual approaches and less chance of error.

Just like visual VFR exists. It would make the use of ILS in these situations easiest.

lmm10• 3 years ago

From other posts it sounds like SOIA is the "right" solution here, but SF has not reenabled it post-COVID, perhaps due to labour shortages.

YeBanKo3• 3 years ago

The article seems to be misleading a little, because it was not 10 min in total.

Lufthansa asked for ILS, was put on hold for 20 min, then ATC promised another 10 minutes, and then 14 more min passed and this is when the pilot got frustrated.

jquery9• 3 years ago

After that extra 4 minute delay, the pilot made a bluff because he had get-there-itis and the ATC controller called the bluff. Honestly I don't see what the controller did wrong here. If anything was unprofessional it was threatening to call an emergency and then arguing with ATC

filleduchaos5• 3 years ago

How is it get-there-itis for a pilot to have to remind air traffic control that they have not provided an update they are supposed to have provided?

Honestly I'm a little confused by some of the sentiment around this situation. Air traffic control is a service that airlines pay for, not little gods that cannot be questioned.

reso2• 3 years ago

Pilot: If we are not set up for base soon, we will have to declare a fuel emergency and that would really fuck up your sequence.
Controller: What is your divert field?
Pilot: Oakland
Controller: Ok you need vectors to Oakland?
Pilot: No, my company forbids visual separation at night, what is the problem here?
Controller: I can't have this conversation with you. You either divert to Oakland or you can continue to hold. It's up to you sir.
Pilot: Ok you promised me 10 minutes, that ran out 4 minutes ago, so how many more minutes?
Controller: This conversation is over.

So this controller, knowing the plane was near a fuel emergency, gave the pilots the option to either crash their plane with 240 people on board, or to divert to Oakland. This is tough for me to wrap my head around.

I don't want to blame this one controller for what is obviously a pattern of systematic failures at SFO, but I'm going to seriously consider flying into Oakland or San Jose next time if this is the attitude of the controllers there.

markus92• 3 years ago

Pilot was bluffing. If they call an emergency, they can do whatever they want. But they can't just call a fuel emergency if they have enough fuel to divert to a viable alternate - that's not how the system is supposed to work. They're supposed to divert if they get close to minimum fuel and can't land at their primary airport.

Of course, if it's a real emergency they can call any emergency (weather at alternate preventing them from landing there for example), but not threaten a controller to call an emergency just to get priority handling at their primary.

The controller knew that and just called it. A diversion is a major annoyance but not a safety issue.

KennyBlanken4• 3 years ago

It's a safety issue when the plane is getting low on fuel and the crew are fatigued from a long international flight, and the only reason they're being told no is because of policies designed to maximize airport/airline profits.

Controllers had hours of notice the flight would need an ILS approach. They petulantly ignored it because ILS approaches take up more space in the pattern, which means less landings per hour, which means less profit for the airport operator.

In the EU visual separation at night is not permitted but it's routinely done in the US because airports and airlines can run more flights in and out of the airport due to closer separation distances and it also reduces controller labor.

Airlines are pushing the system to the breaking point.

ian-g• 3 years ago

That would also mean it's really incredibly difficult to declare a fuel emergency around SFO, since Oakland and San Jose and (I guess, if it were really urgent) Moffat Field are all a five minute flight away, right?

reso2• 3 years ago

Communicating to a controller that they are close to a fuel emergency is not a threat, it is good practice. People have died because their pilots did not communicate their fuel situation sufficiently to their controllers [1].

This was communicated in this instance, and the controller maintained that to land at SFO, they would have to risk running out of fuel, since the controller refused to give a time-window for landing, or to declare an emergency.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052

danielschonfeld3• 3 years ago

American Airlines (at JFK) proved you can call emergency just because you feel like it with no repercussion.

And really the pilot in command is the one in control. For the attitude that controller had he should have declared an emergency and told him what he was going to do and have him clear all airplanes around them.

Bullying attitude don’t belong in a game with 500mph (~300mph in this case) objects. If you’re going to be a bully expect others to play the game in the same manner.

DiggyJohnson• 3 years ago

Those aren’t the options presented, you’re being dramatic. The pilot has the options to wait or divert, no matter what the controller says, in any situation where they cannot get into an airport.

There is no risk of crashing here. The pilot cannot call the controllers bluff and declare a fuel emergency to land at SFO because Oakland is so close and it would be unprofessional.

The controller doesn’t have time to explain why the previous estimate was wrong or discuss company policy.

FabHK• 3 years ago

The controller doesn’t have time to explain why the previous estimate was wrong or discuss company policy.

Absolutely. ATC might have been less helpful than possible here, maybe because they had too much on their plate. In that case, if they waste further time on long discussions and get behind on their other planes, the whole carefully juggled sequence might break down, sending many planes to holding or even their alternate.

masklinn• 3 years ago

Fwiw fuel emergency is nowhere near crashing the plane.

A full blow “mayday fuel” may be declared because at that point the usable fuel on landing will be less than final reserve. Final reserve is 30mn of holding flight.

paxys2• 3 years ago

If there was a fuel emergency the pilot would have declared a fuel emergency. This was more him getting pissy for having to wait. Big jets normally have enough extra fuel to circle for hours without a problem.

throwbadubadu4• 3 years ago

Depends on some factors, but required and also common is 30/45 minutes, +10% longer flights, before diversion (that fuel not included).

Recently experienced a closed airport, needed to divert, and even with chances high that we need to circle again for a while, we only took 1 hour fuel for circling before 2nd divert (and luckily made it after 40 minutes). It was no big jet, but some bigger especially cannot even land with too much fuel.

murderfs• 3 years ago

So this controller, knowing the plane was near a fuel emergency, gave the pilots the option to either crash their plane with 240 people on board, or to divert to Oakland. This is tough for me to wrap my head around.

They weren't even close to a fuel emergency (about to become unable land with less than the 45 minute reserve fuel amount), considering they didn't even declare minimum fuel, which is the stage before emergency (enough to fly to your alternate and land there without going below reserve).

IMO the only mistake by the controller was giving them a 10 minute delay (which I didn't hear in the video, maybe it was skipped?) instead of telling them about an indefinite delay (which was in the video) without having a plan to actually slot them in. Bay Area airspace is incredibly crowded and you have traffic pipelined in all over the place, so it's pretty difficult for the controllers to increase separation for one flight without causing a cascading traffic jam.

I don't want to blame this one controller for what is obviously a pattern of systematic failures at SFO, but I'm going to seriously consider flying into Oakland or San Jose next time if this is the attitude of the controllers there.

Considering NorCal Approach controls the sequencing for SFO, SJC, and OAK, I don't think that's going to do what you think it does.

db48x5• 3 years ago

Declaring a fuel emergency doesn’t mean that they have run out of fuel, or that they will run out of fuel soon. It means that if even they diverted to their alternate right now, they would expect to go below their reserve fuel level before they could land. The reserve fuel level is there to give them an extra half hour or more of flight time. Absent some mechanical problem with the engines, or a fuel leak, declaring a fuel emergency would mean that the pilots waited too long at their destination airport before thinking about diverting. You’re supposed to simply divert _before_ you would need to declare an emergency, rather than declare an emergency simply in order to skip ahead in line.

There was no risk of a crash in this circumstance, because the plane still had plenty of fuel to divert to their alternate and land before going into their final reserve.

krisoft2• 3 years ago

So this controller, knowing the plane was near a fuel emergency, gave the pilots the option to either crash their plane with 240 people on board, or to divert to Oakland.

Oh please. Fuel emergency is not when the plane falls out of the sky. It is calculated as when the airplane has just enough fuel to go to the alternate airport plus multiple landing attempts there plus navigational reserve in case you get lost on the way there. The plane was not there, but just thinking about maybe being there soon. You know what you do when your primary airport is unable to land (for any reason) you are approaching the fuel emergency line? You head to your alternate, that is what it is for. And it is not some unheard of thing, this is literally how you have to calculate how much fuel you have to put in the airplane. When you take off you have to have enough fuel to get to your primary destination, waste your time there, then head to your alternate, get a bit lost on the way, have a go around on your secondary and then still have enough juice for a second landing.

This is tough for me to wrap my head around.

Because you are thinking “oh my, oh my, the controler was risking so many lives”. When what the controller heard is that they still had plenty of fuel to go to their alternate, so he suggested that they do so.

You know what crashes airplanes and kills people? It is not airplanes flying to their alternate. It is plan continuation bias, or in laymen terms “get-there-itis”. It is when pilots want to reach their destination so much that they make poor decisions. Such as for example delaying leaving for their alternate until it is too late.

cycomanic6• 3 years ago

> So this controller, knowing the plane was near a fuel emergency, gave the pilots the option to either crash their plane with 240 people on board, or to divert to Oakland.
Oh please. Fuel emergency is not when the plane falls out of the sky. It is calculated as when the airplane has just enough fuel to go to the alternate airport plus multiple landing attempts there plus navigational reserve in case you get lost on the way there. The plane was not there, but just thinking about maybe being there soon. You know what you do when your primary airport is unable to land (for any reason) you are approaching the fuel emergency line? You head to your alternate, that is what it is for.

Well the point was that based on the time estimates that ATC gave the pilots assumed they would be well on the ground before they get close to the fuel emergency line. The pilot could have just been a dick and waited for his slot and until he has to declare emergency (which would have caused lots of trouble for at), instead he asked.

You know what crashes airplanes and kills people? It is not airplanes flying to their alternate. It is plan continuation bias, or in laymen terms “get-there-itis”. It is when pilots want to reach their destination so much that they make poor decisions. Such as for example delaying leaving for their alternate until it is too late.

You know what also crashes airplanes, ATC, airports and airlines prioritising profits over safety (like it was the case here).

quickthrower24• 3 years ago

Being too polite crashed a plane that got diverted many times and run out of fuel (was on the cloudberg site). I think it may have been coming from Colombia IIRC. But that is super rare.

They kept asking for “Priority” but never said “Emergency” or “Mayday” or “Pan Pan”

thsksbd• 3 years ago

Either the plane has a fuel emergency, or it doesnt. If they had a fuel emergency, the pilot wouldnt have threatened to call one, they would have just done it.

Instead, by threatening to issue an emergency, the pilot reveled his cards - he was annoyed at the delay. The controller called the bluff and told him to fuck off and wait at the back of line or land in Oakland.

In the future, Lufthansa cam call ATC before hand if they want special treatment.

jcalvinowens7• 3 years ago

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.

bombcar4• 3 years 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?

quickthrower24• 3 years ago

I guess the controller shouldn’t make recommendations but give choices. If the controller is saying “you must divert” they are give advice based on a very short conversation. Whereas the pilot has all the information.

HN understands this concept well. Look at any advice asking thread. People don’t tell the asker what to do.

jquery9• 3 years ago

Looks like the ATC was being more professional here than the pilots. Threatening an emergency isn't how you do things...

perihelions2• 3 years ago

There was a major airliner crash at JFK caused (partly) by poor communication between pilots and ATC, resulting in the plane running out of fuel,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052 (1990)

https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-words-not-spoken-the...

There was a similar fact pattern to the OP: the pilots relied on time estimates from ATC which turned out to be inaccurate,

- "Due to the air traffic controllers giving ultimately untrue delay estimations the flight became critically low on fuel."

tomohawk• 3 years ago

As a pilot, your first job is to fly the airplane, not listen to ATC.

A family member was a commercial airline pilot for many decades, and had stories of having to declare an emergency when ATC direction conflicted with facts in the air. ATC would get pissed, but they're safely on the ground.

Another family member was ATC, and so holiday dinners could be interesting.

bombcar4• 3 years ago

Exactly. If the flight had been in real danger the pilot would have declared an emergency (and then had to answer to why didn’t he divert to Oakland).

But if you declare an emergency the first thing you may do is not insist on flying the ILS separation.

jcalvinowens7• 3 years ago

major airliner crash at JFK caused (partly) by poor communication between pilots and ATC

IMHO that doesn't accurately represent the NTSB's conclusions. They didn't cite ATC as a cause at all, only as a secondary contributing factor (along with the weather):

  >> The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the
  >> probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew to
  >> adequately manage the airplane's fuel load, and their failure to
  >> communicate an emergency fuel situation to air traffic control
  >> before fuel exhaustion occurred.

  >> Contributing to the accident was the flightcrew's failure to use
  >> an airline operational control dispatch system to assist them during
  >> the international flight into a high-density airport in poor weather.

  >> Also contributing to the accident was inadequate traffic flow
  >> management by the FAA and the lack of standardized understandable
  >> terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel
  >> states.

  >> The Safety Board also determines that windshear, crew fatigue and
  >> stress were factors that led to the unsuccessful completion of the
  >> first approach and thus contributed to the accident.

StopHammoTime• 3 years ago

Just a clarifier for everyone - a fuel emergency is not what you think it is. They don’t run until the last drop. While it indicates the aircraft should be handled without delay, it’s also not going to fall out of the sky immediately either.

A fuel emergency would never be severe enough that they would be forced to land at SFO in this situation. In fact, if they were truly forced to land the pilots would lose their jobs because they left it way too late. Oakland was always a reasonable option.

Finally, fuel emergencies are not actually a standard call. It is a thing that is adhered to in the industry as courtesy. Unless there is a malfunction with the fuel system (which would be a mayday call) then it is mostly avoidable.

epolanski• 3 years ago

A fuel malfunction does not lead to a mayday, there's a PAN PAN first.

bombcar4• 3 years ago

Depending on the issue and the pilots they can go straight to mayday, but that’s likely to to be “fuel is low because one wing is empty and the other is draining.”

pdx_flyer• 3 years ago

Overall it feels like a punitive measure against Lufthansa, rather than spending the time to get them an ILS clearance.

For reference the flight is usually a 6:45p arrival but was very late on the evening in question.

somewhereoutth• 3 years ago

6:45pm

18:45

18h45

A quarter to seven in the evening

InCityDreams2• 3 years ago

0645pm (<- an abomination!) 1845. (no colon)

ideator• 3 years ago

https://youtu.be/o7RId2iiZng?si=ERMLyrSwkrLL6xmh

Recently there was a separation issue with a very similar night time visual approach into SFO.

It's not like trying to squeeze two flights into close parallel runways at the same time to maximizer capacity is a very safe thing to do considering everything that could go wrong

gosub100• 3 years ago

I really worry that SFO is going to have a major disaster. There have been so many close calls recently, the controllers have been making mistakes and acting out against pilots, there are 4 runway intersections (which other major airports are phasing-out), they have a fog problem, and an enormous amount of flow, and tons of air traffic and airports all around them.

talkingtab• 3 years ago

A couple of things to add:

Having watched the planes land at SFO at night provides an additional context. There are often two long streams of planes, like a spaced necklace, coming in to land. They look far apart when flying but then you notice just have fast another one comes.

And to those who fault the traffic controller - it is on the controller if something bad happens. Politeness, even a charge of grumpiness goes out the window in the face of that responsibility. Period. IMHO.

calf• 3 years ago

Being rude and grumpy a) tilts everyone else, b) everybody's cortisol levels to up, c) cortisol stress impairs cognition especially problem solving and interpersonal skills, d) thus INCREASING the risk of mistakes and accidents.

Modern psychology, more professionals should keep updated about it.

lsh123• 3 years ago

1/ Visual vs instrument approach. The main difference in this case is separation requirements that ATC must provide. Specifically, under IFR rules ATC mus provide 3 miles / 500 feet altitude separation minimum. For visual approaches, the separation is responsibility of the pilots and this enables parallel runway landings at SFO with much shorter intervals (there is a version of parallel landings with instrument approaches at SFO but it discontinued during Covid and not resumed since AFAIK).

2/ The approach sequence is established long long long before arrival to the airport. The ATC controllers (approach and center) coordinate arrivals and create sequencing hundreds of miles from a large airport like SFO. The last minute Lufthansa request for an instrument approach would have forced dozens of planes to go into hold or fly vectors which creates a lot of work for everyone.

3/ SFO tower is NOT responsible for approaches and was not dealing with holding Lufthansa. This is responsibility of NorCal approach

4/ My personal take is that Lufthansa should have advised ATC that they need instrument approach much earlier (as soon as they got ATIS which would be 50-100 miles from airport). That would have enabled ATC to create a gap for them. Last minute request is a surprise nobody needs. The Lufthansa attitude afterwards is unacceptable. They were asking for preferential treatment (get us in and screw a couple dozen of other airplanes). They also should have communicated to ATC that they have 30 mins of fuel for hold and that would informed NorCal about time limits they are working with. Lastly, threatening ATC with a fuel emergency.... not nice, not nice at all. From my personal experience with ATC is that they are very accommodating but they don't like surprises. Tell them what you want early and controllers usually find ways to make it work by the time you get there. Have a last minute request? If ATC is not busy they will help you. If ATC is busy -- go to the back of the line. Which is exactly what happened here.

InCityDreams2• 3 years ago

Last minute request is a surprise nobody needs.

Can/ should be applied to so many on-the-ground situations, too.

ww5202• 3 years ago

Yes. I got the feeling that the pilot was playing the cry-wolf game with the threat of declaring fuel emergency. ATC then responded with, ok, divert. It’s a case of FAFO.

binary1322• 3 years ago

100%

kqr7• 3 years ago

I can definitely see it both ways. When I imagine myself as a pilot who has been on spacing/holding vectors for 30+ minutes with repeated delays and no sign of even trying to slot me in, I may very well also have fallen for the temptation of informing ATC of the upcoming fuel issue in a sarcastic way. Still unprofessional, of course, but in a different context the exact same words could be taken as a lighthearted reminder rather than a threat. (And for all my stereotypes about Germans, it may very well have been a failed attempt at humour in a strained situation.)

But yeah, from that point on ATC did seem very professional to me.

turquoisevar• 3 years ago

The article and the video embedded within leave out a lot of context.

The Norcal controller was extremely unprofessional. Their behavior is a great example of the US controller attitude™ US ATC is so infamous for. No idea why this unprofessionalism is so prevalent in the US; I can only presume it has to do with being overworked and understaffed, with perhaps a pinch of god complex.

This was handled by Norcal, but SFO has an infamous controller whose poor behavior can be found all over the internet and the nearby smaller SQL controller who thought he was enough of a hot shit that he could lecture a designated examiner after the latter stepped in when the controller was acting like an unprofessional asshole on the radio.

A lot of this asshole behavior is targeted at international pilots, but enough of it is targeted at US pilots that I know of pilots who throw retirement parties for certain asshole controllers without inviting the retiree.

Anyways, let's focus on this particular incident.

For starters, SFO is a huge mess in every sense of the word. The design of the airport is just plain stupid, primarily the distance between the parallel runways that cause severe limitations when the weather isn't perfect.

Then there's the matter that SFO is just not suitable for the amount of traffic it gets, coupled with overworked controllers who rather kick the responsibility over to the pilots, leading to the visual approach and visual seperation preference by SFO.

Secondly, the notion that this is something new and novel that SFO has never heard of and can't do, or as the article puts it: "when all other planes are landing just fine", is just BS.

This flight from Munich comes in every night at SFO with the same IMC flight plan and the same path, so SFO/Norcal should be familiar with this, especially since it's their home base and Lufthansa is a regular customer.

Not only that, but many European airlines have the same regulations on visual separation at night as do other international airlines. The reason this is SOP with so many airlines is for a couple of reasons.

1) You cannot maintain visual separation at night based on lights only, there is no depth perception, and by the time you realize something's fucked, you're too late. TCAS isn't accurate enough for aircraft separation and explicitly states this in the manual.

2) The incident history in the US related to taking visuals at night supports the idea that this should not be allowed. The FDX170 incident in Tulsa comes to mind, or the ACA759 incident that nearly clipped a tail at SFO, no less.

3) The FAA advised against letting international airlines take visuals at night.

4) METAR had SCT and BKN cloud below 1500ft

On top of all that, PAL104 had received ILS just moments before without even asking for it (because it was in their flight plan).

So there's no need to act like this is some kind of extremely weird thing that blindsighted Norcal/SFO.

Thirdly, ultimately, the captain makes the determination of what they need, and the controller is supposed to provide that to the best of their ability. Had the controller taken the flight plan into account and had their experience with Lufthansa's daily flights, then none of this would've happened, and nobody would've had to be delayed. Nevertheless, the controller could've still granted ILS without much issue, it would've caused about 5 minutes of delay for the next flight.

That said, it's also not unreasonable to delay Lufthansa if the controller doesn't want to go through that effort. That's the only reasonable thing the controller did.

What isn't reasonable is to hold Lufthansa for 30 minutes without any information or contact, then tack on another 10 minutes two more times.

And what especially isn't reasonable is to force them to divert to Oakland and say things like "this conversation is over" because your ego is bruised.

The Norcal controller was way out of line and with what passes for SOP in the US we're gonna have our own Tenerife disaster soon enough.

ExoticPearTree10• 3 years ago

VASAviation released a very long video afterwards with the whole conversation (LH talking to NorCal APP) and the written document from a controller explaining why LH was put on a holding pattern.

What isn't reasonable is to hold Lufthansa for 30 minutes without any information or contact, then tack on another 10 minutes two more times.

Maybe because they had no available slots so nothing new to share with LH?

And what especially isn't reasonable is to force them to divert to Oakland and say things like "this conversation is over" because your ego is bruised.

Well, LH threatened the controller with declaring a fuel emergency that would fuck up their sequence. I think the controller responded in kind.

The NorCal controller was way out of line and with what passes for SOP in the US we're gonna have our own Tenerife disaster soon enough.

Somehow I don't think controllers care very much for company policies that they see as impeding their operations. It's not the first controller to do this to a plane if the captain objects to the instructions received from ATC in a busy airspace.

Speaking of: > On top of all that, PAL104 had received ILS just moments before without even asking for it (because it was in their flight plan).

Do you have PAL104 FP from that night? Because the longer video from VASAviation shows that PAL104 got an ILS clearance because there was a gap in traffic long enough to accommodate them.

jcalvinowens7• 3 years ago

The Norcal controller was extremely unprofessional. Their behavior is a great example of the US controller attitude™ US ATC is so infamous for.

I have no idea where you're getting this from. I've personally flown hundreds of hours in Norcal, and I find the ATC controllers there to be some of the most competent and excellent professionals I've ever interacted with in my entire life. The vast majority of pilots I know feel the same way.

1) You cannot maintain visual separation at night based on lights only

There are multiple position lights on an aircraft, and you can perceive depth from their apparent angular distances. I've flown visual approaches at night myself, and thousands upon thousands of airplanes do this safely every night across the US.

say things like "this conversation is over" because your ego is bruised.

Maybe it had more to do with attending to the dozens of other jets the controller was actively responsible for at the time? Do you understand how busy these frequencies can get?

Nevertheless, the controller could've still granted ILS without much issue, it would've caused about 5 minutes of delay for the next flight.

I guess you didn't read the big response on the YT channel? They categorically refuted this idea.

2) The incident history in the US related to taking visuals at night supports the idea that this should not be allowed.

No, it really doesn't. Both incidents you cite were caused by fatigue, and may well have been no different during the day. There have probably been literal millions of safe nighttime visual approaches in the last decade in the US.

Maybe you've heard bad things about circling approaches at night? That those are unsafe is a much more widely held opinion among pilots, some US airlines don't allow them. But that's very different.

3) The FAA advised against letting international airlines take visuals at night.

The government isn't a monolithic entity, and neither is the FAA. Assuming ATC must allow the ILS because the FAA put out this PR statement is as silly as assuming the USPS must know what address to use when the IRS demands a document from you.

4) METAR had SCT and BKN cloud below 1500ft

Doesn't matter if the approach was clear.

The Norcal controller was way out of line and with what passes for SOP in the US we're gonna have our own Tenerife disaster soon enough.

rolls eyes

There are definitely some legitimate ATC incidents to pick on in the last year, but this isn't one of them. This is: https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/G...

ho_schi3• 3 years ago

This is not a special Lufthansa thing. The majority of airlines from Europe limit visual approaches to daylight.

It does not apply to their home base, which is Frankfurt and Munich. The pilots are familiar with these airports, traffic patterns and so on.

Lufthansa tries to schedule outbound flights so that they arrive at daytime - if possible.

I don’t know why the controller was handling the situation that way. Taking flight duration and delay into account that was uncomfortable for the crew and passengers. And a waste of fuel. Mind the necessary repositioning of the plane, they had to move it to SFO later anyway.

I think it is tough when people discuss your work in public. And I’m not involved and lack knowledge! I hope the involved people learn and improve. We are all humans and make mistakes and/or misbehave. I have a lot to improve.

throwaway20378• 3 years ago

Nice post. This part: <<This is not a special Lufthansa thing. The majority of airlines from Europe limit visual approaches to daylight.>>

This sounds reasonable to me as a safety precaution. I tried Googling, but I couldn't find anything. How do you know this information?

ho_schi3• 3 years ago

https://youtu.be/qNtDdmq-b5M?si=hoMslBXthGoj9YZU

09:50

    It is not Lufthansa specific and applies also for many other airlines.

Quote

German pilot working for Condor. Sadly there are no closed-captions in English available.

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/47652

    In Europe it is quite common for airline companies to only allow their aircrews visual approaches at their home bases (e.g. Amsterdam for KLM) or, in case the company uses several hubs, on those hubs.

Quote

I anssume access to the individual company procedures isn’t possible.

6stringmerc• 3 years ago

If you read Sabre annual statements going back 10 years it’s well know the FAA has been totally deprived of ability to remedy these issues.

Frankly I don’t care since Delta dumped my Dad’s pension on me and my generation fuck that industry.

nerdponx2• 3 years ago

well know the FAA has been totally deprived of ability to remedy these issues.

Other people are blaming the FAA for understaffing ATC and making it too hard to become a pilot, to the point of excluding otherwise-good would-be pilots.

I haven't before heard someone say that the FAA has been deprived of its ability to remedy these issues. Can you go into more detail on that?

blindriver2• 3 years ago

I find it fascinating that pilots and ATC from around the world can understand each other on such a poor resolution channel.

blt2• 3 years ago

It always sounds worse on LiveATC because the antennas are weaker and not optimally placed

account4mypc• 3 years ago

as an aside, i'd feel safer if more airlines had this policy

isatty• 3 years ago

Regardless of what everyone is saying about the controller, I think the pilots behavior was disrespectful (to both ATC and to the lives of those on their plane) and unprofessional.

You don’t get to cry wolf and cut the line because you were late and want preferential treatment. Go to Oakland as told, wait, or declare an actual emergency for emergency procedures to be run for you.

cycomanic6• 3 years ago

They were put in holding pattern with estimate of 10min, 20min later they again get told it will be another 10min and after 14mins go by the pilot asks "hey you have been repeatedly putting me off with 10min estimates I'm about to run low on fuel" how is that disrespectful?

Ekaros2• 3 years ago

They just are not allowed follow policy designed to eventually kill people. Seems reasonable to me... And the ATC knew that plane with that policy was coming and were not prepared to create sufficient slot for safe landing instead of their unsafe one.

binary1322• 3 years ago

What’s the big deal? Sounds like everything got negotiated just fine. SFO couldn’t accommodate an ILS landing at the moment, the Lufthansa flight required landing sooner, so they diverted. Some people got inconvenienced? That’s a shame.

astrange• 3 years ago

I was just booking a flight through Lufthansa and was amused to see the English in all their emails/website is kind of bad, 2000s Japan-level.

Like "You are pre-ordering of the pretzel to eat on board of the aircraft? Then klick here!".

I get the impression Germans think they're great at English and so don't actually check to see if they are or not.

mattpallissard• 3 years ago

I had a lufthansa flight cancelled due to company policy of how long you could sit on the tarmac. They had an instrument go bad, had a spare on hand but couldn't find it in time.

Flight got cancelled and I got rebooked for 4 days later. Which was after my business trip so I cancelled. I'm still waiting on my refund 3 months later. Everyone I speak to is nice, polite, agrees to refund me while saying but we'll have to call you back "because policy", pretty annoying. Whatever, i'll get it eventually I'm sure

I don't particularly care for Lufthansa.

ta12432• 3 years ago

That sounds particularly bad, EU261 should mean a reroute on another airline. Unless you were in a very isolated place with no spare seats 4 days would not be reasonable.

pdonis7• 3 years ago

Previous HN discussion of another article on this same incident:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38511140

jersa• 3 years ago

I thought I would just briefly pop into this thread to say that if I, as a passenger, were to learn that the flight* I was unexpectedly diverting across the bay, I just know I'd somehow embarrass myself from getting all hyphy about my "bonus" trip to Oaktown. Raising my daughter there through the grade school years conjures up some warm memories. Love that town.

But I'm not just here reppin' for Oakland – apparently, there's a lot of dysfunction at the FAA that I had no idea about. Glad I clicked.

*(well, maybe not a 12+ hr one)

petesergeant• 3 years ago

Reasonably sure the passengers all had to stay on the plane

higeorge13• 3 years ago

European here; what’s so special about Oakland? :-)

csours2• 3 years ago

I see a huge problem here with "Everybody Knows", even among the people who sound like air transport professionals.

Lufthansa Requirement: Instrument landing

SFO Preference: Visual landing

Reason for Lufthansa requirement: IFR/ILS is safer than visual

Reason for SFO preference: Visual allows more planes with lower separation, leading to better throughput.

More context: Lufthansa would be using their instruments anyway, without declaring instrument flight rules landing. Declaring ILS in some generic sense is "safer", but specifically it means that the controllers cannot clear them to land in a degraded ILS environment, where perhaps some beacons are offline.

The SFO preference is not just something that the airport or the controller decided - it's also good for the airlines and the flying public. More planes land faster. The planes took off with the expectation that they would be able to land at a certain rate; otherwise they wouldn't schedule them to arrive so frequently.

The problem with "Everybody Knows" is that you really don't. The controller may assume that Lufthansa means "hey are all the beacons on?" when they say "IFR landing". Lufthansa may assume that IFR clearance means that the ILS equipment is operational, but that they can still fit into the VFR sequence.

In this case, those assumptions probably would have worked out Ok. But if "Everybody Knows" is part of your work culture and you work on life critical systems, than someone will eventually die, as you can see from the history of investigations into air transport incidents.

If you feel like someone is saying or implying "Everybody Knows" in a safety critical or life critical system, that is bad culture. Start documenting.

phendrenad2• 3 years ago

So much talk of who's at fault here, but what strikes me is that it ever got to this point. I feel like competence is at an all-time low in recorded history. Maybe we need to take a step back and go back to horse-drawn carriages until we've re-learned how to be responsible. I have a flight this week and this isn't helping my anxiety.

kqr7• 3 years ago

Think about it the other way around: this incident wasn't even close to an actual emergency – and it still gets a lot of discussion because it's so rare that it happens.

lotusride• 3 years ago

Hey guys - airline pilot here. Will respond shortly.

A Lufthansa A350's frustrating Oakland diversion

Related Stories