https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4cewwhcL5c
"ANALYSIS | Angry Lufthansa Pilot with REAL CONTROLLER Commentary" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zHxdn8oz20
The a comment from VASAviation that goes along with that video:
"Thanks to this Norcal Tracon controller who reached me to give his point of view of a situation he knows well, as he is a very experienced controller in the Bay Area. He knows the controllers in the video and knows procedures in good detail.
If I have missed something in the video that you are interested to know, please leave a comment. I included all relevant factors that I considered of importance and even trimming things out, it's still a 26 minute video. [CLIP]
Date was 17 October at 03:40 UTC and on. Just in case you want to inquire into it a bit deeper.
Point of the video is providing more context to the original video: ATIS, other airplanes interactions, the entire airspace view... and of course the valuable commentary of a real controller who works that one and other similar positions daily.
You can stand for the controller's or pilot's side, but please be respectful. I know the majority of the audience is not real pilots, controllers, dispatchers... so if you are, please show respect to them and exhibit your knowledge on the topic so they can understand.
My final conclusion to this is that Lufthansa (unlike Philippines) reached SFO and requested the ILS when the arrivals streams were busiest, thence receiving indefinite delay vectors. Nobody's fault. Just bad timing regarding the totality of inbounds.
[CLIP]"
But not just aircraft landing on the parallel runway; a visual approach means the pilot is responsible for maintaining separation from the aircraft ahead of him, correct? Presumably the requirement by Lufthansa for ILS approach at night is due to concerns about the reduced ability of the pilot to do that in the dark.
The other problem with the Lufthansa is, being a heavy, it needs to be the one staggered slightly behind the other aircraft for wake turbulence reasons.
Fair enough, but it's still true that doing a visual approach means the pilot is responsible for both, correct? There's no such thing as "an ILS approach where the pilot agrees to visually maintain separation from aircraft landing on the parallel runway", correct?
> What the environment at SFO does not permit is for a pilot to be able to rely on the controller to guarantee separation from the airplane landing in parallel.
So basically, if SFO were doing all ILS approaches, capacity would be cut in half because the planes would have to alternate landing on the two parallel runways instead of landing side by side?
Not a cleared instrument approach, but nothing stops the pilot from following the ILS procedure with approval from ATC on such a "visual" approach.
A full ILS approach could be approved with an aircraft landing in parallel, however, if the required separation was supplied by the cooperating aircraft trailing just behind the ILS-landing aircraft.
> The following conditions apply to visual approaches being conducted simultaneously to parallel, intersecting, and converging runways, as appropriate:
> Parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet. Unless approved separation is provided, an aircraft must report sighting a preceding aircraft making an approach (instrument or visual) to the adjacent parallel runway. When an aircraft reports another aircraft in sight on the adjacent extended runway centerline and visual separation is applied, controllers must advise the succeeding aircraft to maintain visual separation. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
If the Lufthansa was not heavy (and thus not required to slightly trail the parallel aircraft), the required separation could have been supplied by the other pilot, and it would apparently comply with Lufthansa's SOP. It's somewhat counterintuitive to me that Lufthansa would prefer to trust any pilot other than its own to provide the required separation.
But that wasn't what ATC was offering the Lufthansa crew, was it? If that were what ATC was offering, I would expect to see something more explicit in the voice traffic, something like "we can grant you permission to follow the ILS approach procedure if you agree to maintain visual separation from the aircraft coming in on the parallel runway". If the Lufthansa pilot is on the hook to follow company policy requiring an ILS approach, I wouldn't expect him to hang his hat on something cryptic from ATC that could be interpreted in multiple different ways. I would expect him to need something explicit.
They ran down the aircraft's fuel, contributed to crew fatigue, and their language and conduct on the radio was petulant, at best. This is all because US controllers use visual approaches because they can fit more planes in.
The entire system is overloaded and overworked, and the strain is showing in skyrocketing near-miss incidents.
If I’m understanding correctly, the ATC is asking the pilot if they can maintain visual separation with traffic landing on the parallel runway. The pilot says no meaning they need the added accommodation of being brought in without parallel traffic. For better or for worse, maintaining visual separation with parallel traffic is the normal course of business there…the situation wouldn’t arise because of an ATC fuckup. Furthermore, in such a scenario, the collision avoidance system is a backup to the pilot, not the other way around.
Having that said, it’s incredible that pilots forget time and time again that as PIC they are the drivers of the airplane, not ATC.
This pilot could have easily declared an emergency and be asked to be diverted to SFO and be number 1. Deal with the ramifications later. And as we saw from American in JFK who was in a rush to get home early, nothing happens.
It would do so for everyone. Both other crews in the air, and ATC. It would generate a huge load of work for the controllers (and that can lead to fuckups)...and end up causing numerous other flights to be delayed in landing. Flights with tired crews and fuel concerns of their own.
> Lufthansa 458 heavy, just for my planning purposes and for the Final controller's planning purposes, can you maintain visual separation with the aircraft at night?
> 458 heavy, exactly that is what is not allowed [laughs]
The controller was trying to give the pilot an out by allowing him to comply with his company's procedures prohibiting visual approaches, but allowing him to make an instrument landing so long as he was capable of looking out his window to ensure that he has specific other aircraft in sight. Note that this is required for parallel landings at SFO because of the very close proximity of the runways otherwise prohibits simultaneous approaches.
The problem is that, under the FAA regulations, all aircraft operating in visual conditions (which includes a clear night) have a duty to maintain vigilance "so as to see and avoid other aircraft" regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules. 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113)
In essence, the Lufthansa pilot was telegraphing his refusal to even comply with the basic flight regulations that all aircraft have to comply with (regardless of instrument or visual flight rules).
The combination of (1) refusing to accept a visual approach, and (2) refusing to even abide by the minimum requirements for operation in U.S. airspace (to see and avoid other aircraft), even on an instrument approach, caused the excessive delay.