Originally Posted by
Slasher1
While all traffic has a duty to see and avoid when able to do so, a "maintain visual separation" clearance is a specific one where the pilots are required to do so if accepting it, and advise ATC if unable. It deletes the responsibility of the controller to provide separation IFR to IFR (or in some cases IFR to VFR) and places the responsibility wholly on the pilot.
To the other bloviators I think the point was concern over the deterioration of basic piloting skills of people to the point they can't safely execute visual approaches anymore. This is a training and proficiency issue; the problem is that when playing in the US, this is a skill that pilots are expected to have--due largely to the extreme business of the airports and that the controllers use a variety of techniques (which are plenty safe when folks do what they're supposed to) to make it the most efficient ATC system in the world. To the extent of clearing airplanes for takeoff and landing when there is reasonable belief deconfliction has been achieved. So if you want to play there, you have to be up to the rules of the game there.
The post I was responding to stated the motives and reasons why not to call traffic in sight, and don't apply to this incident. As was seen, doing so did not prompt the issuance of a visual approach to Cathay despite being VFR conditions.
At SFO it's this instruction and acceptance to maintain visual separation with parallel traffic that allows the approaches spaced so closely to occur simultaneously in the first place because ATC can't do it, not because they just don't want to do it.
If everyone refused to accept the responsibility to maintain visual separation even when VMC as the poster advocates by pretending they don't have parallel traffic in sight, then it may as well be IMC with the resultant sharp drop in traffic flow because that's how it'll have to be handled. Essentially, he's advocating not being bothered to look outside, and yet, the regulation to see and avoid still exists. How does one do both, or is lying to ATC controllers a professional attribute? What's next, lying about being unable to maintain speeds merely because slower is easier?