Originally Posted by
Del Prado
There have been many visual approaches flown at night that haven’t ended well. Off the top of my head there was the KAL (at Guam?) and one in Italy which ended up with the ATC serving time in jail (for clearing a pilot request visual approach at night when an instrument approach was available).
I imagine that’s why many airlines have banned visual approaches at night.
Those posters that think DLH ops should have notified SFO several hours in advance that they wouldn’t accept visual separation, how do you think the situation would have then been handled differently?
What is it about 14 hours that was sufficient when 40 minutes wasn’t?
And please bear in mind they only had to stretch a gap by maximum 2 miles to accommodate, they didn’t need a ground stop or a 30 minute gap.
There have been many more visuals that have ended well. If KAL can’t fly a visual approach on Italy, there’s no reason I shouldn’t be able to. In terms of the timing, the earlier the better. They get to figure out how much spacing to apply a lot sooner. If you’d like to leaf through your approach plates and fly any published approach, you’ll have to request a cruise clearance, but you won’t get that going to SFO.
Are we sure this notification was made 40 mins prior? From the audio, it sounded like they were talking to the approach controller, which would’ve been more like 40 miles than 40 minutes.
Can we stop pretending that a visual approach is somehow difficult? They’re done thousands of times a day in the US alone by Boeings, Airbuses, CRJs and Embraers. This approach is as unremarkable as they come. Shame on DLH for forcing their pilots into a stupid situation.