False equivalence and human factors
I suspect this thread will only end when people get bored.
I do take issue with some of the statements made here.
That an advertised approach procedure was unavailable. It wasn’t unavailable, it was available with less than situationally useful efficiency.
That the LH request should be handled the same way as a go around. A go around must be handled regardless of efficiency. It must be handled. It cannot be constrained by efficiency concerns it must simply be done. This wasn’t a go around.
What we are left with is differing interpretations of efficiency.
Was it more efficient for the controller to do this or LH ops to do that or the flight crew to find a way within SOP to do the other?
What I am left with is an overriding impression of just how inefficient, or at least how unscalable this current process has become.
We need human controllers to perform extortionate mental gymnastics to keep everything safe and then assuming they can do that then efficient as well, and communicate it all over VHF.
We need human flight crew to use mark 1 eyeballs to separate aircraft, wrong side of the circadian rhythm, at night, and verbally communicate issues.
This can’t possibly be best achievable, be any kind of meaningful end state.
Maybe instead of pointing at the controller or pointing at the company or pointing at the flight crew, we should instead be pointing at a process that is already seeing its best days.
Last edited by Bbtengineer; 2nd December 2023 at 03:17.