FAA bans visual approaches by foreign airlines at San Francisco airport
Moosp
With the greatest of respect...a 13 NDB letdown in a typhoon is a little different to a visual approach to 28L at SFO in CAVOK.
The former was not for the faint of heart (unless they could see the coldie on the bar at the Aero Club as they went over the fence) whereas the ban on the latter seems like a total indictment upon the state of commercial aviation.
With the greatest of respect...a 13 NDB letdown in a typhoon is a little different to a visual approach to 28L at SFO in CAVOK.
The former was not for the faint of heart (unless they could see the coldie on the bar at the Aero Club as they went over the fence) whereas the ban on the latter seems like a total indictment upon the state of commercial aviation.
Last edited by VR-HFX; 31st Jul 2013 at 14:12.
Cool as a moosp
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mostly Hong Kong
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, about the difference.
However the point that the American pilot was making was that he was plugging the hole in that piece of the Swiss cheese so he did not have to worry about an accident at HKG that night.
I still believe he was right, and I still believe that even on a CAVOK day a purely visual approach should not be done by Heavies or Supers in this day and age. It adds a level of risk that is avoidable, irrespective of the skill level of the pilot.
Maybe I'm becoming a dinosaur.
However the point that the American pilot was making was that he was plugging the hole in that piece of the Swiss cheese so he did not have to worry about an accident at HKG that night.
I still believe he was right, and I still believe that even on a CAVOK day a purely visual approach should not be done by Heavies or Supers in this day and age. It adds a level of risk that is avoidable, irrespective of the skill level of the pilot.
Maybe I'm becoming a dinosaur.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...I still believe that even on a CAVOK day a purely visual approach should not be done by Heavies or Supers in this day and age. It adds a level of risk that is avoidable, irrespective of the skill level of the pilot.
I suggest that the same pilot that crashes an aircraft on a visual approach in day CAVOK is a risk altogether - regardless of approach. How would they have handled an engine failure on an ILS approach into SFO? Or one at V1 on takeoff? How would he have handled a cargo fire over the Pacific? Fact - flying a visual approach is a required skill. If you can't perform it, you have no business being in the pointy end because you are most likely also missing other critical skills.
Everybody messes up an approach at one time or another for some reason, and recognizing when to throw it away when it goes pear-shaped is also a required skill. So I'm not saying everybody should be Chuck Yeager here.
There is risk, and then there is going flying. You want to get rid of the risk all together, then fine, don't go flying. But saying that a visual approach during CAVOK is too risky, is just plain ridiculous. If you consider a visual approach riskier than an instrument approach, then you are just "doing it wrong son", and you should consider your SOPs and training to be the problem (especially if it is widespread in your airline - i.e., lots of visual approach screw ups and go-arounds).
A coupled ILS is much riskier; an autopilot failure, or signal interference can lead to a pretty bad situation. Bad enough for a pilot who crashes from a visual approach to miss. I think most pilots will agree that the toughest maneuvers we perform during our checking events are LVO approaches with low altitude failures. They can happen so fast that you really have no option of brain farting or delaying. It truly is a split second decision. And they do happen, not just in training (ILS 07R HKG notam for autoland, SIA 777 in Munich recently)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any change in procedures should apply to all incoming long haul flights, including US carriers.
The PAPIs don't even work half the time in SFO for these runways. That airport is a joke.
The PAPIs don't even work half the time in SFO for these runways. That airport is a joke.
Seems like the FAA are jumping the gun here- I know they do not exactly get along with the NTSB but making a mandatory and significant change ahead of any conclusions seems rather more politically motivated than safety oriented.
Furthermore isn't there a serious question in this incident about mis- operation or misinterpretation of auto throttle modes.
If crews are deemed two tired or too inept to hand fly the approach but cannot understand some of the AP/AT features whats left?!
Furthermore isn't there a serious question in this incident about mis- operation or misinterpretation of auto throttle modes.
If crews are deemed two tired or too inept to hand fly the approach but cannot understand some of the AP/AT features whats left?!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On a few nerves apparently
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Visual approaches by foreign airlines at LAX were banned for some time years ago after a Quantas 747-400 having been cleared for visual approach at night to 25L (which requires calling the runway in sight) mistook Hawthorne airport which has a tiny runway and went around at just a few hundred feet after ATC screamed bloody murder low altitude alert and finally go-around. This is not the first time.
In fact unless you know the long list of things that change the moment you accept a visual approach, you shouldn't be doing one anyway. For instance, if you don't know that it is clearly in writing in the regs that "there is no Missed Approach segment to a visual approach" and that you are NOT expected or authorized to perform the published Missed Approach of any Inststrument approach published for that runway in the event of a Go-Around (unless of course you ask and ATC approves), you have no business flying a visual approach in the first place due to ignorance.
In fact unless you know the long list of things that change the moment you accept a visual approach, you shouldn't be doing one anyway. For instance, if you don't know that it is clearly in writing in the regs that "there is no Missed Approach segment to a visual approach" and that you are NOT expected or authorized to perform the published Missed Approach of any Inststrument approach published for that runway in the event of a Go-Around (unless of course you ask and ATC approves), you have no business flying a visual approach in the first place due to ignorance.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Arse end of the world
Age: 68
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How come SFO ATC did not scream bloody murder when OZ214 was well beyond glide? What happened to the ATC low altitude warnings and alerts? Had someone been off the ball at SFO besides the three Koreans with piss poor flying skills and zero S.A?
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: On a few nerves apparently
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know J Cruiser. I guess as accidents are result of chain of events and multiple failures by people and machines, that one safety feature in the system (person or machine part) among others, failed too this time.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the question of stereotyping needs to be asked here. Perhaps since the FAA can't say Asian carriers, they say foreign. I have seen a number of US registered aircraft do some crazy stuff in SFO with no word from the FAA. Maybe it wasn't just an NTSB intern that thought Asian names of pilots was funny.
Ah, I love a good conspiracy theory.
Ah, I love a good conspiracy theory.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the ban is true, I'm not sure I can see a problem.
Those of us who fly into Tullamarine airport (Melbourne, Australia), would be familiar with "From SHEED, clear visual approach" for RWY 34. This requires a 2000' descent and an almost 90 degree right turn in around 5 track miles. Not difficult if you're used to doing it but perhaps not so if you've been flying for 14 hours and used to "ILS to ILS".
Not sure there's a policy on the above, but almost only Aussie and Kiwi airlines get that particular STAR. I've heard the odd United get it, but never any of the Asian airlines.
I tend to agree with the above comment. OTOH, the FAA could be seen to be acting proactively. The ban can always be lifted if the NTSB findings don't support the hypothesis.
My personal belief is that this incident is another indication that modern airline pilots are becoming less able to fly modern airliners.
DIVOSH!
Those of us who fly into Tullamarine airport (Melbourne, Australia), would be familiar with "From SHEED, clear visual approach" for RWY 34. This requires a 2000' descent and an almost 90 degree right turn in around 5 track miles. Not difficult if you're used to doing it but perhaps not so if you've been flying for 14 hours and used to "ILS to ILS".
Not sure there's a policy on the above, but almost only Aussie and Kiwi airlines get that particular STAR. I've heard the odd United get it, but never any of the Asian airlines.
I know they do not exactly get along with the NTSB but making a mandatory and significant change ahead of any conclusions seems rather more politically motivated than safety oriented.
My personal belief is that this incident is another indication that modern airline pilots are becoming less able to fly modern airliners.
DIVOSH!
Hmmmmmmm.......
70 years ago there were 300-hour pilots doing visual approaches at night to runways illuminated by flares, and doing it in 4-engine bombers that may or may not have attracted foreign-manufactured balls of lead during the inbound flight.........and now with all the "goodies" and training available to modern crews a 10,000 hour pilot can't fly a visual approach in daylight CAVOK conditions?
That's progress I guess......
70 years ago there were 300-hour pilots doing visual approaches at night to runways illuminated by flares, and doing it in 4-engine bombers that may or may not have attracted foreign-manufactured balls of lead during the inbound flight.........and now with all the "goodies" and training available to modern crews a 10,000 hour pilot can't fly a visual approach in daylight CAVOK conditions?
That's progress I guess......
'chimbu' that's true what you say to some degree but a lot of those young airman didn't make it, many crashed during landing & T/off. And those guys wouldn't have been worrying too much about stabilized App's either just get the damned thing on the ground any way you can!
I imagine that a lot of Airlines don't practice NPA's too much in the Sim these days & that coupled with rarely doing them anyway out there on the line with what's generally accepted as very inexperienced co-drivers beside them all add to high levels of risk.
It's all about risk, someone's done the numbers on risk here & came up with a 'scare-factor' number that means nope not letting them do anymore viz App's.
Wmk2
I imagine that a lot of Airlines don't practice NPA's too much in the Sim these days & that coupled with rarely doing them anyway out there on the line with what's generally accepted as very inexperienced co-drivers beside them all add to high levels of risk.
It's all about risk, someone's done the numbers on risk here & came up with a 'scare-factor' number that means nope not letting them do anymore viz App's.
Wmk2
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of threads on this website about 'children of the magenta line' and that they are incapable (supposedly) of flying the aircraft without the automatics.
Yet here we have a thread where very experienced (supposedly) are advocating that you shouldn't fly a visual approach in a wide body in CAVOK conditions?? Sorry, but if you can't fly a visual in any aircraft type in these conditions then you shouldn't be sitting in the flight deck. It does make you wonder when pilots start advocating that you should divert if the ILS goes off air at your destination in CAVOK conditions.
About 50% of the approaches we do on the wide body are NDB or visual. With a proper briefing AND training it all becomes a non-event.
Yet here we have a thread where very experienced (supposedly) are advocating that you shouldn't fly a visual approach in a wide body in CAVOK conditions?? Sorry, but if you can't fly a visual in any aircraft type in these conditions then you shouldn't be sitting in the flight deck. It does make you wonder when pilots start advocating that you should divert if the ILS goes off air at your destination in CAVOK conditions.
About 50% of the approaches we do on the wide body are NDB or visual. With a proper briefing AND training it all becomes a non-event.
Last edited by CEJM; 3rd Aug 2013 at 12:31.
CEJM
Can you explain a bit more about where you actually fly your widebody please. If 50% of your flights are NDB or visual you must fly to some pretty strange dest inations in some quite nice weather. Some of the new widebodies aren't even fitted with NDB and in any serious weather the beacon itself is very unreliable. What widebody do you fly? The whole point about being very wary of visual approaches is that very few people do them at all let alone 50% of the time.
For a major airport like SFO to take away the ILS and the PAPI at the same time is questionable to say the least. I feel some US ATC is pretty cavalier when dealing with big jets and I do have experience in LAX, SFO and JFK flying 747 Classic, 744 and 777.
Can you explain a bit more about where you actually fly your widebody please. If 50% of your flights are NDB or visual you must fly to some pretty strange dest inations in some quite nice weather. Some of the new widebodies aren't even fitted with NDB and in any serious weather the beacon itself is very unreliable. What widebody do you fly? The whole point about being very wary of visual approaches is that very few people do them at all let alone 50% of the time.
For a major airport like SFO to take away the ILS and the PAPI at the same time is questionable to say the least. I feel some US ATC is pretty cavalier when dealing with big jets and I do have experience in LAX, SFO and JFK flying 747 Classic, 744 and 777.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think CEJM has very little idea of what the job of a 777 pilot in a carrier like Asiana, Korean, CX, Quantas, ANZ, etc is like. Arfur's last paragraph sums it up very well.
Yes, there's no excuse for crashing a serviceable aircraft on a nice day into a long runway, but there are some mighty large contributing factors. SFO ATC need to take a good long look at the way they operate, having drilled at least 3 very large holes into at least 3 Swiss cheeses on the way to this accident. Likewise JFK, although they at least seem to be getting the message and have been sprinkling some PAPIs around their more troublesome runways recently.
The FAA are stepping in because it's been business as usual since the accident so someone has to, and those that should be effecting change aren't.
Yes, there's no excuse for crashing a serviceable aircraft on a nice day into a long runway, but there are some mighty large contributing factors. SFO ATC need to take a good long look at the way they operate, having drilled at least 3 very large holes into at least 3 Swiss cheeses on the way to this accident. Likewise JFK, although they at least seem to be getting the message and have been sprinkling some PAPIs around their more troublesome runways recently.
The FAA are stepping in because it's been business as usual since the accident so someone has to, and those that should be effecting change aren't.