Similar events have occurred in the past when aircraft cross parallel runways and change the propagation properties of the LOC, aircraft crossing 28L after landing on 28R can interfere with the LOC on 28L. If an aircraft is crossing it can lead to false capture and reverse sense indications.

Sorry for interrupting the anonymous character assassination without all the facts at hand, carry on.

Your post is far too reasonable and logical! Please re-think in future ;)

The "visual" reference is in relation to being visual with the aircraft on approach - NOT with the runway.

I've had both 'report the runway in sight' and 'report the traffic in sight'. The motive of ATC in either case is to reduce their workload by shifting the burden of ensuring separation to you. But my job is to fly the aircraft, their job is to ensure separation. Why would I want to increase my workload and hence operational risk by doing their job for them (particularly when jetlagged after a long flight [into SFO!])? You could do the dance of reporting field/traffic in sight, then declining the visual approach clearance, but that just adds unnecessary R/T clutter to the airways. Much simpler to not report visual or field/traffic in sight in the first place (even if you are).

All this talk about visuals/not visual, disconnecting autopilot etc. misses the point. The pilots missed the call to turn left hence the turn was delayed until ATC noticed they weren't turning and their radius of turn meant they would blow through the loc AP on or not. LOC can capture and still blow through the LOC. There are 2 relevant points. What distraction caused the missed radio call and why were they put into a situation that a single missed call could lead to such compromised safety. The latter we know is the nature of SFO ATC. The former none of us knows and we owe the benefit of the doubt to the crew involved because it absolutely could be any of us on a given day. Maybe cabin crew called just at the moment. Maybe they got an ECAM message. Maybe they were discussing where to have dinner. WTF knows. The system worked because there was altitude separation and CX followed the RA and it seems United perhaps did not but that's not 100% clear. Nothing to do with fear of disconnecting the autopilot or about hand flying at all. If they disconnected and turned a steep bank away from UA they certainly would have lost visual contact. So CTFO back seat drivers.

oh dear me, dance around it all you like but the CX crews performance was piss poor. And spare us the lame excuses, how CX is that?. Yes we can all screw up at times, learn from it and move on.

This wasn't United's fault. Whether or not he followed the RA or should have is not for us to say (he may well have seen safe visual deconfliction and I dare say we have NO idea what THEIR SOPs are--and cannot base another's decision on our frame outlook).

The bottom line I think is that we have a significant amount of crews who are unable to maintain visual separation and make visual approaches without the aid of the magic or relying on controllers to do pilots' jobs for them. I view this as a problem--the US ATC system is the most efficient in the world--bar none. It relies on a whole bunch of tricks including reduced separation AND on pilots being able to maintain visual separation and safely conduct visual approaches (as a sidenote a visual approach clearance can be issued with either the field AND/OR the preceding traffic to the field in sight). Relying on the controller as a crutch due to our lack of ability, skill, or knowledge is unacceptable in my opinion. In order to play in a particular sandbox one needs to adhere to the ROE OF that sandbox (and not the other way around). So if we buffoon things up we run a risk of being kicked out of the sandbox.

Anyone can make a mistake and any crew can make a mistake -- but when you have recurring issues is when you have a problem.

Reminds me as second Captain into SFO 28R from Seoul where he was given a heading to intercept 28R which he ignored going 30 degrees further left because he was too high! Very dangerous as 28L a lot closer than at most places. Spotted by ATC

I will admit doing a go around at SFO once due to being too high. Felt a little better when United also did a go around a few minutes later. Went out on the usual 130 Radial but got turned in too early and descent given too late

Ummm, two questions? 1) is anyone really surprised, and 2) does anyone really not expect to hear more incidents like this in the future? The only ones who don't seem to see a problem at CX are the management who's bonuses are related to the continuation of our current trajectory. And we all know where that trajectory leads.

“The US ATC is the most efficient by none”
 

With the odd notable exception, I sadly have to agree with that description. Most of them need to be seconded to LHR ATC for 6 months to obtain an understanding of how professionals do that job (and to learn a few manners).

Yes, LHR and LGW also provide great ATC services but to call US third world? .... pompous perhaps?

US ATC expects professional pilots to be competent, proficient operators. If you pay attention to how some of the "questionable " Asian operators are handled in the US, you'll see that Cathay Pacific gets treated the same as most domestic airlines because traditionally, CX hired experience. If CNs are willing to sit and watch their 130hr Adelaide brushwingers butcher a visual, they can do the paperwork and soon enough, Cathay will be positive speed control from 100 miles back and 20 mile finals alongside most of our Asian counterparts.

I completely agree with the above, that performance from the CX crew was pathetic and embarrassing. Don't fly into a busy US airport and expect them to hold your hand, do exactly what you are told and do it without delay. And please spare me the excuses about the crew being tired after a 12 hour flight, if you can't do this job competently when you are tired than you are in the wrong occupation.

Best comment of the week. Spot on.

But there is nothing in the current CX trajectory that indicates status quo. Like a gold reputation, it takes years to build and seconds to destroy.

​​​​​
​​​​​

Hah!!! You mean the airport where everyone follows RNAV transitions with specific speed controls to the final of widely-spaced ILS approaches? Where nearly the only arrival handling from the east is stepping aircraft down in a hold to join said transitions?? Go to ORD, JFK, LGA, EWR, SFO, etc if you want to watch talented controllers. I have flown to every continent except Antarctica, and while European controllers are typically competent and courteous, they are not as pressed as the approach controllers in those previously mentioned locations. England, center of the universe!!