Lufty at SFO

[icemanalgeria]

Lufthansa crew could not break company rules as most professionals stick to the rules. I would have held 5 more minutes then declared a fuel emergency

[172_driver]

Lufthansa crew could not break company rules as most professionals stick to the rules. I would have held 5 more minutes then declared a fuel emergency

That sounds most unwise, making a demanding situation even worse. How would you explain that in your report when you could've diverted with reserves intact? Do you understand the difference of min fuel/fuel emergency? Speaking about sticking to the rules and professionalism.....??

[MarcK]

Originally Posted by icemanalgeria

Lufthansa crew could not break company rules as most professionals stick to the rules. I would have held 5 more minutes then declared a fuel emergency

Even so, the suggested action might have been Divert to OAK. There is no guarantee of a landing at SFO if you can't do the approach in use.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by 172_driver

That sounds most unwise, making a demanding situation even worse. How would you explain that in your report when you could've diverted with reserves intact? Do you understand the difference of min fuel/fuel emergency? Speaking about sticking to the rules and professionalism.....??

The changing and variable delay given by ATC.

[172_driver]

The changing and variable delay given by ATC.

That's when you declare minimum fuel. It's a widely accepted term and it's in the FAR-AIM.

[1201alarm]

Originally Posted by MarcK

Even so, the suggested action might have been Divert to OAK. There is no guarantee of a landing at SFO if you can't do the approach in use.

That is another misunderstanding of how it works.

Once you declare Mayday, you decide what you do and the controller has to accomodate you. Other aircraft not on Mayday have then to step back.

However Lufthansa was too professional to provoke such a situation, despite bad show by the controller. Rightly so.

[MarcK]

Originally Posted by 1201alarm

That is another misunderstanding of how it works.

Once you declare Mayday, you decide what you do and the controller has to accomodate you. Other aircraft not on Mayday have then to step back..

Does that include turning on approach aids that may be OTS? I think you are reaching, here.

[Request Orbit]

Originally Posted by MarcK

Even so, the suggested action might have been Divert to OAK. There is no guarantee of a landing at SFO if you can't do the approach in use.

.65 S9 ATIS Procedures

2.9.3 Content e)
“Instrument/visual approach/es in use. Specify landing runway/s unless the runway is that to which the instrument approach is made. Before advertising non-precision approaches, priority should be given to available precision, then APV approaches”

Got any reference to say this doesn’t apply at KSFO? Seems to be yet another example on what is an increasingly growing list of “efficiency” over following the rules as they’ve been notified.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by 172_driver

That's when you declare minimum fuel. It's a widely accepted term and it's in the FAR-AIM.

Except when they change it yet again and you find yourself below minimum fuel.

[megan]

Once you declare Mayday, you decide what you do and the controller has to accomodate you. Other aircraft not on Mayday have then to step back.

However Lufthansa was too professional to provoke such a situation, despite bad show by the controller. Rightly so.

If the captain put himself into a situation where he had to declare a mayday due to fuel he should have his four stripes stripped from his body and sacked.

[Del Prado]

Originally Posted by megan

If the captain put himself into a situation where he had to declare a mayday due to fuel he should have his four stripes stripped from his body and sacked.

I’ve handled many fuel maydays, double figures in just one incident/closure, none of the captains were demoted or sacked.
What sort of strange blame culture do you operate under?

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by megan

If the captain put himself into a situation where he had to declare a mayday due to fuel he should have his four stripes stripped from his body and sacked.

​​​​​​​Nonsense.

[NoelEvans]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

... I wouldn't dream of going to JFK and requesting an ILS when they've said the VOR is in use. If you're capable of doing it, you're expected to do it.

If DLH management is going to write stupid rules for their pilots to follow, they can continue to expect lengthy delays while operating in US airpsace.

What a nonsense comment!

Nobody is talking about "requesting an ILS when they've said the VOR is in use".

If an airline files an IFR Flight Plan for a flight, it should remain IFR all the way to landing unless the crew request the cancellation of IFR. If an airport cannot cope with that, that is the airport's problem to sort out, not the airline's. DLH management have not written any "stupid rules for their pilots to follow", they are entirely rational. It is coming across more and more that SFO is a "good weather airport" that does not have the capacity to deal normally with IFR traffic.

[NoelEvans]

Originally Posted by megan

If the captain put himself into a situation where he had to declare a mayday due to fuel he should have his four stripes stripped from his body and sacked.

Please let us know what airline you fly for so that I can ensure that they are on my "do not fly with them" list. (Similar to the way that SFO has gone onto my "do not fly to there, unless you have time to spare" list -- see above.)

Also, does that in anyway imply that...

If the captain put herself into a situation where she had to declare a mayday due to fuel she

... would somehow be except from sacking???

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by NoelEvans

What a nonsense comment!

Nobody is talking about "requesting an ILS when they've said the VOR is in use".

If an airline files an IFR Flight Plan for a flight, it should remain IFR all the way to landing unless the crew request the cancellation of IFR. If an airport cannot cope with that, that is the airport's problem to sort out, not the airline's. DLH management have not written any "stupid rules for their pilots to follow", they are entirely rational. It is coming across more and more that SFO is a "good weather airport" that does not have the capacity to deal normally with IFR traffic.

An airplane on an IFR plan can conduct a visual approach. Do you really think we’re talking about cancelling IFR?

[22/04]

n airplane on an IFR plan can conduct a visual approach. Do you really think we’re talking about cancelling IFR?

I think that is what happens here in the U.K.

Standard phraseology here might be aircraft requests visual approach. Aircraft cleared visual approach and requests cancellation of IFR flight plan. Controller confirms IFR flight plan cancelled at [time}.

The U.S. is very different to most places in the world as I keep saying.

[galaxy flyer]

Originally Posted by NoelEvans

What a nonsense comment!

Nobody is talking about "requesting an ILS when they've said the VOR is in use".

If an airline files an IFR Flight Plan for a flight, it should remain IFR all the way to landing unless the crew request the cancellation of IFR. If an airport cannot cope with that, that is the airport's problem to sort out, not the airline's. DLH management have not written any "stupid rules for their pilots to follow", they are entirely rational. It is coming across more and more that SFO is a "good weather airport" that does not have the capacity to deal normally with IFR traffic.

A visual approach is an IFR approach! I know that’s news to many here who believe otherwise, here’s and at 5 other threads on several forums. DLH, was cleared at SFO for an IFR approach flown visually. No one was cancelling IFR. I know never used outside the US, but it’s an option under IFR.

[Check Airman]

Originally Posted by 22/04

I think that is what happens here in the U.K.

Standard phraseology here might be aircraft requests visual approach. Aircraft cleared visual approach and requests cancellation of IFR flight plan. Controller confirms IFR flight plan cancelled at [time}.

The U.S. is very different to most places in the world as I keep saying.

Is that what all the angst is about? I suppose all the wailing is starting to make sense now.

In the US, an airplane can fly a visual approach while on an IFR flight plan. There are even cases where you may be required to remain clear of clouds in an IFR flight plan.

Nobody would ever suggest DLH cancelling IFR. A visual approach is just that- navigating primarily by what’s in the window. Normal IFR flight plan.

[ATC Watcher]

There are even cases where you may be required to remain clear of clouds in an IFR flight plan.

Are you sure this is back in ? it was the main cause of a few collisions in the 1960s , including one above New York city. It was changed after that , i.e. pilots could not anymore deviate from ATC assigned altitudes on an IFR flight plan.

[Chesty Morgan]

Originally Posted by Check Airman

Is that what all the angst is about? I suppose all the wailing is starting to make sense now.

In the US, an airplane can fly a visual approach while on an IFR flight plan. There are even cases where you may be required to remain clear of clouds in an IFR flight plan.

Nobody would ever suggest DLH cancelling IFR. A visual approach is just that- navigating primarily by what’s in the window. Normal IFR flight plan.

No, you can do a visual approach and remain IFR in the UK and Europe.