Lufty at SFO
It's amazing to me you believe that the aircraft being paired onto parallel Visuals simply fly whatever speed they want after being cleared, that ATC goes to all the trouble to timing the opposing intercepts to establish the pairs to create gaps, only to cut everyone loose to do..whatever.
For the aircraft behind, yes. You’re conflating separation and sequencing, they’re not the same thing. I’ll requote what an NCT controller said for you.
If they have mutual sightings they can pass all day. Imo the onus is on the controllers to get the second sighting in a passing situation. If the heavy aircraft slows as to not pass it effects the second set of aircraft behind them so they're still required to maintain assigned speed. Having worked that final, it wasn't uncommon to have one crew maintaining visual separation with three aircraft at once. Traffic on parallel final plus two heavies in a pair in front of them. It really is a wild final to work. Everyone gets a speed. Usually the only issues with passing involve 747 and 777 aircraft. Most other heavies tend to be slow on final.
there would have to be a gap created for LH, and I still haven't heard from anyone who claims it could've been accomplished easily explain why they believe that without affecting both streams of traffic that are being metered/sequenced for running in side-by-side pairs down final approach.
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: north of Harlow and south of Cambridge
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Ask them!
Where have I said speeds are optional?
For the aircraft behind, yes. You’re conflating separation and sequencing, they’re not the same thing. I’ll requote what an NCT controller said for you.
I’m asking about what to do with a go-around, because…
How do you fit a go-around in without affecting both metered/sequenced streams of traffic. I’m sure they manage that, so it is possible. A gap doesn’t just magically appear for a go-around to fit in to. You have to make it. What track mileage would you expect for a second approach at SFO?
For the aircraft behind, yes. You’re conflating separation and sequencing, they’re not the same thing. I’ll requote what an NCT controller said for you.
I’m asking about what to do with a go-around, because…
How do you fit a go-around in without affecting both metered/sequenced streams of traffic. I’m sure they manage that, so it is possible. A gap doesn’t just magically appear for a go-around to fit in to. You have to make it. What track mileage would you expect for a second approach at SFO?
simples!
I think ATC were unreasonable here, my company also has a 'no night visual' rule when operating in overseas territories. I could worry about that being right or wrong as much as I like but at the end of the day it is the companies train set and I am there to fly the aircraft the way they dictate. I would expect that when I inform ATC of my operational restriction they will work me into the sequence instead of 'punishing' me by sending me into an endless hold. This ATC tape came across as the controller being very unhelpful and virtually forcing a diversion. At the end of the day, are they here for us or are we there for them.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Geneva
Age: 48
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those commenting on the undesirable Visual approach at the end of a long flight seem to assume that the ILS cannot be used. My understanding is that the ILS can be flown as normal but it is the SEP standard that is different. I cannot see a requirement to not tune and follow the ILS as normal because the clearance is for a visual approach. One of the visual approach requirements in Australia is to be established “not below the GS”. So the whole issue is separation standards.
Originally Posted by Icarus
My understanding is that the ILS can be flown as normal
And tuning the ILS in Aust is not a "requirement". It only allows you to descend earlier on a visual approach at night.
Thanks Bloggs. I have not seen the Quiet Bridge plate.
Is that what they were being asked to conduct though?
A “requirement” to descend on a visual approach, one of many. Happy?
Is that what they were being asked to conduct though?
A “requirement” to descend on a visual approach, one of many. Happy?
Originally Posted by Icarus
A “requirement” to descend on a visual approach, one of many. Happy?
Didn't I tell you this during training?!
Hahaha good luck leaving MSA at 5nm and being stable by 1000’ in many places.
There are the various requirements to leave MSA for a visual approach, you know all that.
I found the QB plate on page 5 but it appears the 28L approach is based on the LOC and is runway aligned.
There are the various requirements to leave MSA for a visual approach, you know all that.
I found the QB plate on page 5 but it appears the 28L approach is based on the LOC and is runway aligned.
Originally Posted by Icarus
I found the QB plate on page 5 but it appears the 28L approach is based on the LOC and is runway aligned.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's SFO, and its launching aircraft on two runways that cross the two arrival runways at the same time. And OAK and SJ are but miles away, so not a lot of late delay vectoring space to sequence for special arrivals.
Is there enough space to resequence a go around? How does SFO find a gap for them?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York Tracon
Age: 57
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Late to the party here, and I worked on the other side of the country (ATC at the New York Tracon-EWR area). While our airspace and local procedures are different, there is one thing that's likely the same. Airport rates are set by traffic management taking into account the weather, runway configuration, and whatever other variables. At busy airports with high demand, they try to maximize capacity and efficiency, so those rates are usually optimistically high and assume best case scenarios. When we're running a tight sequence with visuals, we don't have to worry about losing standard separation to compression, for example if you're on a visual you can land 2.1 miles behind as opposed to 2.5 miles if on an instrument approach (large behind large). When you have 45 aircraft airborne landing at an airport that has a 45 rate it means our margin for error is nil as far as spacing goes, and having aircraft that require extra spacing throw a monkey wrench into our plans. Somebody will end up having to hold or divert, so why should I penalize an aircraft behind the one that can't comply? My working philosophy was always to make the non complying aircraft be the one diverting and keep the flow going with the rest, so I can totally see and understand the perspective of this SFO controller even if I may disagree with the language and tone of voice used.
And the above, # 435, in a diagram;
See 'Risk Management in a Dynamic Society'
http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.863/rasmu...etyscience.pdf also note Fig 1.
See 'Risk Management in a Dynamic Society'
http://sunnyday.mit.edu/16.863/rasmu...etyscience.pdf also note Fig 1.
Those commenting on the undesirable Visual approach at the end of a long flight seem to assume that the ILS cannot be used. My understanding is that the ILS can be flown as normal but it is the SEP standard that is different. I cannot see a requirement to not tune and follow the ILS as normal because the clearance is for a visual approach. One of the visual approach requirements in Australia is to be established “not below the GS”. So the whole issue is separation standards.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: korea
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ATC give an expected approach time then they should stick to it as it is a legal requirement in many companies with regards to committing or diverting. In terms of visual approaches don't flatter yourselves as most of you could not fly a visual approach without ******* it up, thus the company rules! in any case them's are the rules. The LH guy did a good job. ATC otherwise were also ok except for the EAT issue.
Lastly ATC needs to bear in mind that the pilots may not have been in or out of SFO recently so tear-assing around flying visuals at night might be ok for US carriers that go there all the time but is probably not appropriate for an international carrier.
Lastly ATC needs to bear in mind that the pilots may not have been in or out of SFO recently so tear-assing around flying visuals at night might be ok for US carriers that go there all the time but is probably not appropriate for an international carrier.
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: New York Tracon
Age: 57
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ATC give an expected approach time then they should stick to it as it is a legal requirement in many companies with regards to committing or diverting. In terms of visual approaches don't flatter yourselves as most of you could not fly a visual approach without ******* it up, thus the company rules! in any case them's are the rules. The LH guy did a good job. ATC otherwise were also ok except for the EAT issue.
Lastly ATC needs to bear in mind that the pilots may not have been in or out of SFO recently so tear-assing around flying visuals at night might be ok for US carriers that go there all the time but is probably not appropriate for an international carrier.
Lastly ATC needs to bear in mind that the pilots may not have been in or out of SFO recently so tear-assing around flying visuals at night might be ok for US carriers that go there all the time but is probably not appropriate for an international carrier.
We do try stick to the times, but stuff happens, we’re constantly juggling traffic, and there’s countless variables that may make it difficult, so it may or not happen. The decision to commit or divert is yours and only you know how close you want to push it.
All things being equal, we typically go with a “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” attitude. Obviously if you declare an emergency all bets are off, and you’re gonna get priority.