Lufty at SFO
Originally Posted by Bloggs
And the 737 being held on the ground for hours? What's that all about?
Originally Posted by Check Airman
That's why he doesn't get the delay...
Wake turbulence separation is applied by time rather than distance. Minimum radar separation for non vortex pairs remains 2.5nm but the next step is to apply non vortex spacing via time also (possibly next year.)
LHR parallel runways are 1400 metres apart (so still not separated but much further apart than SFO), a landing rate of 50 is achievable if they are both used for landing ILS traffic staggered on parallel runways. 2 mile slant radar separation is the minimum and 2.5nm or vortex minimum (time) in trail.
If there’s a stream of arrivals on the left runway it’s efficient to vector arrivals for the right runway between the pairs of arrivals on the left.
If SFO are declaring 30 arrivals per runway that implies a spacing of about 5.8 miles per runway, should be enough room to get one on the ILS to the other runway in that gap. Even if you stretch it to 7 or 8 miles to accommodate the Lufthansa then you’ve still only lost a couple of miles.
But regardless of how easy it would have been to accommodate the DLH, you can’t give a delay of 10 minutes and then not update it until it’s expired only to then double the delay when queried.
**** is barely a swear word to Europeans whose second language is English. They are exposed to it so much in culture, music, Tv, films, etc. I’ve walked round supermarkets in Europe to the sound of “**** you” by CeLo Green, or been at kids sports days where the explicit version of a song in English is played, it’s completely normalised. If you watch F1 you’ll see a pattern of the European drivers saying ‘****’ almost all the time but the native English speakers never say it. It’s a cultural difference.
I still don’t think there’s any place for it on the RT but a German pilot would not consider it as strong a word as US or British crews and the DLH pilot was definitely not swearing at the controller.
LHR parallel runways are 1400 metres apart (so still not separated but much further apart than SFO), a landing rate of 50 is achievable if they are both used for landing ILS traffic staggered on parallel runways. 2 mile slant radar separation is the minimum and 2.5nm or vortex minimum (time) in trail.
If there’s a stream of arrivals on the left runway it’s efficient to vector arrivals for the right runway between the pairs of arrivals on the left.
If SFO are declaring 30 arrivals per runway that implies a spacing of about 5.8 miles per runway, should be enough room to get one on the ILS to the other runway in that gap. Even if you stretch it to 7 or 8 miles to accommodate the Lufthansa then you’ve still only lost a couple of miles.
But regardless of how easy it would have been to accommodate the DLH, you can’t give a delay of 10 minutes and then not update it until it’s expired only to then double the delay when queried.
**** is barely a swear word to Europeans whose second language is English. They are exposed to it so much in culture, music, Tv, films, etc. I’ve walked round supermarkets in Europe to the sound of “**** you” by CeLo Green, or been at kids sports days where the explicit version of a song in English is played, it’s completely normalised. If you watch F1 you’ll see a pattern of the European drivers saying ‘****’ almost all the time but the native English speakers never say it. It’s a cultural difference.
I still don’t think there’s any place for it on the RT but a German pilot would not consider it as strong a word as US or British crews and the DLH pilot was definitely not swearing at the controller.
He most certainly was
So because the f word is used in music and TV it’s ok to use it to pressure and insult a controller with it if you’re not getting your way ?
What nonsense, almost as much as the idea Germans don’t know what the word means
A tip for this particular pilot in future that he seems to need is when asking for special consideration from a controller just be polite
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never said Germans don’t know what the F word means, just that it doesn’t carry nearly so much weight to someone who speaks English as a second language. I provided examples too and I’ve experienced it many times in Europe.
Im just trying to provide some context so views don’t get entrenched on the swearing issue. (Not sure how that’s going….😆
Last edited by Del Prado; 15th Nov 2023 at 08:49.
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Somewhere or other
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me, this looks like a fundamental Lufty flight planning weakness.
This mode of operation is pretty standard at SFO. If you know this, which the company does, plus that you'll be landing in darkness, you can understand sat in Munich way in advance, it's not so hard to put 2 and 2 together and identify a hazrad, ie. that your company SOPs risk a holding delay. It's entirely foreseeable. In that case, you brief this eventuality, agree what to do, and load fuel for holding just like you would if a weather delay was foreseeable.
This isn't a one-off charter landing in a rarely served field, but an exceptionally routine daily flight. The fact Lufty's SOPs and planning couldn't identify a basic hazard in an exceptionally routine situation (MUN-SFO daily scheduled), like a delay causing a night landing in a mode you can't fly, is not a good advert for them.
In terms of ATC, what are they meant to do if there is a queue of planes stretching over the Rockies? At the outset, ATC advised of a lengthy delay and they were right. ATC was accommodating the request, but that will naturally take time. All of that was predictable back in Munich.
Lufty's Karen outcry (by the male) was pretty pathetic and showed a lack of situational awareness and understanding about the airspace they were in. I get the crew may not be frequent visitors, but landing at a major global hub at 1900, that has a heavily restricted runway layout, and expecting anything other than what they got is naive at best. Plus, Lufty has been flying to the US for 70?years, they do know full well the US can do things differently.
This mode of operation is pretty standard at SFO. If you know this, which the company does, plus that you'll be landing in darkness, you can understand sat in Munich way in advance, it's not so hard to put 2 and 2 together and identify a hazrad, ie. that your company SOPs risk a holding delay. It's entirely foreseeable. In that case, you brief this eventuality, agree what to do, and load fuel for holding just like you would if a weather delay was foreseeable.
This isn't a one-off charter landing in a rarely served field, but an exceptionally routine daily flight. The fact Lufty's SOPs and planning couldn't identify a basic hazard in an exceptionally routine situation (MUN-SFO daily scheduled), like a delay causing a night landing in a mode you can't fly, is not a good advert for them.
In terms of ATC, what are they meant to do if there is a queue of planes stretching over the Rockies? At the outset, ATC advised of a lengthy delay and they were right. ATC was accommodating the request, but that will naturally take time. All of that was predictable back in Munich.
Lufty's Karen outcry (by the male) was pretty pathetic and showed a lack of situational awareness and understanding about the airspace they were in. I get the crew may not be frequent visitors, but landing at a major global hub at 1900, that has a heavily restricted runway layout, and expecting anything other than what they got is naive at best. Plus, Lufty has been flying to the US for 70?years, they do know full well the US can do things differently.
In terms of ATC, what are they meant to do if there is a queue of planes stretching over the Rockies? At the outset, ATC advised of a lengthy delay and they were right. ATC was accommodating the request, but that will naturally take time. All of that was predictable back in Munich.
One would have thought that SFO, of ALL places, would have understood the value of ILS. One recent very near miss which had lined up on the taxyway during a visual night approach, one hit the boundary wall and was destroyed during a visual approach ... does nobody there care ? I wouldn't be surprised if the LH procedure was actually as a result of seeing such events.
Away with ICAO standard methods and SOPs then, here it's a FIFO procedure - "Fit In or F*** Off".
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Somewhere or other
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This topic is becoming more ridiculous as time goes on. Of course the system has to be able to accommodate changes in the sequence. Are you seriously suggesting that the sequence was set in stone when LH458 left Germany? Local jets comply with the GDP and internationals fill in the holes that were deliberately planned-for. To suggest that an extra 2nm couldn't be inserted before the LH is just nonsense. It wasn't as though the LH was a new entrant at 40nm to run.
It is totally predictable that you are very likely picking up a nasty delay if landing during peak time at a busy operationally constrained airport when you know your company rules mean fitting in with ATC's standard procedure is a no no.
I don't know how familiar you are with SFO. It isn't only a matter of sticking in an extra 2nm on one stack, that should be easy enough. At SFO you basically lose an entire landing slot on the parallel runway, and no ATC is going along with that at peak landing time with aircraft already stacked up to capacity on both runways 100nm out. No ATC is going to send somebody around to accommodate this request, which is what would be needed in these predictable circumstances, at a constrained and busy airport during peak times.
Lufty's constraint is apparently about visual seperation of aircraft at night, and without losing a slot on the parallel runway, there is no way around this with SFOs set up.
Anticipate and plan for a predictable lengthy delay.
Gender Faculty Specialist
I guess SFO can't cope with a missed approach or two and slotting them back in to the sequence...
What a useless place.
What a useless place.
I must have been lucky all the times I’ve been there and flown the ILS without any drama. Only time I’ve held was in quite atrocious weather landing easterly. It was on TAF so we had the fuel. I think there’s much more to this episode than any of us can know.
Seemed that way from the beginning with your "
" at my statement mentioning that TCAS assists with spotting the aircraft you will eventually be pairing-up with on the parallel visual approach before ATC calls it out and asks to verify in sight and maintain separation. It helps identify the stream for the parallel runway and/or gaps into which someone is being vectored that will eventually be on an opposing dogleg, base, or combination and wind up about 500' off your wingtip. If you deny that TCAS helps with SA as it relates to one's place in the stream relative to others and picking them up visually, then I don't know what to say to remedy that, and it's not as if SFO doesn't share the airspace with Oakland and San Jose either.Everyone routinely flying in and out of SFO knows the form-up into pairs on final is the critical juncture due to the possibility of an overshoot by either aircraft, and eyes need to be kept on the traffic you've verified to ATC is in sight. Everyone knows to tune the respective ILS freq with raw data displayed as a SA back-up and for eventual use within the last few miles when lining-up from the slight offset. Everyone who's done it knows there is no fancy flying required for this visual, it's benign as it get in that respect. What everyone knows about SFO with centerlnes 750' apart, is vigilance with respect to other aircraft when parallel approaches are being conducted no matter the approach type.
Long before they form inbounds up in pairs on final, the in-trail spacing in each stream has already been established by ATC using assigned speeds, The "maintain visual separation" instruction does not cancel one's speed assignment. If it did and everyone's speed control was left to their own devices the entire exercise would be pointless as streams would become giant Slinkies. Speed assignments are usually maintained until 5 miles out when aircraft can dirty up and be stabilised by 1000'. Again, routine speed control stuff that mirrors what you'll find on an ILSs worldwide.
Those familiar also realize the speed-controlled visual approach pairings with slight in-trail & vertical stagger instead of the 1 to 1.5 miles spacing using parallel ILSs facilitate more arrivals and create the gaps that allow those pesky little things called "departures" to take place with greater frequency. Also, if the traffic you're following blows his speed assignment by slowing too early TCAS is the first indicator this will be easily be observed and, depending on the aircraft types and wind conditions, whether an adjustment of glide path to avoid wake turbulence is advisable.
And to reiterate: You can fly to the US and refuse the Visuals because you believe them unsafe and wait to be worked-in for an ILS. Swell. Good for you, but if they're conducting visual approaches you're in VMC conditions, and thus the FAA mandate that "vigilance shall be maintained" by the pilot in order to see and avoid other aircraft applies. That's a "shall", and while this may come as a surprise and create despair for those from where every minute spent on an IFR fight plan flight is logged as "Instrument Time" regardless of flight conditions, in FAA-land flight conditions matter when it.comes the pilot's responsibility to look-for and separate oneself from other traffic by avoiding if necessary. TCAS/ADS-B/IFR fight plan/established on a STAR/being vectored/ inside Class B airspace/established an ILS approach..none of the aforementioned negates the rule to maintain vigilance to see and avoid, The fact that ATC is responsible for traffic separation of all traffic in Class B doesn't erase the pilot's mandated responsibility in VMC. Neither does being cleared for an instrument approach.
Pretend SFO happily works you in and clears you for an ILS 28R on a VMC night you refused the visual approach. Your responsibility under FAA regs remains the same; to see and maintain the surveillance of an aircraft 500' to your right and ahead 1 mile on the parallel approach as well as the traffic you're in-trail of to the same runway. If the traffic ahead happens to be a Lufthansa A380 flown by a Captain who decides to let his party animal side hang out by accepting the Visual approach, are you not going to monitor your spacing in terms of distance and vertical path?
If you feel safe in your ILS bubble and erroneously believe looking outside for and at traffic is too difficult or beyond your scope of responsibility, I give you Cathay 892 at SFO in 2019 in VMC conditions, already at an assigned altitude and speed being vectored on a left downwind for Rwy 28L, planning to intercept the LOC. When Cathay was given a base turn heading 010 and speed 180 they acknowledged, but 30 seconds later they still hadn't begun their turn and slowed only 10 knots. When ATC queried this re the turn Cathay acknowledged but requested the heading assignment again because someone must not have bugged 010 the first time they read it back. Due to Cathay's non-turn, ATC had to sharpen if off downwind and assigned them left to 330. 30 seconds after ATC assigned 330 they turned them left further to a heading of 310 degrees and cleared them to intercept the 28L LOC. Cathay acknowledged and read back the heading assignment and clearance to intercept.
30 seconds after receiving the clearance but prior to the intercept ATC called-out to Cathay the traffic on approach to the parallel runway 28R; United at 3 o'clock, 2 miles, 800' higher and asked Cathay if they had them in sight. Cathay responded they had United in sight. ATC then asked Cathay to maintain visual separation and descend to 3000', which Cathay needed repeating. When repeated, Cathay read back the full clearance including the directive to maintain visual separation from United. At this point the flight paths of the 2 aircraft were gently converging. When they were 1 mile apart with Cathay yet to intercept the LOC, United was to their right, 500' higher which put them in clear view from Cathay's cockpit window. In clear view, that is, if anyone had still been keeping an eye on them as they had acknowledged to ATC mere seconds before they would, and as required by FAA regs.
But despite the clearance to intercept the LOC, and despite their acknowledgement that their traffic was in sight, and despite the associated acknowledgement to maintain visual surveillance in order to ensure separation, Cathay still blew through their LOC course before overtaking to pass 700' underneath United who, by then, had arrested their decent at 3900' and confirmed the traffic call by ATC when it came. United levelled-off and maintained their altitude until Cathay, 1000 below them, had turned left to point their nose at the correct runway.
A couple points; Notice that Cathy's clearance to intercept the LOC and their acknowledgment to do so did absolutely nothing to ensure they didn't blow through it. Also note; despite verifying their traffic was in sight and acknowledgment of the subsequent instruction to maintain visual separation from that traffic and in contravention of 91.113 re maintaining vigilance to see and avoid plus the right of way rule pertaining to overtaking another aircraft, they wound up right underneath United and following an RA. Whooda thunk it.
Now I don't know how many sets of eyes and ears were in that Cathay cockpit, 2 for sure, probably more. After they verified United was in sight, at no time would it have ever not been in sight unless nobody was looking outside. What is patently obvious is that nobody was, even for traffic they knew they were converging on. That requires some serious heads-down flying. Even if they tuned the wrong LOC freq they should have never gotten to the point they wound up under United, and they wouldn't have had they been complying with their clearance and regs in VMC conditions.
As for moaning about SFO ATC not being flexible, the Controller with the patience of that guy who's famous for being patient, instead of right then sending Cathay to go enjoy the view of fabulous Oakland, instead asked him their intentions. When that wasn't forthcoming ATC offered Cathay a visual approach, which they accepted. The Controller..in slow, clear language...then cleared Cathay for the visual approach to 28L, directed them to reduce speed ASAP to the slowest practical, and (again) to maintain visual separation behind (that same United) traffic ahead with the reminder that United was going for 28R and they were cleared for the Left. There was nothing left on the pallet for him to try and paint for Cathay in words the clearest possible SA picture they hadn't put together for themselves up until that point. Cathay accepted the clearance to continue on a visual for 28L. Only 20 seconds later, to give Cathay even more opportunity to salvage their cluster of an approach and hand him off, the Controller approved them for an S-turn if needed to stay behind United still high to their right and directed them to contact the Tower. Meanwhile, United had already been handed-off to Tower but was still maintaining 1000' above Cathay.
Cathay didn't switch to Tower, however, because it seems the cockpit fog still hadn't cleared despite moments earlier accepting the new visual approach clearance. Upon being asked to switch to Tower freq Cathay responded by asking Appch to "confirm we're cleared for the ILS 28L?" Wow, after all that mucking-about that guy's still thinking "ILS, must have the ILS".
At that juncture, realizing that acknowledgements and readbacks by this particular gang were as reliable as one-night stand promises in Wan Chai, the Controller finally punched Cathay's AMF button and grabbed big binos to scan for the smoke trail being left by all the helmet fires going on inside that A350 cockpit. Meanwhile on the RH side tower freq United was still at 3100', 1500' above Cathay and by now really wanting descend if not for the RA he received, asking Tower what Cathay is doing behind him rather than immediately accepting Tower's landing clearance. Tower points him out at his 8:30 low position and then advises United that Cathay is being broken off his approach.
What I'm wondering is how many on that crew were dead-set against visual approaches, deeming them unsafe, although I'm not sure even the word "Visual" would nudge them into accepting the fact that windscreens are made clear for a reason other than to look up at 200'. .
I have no experience with European or Oz SOPs, but I've never come across a well-written set that doesn't set forth in the preamble some reference to there being an expectation of exercising good airmanship at all times, and in this way good airmanship becomes part of the SOP. Maintaining vigilance to see and avoid other aircraft when conditions permit falls squarely into that directive in most people's thinking, and I can think of more places than just Dubai or Hong Kong where at times it seems few F's are given during arrival/approach sequencing re wake turbulence avoidance in the vertical where they should know better: Descend that Triple down through my altitude? No worries mate don't trouble yourself to point him out. I saw him and..whoa hey look at the size of that giant cargo ship hauling Happy Meal toys to America.
And last time I checked, IFR flight plans and Instrument approaches are just about useless as forms of insurance against un-announced airborne surprises if one is flying an approach into Mopti, departing out of Khartoum, or even just trucking down a high altitude airway between Cairo and Luanda etc etc ad infinitum. And while your snarky little emojis probably play well in certain circles, if you aren't using TCAS to help pick out airborne traffic more easily so as to allow you more time to pick up targets of the type that may not show up, then good luck. But if you didn't like that, you're gonna hate this: I maintain that FLIR/HUD is also a useful tool to help picking out traffic visually, especially at night...how many
s does that earn me? No matter, I'll just keep using the tools at my disposal until someone give me a good reason I shouldn't. Still waiting.Which reminds me, you've been asked how much you've flown into SFO and experienced these approaches, most likely because you seem to feel so strongly about them and express yourself with such authority. But I'm not seeing much that indicates familiarity. Any answer yet?
Last edited by PukinDog; 15th Nov 2023 at 13:30.
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Scandinavia-home of the midnight sun.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an aside, this occurrence reminded me of something I encountered app 12 years ago.
Back then, I was on leave from my regular outfit, and flew in Dubai for 2 years.
Traveling as pax on Lufthansa from FRA to DXB, as we approached DXB we got put in a hold (as happens every single time approaching DXB at that time of day). Didn't think much of it until the CDR came on the PA stating we would be diverting to AUH (Abu Dhabi) and refuel....
I thought, wow... LH flies every day, same time of day, FRA-DXB, and being an A340-600 on a 5.5 hr flight, why not bring x amount of extra fuel to accommodate for the "guaranteed" hold arriving into DXB??? I am not pointing fingers at LH, but to me it is strange that you don't bring extra fuel into high density airports where you are familiar, thus knowing there are going to be delays..
Sorry for the drift..
Back then, I was on leave from my regular outfit, and flew in Dubai for 2 years.
Traveling as pax on Lufthansa from FRA to DXB, as we approached DXB we got put in a hold (as happens every single time approaching DXB at that time of day). Didn't think much of it until the CDR came on the PA stating we would be diverting to AUH (Abu Dhabi) and refuel....
I thought, wow... LH flies every day, same time of day, FRA-DXB, and being an A340-600 on a 5.5 hr flight, why not bring x amount of extra fuel to accommodate for the "guaranteed" hold arriving into DXB??? I am not pointing fingers at LH, but to me it is strange that you don't bring extra fuel into high density airports where you are familiar, thus knowing there are going to be delays..
Sorry for the drift..
As someone who operates regularly into SFO; in my experience they control you onto base leg then... "cleared for the visual RW xx"...call visual and treat it as an ILS. The only thing that will change is the go around.
Anyone know what spacing they use at SFO?
A landing rate of 30 per hour per runway would imply an average of 5 and half mile spacing. 6 or 7 miles would be enough to fit in aircraft that couldn’t accept visual separation.
What’s wrong with adding a mile or two on one gap to accommodate the DLH? You wouldn’t lose a whole movement on the other runway although both sequences would be a mile or two further back.
Just remember to position the DLH in the middle of the gap rather than on the shoulder of the preceding so there maybe one departure movement lost.
Eg. An A380 followed by an A320 both on 27R. They probably give 6 or 7 miles there for the vortex. Vector the DLH on 27L in that gap and you’ll have over 3 miles radar separation from them both. No loss of movement or increase in delays.
A landing rate of 30 per hour per runway would imply an average of 5 and half mile spacing. 6 or 7 miles would be enough to fit in aircraft that couldn’t accept visual separation.
What’s wrong with adding a mile or two on one gap to accommodate the DLH? You wouldn’t lose a whole movement on the other runway although both sequences would be a mile or two further back.
Just remember to position the DLH in the middle of the gap rather than on the shoulder of the preceding so there maybe one departure movement lost.
Eg. An A380 followed by an A320 both on 27R. They probably give 6 or 7 miles there for the vortex. Vector the DLH on 27L in that gap and you’ll have over 3 miles radar separation from them both. No loss of movement or increase in delays.
Well we know the USA does not have much regard for ILS. The Asiana accident report shows the ILS was out of action at San Francisco, both main landing runways at the same time, for three months, "for construction". The fact that the Asiana crew had hardly any experience of visual landings outside their Sim sessions shows there are few if any other administrations who might do this.
Overreaction, but the disaster occurred in perfect day VFR conditions to a 11,000 ft runway
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like everyone is entrenched.in its own beliefs and no-one is going to convince the other side. Signs of the times,
I normally here always try to defend ATC and give background on the why, but here, it is a bit the other way around, an ATPL from any airline , and even more an established one with a quite good safety record as LH, has to follow its employer SOPs. So he had to refuse to maintain visual separation at night. if his SOP said so
ATC is a before all, a service to pilots, to keep them safe according to established standards not a commercial entity pushed to increase numbers to make profit for the airlines or the airports. . Accommodating pilots requests is our job. ATC can propose never force a pilot to do something out of the standard. Here ATC should have accommodated him and not force him to divert.
On the : delaying 12 others to accommodate one : It is still all over the world for ATC : " first come first served". We wanted years ago to have this changed to : " best equipped, best served" but this was fiercely opposed by ..the USA under the pressure from its large domestic airlines that were still operating Jurassic jets. and opposed to any retrofit costs. I do not think this has changed.
So you get these own separation visuals out of the standards instead of RNPs...
Last remark from PunkinDog on TCAS :
Both IFALPA and us fought hard on the ICAO FANS in the 90s.to keep TCAS where it belongs , a last minute anti collision system . It is not a separation tool and due to its poor azimuth definition ( +/- 11 degrees) it cannot be used for visual Aquisition. In my days when we issued a conditional clearance involving another aircraft and passed traffic info and the pilot replied, " we've got it on TCAS" we always replied, " fine ,but I need you to identifying visually this one ,by looking out of the window.
Remember that the one you see on TCAS might not be the one I am talking about.
Bending the rules because it seems to work is really not sound safety management.
Just read the transcript of the NTSB Chairwoman , Jennifer Homendy on the US senate ,relating to ATC understaffing and fatigue , Not pretty . An not a good idea to bend the rules when you are in this situation .
I normally here always try to defend ATC and give background on the why, but here, it is a bit the other way around, an ATPL from any airline , and even more an established one with a quite good safety record as LH, has to follow its employer SOPs. So he had to refuse to maintain visual separation at night. if his SOP said so
ATC is a before all, a service to pilots, to keep them safe according to established standards not a commercial entity pushed to increase numbers to make profit for the airlines or the airports. . Accommodating pilots requests is our job. ATC can propose never force a pilot to do something out of the standard. Here ATC should have accommodated him and not force him to divert.
On the : delaying 12 others to accommodate one : It is still all over the world for ATC : " first come first served". We wanted years ago to have this changed to : " best equipped, best served" but this was fiercely opposed by ..the USA under the pressure from its large domestic airlines that were still operating Jurassic jets. and opposed to any retrofit costs. I do not think this has changed.
So you get these own separation visuals out of the standards instead of RNPs...
Last remark from PunkinDog on TCAS :
If you deny that TCAS helps with SA as it relates to one's place in the stream relative to others and picking them up visually, then I don't know what to say to remedy that,
Remember that the one you see on TCAS might not be the one I am talking about.
Bending the rules because it seems to work is really not sound safety management.
Just read the transcript of the NTSB Chairwoman , Jennifer Homendy on the US senate ,relating to ATC understaffing and fatigue , Not pretty . An not a good idea to bend the rules when you are in this situation .
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But ATC Watcher, isn't one of PukinDog's main points that the Luft. captain could have complied with the visual separation task despite the SOP against visual approach?
I'm saying this just from point-of-view of the traveling public: while the ATC system does indeed provide service to flights, in this situation, the Luft. captain had responsibility for just his flight operation, while the ATCOs had a goodly number of flight operations arranged and in sequence for approach and landing onto runways presenting some challenge due to their lateral proximity. To the traveling public, it looks like a situation in which controllers had some sizable degree of discretion. So - even if they could have re-arranged the line-up of flight operations in sequence, that does not mean they were required to do such re-arrangimg, or even that they should have done so. I wonder, were the inaccuracies of the estimated delay times a reflection of heavy workload, other stressors in the traffic? . . . it does not sound like the changing estimates of delay time were at all deliberate. But the larger point is, doesn't ATC have discretion about whether to "work someone into the existing sequence" or not. (I'm not apologizing for my ignorance of proper terminology, although as SLF/attorney I obviously recognize it indeed is ignorance on my part.)
By the way, NTSB Chair tells a Senate Committee to worry all over again about inadequate controller staffing levels and prevalence of fatigue issues. Does that not support the need to acknowledge significant controller discretion in handling exactly this kind of situation?
I'm saying this just from point-of-view of the traveling public: while the ATC system does indeed provide service to flights, in this situation, the Luft. captain had responsibility for just his flight operation, while the ATCOs had a goodly number of flight operations arranged and in sequence for approach and landing onto runways presenting some challenge due to their lateral proximity. To the traveling public, it looks like a situation in which controllers had some sizable degree of discretion. So - even if they could have re-arranged the line-up of flight operations in sequence, that does not mean they were required to do such re-arrangimg, or even that they should have done so. I wonder, were the inaccuracies of the estimated delay times a reflection of heavy workload, other stressors in the traffic? . . . it does not sound like the changing estimates of delay time were at all deliberate. But the larger point is, doesn't ATC have discretion about whether to "work someone into the existing sequence" or not. (I'm not apologizing for my ignorance of proper terminology, although as SLF/attorney I obviously recognize it indeed is ignorance on my part.)
By the way, NTSB Chair tells a Senate Committee to worry all over again about inadequate controller staffing levels and prevalence of fatigue issues. Does that not support the need to acknowledge significant controller discretion in handling exactly this kind of situation?