You are correct. Only the aircraft commander can cancel IFR - a very sensible internationally observed rule that avoids confusion & emphasises the fact that only the commander is the ultimate boss. Also there are many airlines with SOP's that prohibit VFR at night (obviously very different to VMC). Again this can be a quite sensible rule - depending upon the operator / destination - but varying its actual implementation in differing circumstances means it is easier & more practical for many airlines' SOPs to just ban VFR at night - and you cannae blame the [any] commander for saying just that. It would seem that SFO needs more consultation (CRM if you like!) and to behave in a less aggressive "you do it our way sonny - or else" attitude: unfortunately a trait within the USA that seems to be growing. As such it is unhealthy. There can be no excuse for the unprofessional manner exhibited here. If this industry is to stay safe & respected then this sort of attitude must be eradicated.

I think the adverse reaction to the language in this incident is overblown. Due to the initial transmission being blocked, it’s not clear if the controller even comprehended LH’s F-bomb. And the F-bomb was clearly not directed at the controller. The analysis in post #71 indicates that the FAA management at NORCAL had no issue with the controller’s language or procedures.

I think LH’s F-bomb and “Ha!” interjection were indicative of his embarrassment and frustration in having to publicly declare that, as an international captain flying a state-of-the-art airliner, he was not allowed to execute a procedure that virtually every other arrival into SFO was safely executing. And to cap it off, he is then left to publicly divert to the inferior of the cesspool of San Francisco.

It’s telling that a few weeks ago there was much outrage that a Delta 767 ‘declared an emergency’ after experiencing an engine failure departing a European airport instead of stating ‘Mayday’



Fine, if you want to make that point, then you have to comply with the specific requirements when operating into a U.S. airport or end service to that destination


Pretty simple

ATC Watcher
LH has 2 flights to SFO daily. LH458 is scheduled to land today at 1905 local, which will make it a night arrival for the next 4 months or so.

Unprofessional
 

ATC job is to provide a service to all aircraft that operate in any airspace throughout the World. This is a service provider not providing said services. The small minded controller needs a career change.

Following the Lufty SFO Incident I dealt with a Child at JFK.
 

On handover to the tower controller the other morning at JFK International airport. The approach controller told me to call New York Tower on the appropriate frequency. I followed the instructions and called New York Tower. We received stone cold silence. I reconfirmed the frequency from my chart and noted that the tower callsign was in fact Kennedy Tower. Frequency was correct. Kennedy Tower call sign was used. This time we received a child like reply. " What do you want?" No identification.... Reported established on the ILS approach for 33R. The next reply was again unprofessional and childish. In 32 years of flying I have never experienced such unprofessional controlling.

New York/JFK controllers have a horrible reputation. Obviously the selection criteria for these controllers is substandard.

Maybe it’s because I’m accustomed to it, but I find that entirely unreasonable. If you can’t fly a visual approach at night, you can’t operate into a busy US airport year round.

From where I sit, European pilots seem pretty reluctant to do visuals. Why is that?

ATC are there to help and assist aircraft, so if someone needs a different approach, that should be granted, as indeed the SFO ATC did. My reading of this is that it started entirely reasonably, with the LH stating their restriction and ATC agreeing to facilitate that request, but they would have to hold until a suitable gap could be found in the inbound sequence. So far so good. Then it seems that the LH started getting arsey, complaining about having to wait longer than 10 mins. At this point ATC basically said if you want an ILS you will have to wait, if you don't want to wait, you will have to go to your alternate, which sounds reasonable to me. Given this LH company imposed restriction at SFO, and knowing about procedures at SFO, one would imagine that their flights there would take extra holding fuel, just in case. This LH clearly hadn't, and they sounded quite arrogant to me, which unsurprisingly annoyed ATC, who then refused to continue what was turning into an argument.

If you think this, how do you ever land at night ?! On clear nights we can see the runway from miles away. Maintaining separation from a very close parallel approach at night is not so easy, hence, presumably, the Lufthansa restriction - probably made by their flight safety team, not just 'some bloke in an office'. :)

50 years ago we sometimes had an hour plus holding into Heathrow, partly due to SOP of being fully established in landing configuration and speed by 3,000 ft..continuous descents and maintain 180 knots to the marker were introduced which many found unable to comply with..eventually this was accepted as was land after clearances. At the same time others could manage the Kai Tak and Gibraltar round the rock avoiding smoky joe approaches. Education and the introduction is wide bodies changed things.
Fortunately my next flag carrier operated into a lot of unusual places where electricity had only recently been discovered and by extensive training with high standards and a sensible approach to SOP we were able to operate into airfields which some would say was imprudent.
Sadly, imho, training and piloting skills along with common sense have been replaced by automatics, acars and the replacement of “captaincy” in some airlines.
Watching the video presentation I agree that nobody did anything wrong..it’s just the obvious evolution of the system with the loss of the skill set to fly an aircraft manually and look out of the window..maybe a few minutes on oxygen during descent might have helped but that is probably verboten now.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....74b4d7aa97.png
SLF when it comes to airline ops but it sounds very much, in my humble opinion, to a management pilot who is unfamiliar with local procedures and using his management status to brow beat ATC. I say "unfamiliar with procedures" because if it was the airlines requirement ATC would have been familiar with it, LH has been operating there for considerable time, unless it was recently introduced, in which case it hadn't been adequately communicated. On the other hand perhaps the ATC was new to the position and not up to speed with LH unique requirement.

Unable to see LH's problem given the chart.

I haven't been to SFO in a while, but from what I recall, this approach is as easy as it gets. Keeping the other plane in sight isn't necessarily hard either. You're given speeds to fly, and then they basically tell the bigger plane not to overtake the smaller one on the parallel. To your point, there's nothing inherently unsafe about a visual approach. If that were true, you'd also have to ban flight into IMC.

No it doesn't. It's at least 6° off the LLZ.

No it doesn't.

Let's see it.

What could possibly go wrong with that! Accident report: Crew were flying in LNAV and using VS to control the vertical path to follow the GS because the QB is offset from the LLZ. Nice.

Do you have any idea about how jets fly down final? Do you think we can just speed up or slow down willy-nilly so we "don't overtake the other one"?

As I've done that approach a few times before, I'd say I'm reasonably familiar with it. Are you? I've never had to do anything crazy. Have you never flown an approach with reference to another airplane?

Using VS to help you while on a localiser isn't actually difficult. I'm a bit concerned/confused here. Are you saying that anything other than a straight-in ILS that's aligned with the runway presents some sort of threat?

Who said anything about being on the LLZ? Look at the chart, for goodness sake. The LLZ is way off the "RNAV" QB track. I'm beginning to think that you have done nothing like this in a jet.

How many times in a high-capacity RPT jet?

Agree.

Well der, obviously! That's what the whole topic is about. I give up.

Bloggs,

I’ve done the approach countless times in the 737, & a few times in the 350. It’s not complicated, & Salivi/Airman have described it well. LNAV/VNAV it all the way (or FLS on the bus). On the 28R side I may arm APP after the final RNAV waypoint, or more likely click everything off & just fly it. If I think of it next time I’m at work, I’ll load it in the FMC to show you how it looks.

The speed control aspect is no big deal either - fly your assigned speed (typically 170 to 5), & don’t overtake traffic on the parallel.

The approach chart Megan posted doesn’t make it clear that the approaches DO intercept the LOC late on the arrival; I’ll post the Jepp chart next time I’m near my work iPad.

If you need to fly a straight in ILS every time, how'd you manage to survive in a piston? If you're cleared for a visual abeam the field at 3000ft in your current plane, are we to expect a 10 mile final? Have you ever flown into JFK and done the canarsie approach? The Light visual to Boston? How about the circling approach into TGU?

Are these dangerous approaches that only the Atlantic Barons are capable of flying, or should any competent professional pilot be able to execute them? The approach into SFO is considerably easier than all of the above. I suspect you'd also consider me dangerous, as my last landing was a night time visual, sans automation.

This has got nothing to do with anyone's ability to fly a visual approach. It's about maintaining your own separation from other aircraft visually at night. The SFO metar at that time was FEW 500, SCT 700.
I can understand LH reluctance to follow anyone in. They went to Oakland.

I think the 2 layers you mentioned were less of a factor than they would appear for 2 reasons:

1. The METAR is just a snapshot. The conditions could've improved quite a bit since the observation, or really weren't that bad to begin with.

2. Other planes seem to have been getting in just fine. If the clouds were a factor, they wouldn't be doing visuals. People would be complaining, and they'd switch to the ILS.

If you read what the NORCAL controller wrote above, they weren't trying to be difficult, but having a heavy need an ILS in that particular situation was almost as disruptive as needing to use the opposite direction runway- they'll accommodate you if you need it, but there's going to be a delay. For the record, given the situation they were in, I'd probably have diverted to OAK as well.

Again, I'm not faulting the crew for following their SOP, but the SOP prevented them from executing a perfectly mundane approach that is safely done by hundreds of airplanes every day.

exactly

Not sure what STAR Lufthansa was on, but typically by the time I am assigned a heading to depart a WP on, I’m on the second NCT controller. I’d be curious if Lufthansa on initial contact with the first NCT controller advised them of their inability to fly the visual. Assuming Visuals, charted visuals and FMS visual were being advertised on the ATIS, Lufthansa had plenty of advance notice. If they hadn’t mentioned it till what’s heard on the recording, well that handcuffs the controller as the spacing needed to be established significantly earlier.

Funny. I've never heard any US based carrier do a visual anywhere in Europe.

Familiarity is probably your answer.

^ This!!
Maintaining visual separation during the day is hard enough, it's not really possible at night. It sometimes seems a controller gets themselves into to a situation they can't be arsed sorting so just want to divulge themselves of any responsibility instead of sorting it.

I've had similar before stateside:
- Are you visual with the airport?
- Negative
- Are you visual with the aircraft ahead?
- Affirm.
- Follow them to the airport!
- ...

It may be the way it's done there, but it's not appropriate, in my opinion, for busy airspace at an international airport.
How do you even know that the aircraft/light you eyeball is the one they intend.

After several decades of flying in and out of the US, I can testify that that is not always the case. For whatever reason, quite a lot of pilots seem to want to declare that they’re visual, even though they can’t see the airport, the ground or even more than 100 yards in front of them. Maybe it’s peer pressure, or it means they can do their own thing, but I hear it used a lot in definite IMC.

As far as following aircraft at night, you can do it, but assessing distance is more difficult than during the day; yes you can use the TCAS display but in a high-density environment with poor azimuth resolution, it’s easy to pick the wrong target, and it’s not exactly an SOP either (definitely not for LH!)

Being an occasional visitor to SFO I can see both sides but if an aircraft is unable to do a visual procedure, for whatever reason, then ATC should give them an instrument approach, barring unserviceability, as they are on an IFR flight plan.

Which ATC did, but unfortunately the LH had forgotten to load extra holding fuel for contingencies. They could have committed to SFO, (two runways, good weather), and used their alternate fuel for holding, but if their alternate was Oakland, that would have been very little extra fuel.

And the LH crew's attitude stinks. My guess is the Captain realised they had screwed up the fuel load, but instead of eating humble pie, they tried to bully ATC into holding a lot of other inbound aircraft just to let the LH in. So the LH cost their company a lot of money. Tea and biscuits with the Chief pilot when they get home, no doubt.

SFO ATC 1 : Lufthansa crew 0

Fear of the unknown? Not many larger airports in Europe operate visuals and often they’re banned. Unlike the US (I have flown on both sides) ATC cannot waive radar separation when you report traffic in sight. It seems instead they’re squeezing traffic with accurate radars. I think LHR is allowed 2,5 nm separation? Wake separation can be more restrictive but if you’ve got a series of MEDIUMs (no specific wake separation) you can squeeze them pretty tight too. Any ATC guy, please correct me if I am wrong. My knowledge may be outdated as I think time is now a parameter in maintaining separation??

Apart from above, I am afraid to report that the profession has moved away from piloting to system management. That horse has been beaten to death many times! I am glad to work for an airline encouraging visuals and manual flying. That said, a visual approach and maintaining visual separation may be perceived as two completely different things. In the former, the airspace is yours and you can wiggle your way down as you like. In the later, they pass over some traditional ATC stuff to you, the pilot, in a busy airspace. SoCal and NorCal can be exhausting for someone not used to the pace.

But it's not up to us if our company flight safety department forbids it under certain circumstances. They have done the risk assessment.

The way I heard it the DLH pilot was expecting some delay and didn’t quibble when told 10 mins. From the video timeline, 14 mins later they’ve not had an update and the controller refuses to entertain that “conversation” at all. How is the DLH supposed to know if they have enough holding fuel if the controller can’t(/wont) provide a vaguely accurate delay? Admittedly I’ve only watched the YT video so might have missed relevant transmissions.

On the subject of holding I listened to the RT again and I think I understand the LH crew’s frustration. Happy to be corrected if I’ve misheard it but what I believe LH says is something to the effect that “you told me ten minutes holding and that expired four minutes ago”. Later the control says they can expect a further 10-15 minutes. Perhaps if the LH mental model was ten minutes being stretched to half an hour then his irritation is understandable. Incidentally I still think both he and the controller used inappropriate language.

The other thing I don’t believe has been discussed is the time of day as it relates to the crew. I believe someone upthread said this occurred around 19:00 local? If that was the case then it would be 04:00 at their home base and so they would have flown through (in) the window of circadian low (WOCL). Even the most cheerful crew could be forgiven for being a little tetchy at that time of the day!

Lastly, I doubt anyone in this discussion knows the details of the fuel plan so I won’t pass judgment of whether they had enough.

It's just chalk and cheese. I have said before the U.S relies on visual approaches and separation but this is rare in Europe, where the radar controller is almost always responsible for separation. Radar CONTROL service in the U.K. The radar controller achieves this in a number of ways - if the runway in use is also being used for departures they will liaise tower to achieve spacing. If not it is usually achieved by speed control - maintain 160 knots between nine and five miles- for example.

I can't work out whether the U S just likes it the way it is, the traffic is too heavy to do things the way they are done in Europe or what. The advent of Live ATC enables me to listen to US controllers - To my U K ear it often sounds like things are not really controlled at all. There are advantages - GA traffic would never be able to access all the airspace here it can in the U S here for example.

Quote:

---

The way I heard it the DLH pilot was expecting some delay and didn’t quibble when told 10 mins. From the video timeline, 14 mins later they’ve not had an update and the controller refuses to entertain that “conversation” at all. How is the DLH supposed to know if they have enough holding fuel if the controller can’t(/wont) provide a vaguely accurate delay?

---

Yep, could be.

I think though that if the LH crew had been a bit more professional and less confrontational, then they would have probably had a much better outcome.

Saying something like "Roger - just for your sequence planning; we have x minutes of holding fuel before we will need to divert" would probably have got a better response.

Having instead used the F word and cowboy sounding Ha !, and "what is the problem" etc., very quickly put them to the bottom of the ATC priority pile.

It's basic human nature: If you want someone to help you and cooperate with you, don't come heavy handed or swear at them.

If your neighbour said "if you don't move your car it's going to f**k up your day", it would instantly put you into fight mode and much less likely help them, than if they said "hello mate; is there any chance of moving your car a bit?"

Never have I felt pressure, either internal nor external pressure to report the airport in sight. Being asked if the airport is in sight is not the same as being pressured.

Agree, if you can’t fly the visual, you can’t fly the visual. You also have the responsibility to let ATC know in a timely manner. Timely wouldn’t be when you’re just a few minutes from landing and the spacing and separation is already set.

In terms of the bigger picture, irregardless of the way it works normally - and obviously most of the time it does work - the fact that ATC are apparently incapable of providing IFR separation between two filed IFR flights in what I believe is Class B is absolutely wild to me.

Again, this isn’t really how I heard it, nothing he said came across that badly to me. I’m sure the DLH pilot is massively regretting his slight lapse in phraseology, but he’s not swearing at the controller, he’s not trying to be heavy handed, he’s trying to get across that he knows it’s awkward but an emergency is only going to make it worse for everyone. The guy’s probably watched a few US ATC clips on YouTube and based on what he’s heard as their standard is trying to fit in!

From the FR24 track, from when they first fly overhead KSFO to the point they’re headed towards Oakland, 45 minutes worth of vectors have already elapsed and the controller has straight up refused to give them an updated delay. I’ve no idea what we miss in between (the 10 minute delay given 14 mins before isn’t in the video for example) but it’s hardly surprising the pilot is wanting answers by that point. You can’t just put a plane in the “too difficult” pile indefinitely and hope it goes away.

LAHSO is always at the pilots discretion as ATC has no method to determine aircraft landing distances.

LHR utilizes 2.5 miles with a single runway operation. Any US airports can do the same. The problem is that at SFO the runways are 250’ apart. If you limit approaches to IFR you effectively become a single runway operation and cut your arrival rate in half. Either you do visuals or dramatically slot restrict the airport.

If one aircraft is using the ILS is there something at KSFO saying every aircraft has to? I understand losing a single gap because you can’t do a parallel approach for that aircraft - it’s a heavy in this case so the gap behind is probably going to be standard separation anyway - but then you just go back to paired visuals again right?

I think it comes down to a difference in ATC philosophy. US ATC seems to be more about separation, UK is more about control.

We went into LHR a few weeks ago, on a gin clear day with what seemed to be a lull in the usual traffic flow. We were all happy to accept a visual, but were treated to the same speed control and vectors that you’d normally get on a busy day.

In the US, most controllers would be happy to clear you for the visual so as to move on to the next task.

You’re still very much on an IFR flight plan. It’s not a matter of capability. If you want to be able to have this many movements at a particular field, you’ll have to be operationally flexible.

Inflexibility is permitted, but it leads to delays. DLH found this out. They’re not going to sacrifice everyone else just because one plane can’t get with the program.

Because of the runway spacing, the plane on the ILS to one runway affects the operation on the other runway. It’s all explained in the second (follow-up) video. The controller now has to find a gap on both runways. A heavy on an ILS takes up more space than a heavy on a visual.

The second YouTube clip has a good explanation of SFO procedures from the ATC perspective. ATC are most definitely able to provide the full ILS approach, but (1) they need advance warning, and (2) you are going to be delayed while they get the required hole in the sequence to fit you in. I wouldn't expect a foreign crew to have full appreciation of the traffic situation, so perhaps ATC could have kept them better updated on expected approach time etc, but unfortunately that's always going to be imperfect in busy airspace. Even so, declining a fairly straightforward approach that everyone else was happily doing, and ending up in a low fuel diversion to an offline airport is poor TEM. Which was the riskier option?