So as I understand it San Francisco has such a high traffic level that they need to operate visual approaches to parallel runways doing only visual approaches. So all this traffic us heading to San Francisco e xpecting to land. So what happens if and when the weather goes for a crap and they need to land with using the ILS. So do they tell all these planes to divert because it obvious to me that they have more traffic than they can safely handle.

The next “why” is why is ATC being put in this position? KSFO is, for IMC / IFR operations a one runway airport. Why is that? The people of California won’t recognize the need to bring the airport up to modern, not to say 1985, capacity standards. They refuse to face the fact that their desire for an untouched bay has the trade-off of KSFO limitations. Run it like a one runway IFR airport, capacity limits would drive fares and delays thru the roof. Maybe they’d face facts instead of a fantasy.

Thanks for the kind words,
But they know, at least the ones in the FAA I am talking to know. They are just caught in that vicious circle situation where they depend on congress for their funding , the congress lawmakers depends on the money from donators to get reelected , the large donators are generally lobby groups, and the airlines are part of that lobby system, No one wants delays and cancellations , no one wants to tell wealthy residents, they will now get a new runway in they backyards, let alone pay for that new infrastructure and all that while Boeing and Airbus are helping airlines putting hundreds of new aircraft in the system every year. This vicious circle has to end one day , but no-one really has the power to do it anymore I would say , because it will lead to extremely unpopular measures and you do not get elected on extremely unpopular measures.

Because in the US the FAA is still both the ATC service provider and the regulator. The FAA head is a political appointee and falls into the vicious circle I described earlier. Lack of a strong independent regulator is the " why" .

But OK guys , I am not American , these are my views from the other side of the pond watching the US system deteriorating since many years.. Someone from inside the US ATC system can probably answer all this in a better way than I can.
​​​​​​​

Without drama let's think about the next time: Marginal weather in the dark and some crew feels pressed to accept the local rules and say yes while feeling no. Will this make things safer for everybody? I perfectly understand the FAA's pressure and good will to provide the highest capacity with limited resources but aren't we asking for trouble if no "opt out" option is left open anymore?

In my experience, if the weather is marginal for one approach, ATC is happy to provide another approach if necessary.

Most of the people of California (and the Bay area in particular) have no interest in increasing the capacity of SFO. They would be happier if all that air traffic moved elsewhere.

Until they want to fly somewhere.

For Pukin Dog
SFO do say “ don’t overtake” inside 5 miles though which is a bit tricky sometimes

A comment about the GTA trailer could easily apply to this issue:

"So much of what's in the games is based on real stuff. The developers are from the UK, so it's kind of their spin on a really exaggerated take on US culture."

The problem for aviation is that the spin/game in this thread is the reality in which operators are required to fly safely.

Several posts consider the event as systemic, misapplied regulatory power / oversight, or imbalance between commerce and safety; whichever, this thread provides an external view opposed to that internalised by the actors and regulators.

The lesson would be to stop playing games, … with safety; alternatively consider (the retrograde step of) how world aviation might adapt to the reality of non ICAO US aviation.

Aviation continues to evolve, the standards of safety might similarly change; but then what is safety.

I asked some US TRACON controllers after his last post just to make sure I wasn’t losing my mind, tl;dr I’m not. More than happy to go into more detail but to avoid derailing things again, the most relevant responses were (having been initially asked if the overtake specifically was still ATC responsibility once visual separation was applied):

A separate controller (who isn’t NCT as far as I know, but very clearly covers that a speed being issued is irrelevant):

I don’t know where the misconception that KSFO ATC are responsible for wake-to-touchdown on paired visual approaches came from, but it’s not consistent with either what the book says, or indeed how the controllers who actually do it apply it. Wake in that case is pilot responsibility, and is accepted when the traffic is reported in sight and the “caution wake” warning is passed.

So, how's the 3rd runway at Heathrow coming?

Exactly the same!

I have a question:

How does SFO sequence the (few) departures from the 28s particularly when a flight is delayed?

25 years ago SFO proposed to solve the runway problem by filling in 1000 acres of SF Bay. Over 40% of the Bay including 80% of the wetlands had already been lost to fill. Mayor Willie Brown of SF, the consummate politician, couldn't get it done, and his slogan "Ain't No Way but to Pave the Bay" may not have helped. SFO's proposal was viewed as wildly out of touch with with the times, an environmental crime pushed by the 2nd closest airport to San Francisco when the center of gravity in the Bay area was shifting towards the 3rd international local airport, SJC. Besides, the spacing problem was supposed to be solved a few years out by technology.

Nobody, least of all me, said ATC was responsible for wake turbulence separation util touchdown during the SFO visuals. The speed control assignment SFO gives, as I've mentioned at least a half-dozen times, is until 5 miles, and the context of the entire thread and creating a gap for LH to be worked into the stream. That doesn't occur within 5 miles. You've gone off on your own tangent, and this "discovery' you've made that pilots are responsible for wake separation during a generic Visual approach is common knowledge, at least to any Instrument rated pilot. Wake avoidance knowledge and technique is even a requirement before a student pilot can solo. There isn't a pilot out there that hasn't flown a dot high, landed past a previous aircraft's touchdown point, or questioned ATC about separation when they've stuffed it, etc etc.

Point is, wake doesn't ruin ATC's day, it ruins ours. At best, we trust, but verify. Usually, however, we don't trust you at all. Anyone who's been around long enough knows why 757's were given an oddball 4 mile separation despite not being a Heavy, and I was acquainted with 1 of the crew that ended up in a smoking hole down by John Wayne in the early 90's behind one that drove that change. Overtaking (along with a high angle descent path of the 75) was one of the factors. That wasn't the only accident and the incidents were numerous before a change was affected. Yes, not blowing your in-trail separation during a Visual isn't a newsflash.

Meanwhile, at SFO, long before the Visuals would be joined 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.

Yes, it can be when the assignment is 180 until 5 since Company SOPs can vary as to what min altitude is required to be fully-configured and stablized on a Visual approach. Some Companies allow 500', while other stick with 1000' (which will force a more rapid deceleration beginning at 1500'). I believe most just decelerate and configure promptly.

Does this diagram help understand the problems with modifying routing at SFO?
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e39e91e489.png
SF Bay Area air traffic

The assigned speeds, sequencing, and in-trail separation has already been established by ATC before the aircraft are cleared for the Visual Approaches. Flying the assigned speed maintains the separation, which is why ATC directs it by restating the speed assignment after the clearance. That makes it mandatory. If sufficient in-trail spacing wasn't already established the pilot and ATC would know and have done something about it long before the point where the clearance for the Visual is received.

"Maintain visual separation" is with respect to the adjacent aircraft on the parallel. The pilot must affirm this or the aircraft can't be paired side-by-side since the lateral distance will be less than what's approved for ATC to provide using their display. The fact that you're already on-speed with an already-established in-trail separation behind someone who's also at the same assigned speed is beside the point. That isn't the aircraft you'll be converging with.

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.

If ATC didn't want the gaps between side-by-side pairs they'd just run dependant parallel ILSs. However, they'd also like to work out departures.

Why are you worrying about what to do with a go around? Since you believe assigned speeds are optional, it's not at all clear how you would even get the aircraft established on the parallel approaches with sufficient spacing in pairs and flying the same speed like they routinely do.

​​​​​​

Of course ATC have already established wake separation, but once cleared for visual approach the responsibility for wake separation passes to the pilot.

Thats what the book says, that’s what Request Orbit is saying, regardless of any obfuscation in your posts that is where the responsibility lies.

The point about a go around is there must be some flexibility to manufacture a 6? mile gap to accommodate a go around with 10/15 minutes notice. So why couldn’t SFO provide an extra 3/4/5 miles to accommodate the DLH request with 40 minutes notice?

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?

Ask them!
 

+1-650-821-8211

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.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C0pVP...Y5Mjg3MzlmZg==


so would this be like a trend?

Please tell me that that is not real??!!

Looks like it happened 15 years ago and the controller retired a few months later.

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.

The Quiet Bridge Visual is offset and only joins the centreline at 5nm (although the chart actually doesn't show a centreline join/dogleg at all).

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?

Nope, you can do visual approaches at night onto ILS runways with no ILS at all; no descent until 5nm. :E

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.

Yes, we've never worked out whether LH was going to be given the TipToe or the QB.

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?

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.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1d968e685.jpeg

Overall migration to better quality of life for workers ? Is this a joke ?

Every major US airline as far as I am aware requires that the highest level available instrument approach be used to underlay any visual approach. It’s simply the smart thing to do. If there is a ILS you tune, identify and if FMS equipped select the approach.

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.

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.