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.....??

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.

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.

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.

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

.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.

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

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?

​​​​​​​Nonsense.

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.

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

An 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.

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.

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.

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.

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