|
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 11542129)
SFO has about 1300 arrivals a day. LHR about 650. That’s not about the same. It’s substantially different.
Originally Posted by Request Orbit
(Post 11542219)
... We’re going to declare the airspace Class B and publish instrument procedures, but don’t dare actually ask us to provide the level of service that implies.
How does SFO cope when the weather is down to Cat I (or lower!) conditions? (LHR 'stumbles' when it gets below Cat I and increased approach spacing is needed, but copes quite well in Cat I.) |
Originally Posted by PukinDog
(Post 11537277)
Didn't miss the point. It just didn't matter and the result would have been the same. If it's saturated, SFO isn't going to shut down the stream to the parallel runway and slow his own down just so Lufthansa can have his ILS.
And how do we even know this established international carrier captain is even well-versed in his own Company's SOPs? After all and I may be wrong, but I doubt the Lufthansa Radiotelephony Phraseology Section of their RT SOPs has the note: "Don't say "F***" on the radio, except when outside EASA Airspace". But hey, Lufthansa. I remember late one night in Riyadh Lufthansa holding short of a runway for at least 30 minutes blocking 5 or 6 other aircraft because the stop bar lights had malfunctioned and were stuck ON. No aircraft inbound for that runway and the excited controller tried telling, and eventually yelling, that he was cleared to cross the lights because they were broken. Yet still, being the captain of an established international air carrier, he refused, no doubt because despite the utter absence of inbound traffic and the controllers directives, it was in his SOPs. Not being able to taxi forward, turn around, or get out of the way, it was quite a mess for those stuck behind him who I'm sure were dropping some F-bombs themselves, just not on the radio. Happily, we avoided by launching off the other runway which, by necessity, they began using for departures. I don't know how long they all ended up sitting, but I suppose they stayed right where they were at until someone in a truck showed up to cut a wire or, more likely, smashed the lights to the OFF position with a hammer. |
Originally Posted by NoelEvans
(Post 11542234)
How does SFO cope when the weather is down to Cat I (or lower!) conditions? (LHR 'stumbles' when it gets below Cat I and increased approach spacing is needed, but copes quite well in Cat I.)
|
Originally Posted by PukinDog
(Post 11541309)
Reminder noted, but I believe anyone who's flown in the US outside Class A -> STAR -> Class B/C -> SID -> Class A understands that there's a whole lotta aircraft out that aren't the merely ones ATC tells us about, or is even talking to, or even has a transponder or ADS-B that ATC or our TCAS can see. The concept is well-ingrained and why FAA regs require looking outside to try and visually acquire traffic anytime flight conditions permit.
I hope nothing I wrote implied that TCAS be used as a separation tool. That would be like running a canyon high speed, low-level, and blind using a weather radar in ground mapping mode. It won't end well. I don't know any pilot that isn't aware of TCAS's limitations and inaccuracies between display vs the visual reality outside; we use it every day and it's been around for 30 years. Only RAs should result in maneuvering, and that's been the case since US carriers were equipped with them by 91/93. I'm not sure who you were lobbying hard against in the 90's. UK/Europe was a late TCAS adopter in 2000 after which, for awhile anyway, there was still debate and training differences as to whether RAs took precedence over conflicting ATC instructions as the 2002 midair exposed. Hopefully, everyone is on the same page now. TCAS display as a substitute for visual acquisition...absolutely not, of course. I know my long post is eye-glazing, but that is exactly the point for much of it. TCAS was the first thing on the list I mentioned those things that aren't a substitutes to acquiring traffic visually, whether the aircraft has been pointed out by ATC or not. What I did say was that it's an aid that assists visual acquisition by directing attention to sectors of sky for scanning. That is literally the stated purpose of having Proximate, Unidentified, and Traffic Advisory symbols with relative altitudes shown on the display, with the TA alert designed to reduce the startle factor and response time if an RA occurs. Mere mortals can't tirelessly focus on everything everywhere all at once and we must prioritize duties and attention according to the situation. In the case of SFO when they're conducting parallel visuals the traffic call from ATC will usually come between the vector for intercept and clearance to fly the published Visual approach and the before intercept. If that traffic call is the first time someone looks outside to attempt visual acquisition of the aircraft they'll pair up with...because you know you'll be pairing up with someone...he/she might want to reconsider his/her priorities. The problem isn't that the other aircraft ATC wants you to see can't be seen (at that point on the SFO visual it easily can be). The problem is that ATC has called out 1 aircraft but there may be 3 or 4 aircraft easily in view from the cockpit window, and if the traffic is low perhaps some ground lights could also confuse. The process of the brain differentiating between things one sees and compensating begins when first looking outside, so maybe the best time to begin that process isn't at 180 kts converging with the other aircraft when someone also needs to be minding the store confirming that the intercept is happening when it should. Life gets a lot easier if one begins to get the SA picture beforehand and allow the brain more time to process and differentiate in order to avoid what could otherwise be an initially-confusing picture later. Visually mis-identifying aircraft has always been an issue long before the advent of TCAS, which in my opinion has reduced the likelihood. Pilots are fine with azimuth but estimates vary greatly when it comes to judging altitude differences relative to one's own, especially over slant range distances. At night you're looking for aircraft lighting against what may be a background of lights with all sorts of brightness, colours, and flashiness. Or it could be a hazy day with low sun in your eyes and the vis from where one sits is far more restricted than anything being reported. So if ATC calls out 1 aircraft but TCAS is showing 3 in that sector in close proximity and minimum vertical spacing (perhaps just 500" if 1 is VFR) your brain already accepts that the first 1 you spot visually may not be the one ATC wants you to identify so you continue to scan. Low aspect targets are more difficult to see until close-in and if they're hot there's less time to visually acquire. Constant bearing crossing traffic has little or no relative motion. When ATC gives a traffic position it's not BRA but rather a Clock Bearing relative to flight path, not relative to aircraft heading, so unless there's zero x-wind component the traffic can possibly be positioned 1 or 2 clock sectors off. In daily use, I doubt there's anyone who doesn't reference the no-conflict Proximate Traffic targets and try to spot them, and in this way through familiarity makes one better at visually judging relative altitudes and slant range distances air-to-air because you have something inside the cockpit displaying their altitude. Until ADS-B w/CPDLC is universally adopted, all aircraft equipped, and always-working worldwide, the TCAS info displayed to the crew will always be used for situational awareness monitor proximate traffic and, as such, sometimes for positioning where surveillance and/or ATC is sketchy or non-existent; there's still wake turbulence at altitude that may need offsetting from, the occasional oncoming traffic that's uncomfortably at or near your altitude that should be monitored, or CBs that need deviating around along everyone else having the same idea. While TCAS certainly has its limitations it's not your grandpa's Pong game either, and It's better to have a slightly imperfect picture of those around you than no picture at all. In those places where ATC does exist but adhere to a funny, aviation-variation of the "Less is More" philosophy that prevents them from advising you of overtaking and/or nearby traffic because "You won't be able to miss seeing it soon anyway" or perhaps the gov doesn't have the funds to go around replacing worn-out ATC PTT switches, this also applies. "We have him on TCAS", yes, yes, absolutely agree. An entirely useless response to a traffic call that does nothing but create uncertainly with the Controller (and everyone else) as to whether the pilot is looking outside for the traffic or not. I'm glad you brought it up, and perhaps we can all agree now's the time to establish a worldwide system of fining any pilot $500 (or pro crew $500 per head) for uttering it on the radio, paid into a fund that will be used for a yearly Pilot/Controller bash somewhere on neutral ground; a chartered 250' Feadship party boat floating on the Caribbean, for instance. In fact, since the Authorities everywhere aren't doing anything about it and in the interests of getting the biggest boat possible, there should be an entire list of useless, annoying, and offending transmissions and their associated fines, the amount for each commensurate to its annoyance level. Something like; 1) We have him on TCAS ($500) 2) F*** ($1) 3) You have a stuck Mic ($1500 If repeated, + $5000) 4) Fully ready ($480) 5) ____ on the meter ($975) 6) Charlie Charlie ($ 328) 7) You're on Guard!!! ($ 2,500 + 3 Anger Management classes + 5-year Party Boat ban) 8) Animal noises (Entire estate + Death) 9) etc. 10) etc. |
Originally Posted by PukinDog
(Post 11541309)
I'm not sure who you were lobbying hard against in the 90's. UK/Europe was a late TCAS adopter in 2000 after which, for awhile anyway, there was still debate and training differences as to whether RAs took precedence over conflicting ATC instructions as the 2002 midair exposed. Hopefully, everyone is on the same page now.
. In fact, since the Authorities everywhere aren't doing anything about it and in the interests of getting the biggest boat possible, there should be an entire list of useless, annoying, and offending transmissions and their associated fines, the amount for each commensurate to its annoyance level. Something like; 1) We have him on TCAS ($500), 2) F*** ($1), etc..etc,. But back to our case here, the LH just said " Fu**k up your sequence" that should have been 1 $ on your list but the diversion to OAK was a lot more that that I guess, not including the 600 Euros compensation per delayed pax for the Europeans on board. Flying is expensive.. |
|
For the last 12 months, LHR is now up to 447,400. And there is a curfew which applies to certain operations at the back of the clock.
|
Here are the two wiki entries, from my links above. The images are necessarily long so I can't be accused of polluting the data by cutting and pasting.
LHR: https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6711811886.jpg SFO: https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a1784bd6c0.jpg Obviously, "last year" is not 2021, and in any case, 2021 can't validly be used because of the disruption caused by the pandemic and the varying travel restrictions. |
Originally Posted by Mustang
A rather heated discussion has occurred.
421Dog won't post his references (because they don't substantiate his claim). Case lost. LHR is busier than SFO. Sailvi767 is wrong. |
Originally Posted by 70 Mustang
(Post 11542520)
A rather heated discussion has occurred.
a sort of "wagging" of figurative body parts? They're both busy. Would be interesting to also compare the shift patterns of the controllers, the number of active controllers, supporting staff in the cabs or at the desks in approach and departure, the rate of turnover and burnout, adding in the runway configurations, directions of arrivals and departures, nearby airports and their traffic numbers and patterns. I've flown into both and can say that LHR was a much more calmer, relaxed endeavour than SFO. The last time I went across (supersonic) (on G-BOAG, I think) the captain informed us that the Service from Heathrow tower was “Of their usual sterling quality, and that we should expect acceleration that might be a little more ‘sporting than normal’ upon our takeoff roll” |
For 2022:
LHR 380,305 Source UK CAA https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Down...e27ccfce4/5623 SFO 355,006 Source SFO airport https://www.flysfo.com/sites/default...%20Summary.pdf . |
Originally Posted by Mustang
In a word, let the others be wrong if they wish.
What I do have a problem with is letting ignorant third parties be led astray by nonsense (and I don't use the term "ignorant" in a disparaging way): Originally Posted by Sailvi767 SFO has about 1300 arrivals a day. LHR about 650. That’s not about the same. It’s substantially different.
Originally Posted by Noel Evans
The info I had for LHR gave movements so, yes, that is like comparing chalk and cheeses. I asked "Is that correct?" and you answered. Thank you!
And despite post after post, neither Sailvi767 or 421Dog have posted anything that refutes what I have provided, which clearly shows LHR is busier than SFO, aircraft movements-wise, and kills SFO, pax movements-wise. Added: Thanks Bidule. |
Originally Posted by 421dog
(Post 11542536)
I’m really sure any person interested in actual numbers can recover actual data from the respective National websites with a modicum of effort that will relieve me of the idiotically tiresome task of proving that SFO has more ops than LHR. I did it, and you are trying to refute it.
https://www.caa.co.uk/Documents/Down...e27ccfce4/5623 lists 380,305 for 2022, for EGLL Now interestingly Wikipedia lists SFO at 355,006 for the year. A bit of further research on Google give the airport website (https://www.flysfo.com/about/media/f...fic-statistics) which publishes monthly data with a rolling total. I’ve gone through and added the monthly totals for 2022 for you. (25761+24503+28632+29092+30304+31612+32434+32315+30972+31448 +29022+28911=…355,006) Now, given it’s rather an off-topic tangent and not really relevant it seems a waste to be-labour the point. However, what respective national website do you have have that says otherwise? Heathrow seemingly has more movements per year (despite a night curfew) but at its busiest cannot move as many planes in a single hour. edit: should have refreshed the thread before hitting post, but as we all found the same stats without too much bother it’s nice to be cross checked |
I did not even discuss actual aircraft operating in the area. OAK is 10 miles away and there is extensive light aircraft traffic being fed through the area. On top of all that there numerous noise sensitive areas restricting airspace. |
Originally Posted by Request Orbit
(Post 11542219)
My use of “sides” is far too black and white for something that is obviously a lot more nuanced so appreciate that sentiment. Separation is a pretty defining characteristic of air traffic, and when it comes to IFR traffic is very much an ATC responsibility inside controlled airspace. If you can delegate that to pilots to keep things moving at times, great. If the whole thing falls apart if a single pilot says no, not great. It is not the pilots responsibility. If saying no results in that situation, it’s bad airspace/sectorisation/training/procedure design. We’re going to declare the airspace Class B and publish instrument procedures, but don’t dare actually ask us to provide the level of service that implies.
|
Originally Posted by NoelEvans
(Post 11542234)
How does SFO cope when the weather is down to Cat I (or lower!) conditions? (LHR 'stumbles' when it gets below Cat I and increased approach spacing is needed, but copes quite well in Cat I.)
|
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 11542694)
Go to the airport sites. Make sure you are comparing the same things. I used arrivals. Some on here are comparing arrivals to operations. SFO handles twice the traffic of LHR. I have flown extensively out of both and it’s pretty obvious to anyone operating there that SFO has a far greater volume.
Do you have some verifiable figures that prove SFO has double the movements of LHR? A more accurate source than CAA/FAA? |
Here’s a list of Heathrow’s stats for 2023 so far. Aircraft movements taken from Heathrow Airport website.
January 2023 34,961 February 2023 32,503 March 2023 36,671 April 2023 37,249 May 2023 39,488 June 2023 38,117 July 2023 40,422 August 2023 39,905 September 2023 39,193 October 2023 40,201 heading for about 450,000 total movements this year. 2020 and 2021 stats are unrepresentative due covid. SFO running total in the end of September report is 287,524 total movements, down about 20-25% on Heathrow. Heathrow website SFO report |
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 11542694)
Go to the airport sites. Make sure you are comparing the same things. I used arrivals. Some on here are comparing arrivals to operations. SFO handles twice the traffic of LHR. I have flown extensively out of both and it’s pretty obvious to anyone operating there that SFO has a far greater volume.
I did not even discuss actual aircraft operating in the area. OAK is 10 miles away and there is extensive light aircraft traffic being fed through the area. On top of all that there numerous noise sensitive areas restricting airspace. If you listen carefully the controller was working on a solution. He wanted to clear them for the ILS and have them acknowledge the parallel traffic in sight. They declined that option. I can assure you they still would have landed at SFO if it were not for this. “We will declare an emergency and f**k up your pattern.” Once that was broadcast welcome to OAK! The stats from the SFO website list total monthly tower operations in the first table. The next table down is then total monthly landings (aka arrivals). The total monthly ops, once you’ve added the air taxi and military movements is about double the landings. Do you have any actual stats that say otherwise, or just a feeling that it’s quite busy when you’re there? I’ll re-iterate what I said in my earlier post: at it’s peak hours SFO moves a lot more planes an hour, but from the published figures, their peak hours do not last as long. If you want to get into nearby airports, OAKs annual movements for 2022, 213,668 (https://www.oaklandairport.com/wp-co...22-Summary.pdf). That’s 4,000 fewer than Gatwick alone, and doesn’t bring Northolt, London City, Stansted, Luton or Biggin into it. They might be a couple more miles away in some case but it’s very much hemmed in on every side. The controller was not working on a solution (that we heard). In the example you use, he was offering them what they were going to get anyway in slightly different wording. What he offered was exactly what they were restricted from doing. Saying an emergency would ruin the sequence wasn’t a threat, it’s a statement of fact. It would have left the controller in the exact same position but with no choice but to come up with an actual solution. If you turned up at an airport and got delayed for an hour without the slightest hint of an EAT, would you be impressed? |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 11542349)
First I must say ,spot on your replies, Would love to have a couple of beers with you if our lives meet one day :ok: Quick comments on the above : The "lobby" was ICAO FANS II meetings 1990-1993.defining ACAS and other niceties like ADS-B and CPDLC. which should all have been a global standard, but we failed miserably as each side of the Atlantic developed its own system . The TCAS "training differences" you mention were the direct result of the lawyers of the MITRE corporation ( who designed the TCAS software) which insisted on calling the avoiding instructions " Resolution Advisories" to avoid being sued in case it would not worked as planned. When you translate "advisory" in Russian you start to see where the problems started in Ueberlingen..
Fantastic list ,We should lobby ICAO to get this enshrined in PANS OPS . I would add " Do we have to descend now ?" , 500$ at least . :) But back to our case here, the LH just said " Fu**k up your sequence" that should have been 1 $ on your list but the diversion to OAK was a lot more that that I guess, not including the 600 Euros compensation per delayed pax for the Europeans on board. Flying is expensive.. It's probably inevitable each side of the Atlantic had their own priorities. The US had been working on the proto-TCAS since the 70s and testing TCAS 1 early 80's. The decision had been made to focus on a system that wasn't ground-dependent and utilized existing Transponder equipment. The 1986 Cerritos midair collision that killed an additional 15 on the ground in a residential area removed any doubt what they wanted, including Mode C requirements for GA and and a harder push to make TCAS mandatory. MITRE...I'm not even sure if anyone could successfully sue them. They're practically a systems engineering arm of the US government. Their aviation research Center and branches are entrenched, integral to designing the US air defence and the FAA's civil air traffic systems with fancy, associated accoutrements for the Air Force and FAA since the late 50's. They trace their lineage back to WW2 wartime research projects plus private industry and universities brought together under an umbrella. The MITRE developers would undoubtedly be aware of the limitations of the software. They'd realize that even when it worked perfectly with no malfunctions, the fact that an RA could still command you to fly into the ground or attempt to exceed the aircraft's climb performance would preclude them from designing anything that would work coupled to the autopilot. With the human element in the form of the pilot purposely inserted, perhaps the tech engineers reasoning behind calling it an "advisory" ( rather than a "command") made more sense since the rules as to whether one should, shall, or shall w/conditions follow them would be up to the regulators. Interesting point about the Russian translation, I wasn't aware of that. I'm all for ICAO PANS OPS enshrinement of The List. Good news, taking point on the lobbying effort is up for grabs, especially for anyone with ICAO working group experience. They'd just hang up on me. "Do we have to descend now?"....Great addition! $500 minimum (applicable only to an Instrument Student, 1st offence) Otherwise, $1250 (to include the CFII who was sitting next to the aforementioned Student). Note: Rule applies to any variation e.g. "Is that at our discretion?". I 2nd the motion for beers if we do ever cross paths, and hope that we might :ok:. No doubt we'd sort out most trans-Atlantic differences except how to spell...aluminuminiam? My shout for the first round, not necessarily because I'd admit to having ever befouled the airwaves with any of The List's transgressions and therefore already owe something to the fund, but rather in keeping with my old man's estimation that 'though I may not be of guilty something in particular, I'm most likely guilty of something. |
Originally Posted by 70 Mustang
(Post 11542797)
The only way to be sure is to go one's self and count the aircraft. "sources" vary in their focus and to think that "sources" never have an agenda or simply make mistakes, appears to be a bit naive.
Every day I understand more how Brexit and Trump happened. 😆😆😬 |
Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
|
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 11542555)
...
What I do have a problem with is letting ignorant third parties be led astray by nonsense (and I don't use the term "ignorant" in a disparaging way): Based on the information I have provided, with references, Noel Evans has been misled with fiction and has now gone away to potentially spread that fiction that has been spouted on PPrune. ... |
Originally Posted by Noelevans
What utter nonsense!!!!
|
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 11543133)
I'm pleased you understand that Sailvi's numbers are wrong and that LHR has more movements than SFO. :ok:
|
The emergence of confused consensus
The industry should see the SFO event as an opportunity to learn, reassess safety boundaries.
‘Drifting into failure’ is a metaphor for the slow, incremental movement of systems operations toward (and eventually across) the boundaries of their safety envelope. Pressures of scarcity and competition typically fuel such movement and uncertain technology and incomplete knowledge about where the boundaries actually are, result in people not stopping the movement or even seeing it. Recognising that a system is drifting into failure is difficult because the entire protective structure (including suppliers, regulators, managerial hierarchies, etc.) seems to slide along with the operational core toward the boundary. Even if an operational system is ‘borrowing more from safety’ than it was previously or than it is elsewhere by operating with smaller failure margins, this may be considered ‘normal’, as the regulator approved it. Almost everybody inside the system does it, goes along, and agrees, implicitly or not, with what is defined as risky or safe. Also, the departures from previous practice are seldom quick or large or shocking (and thus difficult to detect): rather, there is a slow succession of tiny incremental deviations from what previously was the ‘norm’. Each departure in itself is hardly noteworthy. In fact, such ‘departures’ are part and parcel of normal adaptive system behaviour, as organizations (and their regulators) continually realign themselves and their operations with current interpretations of the balance between profitability and risk (and have to do so in environments of resource scarcity and competition). As a result, large system accidents of the past few decades have revealed that what is considered ‘normal’, or acceptable risk is highly negotiable and subject to all kinds of local pressures and interpretations. S. Dekker in 'Resilience Concepts and Precepts' |
@safetypee, I believe that this concept of system drifting process could also fairly describe the engineering of the B737 Max MCAS.
And, to be fair, that's also the case of all aircraft accidents whose investigation showed that organisational complacency is part of the root causes. |
there is a slow succession of tiny incremental deviations from what previously was the ‘norm [......] ’continually realign themselves and their operations with current interpretations of the balance between profitability and risk We have a saying in French (from Alphonse Allais) that can translate as when you voluntarily exceed the rules/borders , there are no limits anymore on what you can do .. ( une fois passe les bornes il n'y a plus de limites) Those 2 sentences resume well the SFO self separation procedure only aimed to allow more movements in an Airport which runways configuration, according to the rules, would not allow simultaneous approaches. |
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
(Post 11543321)
Excellent reminder safetypee . A similar sentence was also in Perrow's " normal accidents " book if I remember.
We have a saying in French (from Alphonse Allais) that can translate as when you voluntarily exceed the rules/borders , there are no limits anymore on what you can do .. ( une fois passe les bornes il n'y a plus de limites) Those 2 sentences resume well the SFO self separation procedure only aimed to allow more movements in an Airport which runways configuration, according to the rules, would not allow simultaneous approaches. |
I recall observing the FO taxing out towards 08R in EGKK many moons ago. We were in an orderly queue for departure. Right at the end of the concrete the FO continued straight ahead towards the grass and it was a reflex action of mine to brake and stop the aircraft. The reason for the departure from the yellow line? “That’s what everyone does in Gatwick to avoid jet blasting the following aircraft.”
Normalisation of deviance is ten thousand times slower than hypoxia but a thousand times more lethal. Why; because by it’s very nature; it happens daily and it’s incipient. It’s always perfectly fine until it’s violently not. |
Originally Posted by Check Airman
(Post 11542126)
The river visual is heaps of fun :)
|
Bluntly: the SFO controller is a complete ****.
The A350 was on an IFR flight from far away and announced early on that he could neither do a visual approach nor do own visual separation. So it is the controllers job to slot him into the sequence and make the needed room such that the IFR flight gets a proper instrument approach with proper separation assured by the controller. To advise 10 mins holding to prepare for that is fine, but then after 14 min of holding and a request for an updated EAT by the crew to basically force him to divert (by announcing indefinitive holding) is NOT ok, when other aircraft who have arrived after the A350 are being landed. It is certainly not the controllers job to "educate" a crew and to play police or judge on an airliners SOP by refusing basic ATC service - also not when a crew is not 100% perfect in their language. Words are words, what counts is the action, and Lufty was completely professional in their actions. Of course ATC can deal on a desk with this situation in general with Lufthansa and see how to avoid such happenings in the future - I think no reasonable flight ops manager would deny that you have to play along on high density airports, so certainly it could be worked out. But this is a table exercise and should not be a concern for an ATC controller on the job. |
Going back to the SFO/LHR comparisons:
SFO seems to be a 'fair weather' airport. LHR is an 'all weather' airport. In Cat 1 conditions at LHR things run 'as normal'. When down to Cat 1 conditions it appears that SFO cannot deal with 'normal'. This is all useful information. We are planning a trip into the Pacific shortly that will require a stop on the North American west coast. From what I have read above, SFO has dropped to the bottom of the list of options... |
Igbo viz
A lot of airlines refuse to allow NIGHT visual approaches. SFO has its own circumstances but why not tune the ILS ..accept the visual and fly loc/gs guidance anyway? I’d use ILS guidance on any night visual. Why not use all resources? I think the controllers screwed him around as heard in the verbal exchanges. Swearing on air is ‘verbotten’also.
Pretty crappy effort from both sides. |
Originally Posted by Blunderbus
SFO has its own circumstances but why not tune the ILS ..accept the visual and fly loc/gs guidance anyway?
1. The Quiet Bridge Visual arrival is not aligned with the ILS (post #90); 2. The QB requires aircraft to visually self-separate with the adjacent aircraft down final because the runways are so close together; independent approaches (vis or ILS) can't be flown; 3. LH SOPs do not permit visual self-separation. |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 11544494)
It's all on the first few pages of the thread:
1. The Quiet Bridge Visual arrival is not aligned with the ILS (post #90); 2. The QB requires aircraft to visually self-separate with the adjacent aircraft down final because the runways are so close together; independent approaches (vis or ILS) can't be flown; 3. LH SOPs do not permit visual self-separation. |
Originally Posted by West Coast
For clarity, on point one are you referring to the Quiet Bridge visual or the FMS Bridge visual?
|
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 11544568)
QBV. Other posters have said that there are waypoints in the box for the QBV, but none are published in the FAA procedures that I can find. I would be interested in the FMS Visual details. Got a screenshot of the QBV in the box?
|
Originally Posted by West Coast
At home for the Holiday, far from a plane.
|
Originally Posted by BlunderBus
(Post 11544408)
A lot of airlines refuse to allow NIGHT visual approaches. SFO has its own circumstances but why not tune the ILS ..accept the visual and fly loc/gs guidance anyway? I’d use ILS guidance on any night visual. Why not use all resources? I think the controllers screwed him around as heard in the verbal exchanges. Swearing on air is ‘verbotten’also.
Pretty crappy effort from both sides.
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 11544494)
It's all on the first few pages of the thread:
1. The Quiet Bridge Visual arrival is not aligned with the ILS (post #90); 2. The QB requires aircraft to visually self-separate with the adjacent aircraft down final because the runways are so close together; independent approaches (vis or ILS) can't be flown; 3. LH SOPs do not permit visual self-separation. Both the QB Visual for 28R and the Tip Toe Visual for 28L require some electronic guidance. They're both charted/published and if you check them out you'll see what's required. Both their respective ILS's are depicted. If you study them you'll find: 28L (TIp Toe Visual) is a straight-in approach. Tuning/ IDing the ILS freq is mandatory since the LOC is the primary lateral guidance source (not merely a backup) that you're required and cleared to intercept and track inbound to the runway. You can fly it coupled all the way and use the GS which is set at a lower path angle than 28R's. The 28L LOC must be working for this Visual. 28R (QB Visual), as mentioned, has a 6 degree offset based off the SFO VOR (095R) until the Bridge @ 6 DME SFO, so both must be working. However, you do indeed tune the 28R ILS because that will be a source to establish your straight-in alignment and path once inside the Bridge. GS for 28R has the higher path angle. The slight maneuver to align oneself straight-in for 28R inside 6 DME is more clearly depicted on some plates than others. Inside 6 the Loc is just about alive. So both Visuals require operating ground-based NAV; the SFO VOR DME and the 28L LOC with a requirement for use. ATC clearance for one of these charted Visual Approaches requires one to follow the plate, and for neither does "Cleared for the QB or TT Visual" mean establishing oneself inbound visually or by following another aircraft to the same runway. There is the expectation that inside 6 DME both will track their respective LOCs. By this time they will have had each other in sight for miles while tracking electronic guidance designed to produce the gentle 6 degree convergence. The speed assignments will include the directive for the aircraft slightly aft to not overtake the one ahead. "Maintain visual separation"....this clearance means exactly what It says, and 'Maintain" does not equate to "Visually establish and maintain separation". Establishment of separation between the aircraft is accomplished by the design layout of the electronic guidance paths and each aircraft flying that electronic guidance as cleared. For the final-turn intercepts ATC will establish through speed control and alt assignment a slight fore/aft stagger plus high-side./low-side vertical separation. The glide paths have slightly different slopes. After establishing inbound, If both aircraft follow their respective clearances and charted electronic guidance, separation continues to be maintained without doing anything except to visually monitor the other aircraft in case someone F's-up by drifting off-course or off-speed. The only aspect of these Visuals that differs from an instrument approach is, if on the QB inside of 6 DME, the necessity of turning a bit further left in order to ease into the groove/intercept the 28R Loc for the last few miles. Most likely some ,if not all, of the LH crew had flown the very same Visuals during the daytime (when they normally arrive when on schedule) and were in no way surprised they were in use. They were handcuffed by their SOPs. Bummer. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:28. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.