A San Francisco-bound Lufthansa jet recently had to divert to Oakland due to a company policy, even though the weather was nice, and all other planes were having no issues landing in San Francisco. Were air traffic controller just being petty, is Lufthansa’s policy unnecessary, or is this just the price you pay when you err on the side of extreme caution?
In this post:
Lufthansa pilots can’t do visual approaches at night
This incident happened on Monday, October 16, 2023, and involves Lufthansa flight LH458 from Munich (MUC) to San Francisco (SFO). The flight was operated by a six-year-old Airbus A350-900 with the registration code D-AIXC. VASAviation did a great job creating a video that has both a visualization of the flight path, plus the audio between the Lufthansa pilots and the air traffic controller.
This incident revolves around how Lufthansa reportedly has a company policy whereby pilots can’t do visual approaches at night, but rather require instrument landing system (ILS) approaches. I wasn’t aware of this restriction, and I’m not sure if it only applies on certain flights (like long hauls), or what. I assume the intent is that this is an extra operational safety layer.
Why does it matter that Lufthansa doesn’t allow visual approaches? Well, air traffic controllers have to space planes out a bit more for instrument approaches rather than visual approaches, especially at airports like SFO, where parallel landings are performed.
When visual approaches are allowed, controllers can tell pilots to maintain visual separation from other aircraft, so they don’t have to leave as much of a buffer as with an instrument landing (where it’s entirely on the controllers to provide proper spacing). And that brings us to the issue here…
Here’s what happens between the Lufthansa pilots and the approach controllers:
- The controller clears the Lufthansa jet to make a visual approach, and the Lufthansa pilot advises “due to company procedures, we are unable visual approach at nighttime”
- The controller then advises that “if that’s the case, then it will be extended delays”
- The Lufthansa pilot responds “if that’s the case, that’s the case,” at which point the controller puts the Lufthansa jet into an extended holding pattern
- After some time, the Lufthansa pilot advises “if we are not set up for base soon, we will have to declare fuel emergency and that would really **** up your sequence” (I can’t tell if he says s*ck or f*ck)
- At this point the controller asks “what is your divert field?” suggesting that rather than letting the Lufthansa jet declare a fuel emergency at SFO, the plane will just have to fly to its diversion point
- The Lufthansa pilot says “it would be Oakland,” to which the controller responds “you need vectors to Oakland?”
- The Lufthansa pilot responds “no, but I just don’t understand why everybody is taking… my company forbids visual separation at night, so what is the problem here?”
- The controller responds “I can’t have this conversation with you, you either divert to Oakland or you can continue to hold, it’s up to you”
- The Lufthansa pilot responds “okay, you promised me 10 minutes, that ran out four minutes ago, so how many more minutes?”
- The controller responds “conversation is over,” and then says “what are your intentions, you want to divert or you want to continue with the delay?”
- When the controller advises that it will be an additional 10-15 minute delay, the Lufthansa pilot requests to divert to Oakland
Unfortunately this turned into quite the messy delay for Lufthansa:
- The flight was initially supposed to leave Munich at 4:20PM, but only departed at 6:30PM
- The flight was supposed to arrive in San Francisco at 7PM, but ended up landing in Oakland at 9:43PM, after a 12hr13min flight
- Then at 11:30PM the plane departed Oakland for San Francisco, where it landed at 11:55PM
Who was in the wrong here?
Usually in these interactions between pilots and air traffic controllers, there’s one party that’s clearly acting out of line.
In this case, the Lufthansa pilots are doing nothing wrong. They’re following company procedures, and there’s no flexibility when it comes to that. It’s a pretty black and white matter. I am curious how the pilots announced this diversion to passengers. “Ja, so unfortunately even though the weather is nice in San Francisco, we will be diverting to Oakland because of a specific company procedure that only we follow, when all other planes are landing just fine?”
The rest of this is totally beyond my area of expertise, but I’d be curious to know what any OMAAT readers who are pilots or air traffic controllers think. A few thoughts and questions:
- Are there any other airlines that require instrument landings at night? And is this Lufthansa policy specific to long haul flights where fatigue could be more of an issue, or all flights?
- If this is Lufthansa’s company policy, you’d think that this wouldn’t be the first time that this has come up at SFO, and that this is something that air traffic controllers would have dealt with before
- To the credit of air traffic controllers, they may have very well had a consistent traffic flow, and allowing in an instrument approach could have messed up the spacing a bit, and could have caused problems for other planes
- At the same time, it seems like the air traffic controllers aren’t exactly trying to go above and beyond to accommodate the Lufthansa jet, and even seem to have quite an attitude with the Lufthansa pilots, and almost get joy out of their diversion; at least that’s the tone that I sense
Bottom line
A San Francisco-bound Lufthansa Airbus A350 had to divert to Oakland, due to a company policy whereby Lufthansa pilots apparently can’t make visual approaches at night. Air traffic controllers were unwilling or unable to help the Lufthansa pilots, and that caused a bit of a spat between the two parties.
This is an interesting situation, and it seemed like the circumstances were the perfect storm for this to happen, given that SFO often has parallel approaches and is consistently busy, so there’s not much room for extra spacing.
What do you make of this Lufthansa situation?
Don’t see why LH policy cannot permit night time visual approach, backed up by ILS, providing lateral and vertical guidance. Pilots only have to maintain visual separation with parallel traffic and preceding traffic, aided by TICAS display. Performed this procedure on many occasions into SFO on B744ERF.
Don’t see why LH policy cannot permit night time visual approach, backed up by ILS, providing lateral and vertical guidance. Pilots only have to maintain visual separation with parallel traffic and preceding traffic. Performed this procedure on many occasions into SFO on B744ERF.
Bottom line: Add more fuel for night-time arrivals for incidental delays at destination.
Same thing happened October 16. Incoming LH flight from Germany diverted to Oakland (was running out of fuel, according to staff), leaving people in San Francisco waiting for plane to return from Oakland to San Francisco, and then head to Munich with a 5 hour delay, missing connections (actually, after a crazy run I arrived at the gate and the connecting plane was still there, but they would not let me board, or call the...
Same thing happened October 16. Incoming LH flight from Germany diverted to Oakland (was running out of fuel, according to staff), leaving people in San Francisco waiting for plane to return from Oakland to San Francisco, and then head to Munich with a 5 hour delay, missing connections (actually, after a crazy run I arrived at the gate and the connecting plane was still there, but they would not let me board, or call the captain to obtain permission), waiting one hour in the cold for the hotel that skipped a round, hotel closed kitchen early, slept three hours, etc. Some passengers had been stranded at SFO for more than 24 hours, as apparently the previous day's flight was cancelled.
"Air traffic control is literally a service provided to and paid for by the airlines."
Not entirely. GA pays higher fuel taxes than the airlines.
I don't think this is bad for Lufthansa at all: it simply means they put safety above comfort. And if every other airline and every traffic controller takes risks, so be it.
I was a passenger on this aircraft. It was an absolute nightmare for 15+ hours. This should have never happened, reading now about the piss-match between the pilot and ATC at the cost of passengers' safety. Shame on you both, LH and ATC. This incident would increase anyone's anxiety about flying in the future.
Former Lufthansa pilot. Company policies allow visual approaches at night but no visual separation at night. Even at daylight the traffic at SFO is scary. If you try to achieve a certain level of security, those are the loopholes you have to close. SFO is an international airport and foreign pilot arrive here after 11 hours flighttime probably twice a year. How big are the chances if this operation is going without accident if those...
Former Lufthansa pilot. Company policies allow visual approaches at night but no visual separation at night. Even at daylight the traffic at SFO is scary. If you try to achieve a certain level of security, those are the loopholes you have to close. SFO is an international airport and foreign pilot arrive here after 11 hours flighttime probably twice a year. How big are the chances if this operation is going without accident if those pilots try to fly like the local pilots doing short approaches out of every position to the field. This type of flying has to follow other rules to be safe on a longterm operation. The US is bending so many rules to keep up with the traffic.
Again: the problem was NOT the visual approach. The problem was visual separation at night. LH is allowed to do visuals. They eventually refused visual separation according to company procedures.
And by doing so they were 100% in line with FAA procedures (see para. 7.4.3.):
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap7_section_4.html
If traffic at SFO dictates to even withhold FAA backed procedures, the problem lies way further up the food chain but not in the actions of an overworked ATCO...
Again: the problem was NOT the visual approach. The problem was visual separation at night. LH is allowed to do visuals. They eventually refused visual separation according to company procedures.
And by doing so they were 100% in line with FAA procedures (see para. 7.4.3.):
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html/chap7_section_4.html
If traffic at SFO dictates to even withhold FAA backed procedures, the problem lies way further up the food chain but not in the actions of an overworked ATCO or a pilot abiding by SOPs.
I wonder if it requires them to do the full ILS approach procedure. I'm not sure why they can't accept a visual backed up by the instrument approach. That's what we do at our airline. They could have just done the ILS or RNAV while being cleared for the visual.
They required an instrument approach, regardless of back up. ILS or RNAV. They can't accept a visual at night by their OpSpec
Lufthansa could have declared an emergency and landed @ SFO. Perhaps a bit of paperwork but this is legitimate.
They weren't an emergency. They had the fuel to make their very close alternate and did so.
Reading most the comments I haven't noticed the other elephant in the room... "The flight was supposed to arrive in San Francisco at 7PM, but ended up landing in Oakland at 9:43PM" ... Isn't it dark by 7pm in the winter anyway. In which case why hasn't this been an issue before (or going forward), given SFO is often on visual approach procedures.
Also striking some are critical of the extra layer of safety...
Reading most the comments I haven't noticed the other elephant in the room... "The flight was supposed to arrive in San Francisco at 7PM, but ended up landing in Oakland at 9:43PM" ... Isn't it dark by 7pm in the winter anyway. In which case why hasn't this been an issue before (or going forward), given SFO is often on visual approach procedures.
Also striking some are critical of the extra layer of safety the LH rule may provide. Which country has had several near misses in the past year alone due to over stretched ATC and procedural mishaps...
SFO has a late domestic rush at that time, but is relatively quiet around 7 pm
The incoming flight to SFO was late to begin with. As a passenger on the SFO-MUC flight, I was notified of this. Only later when we arrived at SFO did we realize (at least, those of us with apps) that the plane had been diverted to Oakland, needed to refuel and get to SFO.
As a retired TWR controller, I have to take the side of the pilot. I do not know the workload of the controller, but if he had time to argue with the LH pilot, he had time to vector the acft for a ILS APCH. We have lowered the standard and this is what you get.
The controller should have come off his high horse and provide some service to an airline that also contributes to the controller's salary. Unfortunately some controllers think they are BOSS. Ridiculous (for info i have been controlling for 33 years).
Sorry to say but a lot of you guys miss the point:
Just watch the linked video and listen to the conversation:
First off, LH advises „unable vis app“.
Starting at about 1:17 the Atco asks to confirm that were are unable visual separation. LH responds with „that‘s exactly what we can‘t do“ (or so).
It is NOT about the vis app. They are allowed to fly night visuals. It is about...
Sorry to say but a lot of you guys miss the point:
Just watch the linked video and listen to the conversation:
First off, LH advises „unable vis app“.
Starting at about 1:17 the Atco asks to confirm that were are unable visual separation. LH responds with „that‘s exactly what we can‘t do“ (or so).
It is NOT about the vis app. They are allowed to fly night visuals. It is about own visual separation at night which they cannot accept! That is a huge difference.
ATC does have the chance to clear them for the visual but still provide separation. The Atco, however, obviously had other plans.
Please be honest: Who of you pilots would be able to keep the preceeding in sight - at night - approaching a demanding airport - being busy to fly a visual - without TCAS display????
Congrats to LH for their policy!
And not surrendering to operational drift.
Longranger,
What point are we missing? I think you might want to consider listening to the analysis video by the author and publisher of the original video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zHxdn8oz20
Also, are you not willing to provide any charity or benefit of the doubt to the ATCO here? Just to the pilot of LH? I relistened to the original video and analysis video, and at no point does the ATCO give an EFC or time of...
Longranger,
What point are we missing? I think you might want to consider listening to the analysis video by the author and publisher of the original video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zHxdn8oz20
Also, are you not willing to provide any charity or benefit of the doubt to the ATCO here? Just to the pilot of LH? I relistened to the original video and analysis video, and at no point does the ATCO give an EFC or time of delay, just "EXTENDED DELAYS". The pilot responds in a rather indifferent manner, "If that's the case, then that's the case".
You can check FlightAware and the recording of a portion of the arrival rush, the ATCO was beyond busy. The pilot then states that they're essentially going to mess up the entire arrival sequence (By the way that is incredibly dangerous and almost seems like a threat) at which point the ATCO offers vectors to the divert field which appears to be a solution to LH's dilemma with possible fuel exhaustion.
To address your assertion of operational drift, visual approaches with visual separation occurs every night possible at many major airports in the U.S. due to the ability to increase passenger inflow and outflow. That is the job of the ATCO to expedite the flow of traffic, and every airline that operates in the U.S. is obligated to follow FAA regulations not ICAO regulations, just as if an U.S. based carrier operating overseas is obligated to follow ICAO standards.
Simultaneous visual approaches to parallel runways at close proximity to one another implies visual separation must be used. If LH doesn't want to follow the procedures that every other airline follows when flying into SFO, that's fine, however, an event like this is always possible if the flow of traffic is busy enough to warrant a 20-minute delay to a non-participating airplane.
Jake, hold your horses…
Before you refuse to accept operational drift I‘d like your opinion on this:
https://www.flightglobal.com/faa-bans-visual-approaches-by-foreign-airlines-at-san-francisco-airport/110636.article
and on that (7.4.3.):
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html
Thx buddy ✌
Longranger,
You provided an outdated post by a writer for Flight Global from 2013. You’re aware that directives and procedures change.
I’m assuming the initial ban was due to the Asians Crash, and was prior to the NTSB findings of cause, and subsequent recommendations that didn’t include not allowing visual approaches.
Also, the reference you provided out of the FAAO 7110.65 7-4-3 does NOT in anyways support your point about operational drift. In fact,...
Longranger,
You provided an outdated post by a writer for Flight Global from 2013. You’re aware that directives and procedures change.
I’m assuming the initial ban was due to the Asians Crash, and was prior to the NTSB findings of cause, and subsequent recommendations that didn’t include not allowing visual approaches.
Also, the reference you provided out of the FAAO 7110.65 7-4-3 does NOT in anyways support your point about operational drift. In fact, just the opposite. If you scroll down the page in that document, you’ll find 7-4-4:
The following conditions apply to visual approaches being conducted simultaneously to parallel, intersecting, and converging runways, as appropriate:
Parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet. Unless approved separation is provided, an aircraft must report sighting a preceding aircraft making an approach (instrument or visual) to the adjacent parallel runway. When an aircraft reports another aircraft in sight on the adjacent extended runway centerline and visual separation is applied, controllers must advise the succeeding aircraft to maintain visual separation. Do not permit an aircraft to overtake another aircraft when wake turbulence separation is required.
Longranger, you’re filled with a lot of opinions, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Foreign Air Carriers are most certainly allowed to do visual approaches at SFO, it happens daily, and no, it’s not operational drift, it’s FAA 7110.65 approved.
Captain A330, European Airline, flying to several US destinations.
US-ATC in my opinion is laissez faire, speaking fast, not using standard ICAO doc 4444 phrasiology. Many controllers sounds stressed. The more stressed they are, the faster they speak. NORCAL no exception.
London Heathrow, a high density airport, were english also is their native language, is the total opposite to US-ATC. They are calm, effective, and polite.
US-ATC doesn’t use ICAO doc 4444 for phraseology. They use FAAO 7110.65. There are differences in phrases of the two orders.
I'm not an air controller, but reading these repeates comments of yours Jake, it makea me believe that you either may be the air controller in person, or may work with him - and you can't take a critique. Cheers.
You are absolutely correct . I was a controller for 20 years. NEVER let the pilot think you are stressed. The busier it got, the slower I spoke
15+ year airline pilot here... the article reads like the two actors (LH pilot and ATC) were being jerks. Listen to the audio.... for the most part they are both very professional. I suspect there's a couple of things that went wrong here...
1) Sounds like the first time ATC was hearing LH was unable to accept a visual was close in to the airport. LH needed to be more proactive as they should...
15+ year airline pilot here... the article reads like the two actors (LH pilot and ATC) were being jerks. Listen to the audio.... for the most part they are both very professional. I suspect there's a couple of things that went wrong here...
1) Sounds like the first time ATC was hearing LH was unable to accept a visual was close in to the airport. LH needed to be more proactive as they should assume approach might not be able to give them an ILS without a delay of its busy. If you are unable to do a visual and that's what on the ATIS. you need to call ahead and tell them you'll need an ILS. They could have been sequenced in much better if ATC already knew that 30 mins earlier.
2) Sounds like they only held for 14 mins before LH basically said they needed to start the approach. We don't have the audio from earlier when ATC supposedly told them it would be 10 mins, but 15 mins of holding isn't very long in the scheme of things. Just before they elected to divert to OAK they were told it would be another 10-15 mins. Again, this (30 mins total) is not an unreasonable amount of time for their request.
3) ATC was a jerk when he said that the conversion was over. But he was clearly provoked by the LH crew saying the fuel emergency would f*ck the operation. Again, I think LH should have probably been more proactive. Had they said 15 mins earlier when they were first assigned the hold that they could only hold for 15 mins max, maybe ATC would have tried harder to get them in. Or maybe they would have told them it's going to be 30 mins minimum from the outset, and LH could have come up with a better plan.
4) I am curious what LH policy actually is. At the beginning ATC was trying to coordinate and asked if they could do an ILS but maintain visual separation from the traffic...I suspect this would have been acceptable, since the point of the no night visuals is surely to prevent CFIT (controlled flight into terrain). Seeing the other traffic is unlikely to be the reason LH can't do night visual apps (it's much easier to see traffic at night that in the day, unlike the terrain).
5) I suspect the LH crew was not making these decisions without contacting their company. When they first entered the hold they probably would have sent the company a message explaining that they were assigned a hold due to SFO doing night visuals.
6) The LH flight was running 2+ hours late. Perhaps this night visual restriction is often a problem for them in SFO, in which case the flight would be timed to arrive in daylight. If that we're the case, the LH crew and their dispatcher should have recognized the problem 12hrs earlier when they departed late, and maybe could have loaded additional fuel for extended holding or something.
In conclusion, both sides probably could have done things better. Sounds to me like no one was proactive and so they had limited options.
I love having a very specific dietary restriction and showing up super late to my reservation at a super trendy restaurant at their busiest rush and then expecting the host and chef to accommodate me on the spot and focus entirely on my needs upon arrival.
Sure, but when the host and chef tell you “that’s fine we can accommodate you if you wait” and then an hour later say “lol jk you can go to McDonald’s” that’s a little different…
Further explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zHxdn8oz20
NorCal once again openly displays their disparaging attitude in working with circumstances. Worst TRACON with operating screens.
It’s an interpretation issue. Most 121s have some kind of “fly the underlying approach” policy for night visuals. But that’s something we can do ourselves, we don’t need an official ATC ILS clearance. The captain was taking the company policy too far and should have gone with the intent: tune the ILS and fly it with a visual approach clearance like every other carrier.
I am not an ATC controller, so I can not talk about their procedures. I am a active pilot. If the company procedure requires ILS then that it. ATC in general should assist the pilots with their request. Flying many times in the USA, I am surprised about this incident, as usual ATC are excellent. They can not delay an aircraft, arriving on scheduled time because they have a line up of aircrafts arriving. They...
I am not an ATC controller, so I can not talk about their procedures. I am a active pilot. If the company procedure requires ILS then that it. ATC in general should assist the pilots with their request. Flying many times in the USA, I am surprised about this incident, as usual ATC are excellent. They can not delay an aircraft, arriving on scheduled time because they have a line up of aircrafts arriving. They also can not "force" a pilot to fly a visual approach, if the Instrument approach is available. What ever reason ATC had to handle Lufthansa that way, is strange and a serious safety issue. ATC/FAA should investigate what happened. Other pilots would have called a pan pan pan and or a fuel emergency and the airport would have been closed during the mayday operation. Respect to the Lufthansa crew for diverting rather then continue this "fight". I believe it's not about right or wrong, it's about safety and respect from everybody involved.
It’s an IFR ICAO flight plan to San Francisco and the role of ATC is to accommodate aircraft cleared to that airport.
San Francisco ATC put the lives of the Lufthansa flight at risk for the sake of performance.
If San Francisco needs to have constant visual approaches at night to where no other IFR approach can be allowed then there is a safety issue.
I hope Lufthansa sues San Fran airport for all the $$$$ this diversion cost.
Airline pilot,
Again, I think this take of the controller putting lives at risk is the epitome of exaggeration.
If someone lightly taps your shoulder when you’re looking the other way to get your attention, sure it’s annoying, inconvenient and maybe rude. But, it’s not an assault with intent to cause bodily harm.
Your assertion that the controller put the Lufthansa pilots and their passengers riding on board in any danger is without question...
Airline pilot,
Again, I think this take of the controller putting lives at risk is the epitome of exaggeration.
If someone lightly taps your shoulder when you’re looking the other way to get your attention, sure it’s annoying, inconvenient and maybe rude. But, it’s not an assault with intent to cause bodily harm.
Your assertion that the controller put the Lufthansa pilots and their passengers riding on board in any danger is without question a lack of knowledge or a willful ignorance of how air traffic control and commercial aviation operates at busy metropolitan areas.
The Lufthansa captain has the ability at any moment to declare minimum fuel, then emergency fuel and ask for immediate vectors if he at any point thinks the holding is in excess to the point of danger. He didn’t, he wanted to get into SFO and rightfully so, Lufthansa filed there and has a slot there daily, but the pilot obviously didn’t declare an emergency, because nothing about holding or delay vectors is dangerous to the point of putting lives at risk. That is absurd, it occurs daily at most busy airports.
There is a good reason why Lufthansa has an extra layer of safety in place at night. I have direct knowledge of at least one near CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) of a big three US carrier about seven years ago. The flight was from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and the crew was cleared a visual approach at night…they lost situational awareness because they could see the runway 40 miles away and just turned...
There is a good reason why Lufthansa has an extra layer of safety in place at night. I have direct knowledge of at least one near CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) of a big three US carrier about seven years ago. The flight was from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and the crew was cleared a visual approach at night…they lost situational awareness because they could see the runway 40 miles away and just turned toward it and started descending. They did not maintain a typical three to one glide path (10 miles away from threshold should be 3000 feet above ground level). They almost hit a 4700 foot mountain in the desert between their position and the runway in the pitch black. The worst part is that it took them 45 seconds to respond to their GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System), After finally executing a missed Approach, they flew a box pattern around the terminal area and almost hit the same mountain a second time.
Insisting on an instrument approach at night with glide slope is prudent and I applaud Lufthansa.
The controller was unprofessional.
airbus_jas,
I appreciate your position of applauding the Lufthansa pilots. They appeared to be rigidly sticking to their company's SOP. However, the controller being unprofessional is a take that I've seen quite a bit, and I don't see it that way at all. The controllers made a decision to delay the Lufthansa over delaying numerous other aircraft for safety reasons as well. The amount of risk that enters the air traffic control environment when numerous...
airbus_jas,
I appreciate your position of applauding the Lufthansa pilots. They appeared to be rigidly sticking to their company's SOP. However, the controller being unprofessional is a take that I've seen quite a bit, and I don't see it that way at all. The controllers made a decision to delay the Lufthansa over delaying numerous other aircraft for safety reasons as well. The amount of risk that enters the air traffic control environment when numerous aircraft are vectored off of Standard Terminal Arrival routes, especially in a highly condensed metropolitan area like the Bay Area with numerous airports, is significant.
I would say the Lufthansa pilot was rude and unprofessional as far as communications with ATC go, but I have no doubt that the captain was attempting to serve his passengers well and take safety precautions and company policy seriously. However, if a controller in a busy terminal environment asks you to stand by or that they can't have an extended conversation, unless the pilot is declaring an emergency, they need to stop transmitting. The reason for this is not about controller ego, it is about safety of all users on that frequency in that airspace and the surrounding sector's airspace.
There can be a discussion about the validity of visual approaches at night, multiple carriers do it and use instrument approaches as backup navigation, either RNAV or ILS. However, the determination of the controller to not delay multiple other aircraft do accommodate the SOP of Lufthansa is standard and backed up by written FAA orders.
"They appeared to be rigidly sticking to their company's SOP. "
What part of concept of adhering to the rules do you not understand?
What a story, Lufthansa’s company policy is not bad, own separation / visual approaches are not a good idea at night. But what a mess it created! maybe LH crew could have advised ATC how long they could hold,
The problem of CFIT in a real visual approach at night with short base and final is not apparent in this ILS (overlay) approach. It‘s only about reduced separation. Both pilot and controller didn’t act professionally at all times.
SFO is unique. ATC in SFO think themselves quite special due the close parallel runways they have to utilise a visual to decrease separation....
Operated for 30 plus years as Captain and SFO are the most annoying. One day flying in cleared visual but intercepted the localiser on a long final....see the traffic next to us. Yep visual. But on the nose is a single cloud and as we hit the cloud...ATC said cleared visual...
SFO is unique. ATC in SFO think themselves quite special due the close parallel runways they have to utilise a visual to decrease separation....
Operated for 30 plus years as Captain and SFO are the most annoying. One day flying in cleared visual but intercepted the localiser on a long final....see the traffic next to us. Yep visual. But on the nose is a single cloud and as we hit the cloud...ATC said cleared visual approach and checked to see if we were visual. At this point nope not visual...should pop out shortly....but FO said nope we are IMC. OMG the melt down by SFO approach. Like hey there is the occasional cloud out here...and you vectored us into it, before U cleared us visual approach. Dumbass.
I am an Airbus A320 pilot for a European carrier. We have the same rule about visual approaches at night time. They are not allowed. Full stop.
Another (now-defunct) European airline I used to work for had the same rule, and so do most airlines in Europe. I think applying this rule to the setup at San Francisco probably goes a little beyond its intent, but if something goes wrong and you haven’t followed...
I am an Airbus A320 pilot for a European carrier. We have the same rule about visual approaches at night time. They are not allowed. Full stop.
Another (now-defunct) European airline I used to work for had the same rule, and so do most airlines in Europe. I think applying this rule to the setup at San Francisco probably goes a little beyond its intent, but if something goes wrong and you haven’t followed company procedures, the company (any company) will hang you out to dry.
Having seen this, I think the controller was being very unhelpful. The Lufthansa pilot’s choice of words probably didn’t help de-escalate the situation, but an IFR flight needs to be able to end with an IFR approach. Visuals can be offered, but they can never be required. It is the controller’s job to provide traffic separation to IFR traffic, and accepting a non-IFR clearance is up to the pilot’s discretion. If that discretion has been ruled out by company procedure, then his hands are tied and the controller needs to deal with it, just like he would have to if the weather was IMC.
SFO controllers were out of line and need to be disciplined. Unacceptable and complete disregard for human lives on board the planes.
This air traffic controller needs to consider what his actions may have caused.
Jimmy,
In what way was the air traffic controller disregarding human lives on board? Do you have experience in aviation either as a commercial pilot or an air traffic controller?
The facts of this matter are not completely evident. The short video doesn't provide context or real information to make the determination you just did.
I'm an air traffic controller and diverts due to approaching fuel exhaustion occurs quite frequently, especially at major...
Jimmy,
In what way was the air traffic controller disregarding human lives on board? Do you have experience in aviation either as a commercial pilot or an air traffic controller?
The facts of this matter are not completely evident. The short video doesn't provide context or real information to make the determination you just did.
I'm an air traffic controller and diverts due to approaching fuel exhaustion occurs quite frequently, especially at major condensed metropolitan airports in the US. It is not an emergency situation and it's not unsafe.
It is absolutely inconvenient and an unfortunate occurrence that happened this night between the SFO controllers and the DLH pilot. SOP for the pilots made them make the decisions they made, and SOP for the controllers made them make the decisions they made. The controller follows the rules and regulations outlined in their controller's handbook FAAO 7110.65, which specifically states to prevent aircraft collisions and expedite the flow of traffic. By delaying the DLH pilot, the air traffic controller prevented a daisy chain effect of delaying 10's possibly 20 more aircraft all carrying 100's of passengers themselves.
The intricacies of each air traffic control facility are unique to each facility. The reasons for the ILS approach causing delays at SFO are most likely due to the close proximity of the runways. The SFO airport advertised simultaneous charted visual flight procedures, meaning visual approaches to both runways, which implies aircraft needing to maintain visual separation. Again, DLH couldn't at night due to company policy which is completely understandable. However, the incurred delays and eventual divert was always a possibility due to the operation at SFO and the SOP of the DLH company.
Hopefully this helps, and in the future, I hope you don't rush to judgement and try to collect facts and show grace for both parties.
Go to flight radar 24 and playback Tuesday Oct 17, starting at 0345Z. you'll see LH458 overfly SFO which is when this exchange with ATC begins. You'll also see planes paired up like Noah's Arc on the approach into SFO, as closely spaced as procedures allow. To accommodate LH's REQUEST for a ILS approach (increased spacing on final) would have delayed dozens of other flights, thousands of other passengers. They were holding until the arrival...
Go to flight radar 24 and playback Tuesday Oct 17, starting at 0345Z. you'll see LH458 overfly SFO which is when this exchange with ATC begins. You'll also see planes paired up like Noah's Arc on the approach into SFO, as closely spaced as procedures allow. To accommodate LH's REQUEST for a ILS approach (increased spacing on final) would have delayed dozens of other flights, thousands of other passengers. They were holding until the arrival rate slowed down, and then they would have been able to fly the ILS with minimal delay to other aircraft.
But then it was a matter of communication and guidance of ATC. Following the audio record, this was finally what the pilot was requesting for. A clear precise timing, in order to take decision to keep holding or to deviate, with all impact for this flight. The controllers respond, resp. the snippy choice of "either you divert, or you stay in hold", left the crew no other choice than doing the Oakland diversion.
Oliver,
The first controller stated, "Expect extensive delays" when he advised DLH they couldn't accommodate the ILS initially. The pilot reads back, "If that's the case, then that's the case". How would do you take that if you were the controller, Oliver? It appears that the DLH pilot finds the EXTENSIVE delays to be manageable.
I'm assuming at some point the DLH captain changes his mind. He then addresses the controller in quite the...
Oliver,
The first controller stated, "Expect extensive delays" when he advised DLH they couldn't accommodate the ILS initially. The pilot reads back, "If that's the case, then that's the case". How would do you take that if you were the controller, Oliver? It appears that the DLH pilot finds the EXTENSIVE delays to be manageable.
I'm assuming at some point the DLH captain changes his mind. He then addresses the controller in quite the unprofessional manner, but that's not necessarily relevant to the main point here. He asks the controller how much longer so he can do his calculations after an unfortunate bit of back and forth on the frequency. Only at this point does he receive the first estimation of delays, which he declines as satisfactory and decides to divert to Oakland.
This is not front-page news. This is management of DLH airlines and management of FAA SFO needing to get together and collaborate a more efficient solution. The pilot and controller were both put in difficult situations here.
LH did not request a visual approach. They were asked to accept a visual approach, and were in their rights to decline it, leaving the onus upon ATC to continue to ensure separation.
Americans have a tendency to the extreme.
Back in 2013 we could read a headline "FAA bans visual approaches by foreign airlines at San Francisco airport".
Ten years later they make you divert unless you do exactly that thing that was illegal a few years earlier.
I think that specific controller, or maybe even ATC entirely, should be reminded that they are there to serve the pilots and airlines and that they are paid to...
Americans have a tendency to the extreme.
Back in 2013 we could read a headline "FAA bans visual approaches by foreign airlines at San Francisco airport".
Ten years later they make you divert unless you do exactly that thing that was illegal a few years earlier.
I think that specific controller, or maybe even ATC entirely, should be reminded that they are there to serve the pilots and airlines and that they are paid to deliver this service.
In my opinion Lufthansa should sue SF ATC.
Again, that's not how it works, and the FAA doesn't exist to serve any airline.
They are in the "business" to provide a safe, orderly, and expeditious flow of air traffic and supports National Security and Homeland Defense missions.
Nowhere in any FAA manual have I ever seen the statement that I was there to serve airlines and pilots.
You are literally providing navigation services to airlines. Who else do you serve if not them?
Samo,
To answer your question,
"You are literally providing navigation services to airlines. Who else do you
serve if not them"?
The ATCS is serving ALL users in the ATC system. Not just DLH aircraft, or other airliners for that matter, every aircraft up there gets service on a first come first serve basis, as long as it doesn't affect the expeditious flow of traffic or cause a potential mishap in...
Samo,
To answer your question,
"You are literally providing navigation services to airlines. Who else do you
serve if not them"?
The ATCS is serving ALL users in the ATC system. Not just DLH aircraft, or other airliners for that matter, every aircraft up there gets service on a first come first serve basis, as long as it doesn't affect the expeditious flow of traffic or cause a potential mishap in the ATC system.
Navigation service to airlines is one of many services that ATCS assist with. But that is such a limited scope of the services that they do.
As far as I remember one of the applying terms is „air traffic SERVICE“.
One question. Who paid your salary and who has to pay fees, so that your salary is guaranted?
"FAA doesn't exist to serve any airline." I assume you mean Air Traffic Control.
Who is there for who?
Would this have still happened if Lufthansa required a minimum of 1500 hours experience for their pilots?
Asking for a friend.
You can assume that the captain of this flight easily had well over 12'000 hours and the Senior First Officer was well over 5'000 hours (due to the required seniority for this position on the A350).
Probably 20K+ hours on that flight deck. „Your friend“ happy with that answer?
Sorry to say but a lot of you guys miss the point:
Just watch the linked video and listen to the conversation:
First off, LH advises „unable vis app“.
Starting at about 1:17 the Atco asks to confirm that were are unable visual separation. LH responds with „that‘s exactly what we can‘t do“ (or so).
It is NOT about the vis app. They are allowed to fly night visuals. It is about...
Sorry to say but a lot of you guys miss the point:
Just watch the linked video and listen to the conversation:
First off, LH advises „unable vis app“.
Starting at about 1:17 the Atco asks to confirm that were are unable visual separation. LH responds with „that‘s exactly what we can‘t do“ (or so).
It is NOT about the vis app. They are allowed to fly night visuals. It is about own visual separation at night which they cannot accept! That is a huge difference.
ATC does have the chance to clear them for the visual but still provide separation. The Atco, however, obviously had other plans.
Please be honest: Who of you pilots would be able to keep the preceeding in sight - at night - approaching a demanding airport - being busy to fly a visual - without TCAS display????
Congrats to LH for their policy!
And not surrendering to operational drift.
Lufthansa Pilot & Senior Manager Lufthansa ATM Development.
The Lufthansa pilot acted fully compliant to company rules. The acceptance of visual separation requires daylight conditions.
The ATCO represents a more or less typical behavior for air traffic control within the complex metroports in U.S.
It is important to point out, that the method how LH458 was handled pushed the aircraft more and more into a „no option corner“.
Further it is important to point...
Lufthansa Pilot & Senior Manager Lufthansa ATM Development.
The Lufthansa pilot acted fully compliant to company rules. The acceptance of visual separation requires daylight conditions.
The ATCO represents a more or less typical behavior for air traffic control within the complex metroports in U.S.
It is important to point out, that the method how LH458 was handled pushed the aircraft more and more into a „no option corner“.
Further it is important to point out, that it is not within the tactical mandate of the ATCO to question or challenge a company procedure and therefore to put the navigational authority of the commander into question.
To handle such circumstances tactically is an ability, what they should be trained for.
If NORCAL is having an issue (which might be fully understandable as well) they should contact Lufthansa flight operations to discuss such an issue on a strategic level in order to find the safest mitigation on a collaborative way.
Safety shall be our first priority independent what capacity pressure we might have.
I was on that flight. As we diverted to Oakland, the captain came on the loudspeaker to say “we will be landing in Oakland and there will be legal action taken”. He was obviously extremely annoyed with ATC. Passengers were revolting…. We had been on that plane for close to 19 hours total. By the way, Lufthansa didn’t credit any of the passengers anything.
What do you mean LH didn’t credit anything? What is your expectation?
>3 hrs delay=EUR 600 compensation?
But sure LH will claim "extraordinary circumstances" here...
Sry… Of course: „…don‘t do things that elsewhere…“ My bad!
Continuation of a standing problematic relationship between US ATC and foreign pilots…
Besides talking in non-standard phraseology, too fast and/or in accents we now see a case of a service provider telling his customer (who eventually pays him) to go f… himself because he‘s unwilling to find a solution that meets his customer‘s requirements. Unacceptable!
However: This will not have been the first LH night approach into a major airport with VIS APP in...
Continuation of a standing problematic relationship between US ATC and foreign pilots…
Besides talking in non-standard phraseology, too fast and/or in accents we now see a case of a service provider telling his customer (who eventually pays him) to go f… himself because he‘s unwilling to find a solution that meets his customer‘s requirements. Unacceptable!
However: This will not have been the first LH night approach into a major airport with VIS APP in use. Wonder what other air crews & ATCOs did to facilitate a safe landing.
Generally SFO is messed up already during daytime, so why don’t play it safer during night ops and, with risk awareness, do things that elsewhere would be unproblematic because of a way different set up.
In the end crew and Atco ended up in a corner where others put them: Understaffed, overworked and being at the mercy of partly unrealistic traffic rate targets vs. a comprehensible default SOP that works well…….in all other parts of the world.
I believe this has to be seriously discussed by higher level of each involved parties management.
Just another "rule" from the stupid Germans, They love to make up rules that make no sense. And I've lived in Germany for 13 years now!
Such an undifferentiated flat-rate comment says more about the author than what the author intends to say…
Well Gary - I am living in Germany for 55 years not happy with all rules. By the way - not all U.S. rules are in my favour.
But - the kind of language you are choosing disqualifies you as unprofessional - unfortunately.
From content point of view I would like to refer to my post.
This rule actually makes perfect sense and is designed precisely the kind of accidents that previously happened (also in the US) without that rule.
Hi Gary, I'm from Germany. Anything else you'd like to share with me? Now is your time to shine! Besides, as long as you are not locked up prison for disrespecting our "rules" you are free to leave my country at any time and enrich other communities with your charming personality. Have a good one!
Oh please “Gary’s wife”.
I have German family in Bavaria and they all complain of the number of ridiculous rule books that are in place just because it’s the German way.
Everyone in business in Germany knows this is the case…. Now I’ll also say it’s these ridiculous rules that ensure Germany is one of the most amazing counties at producing some of the highest quality manufactured goods in the end. Hands down.
Oh please “Gary’s wife”.
I have German family in Bavaria and they all complain of the number of ridiculous rule books that are in place just because it’s the German way.
Everyone in business in Germany knows this is the case…. Now I’ll also say it’s these ridiculous rules that ensure Germany is one of the most amazing counties at producing some of the highest quality manufactured goods in the end. Hands down.
Don’t become defensive, embrace the facts and the good side that comes out of your system…. Despite the obvious frustrations it brings on.
Airlines all over Europe ban visual approaches at night on safety grounds. It’s not unique to Lufthansa or Germany.
Japanese do the same thing....rules rules and more unnecessary rules
Can some of you commenters speak English rather than alphabet soup? Some readers may have a bit of interest but have no idea what the hell you are talking about. The correct method of writing is the first time you use letters for example ILS (Indignant Loose Service .... or whatever), rather than be a show off with ILS and NUT and TDH.
...or they can take less time than you did to write that whiny post, and just look the acronym up-- learning something in the process. Imagine that.
Willfully violating a company safety policy would probably result in his termination. Of course he couldn't accept the visual. He would be accepting reduced separation which is exactly what the company policy prohibits.
It's the pilots fault. Even with the policy he could accept the visual approach and still fly the ILS approach. Everyone does that all the time, visual approach backed up by the ILS...
In the mid-90s I was on a Virgin Atlantic flt LHR>SFO & we diverted to OAK due to fog. It was a bit annoying but the flt from OAK>SFO was completely worth it.
I've flown multiple times between SFO and either FRA or MUC. LH's scheduled arrivals at SFO are almost always during the day, and LH 458 is the last scheduled arrival at SFO every day.
If the pilots are following LH policy, then maybe LH needs to look at the winter scheduling of 458. Also, SFO has been known for visual landings only. Remember the OZ 214 crash?
ATC were arrogant assholes here. How that clown get fired.
Reminds me of the Auckland to Oakland business class sale on delta a few years ago that they tried to cancel. The cities sound the same depending on what accent you use lolll
Did Lufthansa just start flying into SFO or have they been flying there for decades? This should not have been a big surprise for the crew. And their dispatcher.
How come you only hear such problems with US controllers? Rather strange that controllers in the other parts of the world are not so arrogant..
Not arrogance. LH has their (outdated) policies, FAA has theirs. Why should NoCAL abandone their procedures and delay thousands of people for one plane that is not following the SFO rules. (Almost 60 planes an hour shooting Visual approaches!)
This is likely a recent policy, not an outdated one.
The issue here isn't the procedure NoCAL has, but the attitude of the controller who instead of solving the problem just made everything worse by escalating after a polite note from LH that they're running out of time. LH pilots didn't need to do that, they could've just stayed in the hold until they needed to declare a fuel emergency, forcing ATC to suddenly give them priority and cause an insane workload for him. They've...
The issue here isn't the procedure NoCAL has, but the attitude of the controller who instead of solving the problem just made everything worse by escalating after a polite note from LH that they're running out of time. LH pilots didn't need to do that, they could've just stayed in the hold until they needed to declare a fuel emergency, forcing ATC to suddenly give them priority and cause an insane workload for him. They've tried to help him and he rewarded them by forcing them to divert. Lesson learned for this crew, I guess.
Are you an Air Traffic Controller? Have you ever heard about wake turbulences? The SFO forced the crew to accept visual separation instead of WTC separation. Unprofessional by ATC.
By the way. To integrate one acft into the normal sequence isn‘t a problem at all. Even for an average controller.
Good for LH. Lime the way the airline thinks. Way too many airplanes have landed on taxiways and closed runways (let alone wrong airports) visually at night.
Visual may be fine to a US airline in its home country, but definitely not in a foreign country served once a day by that aircraft type, one where the crew may not have landed in months, if ever.
As per the FAA, too many overworked controllers. It's...
Good for LH. Lime the way the airline thinks. Way too many airplanes have landed on taxiways and closed runways (let alone wrong airports) visually at night.
Visual may be fine to a US airline in its home country, but definitely not in a foreign country served once a day by that aircraft type, one where the crew may not have landed in months, if ever.
As per the FAA, too many overworked controllers. It's time for Congress to grow the budget (inflation-adjusted), instead of shrinking it.
Yes, in fact, there was a notoriously close call at KSFO not that long ago, with an Air Canada arrival that nearly landed on a taxiway occupied with other airliners.
AIr Canada is a pathetic airline that does not follow Boeing or Airbus training. Its A320 were never updated until they crashed one in Halifax.
Let me guess. Visual approach during night time?
I wish I could have found a good term, if not coined one, for this situation, which I see all the time, in every aspect of life.
I can start with Paul's comment, where his last line was, "Both parties share equally in this mess." I think most would agree, if even only to varying degrees.
But, how you parse the 'blame' and how you define the parties factors into how likely this...
I wish I could have found a good term, if not coined one, for this situation, which I see all the time, in every aspect of life.
I can start with Paul's comment, where his last line was, "Both parties share equally in this mess." I think most would agree, if even only to varying degrees.
But, how you parse the 'blame' and how you define the parties factors into how likely this will occur again.
I agree that the ATC was prickish and irresponsible, perhaps even to a point of being dismissed. The pilot, on the other hand, was following the protocol of his company, and unless there was an emergency situation, it would have been irresponsible of him to not do so. Whereas, the ATC had the prerogative here to accommodate the situation.
However, we don't know the degree to which this has occurred before. There is no reason to think that this was not a typical weekly, if not daily, situation. Was this the first scheduled flight from Munich to SFO at this day and time, probably not.
It might have been routine for ATC's at SFO to accommodate Lufthansa flights arriving at this time, and finally one of them just said, 'No.' If this had been a routine problem, it was incumbent upon the Lufthansa pilots to push back on the company policy, having them grasp the congestion at SFO which required some exceptions to their blanket policy.
This occurs in all types of services, both on the inside and public side of companies. There are policy problems from above, causing unnecessary problems, but those who execute those policies, see the problems, do not care enough to take it upstairs. At some point, after producing frustration for both company employees and clients, it blows up. Blame gets directed in the wrong direction.
Being a controller, this is unacceptable. I understand the pain of providing more spacing for an instrument approach between visual approaches. However making an aircraft hold to force it into a diversion is unacceptable. Certainly the aircrew could have been more apologetic, but the prick is the ATCO.
Another pilot might have declared emergency with landing at SFO... That would have screwed up the sequence.
SO why is landing in Oakland any different??? less crowded?? and why would US air traffic controllers risk lives and fuel running out vs deal with the Pilots and land the PLANE!!!
Oakland sees far less traffic than SFO, and with a single runway for larger jets there is no need to worry about simultaneous close parallel approach clearances.
Clearly you are not ATC. Telling ATC to forget their procedures and rules to accommodate one company that did not read the SFO visual procedures is lunacy.
Are you an ATCO? Which unit?
Was customs at OAK set up to absorb an A350 full of incoming passengers at this late hour? What about all the connecting passengers who surely missed their flights out of SFO?
What a massive inconvenience for all involved.
I believe the plane landed in Oakland, but passengers did not depart. On the flights normal schedule it does land rather late, but there are probably still a handful of connections that could be made. Although there are probably a lot of O/D traffic to LAX Im guessing the people that missed their flights would have to be compensated.
I assuming that would fall under EU261?
A lot of assumptions from my POV, and I am no expert. Just curious.
I was on the plane. We tried to disembark at OAK, but customs was closed. There were no customs officers to let us in the country in OAK. Therefore we either had to wait hours to wake people up and bring them there or refuel and fly the 130km route from OAK to SFO which is what we did (took about 20 mins for a 10 km Straight line distance separation).
This is messy, but I think that with the time he had, the controller could have done a better job of accommodating the request.
That being said, the real culprit here is the airline that, in spite of a qualified crew and an airplane that is incredibly capable of safely executing the approach, decided on an asinine policy that is sure to screw over their customers and cost the company a ton of money. Clearly...
This is messy, but I think that with the time he had, the controller could have done a better job of accommodating the request.
That being said, the real culprit here is the airline that, in spite of a qualified crew and an airplane that is incredibly capable of safely executing the approach, decided on an asinine policy that is sure to screw over their customers and cost the company a ton of money. Clearly someone in Frankfurt hasn't done their homework on how things are done here in the States and adjusted policy to work with those procedures.
The controller was pretty out of line here, though. This smacks of a lack of motivation to help anyone. Yeah, you're probably not going to get a paycheck after next week and you're on your 12th day of work because of understaffing, but still, you have a job to do.
Well if the flight left MUC close to the scheduled time, it would have arrived at SFO prior to dusk.
50-60 planes an hour shooting simultaneous approaches. And everyone should be delayed, change policy for one plane?
Next time they will be delayed because the lesson will be learned - don't try to help ATC by warning him you're running out of time. Just keep circling, then declare a fuel emergency and destroy his entire sequence by forcing him to give you absolute and immediate priority. Then he can enjoy cleaning the mess for the following hour or two.
Absolutely unacceptable behaviour from the air traffic controller. How difficult would it have been to accommodate this request? And then practically force the airliner to divert? Outrageous. I suspect Lufthansa will be billing them for the extra costs.
That's not how it works.
Maybe NorCal approach needs to learn to be flexible. I am Canadian ATC and am appalled at how poorly that flight was treated
What prevented Lufty just responding to the “cleared visual runway 28L” with a Germanic “Lufthansa xxx cleared visual to join the ILS 28L” … and then let it play. Call “Lufthansa xxx fully established 28L, confirm cleared to land” when locked on. Controller thinks who gives a shit. Sep all good. ATC think: dumb Germans. Crafty Germans have ILS dialed in, join and land with ILS signals signaling away, having outsmarted ATC, obviating any need...
What prevented Lufty just responding to the “cleared visual runway 28L” with a Germanic “Lufthansa xxx cleared visual to join the ILS 28L” … and then let it play. Call “Lufthansa xxx fully established 28L, confirm cleared to land” when locked on. Controller thinks who gives a shit. Sep all good. ATC think: dumb Germans. Crafty Germans have ILS dialed in, join and land with ILS signals signaling away, having outsmarted ATC, obviating any need to report anything afterwards. All go to separate bars, proceed to get hammered. Another day, another Euro.
1. ATC would never let that go. If cleared for the visual, you are cleared for the visual. If you say ILS, your clearance would be canceled.
2. Land without clearance. Career over.
3. Bust LH rules. LH fires you.
etc etc etc
Actually, it is likely NCT would have had him join the LOC prior to the visual approach clearance.
I understand traffic controllers are on permanent mandatory overtime. That might explain the attitude and maybe the Germans should be a bit more flexible. But that's not the pilot's fault.
Hey Ben, can you do me a favor: in about a months, please repost this exact same story but replace „Lufthansa“ with „Delta“. I just wanna see how our all-Time favorite commenter will react then…
I sure hope that Delta has the same policy on its long haul flights landing at night in a foreign country.
If not, I'd be very worried. Doing a visual at night in Frankfurt or London when you haven't landed there in months isn't exactly risk-free.
reread the comments and see if there weren't ways that the LH pilots could have handled this. There were.
Which doesn't change that, if DL pilots manage to screw up, we'll hear about it.
But the core issue is that LH headquarters, not the pilots on this flight, didn't update their policy and procedures for SFO so the pilots on that aircraft had much fewer choices.
If LH pilots truly can't do...
reread the comments and see if there weren't ways that the LH pilots could have handled this. There were.
Which doesn't change that, if DL pilots manage to screw up, we'll hear about it.
But the core issue is that LH headquarters, not the pilots on this flight, didn't update their policy and procedures for SFO so the pilots on that aircraft had much fewer choices.
If LH pilots truly can't do what other airlines routinely do in those situations, LH isn't near as safe as people here want to act like they are.
Otherwise, it is simply that some pencil pusher in Germany dropped the ball.
Again, let us know when something like this happens to Delta but that isn't what the story is about as much as you would like to hope otherwise.
It wasn't a visual approach, it was an ILS approach with visual separation. There is a difference, and LH needs to learn it if they're going to keep sending flights into SFO.
Too bad the included video does not show other arrivals. It would have provided important information. ATC for SFO works on a feeder/final system like most busy airports. Landing west (28L/R), the feeder for east/north arrivals generally sequences for 28R and the feeder for south/west arrivals generally sequence for 28L. I say generally because there are exceptions. These two controllers set the "pairings" for the final controller who fine tunes the spacing. LH is being...
Too bad the included video does not show other arrivals. It would have provided important information. ATC for SFO works on a feeder/final system like most busy airports. Landing west (28L/R), the feeder for east/north arrivals generally sequences for 28R and the feeder for south/west arrivals generally sequence for 28L. I say generally because there are exceptions. These two controllers set the "pairings" for the final controller who fine tunes the spacing. LH is being worked by the south/west feeder controller arriving from the northWEST (why is too complicated for this discussion). Notice LH flight path is over the top of SFO to the south. Visual approaches from the east join an RNAV route aligned sightly north of the 28R center line and gradually converges to the runways. Ironically, the 28L visual approach procedure uses the 28L localizer. Complicating this discussion is the fact that we have an A350, a HEAVY jet for ATC purposes, which changes the standard 3 miles of separation requirements for trailing aircraft to 4,5,or 6 miles for BOTH 28L&R depending on the type of trailing aircraft. I refuse to second guess the controller(s) here without knowing what the total traffic picture was, especially for the east flow that he is coordinating with in real time. I know I would have done everything possible to prevent this diversion.
Once Lufthansa gave OAK, leading the ATC on a diversion mindset, any more conversation about visual approaches was an annoyance to the impatient controller. In typical haughty US fashion, ATC proceeds to give an ultimatum. Lufthansa's foul language didn't help, but they should have been accommodated. It's not up to ATC to evaluate the merits of airline company policies and instead should focus on landing planes. Lufthansa, for its part, should make an exception to...
Once Lufthansa gave OAK, leading the ATC on a diversion mindset, any more conversation about visual approaches was an annoyance to the impatient controller. In typical haughty US fashion, ATC proceeds to give an ultimatum. Lufthansa's foul language didn't help, but they should have been accommodated. It's not up to ATC to evaluate the merits of airline company policies and instead should focus on landing planes. Lufthansa, for its part, should make an exception to the night visual rule for flights to the Wild West that is US ATC.
No they should not have been "accommodated" / push ATC to engage in what would be a non-standard procedure during a rush. That is how accidents happen.
Take a look at Oakland, it looks like a flea market. It's the largest city in the tri-state area, but it looks like hell. There's a big store that hangs jeans and ladies' clothes outside, and that's bullshit.
LOL. I have no love for Oakland as an SF native but your comment makes zero sense. First off, CA isn't part of a "tri-state" area. What three states? CA, OR, and WA? CA, NV, and OR? CA, AZ, and OR?
Second, Oakland isn't the biggest city by any measure. Hell, by population it's not even in the top 5 for California alone.
I mean, you're pretty stupid, but the thing about jeans is true and is actually pretty common in a lot of big cities.
When you give a crazed, crying lowlife a break, and give him access to OMAAT, I guess it just didn’t work out. This guy is a TOTAL LOSER. Good work by ME for quickly dealing with this dog!
US ATC being US ATC, escalating the situation instead of calming it, while also being completely unhelpful to the flight crew and forgetting who his customers are. Nothing new here, just another day... Do this in Europe and you'd be fired the next day.
That's an unfairly broad brush to paint FAA controllers. Most of us work really hard to avoid situations like this. European controllers also deal with very different challenges than FAA controllers, so it's a little bit of an apples and oranges comparison.
I'm sure most of them are good. But then again, whenever we see ATC being aggressive, not cooperating, and overal showing poor form, it's 99% from the US. Cases like that are almost non-existent in Europe (even outside the EU, in places like Balkans which aren't otherwise known for their politeness or calm personalities), Asia, Canada, Australia and basically anywhere. It suggests there is something wrong with either the training or enforcement of the rules...
I'm sure most of them are good. But then again, whenever we see ATC being aggressive, not cooperating, and overal showing poor form, it's 99% from the US. Cases like that are almost non-existent in Europe (even outside the EU, in places like Balkans which aren't otherwise known for their politeness or calm personalities), Asia, Canada, Australia and basically anywhere. It suggests there is something wrong with either the training or enforcement of the rules in FAA. As I said, in Europe, you'd be fired a day after doing something extreme like this. In the US I imagine this controller will keep working for at least another decade.
I don't think challenges are all the different. Yes, there are minor variations in rules but that's it. It's not like there are no busy airspaces in Europe (Upper Maastricht Area, anyone?).
Having worked as a controller I understand the problem. First the rule by Lufthansa is absurd, no reason for it. This rule works fine in Europe where you don't have the volume of traffic. In the states to keep everyone happy and on time visual approaches are necessary. The controller could have given him the spacing and let other traffic maintain visual from him. Both parties share equally in this mess.
LHR, CDG, AMS and FRA all have more traffic movements than SFO so this can't just be written off as a volume of traffic thing.
Totally air controller’s fault, unacceptable behavior. He is neither professional nor compatible.
ILS was created for safety reasons. Not to protect some air controller’s fragile egos.
Remember AC-759? If they landed with ILS, that would not be happened! Apparently SFO learned nothing from that incident.
So many incidents and close calls happened at SFO were due to “HURRY UP”.
FAA should step in and reorganize SFO and its air control center.
did you bother to read the very helpful comment from jim baround below? He clearly seems to know the background and it explains why everything happened and there was no error on anyone's part except for LH's failure to change its company procedures which gave its pilots no latitude.
ATC has developed procedures to increase capacity at highly congested airports including SFO and SFO was running visual at the time; LH couldn't do it...
did you bother to read the very helpful comment from jim baround below? He clearly seems to know the background and it explains why everything happened and there was no error on anyone's part except for LH's failure to change its company procedures which gave its pilots no latitude.
ATC has developed procedures to increase capacity at highly congested airports including SFO and SFO was running visual at the time; LH couldn't do it but asked too late for the sequence to be maintained; ATC told them they would have to wait, LH got pissy; whether LH was short or not, they did not declare a fuel emergency but ended up in OAK.
ATC was doing its job and there is no evidence that they should not have been doing anything different.
LH failed to update its procedures but many airlines, presumably all US airlines, are capable of doing what ATC wanted which included automated support but compliance w/ visual rules.
Let's cut the ATC bashing. They were right. LH was wrong. They paid the price for their company's failure to update their procedures and for their pilots that expected rules to be changed and other flights to be impacted at the last minute because LH failed to plan.
"Your failure to plan does not create an emergency for me"
Company policy needs to be RESPECTED.
LH company policy is and always will be SUBSERVIENT to the governments in which it operates.
Period. No different than for any other airline, foreign or domestic
Thiking of all the night time near misses for example with Gulf carriers in SFO due to pilot fatigue etc I am a pleased LH customer.
LH doesn't require an ILS. They require an instrument approach at night.
ATC wanted to force everyone on a visual in order to reduce separation requirements. Lufthansa would have caused, at most, a 2 minute delay to the sequence to get fit in with the 3 mile spacing rule. This was just being petty on the part of the controller. My guess is because he thought LH was being persnickity instead of following a rule.
Here's some background information:
NorCal had a new interpretation of ILS approaches come down several months ago that tied the controllers hands with regards to ILS approaches during visual conditions. Normally during side by operations in visual conditions both aircraft that will be landing 750ft apart must see each other and maintain visual separation. They’ve done this for years on the finals without many issues. Interpretation came down from the FAA that they couldn’t...
Here's some background information:
NorCal had a new interpretation of ILS approaches come down several months ago that tied the controllers hands with regards to ILS approaches during visual conditions. Normally during side by operations in visual conditions both aircraft that will be landing 750ft apart must see each other and maintain visual separation. They’ve done this for years on the finals without many issues. Interpretation came down from the FAA that they couldn’t clear an aircraft for an ILS approach and require them to maintain visual separation with the aircraft next to or in front of them. Standard sep is required. long story short this means that the controllers need to build a standard separation hole on final and can’t pair them up on final. When their being fed a 56 rate from Oakland center with the assumption that everyone withh be paired up, making a hole once final can take a bit of time. In this case is was during a relatively busy inbound push during VMC conditions. The atis is advertising charted visual flight procedure. There are only a few (If any now) carriers that are required to shoot an ILS at night regardless of the advertised approaches and flight conditions.
The controllers were issued guidelines that if it’s busy and an aircraft is unable to comply with the approaches advertised on the atis or maintain visual separation that its better to hold them until there is adequate space on final as it’s more unsafe to start vectoring 30/40 different aircraft to build the required hole for the 1 aircraft who’s company has a lame rule. Several companies have updated their policies to either allows visual approaches at night and or fly the ILS but accept a visual approach and visual separation. ATC would do this same thing to any aircraft that couldn’t comply with a visual approach during the inbound rush, it has nothing to do with Lufthansa being foreign. Although the foreign carriers were majority of crews that were unable visual approaches. During IMC conditions ATC is utilizing 7110.308 procedures to stagger aircraft on the ILS 1 mile apart without having to get and maintain visual separation. This has nothing to do with SOIA as they don’t use that anymore.
Weird lufthansa couldn’t just do a Visual Approach backed up with an ILS like every other plane was probably doing into SFO.
It is against their op spec. My bet is it is a combination of flight length and location.
Airline pilot. 7 years in the EU, now 18 years in the US.
Pilots had 2 options if company policy forbids visual at night:
1, Declare an emergency, and tell the controller they are unable to land anywhere but SFO. Not a small deal, airport would be closed for a while, possibly other diversions.
2. Accept the delay till min fuel, and then divert as happened. And seeing as they were able...
Airline pilot. 7 years in the EU, now 18 years in the US.
Pilots had 2 options if company policy forbids visual at night:
1, Declare an emergency, and tell the controller they are unable to land anywhere but SFO. Not a small deal, airport would be closed for a while, possibly other diversions.
2. Accept the delay till min fuel, and then divert as happened. And seeing as they were able to get into SFO from OAK shortly thereafter, obviously it would have been possible for ATC to accommodate them.
ATC had 3 options:
1 Create an opening in the sequence for an ILS approach for Lufthansa. Would require an empty spot or 2 on the parallel runway, and an extra mile or 2 in front of Lufthansa on the ILS. Maybe 5 minutes delay for the aircraft behind Lufthansa?
2 Tell Lufthansa unable to comply with ILS request and clear them to Oakland immediately.
3 Jerk Lufthansa around for half an hour before they had to divert, and then let them in later anyway.
It's always possible I'm reading this wrong. But IMO ATC was absolutely not doing what they are supposed to do. Air traffic control is literally a service provided to and paid for by the airlines.
Why would you use option 1 since that's clearly untrue? Does the company or FAA not review emergency declarations and the facts behind them, thus putting your job or certificate at risk?
Presumably you just continue to hold as instructed and then declare a fuel emergency as appropriate and say you need to land at SFO. Lufthansa was being proactive with ATC to avoid needing to do this, but the insinuation is a less charitable crew could have called SFO's bluff.
So what does Lufthansa do when they receive advance notice that the ILS is inoperative at particular destination when the flight is expected to arrive after nightfall? Do they just proactively cancel the flight?
RNAV approaches are a thing.... And yes, if there are no approved approaches available at the time of arrival the flight would not be dispatched, just like for American carriers.
They don't need to do an ILS approach...if you listen to the ATC recording they are just not permitted to maintain visual separation at night.
Passengers with no checked bags should have been allowed to leave the flight at Oakland or OAK should face a 20 year ban on the use of "international" in its name.
What if ATC would not allow IFR into Oakland? Attempt a US1549?
They arrived at a remote pad and US Customs was not available in OAK at that time. Everyone had to remain on the aircraft
No one was not "allowing" IFR. Every airplane that accepted a visual approach was operating under IFR until off the runway at SFO.
Also, OAK nearly always runs exclusively instrument approaches to their two main landing runways, so that wouldn't be an issue.
I wonder if such a company rule is common? Do other European airlines also follow the same rule?
This policy seems intended to increase safety, but in this case seems to have made everything less safe.
It’s a fair practice… adoptions spacing especially in SFO is a good safety layer. I think they should allow visuals if coupled to an ILS/RNAV but Germany likes their rules.
Shame on ATC for being non accommodating. Wouldn’t have been that hard to create a few extra miles of spacing for one aircraft that had a long journey.
This is a Lufthansa rule, not a Germany rule. My guess is it has something to do with the length of flight and the location, as SFO has had serious issues with pilots mistaking taxiways for runways at night.
....or smashing into seawalls in perfectly clear (daytime) weather.
Let the Lufthansa plane land using ILS and initiate a couple go arounds and holding patterns. God forbid a flight from LAX to SFO ahead of schedule anyways have to be put in a 8 minute holding pattern. Pilot fatigue must really set in on a 36 minute flight from Fresno to SFO. The ATC should make way to the long haul flight.
Why should several hundred passengers on airlines that could comply w/ VFR procedures be delayed because LH could not?
The question - which no one seems to be answering -is why LH has a rule that other airlines do not need and why did LH not communicate that need early enough to prevent this mess from happening?
Ben covers a lot of ATC-pilot interactions and ATC owns a number of them but I just...
Why should several hundred passengers on airlines that could comply w/ VFR procedures be delayed because LH could not?
The question - which no one seems to be answering -is why LH has a rule that other airlines do not need and why did LH not communicate that need early enough to prevent this mess from happening?
Ben covers a lot of ATC-pilot interactions and ATC owns a number of them but I just don't see where ATC is in the wrong here. And I have yet to see anyone tell us specific to this case where ATC was in the wrong vs LH"s rigidity, lack of planning and their own pilots' poor attitude
Just imagine if it were DL that disallows VFR? The company would be totally in the right.
LH isn’t the only airline that has specific limitations like that. I see it fairly regularly.
A visual approach is NOT a VFR procedure. A visual approach is an IFR procedure. Just like you seem to know nothing other than how to defend Delta, you don't seem to know anything about flying.
Either ATC runs the show or every company sets their own policies.
Yeah!!!! Screw safety, that'll show em
If LH cant train its pilots to land at night it better not have them landing at night :)
It is no surprise to anyone that ATC is short-staffed across the country and they "wind" the operation at highly congested airports like SFO very tightly.
If the airport is running on visual rules (which becomes less and less common this time of year) and someone wants to ask for an instrument approach, they have to be worked in appropriately into the sequence. Given that SFO has parallel approaches and traffic is set up...
It is no surprise to anyone that ATC is short-staffed across the country and they "wind" the operation at highly congested airports like SFO very tightly.
If the airport is running on visual rules (which becomes less and less common this time of year) and someone wants to ask for an instrument approach, they have to be worked in appropriately into the sequence. Given that SFO has parallel approaches and traffic is set up miles out, it is not a matter of just "accommodating" someone that asks at the last minute to deviate from a visual approach.
The LH pilots expected the world to revolve around them and threatened to declare a fuel emergency but didn't; either you have a fuel emergency or you don't.
The bigger question is why every other airline and every other commercial pilot can work within SFO's constraint and LH cannot and if that is SFO-specific or for any airline.
There is no right or wrong. It is a question of rigidity vs. flexibility and trying to do something unique in a world of conformity. You will get your day if you want to be unique but the rest of the traffic pattern is not going to stop because you decided to tell us at the last minute that you are special and needed to treated that way.
Lufthansa should have declared an emergency. ATC was probably ten minutes away from lunch break at Fatburger.
and perhaps they didn't because the report that would then be required would show they had plenty of fuel
They weren't an emergency. Before they're on emergency fuel, they're required to divert to their alternate, which happens to be very close by. The controller knew that, which is even more why I think he was being a jerk.
Controller needs a few days on the beach to contemplate his life choices.
Most of us controllers would bend over backwards to accommodate this request, and I am positive that there had been a briefing item at some point about this requirement from Lufthansa. This wasn't a surprise to the controller and he was being a prick.
100%. I have to airborne hold aircraft on an almost daily basis working in the northeast, and when we have an aircraft getting close to divert fuel, we start making phone calls begging to run them. It doesn't always work, but we work our asses off trying. This is how it's supposed to be. ATC is never supposed to be a "can't do" attitude unless they're asking for something stupid, but this isn't a stupid...
100%. I have to airborne hold aircraft on an almost daily basis working in the northeast, and when we have an aircraft getting close to divert fuel, we start making phone calls begging to run them. It doesn't always work, but we work our asses off trying. This is how it's supposed to be. ATC is never supposed to be a "can't do" attitude unless they're asking for something stupid, but this isn't a stupid request. It was fine to issue some delay vectors or issue a brief hold to build a gap in the sequence, but to push the aircraft to the point of diversion — an international, no less — is unacceptable.
did the LH crew declare a fuel emergency or not? If they just threatened because they couldn't work under VFR procedures, it seems like it is entirely ATC's right to tell them to go do a few laps over the Pacific (or wherever SFO does the pattern) and come back in a half hour.
They had already been doing laps.
The controller had a crappy attitude. I had a crappy attitude for 30 years at ATL, but I never acted like a jackass trying to show who's boss on the frequency. The job is to pack as many aircraft into a small amount of airspace as safely as possible.
Not have a dick measuring contest on frequency and make an international flight divert.
As I said...
They had already been doing laps.
The controller had a crappy attitude. I had a crappy attitude for 30 years at ATL, but I never acted like a jackass trying to show who's boss on the frequency. The job is to pack as many aircraft into a small amount of airspace as safely as possible.
Not have a dick measuring contest on frequency and make an international flight divert.
As I said before, I can guarantee that this was a mandatory briefing item at some point referencing Lufthansa's nighttime policy.
so who is a crappy attitude if they use words like "suck" or something that rhymes?
I didn't hear ATC doing it.
Either LH had a fuel emergency and would file the appropriate report on the ground or they were just making noise and ATC had every right to tell them to take a lap or two.
Having a crappy attitude extends beyond using foul language
You're the one with the crappy attitude, Tim Dunn. Why? Because you insist on posting your uninformed drivel when you don't know the first goddamned thing about piloting an aircraft or working ATC. Sit this one out. Or better yet, sit them all out.
in other words, you can't contribute to the discussion so you attack those who can't.
ATC, even in California, works by procedures. and those of us in the aviation community understand them whether we are the direct users or not.
I have yet to hear that ATC actually did something wrong while some people, even US ATC personnel, tell us that the ATC personnel were rigid and not being nice.
I don't want...
in other words, you can't contribute to the discussion so you attack those who can't.
ATC, even in California, works by procedures. and those of us in the aviation community understand them whether we are the direct users or not.
I have yet to hear that ATC actually did something wrong while some people, even US ATC personnel, tell us that the ATC personnel were rigid and not being nice.
I don't want ATC to be nice near as much as I want them to do their job and do it well.
ATC makes mistakes. I don't think this is one of those situations.
LH copped an attitude because they couldn't place by the rules and procedures that were in place.
Again, why does LH need to have procedures that every other airline and certainly all of the US airlines operating at SFO couldn't follow?
and why did LH's pilots not communicate their needs early enough so that their deviation from the norms of the rest of the airport didn't turn into this story?
ATC did their job, LH thinks they are special and balked at the norms of the time and situation, and LH ended up in OAK. I fail to see the problem
Are you the Tim Dunn who worked for Delta for more than 30 years?
Was probably "muck"
Isn't that why they were doing the visual approach to pack as many aircraft into a small amount of airspace as possible?
You can't have it both ways you can't say its their job to do this but then they should make an exception that would force other aircraft into a holding pattern simply because Lufthansa needs an ILS approach which requires more spacing than the visual approach. At the time of day when LH...
Isn't that why they were doing the visual approach to pack as many aircraft into a small amount of airspace as possible?
You can't have it both ways you can't say its their job to do this but then they should make an exception that would force other aircraft into a holding pattern simply because Lufthansa needs an ILS approach which requires more spacing than the visual approach. At the time of day when LH is schedule to land is very busy time for SFO it takes time to create the spacing needed fit LH in without impacting other aircraft needlessly.
What is the reason for the visual? ILS out? Can I use it as a backup? Do I need something else as a backup? Flying a visual approach without any visual cues in a big, fast moving jet at night is not easy.
It seemed LH crew could do a visual, but not accept the visual separation criteria at night, my ops spec says I need to be under Positive radar control. That begs...
What is the reason for the visual? ILS out? Can I use it as a backup? Do I need something else as a backup? Flying a visual approach without any visual cues in a big, fast moving jet at night is not easy.
It seemed LH crew could do a visual, but not accept the visual separation criteria at night, my ops spec says I need to be under Positive radar control. That begs the question: if I am told to maintain visual separation, am I still under positive radar control?
LAX often uses visual approaches, yet for many foreign airlines they issue an ILS approach. For an A350 ATC already needs to increase wake turbulence distances, it wouldn't be that difficult to create a little more spacing from the plane on the parallel approach.
What if it was this crew's first ever approach to SFO? My first and only flight into SFO was in 1992 in a Piper Apache, never been there in all my years flying for US airlines, go figure.
I have a restriction on LAHSO, which is always active in ORD, I always have to tell them "unable" which has never caused an issue. But I had to tell them unable when they told me to slow down on final. "We need 160". Sorry, 180 is our slowest. "Why didn't you tell us?" Why did you not ask???? (Not the first time a 747 lands at ORD at MLW with gusty conditions).
Didn’t know LH has that extra safeguard - good to know!
As an air traffic controller I only have one thing so say about my colleague - PPP.
PPP? Purchasing power parity?
Paycheck protection program?
Probably Personality Problem?
Public Private Partnership?
Puff puff pass?
Hey Dave,
Really: what does PPP mean?
I guess PPP = Piss poor performance?
Pretty (urine) Poor Performance.