ANALYSIS | Angry Lufthansa Pilot with REAL CONTROLLER Commentary
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 лис 2023
- Original video with all communications - • "I can't have this con...
Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASAviation
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
![[ANALYSIS] Near Collision with Control Tower at LaGuardia | What happened?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DPCTrHJn4H4/mqdefault.jpg)
**PLEASE READ**
First of all, thanks for your interest in the analysis by clicking on it.
Thanks to this Norcal Tracon controller who reached me to give his point of view of a situation he knows well, as he is a very experienced controller in the Bay Area. He knows the controllers in the video and knows procedures in good detail.
If I have missed something in the video that you are interested to know, please leave a comment. I included all relevant factors that I considered of importance and even trimming things out, it's still a 26 minute video. We can discuss further in this comment section or the original video -> ua-cam.com/video/7rdapQfJDAM/v-deo.html
Date was 17 October at 03:40 UTC and on. Just in case you want to inquire into it a bit deeper.
Point of the video is providing more context to the original video: ATIS, other airplanes interactions, the entire airspace view... and of course the valuable commentary of a real controller who works that one and other similar positions daily.
You can stand for the controller's or pilot's side, but please be respectful. I know the majority of the audience is not real pilots, controllers, dispatchers... so if you are, please show respect to them and exhibit your knowledge on the topic so they can understand.
My final conclusion to this is that Lufthansa (unlike Philippines) reached SFO and requested the ILS when the arrivals streams were busiest, thence receiving indefinite delay vectors. Nobody's fault. Just bad timing regarding the totality of inbounds.
PS: Apparently my voice is too low for some viewers. Sorry but I'm not used to record this kind of videos and the mic was not correctly set up. Try turning your volume all the way up. Thanks.
Nice breakdown and liked the video, but I will say the ads were extremely loud, because your microphone or voice is too low. The difference in volume was extreme and sorta startled me, lol. I canceled my UA-cam Premium which promised no ads, but everyone just talks about their sponsor or make their own ads and it is total b.s.! Thanks!
@@patricksmith2553 Not used to make this kind of videos and record my voice. Sorry for that.
I disagree with your conclusion here. A delay was inevitable, but the controller initially gave them an estimate of the delay and then blew straight past it without comment. Then he refused to give them any estimate and just asked if they wanted to divert. They weren't given any alternative to diverting. The controller refused to give them a revised estimate and didn't even say that he was trying to get them in. They were given a choice of diverting or holding until they ran out of fuel and crashed, so obviously they diverted. If the controller had told them there was a gap in five minutes, they would have waited for the gap, but he refused to talk about anything other than them diverting. It was completely unprofessional.
@@thomasdalton1508 where in my video did you hear the estimate 10-minute promise? That's Lufthansa's words.
@@VASAviation You think they just made that up? I figured you had trimmed it or the estimate had come from the previous controller.
The keypoint here is not the "visual approach" during night, as this is allowed by Lufthansas SOPs. The problem here is the "maintain own separation in VMC" clearance which is not allowed for LH. These are 2 completely different things which should not be mixed up.
From my point of view and as an airline pilot , it is essential that we can rely on the information given to us by ATC and that´s what concerns me the most in this video. When a pilot asks about the delay situation and gets the information "delay 15 min" pilots are calculating fuel for holdings, diversion etc and we rely on these information. If after 15 min delay and only after the pilot has asked about the delay a second time they get the info about another time delay of "expect 10 to 15 min" thats not how things work and how it should be.
If the delay is longer, then you execute a diversion. Delays happen. As a pilot, we know this with ground delays and hold for releases. If it goes into our bingo fuel, we divert. It's a PIA, but it happens
@@erauprcwa delays happen and you need to be prepared no question. Anyhow as soon as ATC knows about a further (longer) delay they shall forward this to flight crews as soon as possible. Here this information was given only after the pilot asked ATC when to expect the approach it seems they knew about more delay well before the pilot asked and that’s not very professional.
@@capta320 "shall" is not the correct word as defined by the FAA. If a delay happens, ATC may notify pilots of an extended delay but if they do not, the pilots should query ATC for updates or an extended EFC.
I say "shall" because that's an actual word used by the FAA and there is no such regulation that states ATC 'shall' notify flight crew of extended delays.
The pilot asked and was answered. There's nothing further to that discussion.
I quess you're missing the point. The amount of fuel onboard is limited and therefore the amount of holding time available. Giving a pilot a certain delay, gives them the opportunity to plan ahead. There is no point in flying if you are not planning ahead. This controller kept them, maybe unknowingly, on a leash. If it is that busy and there is arriving traffic for the next 100 miles or so, just be upfront from the beginning.
@@erauprcwa
@@sendit5692 I'm not missing the point. Obviously fuel is limiited. EFC (Expect Further Clearance) times are estimated times of a delay. It can be extended or even cut short. Sometimes a delay may go longer than the EFC. WELCOME TO AVIATION!
They told them there was a delay. They were given an EFC time and that time was updated to longer.
Where exactly did the system not keep the pilots informed? If you're an instrument rated pilot, you should know this.
As far as I understand a big problem here for the LH pilots was that ATC at some point informed them about a 10 minute delay (contrary to the indefinite delay they were told to expect at the initial request for an ILS approach). This doesn’t seem to be on tape, but in the original video on your channel at 02:46 you can hear the pilot saying that he was promised a 10 min delay that expired already 4 min ago. As a pilot myself, when being given any sort of delay the first thing we do is to check if that works in terms of fuel. If so we accept, if it’s too long of a delay we divert. Now in this case it turned out that the delay seemed to be longer than anticipated. This is when the pilots tried to get an explanation and were told to expect another 10 minutes.
In my opinion you can argue that the controller is busy and doesn’t want to have a discussion with the pilots on the radios. I get that. I don’t think the attitude of the controller is appropriate but again, that’s just my personal opinion. What I definitely criticise is the wrong delay time given to the pilots. A delay time is all the pilots have for their decision making, they cannot just switch to flight radar and check the traffic situation by themselves. They have to work with the information they are given by ATC and they have to rely on it. And as the 10 minutes delay elapsed the frustration of the crew is somehow understandable: they were far from a point where they could join the ILS approach and already 4 minutes into a situation that they couldn’t have planned before. I would assume it’s ATCs responsibility to inform the pilots if their delay was longer than anticipated. In that case the decision of whether to divert or not could be made again. Just telling them “expect another 10 to 15 minutes” is not professional ATC. Since the first estimated delay was wrong, why would pilots assume the second delay estimate was any more precise?
I’ll put it in short words again: if you get an indefinite delay, you divert because you cannot plan for that as a pilot. If you get a 10 min delay and you have fuel for that (like it’s the case here) you accept the delay and continue. If you get a 10 min delay, after 14 min you need to ask ATC again and get a “expect another 10 min” response I just consider it bad and unsupportive ATC, both attitude-wise and planning-wise.
Exactly what i thought... doesn't matter if we expect a delay, but we need to know for how long would it be, it's not a bus
He addresses this in the video. He listened to all the available recordings and couldn't find a reference to a 10min hold from ATC. That's not to say it didn't happen, but it may not have.
spot on
@@nmpls it isn't in this video, but it was in the original
@@stephenhenley7452No. What was in the original video was the Lufthansa pilot claiming that he was told to expect a 10 minute delay 14 minutes ago. Prior to that, the only thing that is present in the original video from ATC is “expect extended delays.”
I think we agree that an IFR flight cannot be forced to fly a visual approach or maintain visual separation. It doesn't matter for what reason. SOPs, lack of practice, fatigue. Safety is the highest priority and the crews decide. The FAA confirms this in its regulations.
So there was no gap for an ILS.
I have very serious doubts about that.
Creating a gap is a controller's daily business. Perhaps not immediately, ok.
Lufthansa informed the controller about 10 minutes before landing. Later we learn that the controller predicted a delay of 10 minutes. After 14 minutes, Lufthansa asked again and received the information that another 10-15 minutes delay should be expected. Conservatively calculated, the controller did not manage to create this gap for an ILS within 30 minutes.
How does this controller handle a go-around? Does this aircraft then also have to divert immediately because there is no gap?
Fuel is limited. Crews need a reliable "expected approach time" for their planning and the controller could not give them even that.
Having DLH divert to OAK, an airfield they have most likely never been to, is not the safest thing to do.
As for the tone, European pilots are used to cooperative, competent, friendly and helpful controllers. The attitude of many US controllers is very.... need to get used to.
In my opinion, the controller handled the situation very poorly!
This this this. I couldnt have worded it any better.
Id even go so far to say if the controller isnt able to do this, how would he behave in any situation that *requires* him to open up a gap for incoming traffic?
He needs to be retrained asap.
Agree 100%
You can literally see it was busy as fuck, there wasn’t a gap for IFR.
Lufthansa knew SOP was visual approach, they should expect the delay, ATC aren’t gunna bump the sequence they’ve been stacking miles out because you want the IFR, that’s not how it works. If you can’t follow what everyone else is doing, you unfortunately have to wait.
As he said here in this video, it’s just bad timing, especially since, had he waited just a little longer, there was a gap for Lufthansa land instead of diverting.
The attitude of both ATC and Lufthansa pilot was kinda shitty to be honest, but I don’t blame either of them, one was handling quite a lot of traffic and the other was having to fly in circles waiting.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, unfortunately we were not allowed to land at San Francisco due to the weather being too good there, if there was a bit of cloud around, then we would have been allowed to land"
Lot of bad excuses - that controller's vectors had no chance of ending in an approach, therefore they had absolutely no intention of allowing him one whatever space had opened up.
Not being entirely clueless, the pilot realised that, and even without the aid of the chart, it became increasingly clear to a bunch of us. The gap at the end that was clear and which you pointed out could have been told as the expected delay before they made the decision to divert, and it wasn't advised to them even then. Additional shame on management for saying it was a fine job.
If you can't accept ILS approaches (real ones, not some weird pretend ILS that allows pilots to fake it by following the instruments with the autopilots but watching out of the windows instead of actually monitoring the instruments as you should, by law, be doing) then rip up the antennae and stop advertising one.
An ILS approach (i.e. IFR) and visual separation (i.e. VFR) are diametrically opposed to each other.
I guess North America needs its own Tenerife, and I've been watching one get closer and closer as the years go by.
It'll happen at SFO at this rate
Spot on, the big one is in the works, very disturbing.
Air-Canada-Flight 759 was very close to ending in this accident, also because of visual approach of a foreign pilot. There is good cause for a foreign pilot to request an ILS approach.
The issue I had with the situation was not that they kept Lufthansa in the hold for so long...but rather the attitude the ATC gave the pilot when the pilot tried to inform / warn them that about their fuel if they had to hold for too long and wanted an approximate on how long the hold would last. If the ATC could see this long stream of aircraft coming in, imo, they should have just told Lufthansa that they would be better off diverting early on, instead of just making them hold. Or at the very least, not have such an attitude when the pilot was trying to warn them about their fuel and was requesting an estimate on how much longer it would be.
As ATC, you CANNOT tell a pilot what to do in the sense of fuel/diversion/etc... So the controller asked several key questions; what's your diversion airport? What are your intentions? After they gave an EFC time. That's really all the controller can do. Telling the controller you're 'low fuel' or whatever, means nothing.
Exactly. the US is the best place to fly in the world but still as foreign pilot sometime it is hard to fly and need help not "conversation is over"
@@sichunwang1337 I've always said this, aviation isn't for the weak. If you need someone to hold your hand and "be nice", you're never gonna make it as a pilot. It's a serious job and serious work. Not being prepared and having backup plans will always hurt you. If you have an issue with a controller, talk about it on the ground. The continued chatter on the radio is useless. "conversation over" was the nice way of saying STOP TALKING. There's a time and place when you can have long conversations on the radio, this was not that moment and the controller said that at least twice.
Only weak people afraid of asking for help. Pilot needs every bit of resource and controllers are there to help. @@erauprcwa
It’s his decision as a pilot to make that call.
I'm an air traffic controller myself in Germany and of course I don't know the exact procedures of the FAA, but for my understanding a visual approach and visual separation to other traffic are two completely different things!
Although Lufthansa initially told the controller that they are not allowed to do a visual approach, they later on specified that actually only visual separation at night is forbidden to them. That implies to me that they are generally able to fly a visual approach even at night but they need normal separation (which they however did not state explicitly).
Therefore, I think it's wrong to say that you simply have to wait if you have a non-standard request because apparently the only thing Lufthansa needed was normal separation. And that is definitely the most standard procedure in the world. No pilot can be forced to accept visual separation even if this might be rather unconventional at SFO. The controllers there must be able to handle it.
sehr schön, war 1 zu 1 die antwort die mir ein LH Checker gegeben hat als ich ihn hierzu gefragt hatte. ;)
Agree, colleague
I'm an air traffic controller in the US (at a smaller airport than SFO), and your analysis is pretty much spot on. There seems to have been some confusion as to the difference between visual approach and visual separation. But I agree that a non-standard request shouldn't move you down to the bottom of the list. Part of our rules state that we "operate on a first-come, first-served basis." Too often, people think that a disruption must just be removed, rather than accommodated. Even if the sequence is pre-organized, the controller's job is to work the traffic.
@@luschmiedt1071Was ist denn das?
I agree and just would like to add one or actually two remarks::
Visual approach and visual separation are two different things, but still they are connected.
ICAO Doc 4444 6.5.3.5:
"For successive visual approaches, separation shall be maintained by the controller until the pilot of a
succeeding aircraft reports having the preceding aircraft in sight. The aircraft shall then be instructed to follow and
maintain own separation from the preceding aircraft."
So in this DLH's case they would not be allowed to make visual approach if they were not allowed to mantain own visual separation at night.
Also to make that condition narrower - traffic approaching 28R is not preceding for them. So they could maintain own separation form the one landing 28L.
(Not sure, but it appears they have some exception form that in USA. I'm also speaking form EU perspective.)
It was pretty clear the delay vectors were not going to end in an actual approach. If LH's request is not reasonable on a routine basis, then that needs to be figured out on the ground after landing this aircraft. Even if the controller's intentions were to land LH after all was said and done, their tone did not imply helpfulness.
No he vectored him out of reach of any possibility of being inserted into the queue if any suitable gap should appear - pure fuckwittery of the most fluid ass-gravy.
THIS. It was the tone the controllers had. They were unapologetic. Not a sorry man, we are trying but we aren't getting an opening. it sounded more like "When is this guy gonna leave and stop bugging us about this.
Or even if they said " Yeah idk if we will be able to do that, we can put you in delay vectors and see if a gap opens up, but looking at inbound traffic I would expect a devert if you cannot shoot the visual."
@@ryancrazy1it was just the attitude. It was like "if we don't look at him maybe he is gonna leave by himself"
They requested the ILS at the very end of the arrival... Accepting the request isn't difficult, if you don't wait until the very last minute to request an approach that requires greater separation.
@@erauprcwa It is not a very unusual thing for a pilot to request an ILS approach haha, they didn't ask for VOR-A approach or something like that, I think the issue here is that if an atc is giving you and estimated time to begin the approach they should commit to it, and if they can't meet that estimated time then they must tell the crew so they can plan what are they gonna do... but if the atc after the time has expired doesn't tell anything to the crew and when they are asked about an estimate they get upset... pufff, we are in trouble
The Controles reply misses the whole issue completely. Lufthansa came in and requested what the FAA and company thinks is the safe and right thing to do. The airport has accepted to many planes and now cannot keep them at the separation they should so they do visual separation. This is actually a management issue not an issue for the controllers.
What is an issue with the specific controller is that the way that was communicated. You cannot tell someone that they need 10min to create a gap and then tell them after 14 min that you need a minimum of another 10 min without any explanation.
The way it sounded was like: We are to busy to run the airport safely so we put the burden on you and if you don't like it we let you do circles till you run out of fuel... (That is how the message sounded for DLH).
If they are building these streams ahead of time, how do they not know the Lufthansa is coming, how do they not know the airlines policy, and how do they take that attitude?
If you have a stream of 40 aircraft all the way to San Fran that you don’t plan to break, then communicate that so the Lufthansa pilots can plan. It’s the adversarial tone of the communications, and lack of communication that concerns me. You shouldn’t get to minimum fuel without communication about the situation. Maybe some communication were not included?
This ^
I lived in the Bay Area for 20 years and listened to various frequencies almost every night, so I know they are one of the really busy areas. But in the same way that Lufthansa knows they are flying into SFO and the rules are what they are, Lufthansa aircraft arrive in SFO every single day and ATC also know Lufthansa's restrictions. So now you've given your friend in SF the chance to give his perspective, I wonder if there's a Lufthansa captain who flies into SFO frequently who can give theirs. Asiana crashed short at SFO because they couldn't even safely fly a visual approach. Is Virgin still European? ;-) (Fog in the channel, Europe cut off! :D)
I don't quite get why to continue night visual approaches even after a plane once almost crashed into another because they were aligned with the taxiway instead of the runway. But that's upon decision of way more competent people than myself. In my opinion, when promoting aviation safety and getting better and safer, it's kind of the odd to use these kind of procedures. Commercial pressure on the airport authority?
@@vw72713 because otherwise SFO would crumble it is a not well designed and completely overloaded airport and airspace :/
HAHAHA Virgin is definitely not European anymore but I feel they are deep in my heart :D
@@VASAviation Not strictly true - the UK may not be part of the EU, but it is definitely still in Europe. Virgin Atlantic is still based in the UK; it was Virgin America and Virgin Australia that change dhands.
@@bishwatntl I'm British and you obviously don't recognize the famous news headline. You don't get the context, he does.
it's nobody'S fault? ARE YOU SERIOUS?! The ATC saw exactly (and more) what we are seeing on FR24. He saw the gaps. He knew how much time LH had to wait but instead, he said 10 minutes, let them wait for 16 minutes, then told them to shut up and divert and then gave them another 10-15 minutes (maybe more?) despite the airspace pretty much being completely empty.
I can'T take this opinion serious. Sounds like this ATC has exactly the same arrogant attitude as the controller - who didn'T do everything right. He told the pilot wrong delays, and then didn't even give him another delay.
Clearly SFO controllers are unable to perform the most basic function of their jobs, sequence traffic. What a farse, these idiots should be reprimanded for their incompetency and compensation paid to all those flights they’ve forced to divert.
In my opinion there is a very simple way to ease problems like this and that is by implementing a CDM system like we have in Europe for all major airports in the US. I believe there is such a thing as slots at some few big airports but to my knowledge it's not to the extent that we have here in Europe.
If you can keep traffic on the ground with engines off, by issuing a Calculated Take-Off Time, they are not burning fuel and arrivals will be more spread out so you don't run into arrival rushes like we saw here, thereby easing workload on the controller and allowing more room to accomodate for example an ILS.
Considering the amount of air traffic in the US, this is long overdue if you ask me.
SFO should be a level 3 slot controlled airport. No need to jam that many flights into SFO when there is OAK and SJC with plenty of capacity. Being a level 2 SFO and the airlines can coordinate the quantity of flights, this encourages the airlines and SFO to be greedy and operate like they have perfect weather 365 days a year. This is why you get massive delays in the winter or with just a bit of fog in summer.
Oh great let's impose some EU regulations, make things even more difficult because some people can't handle change. Nobody wants to fly into SJC and definitely not OAK, people do not want to get robbed once they leave the airport. So many bureaucrat and control-minded people on here.
The real shame is that infrastructure at many US cities levels is at thrid-world levels. For too long, the USA have tried all kinds of workarounds just to avoid bringing their infrastructure to first-world standards. The fact that a major city such as San Francisco has an airport that cannot handle two parallel ILS landings (due to runway spacing) is ridiculous. The rest of the world can do it - the USA uses visual approaches at night with heavies! Go figure!!
The most disturbing thing about this video was hearing another SFO controller agree that the first controller was right. It suggests a systemic problem in at least SFO control. Taken in the wider context of recent incidents at US airports due to unsafe controller practices, I'd feel very concerned flying into SFO, or any US airport. Something is going wrong over there.
They were right. If you know the system, the LH pilot waited until the very last minute to request the ILS and were shocked they got a delay in a congested airspace. Then LH clogged the radio with unnecessary chatter on the frequency.
@cessnadriver6813 A 9-11 hr flight is irrelevant. Most flights get close to fuel reserve for alternates when they get to their destination, so it's not uncommon. Also, delays happen. Welcome to aviation.
ATC has nothing to do with fuel. As the controller stated, 'what's your alternate?' and 'how long until you divert?' They gave them a time and it's up to the crew to figure out if they need to go to their alternate. ATC has nothing to do with fuel or fuel planning.
The same token can be said about the pilots... They took the job, the job was not forced onto them...
The controller also did fail to give a specific time delay, they said 10 minutes and after 14 minutes the controller did not say a thing. Apart from that the controller was also really condescending towards the Lufthansa pilot
@@user-ln4dt1gv5s Welcome to aviation. The controller did give a delay time. The time expired and the pilot did the right thing by calling them. The time was extended and they diverted.
That's typically how it can go. It's the pilot's job to check-in, if the controller doesn't.
The EFC time is only an estimate, not a defined increment of time.
The controller also asked specific questions and the Lufthansa pilot wouldn't answer the questions, so the controller re-asked the question. The frequency is busy, no time for extended conversations.
@@erauprcwa i think we should establish that atc is providing a service to the pilots. And if you are talking to your customers there is no reason to be a douche
This analysis gives some additional context at best. It still does not justify the way the LH crew was played around with, nor the attitude of the controller.
You have to watch the original video for that. This video only adds extra context.
@@VASAviation I've watched both my friend. Checked out the original one before I came back to watch this one. What I meant to say is that this video only adds a bit of context to the original one (controller perspective, traffic, conditions/ATIS, runways in use, procedures etc.). But all of this additional context still does not justify the way the controller handled this and adressed the LH crew. I can prefectly understand that the high workload at the time may have sparked a certain reaction, but I still don't believe that the shown attitude was ok.
@@VASAviation Thanks for uploading this extra part by the way!
@@asdc2076 oh, got it. We agree then. Maybe the sharp attitude was his worst error.
@@cS12890Victor is a pilot.
Just estimating the delay would have made a big difference. Stating indefinite delay or even "conversation is over" after being asked for remaining delay time is not appropriate
Indefinite is pretty clear. it means you aren't getting an ILS approach so figure something else out.
@@benjaminbuschi284then just straight up tell them its either the visual or a diversion. I would have been pissed to have burnt 15 mins of fuel for nothing.
it literally is appropriate. management said he did fine which he did
@godzillaharddisksson4993 It is what it is. You shoot the advertised approach, the approach the airport is set up for, traffic is set up for, and everyone else is using, or you got to the back of the (in this case very long) line.
@@silverbullet700 well management is fucked up then
The "gap" in the approach stream from the east between UAL1012 and UAL1401 was in fact occupied by an FA7X inbound from SDL, not visible on FlightRadar24.
Thanks for that information
I understand that asking for an ILS when they are setup for visual approaches is going to possible add delays. But comparing it to asking for opposite direction traffic, seems a little extreme. As that really is going to cause massive inbound delays.
It seems crazy that a large international airport can't accommodate the most common type of approach flown in the world. But even if they couldn't because of everything you stated here the way they dealt with the crew was frankly awful.
Something as simple as "DLH458 heavy hold at (insert point) expected approach time is XXXX (call it 40/50 mins from when they start the hold)" yes the DLH crew can then challenge that and ask why it's going to take so long but SFO from the get-go would have set the expectations and the crew can plan and get to work. By the looks of it they just get sent around on vectors not knowing the fuel state and took the decision to divert as the controller was rude and not helping the crew with an accurate estimated approach time.
The fact the gap for the DLH was coming up and the crew decided to divert makes it even worse in my view. As the crew said "it's going to be another 5 mins and that was 10 mins ago" showing he was not given any sort of accurate EAT or even an accurate idea of when the gap was coming. Leaving the crew almost no choice to divert.
That gap at the end is my view of the radar. Remember we may have some business jet in that radar which do not appear on FlightRadar24. BUT, if that gap is real and they could use it, I think controllers should advise Lufthansa that a gap is coming in the next 10-15 minutes. Which is actually what ATC said (see original video)
@@VASAviation But just to go back to the original video the crew said exactly this "you promised me 10 minutes ago and that ran out 4 minutes ago" I think it shows they had no faith the new ETA given was accurate which frankly they had every right to assume given they have been vectored around so long. And this made them divert. But if a pessimistic EAT was given right at the start I don't think this situation would have unfolded. Granted it might well have still made the crew divert but the way SFO dealt with this was not good and they should do better.
And yes giving accurate ETAs is hard but other airports all over the world can do this even at peak times.
@@FSFLIGHTproductions that "you promised 10 minutes" I didn't hear that promise. Was that promise real? Was it promised but the audio was not recorded for some reason? Was it promised on previous frequencies? Was that a lie to put pressure on controllers? Trust me I would not delete such important transmission. Sorry, but I didn't here the promise thus does not exist for me.
@@VASAviation But lets say they had not given any EAT to the crew then that's even worse!
And I am not sure why the crew would say something like that and just make it up. You are saying they might do that to add pressure. To be honest from the sounds of it they just wanted to know what was going on. When can they expect and approach? Can they expect an approach? What is the EAT for the approach? left in the dark and vectored off the coast with an unreliable EAT (or none) is not good and not safe.
When the controller says 10-15 minutes more you can literally hear the pilot almost deflate, he knows this is not going to work out and they don't trust what the controller is telling them.
@@FSFLIGHTproductions receiving vectors in the dark without knowing your EAT is definitely something I wouldn't like as a pilot. I agree with that.
I disagree it was nobody is at fault. The FAA continues to allow pushing too many slots per hour for the controller volume we have. A part 121 carrier could not get controller separation, the root of the problem with this flight. They are at the breaking point now, if not slightly beyond. Does that mean fewer flights per day, higher costs, yeah maybe. I for one and willing to accept that for safeties sale. The problem is the carriers are not willing to lose the profit gains they have made the last few years. There is an ugly incident on the horizon if we don’t break this chain soon.
There are so many layers in the safety racket that your fears of “an ugly incident” are unfounded. Is TCAS going to magically fail? Are pilots gonna ignore cockpit fuel warnings and let the plane fall out of the sky? Is airport radar gonna blackout?
The world has a problem with people imagining problems and proposing ret*rded solutions.
"safety's sale" is a poignant Freudian slip. That's exactly what they're doing, selling away their safety margins to collect more of those sweet, sweet terminal fees.
Surely LH can't be the only airline flying to SFO that has this SOP? Wouldn't this happen every single time a LH wants to land during the hours of darkness when the weather is clear? Like several times a week?
I am sure Swiss has the same policy and they have a daily flight also.
You are supposed to call prior to departure and get an arrival slot to do an ILS approach
LH lands that flight *daily* at SFO in the dark :)
Usually on time too.
@@arjunyg4655 Yup... Which is why THIS LH crew was wrong. Most LH don't wait until the final fix on the arrival to request the ILS. They do it at the beginning of the arrival. If you wait until the last minute to request a more complex approach, you're gonna be delayed.
@@erauprcwa they always pass off requests like these to the final controllers, nothing gets passed on, in my experience.
Been flying for 22 years and ATC at large airports have become so arrogant and unhelpful. Every airport have their own little procedure that we are supposed to know. Got chewed the other day because that idiot was talking to us while we are still landing the plane, we misread the taxi instruction that didn’t make sense. I asked to confirm to hold short of a runway, and was told in a nasty tone that he never said to hold short. This job is becoming more and more difficult.
You're absolutely right about it getting harder, and that everybody seems to have their own local variations and habits. Operating globally, my company might be going to their airport every day, often multiple times a day, but *I* only go there once a year (maybe a little more, maybe a little less, but in any case, not often). Meanwhile, they expect intimate knowledge of every little quirk, beyond what is written in the often utterly confusing NOTAM or local rule variations, fired off in 'English' with massive local accents and often non-standard phraseology.
We're always told 'if in doubt, stop and query', but heaven help you in some places if you actually do that.
@@Shrike200 A lot of people (read: those in power that love to exercise that power over people like cops) will take *any* question, however benign, as you directly *challenging their authority*.
What you said about "if in doubt, stop and query" is how it should be, but there are a lot of ego-driven, fragile people in this world that just can't seem to get their mind around that concept as a cornerstone of safety.
Well they don't need to say hold short, it is automatic. The controller is legally required to explicitly override the hold short with, "cross runway ##" at a specific point in the communication and have it read back.
Think about this - if a single person from your flight crew is missing, the plane doesn't go, right? Well the FAA has been mismanaging ATC for so long we are at a desperate staffing situation now. The average facility staffing is around 80%. Some are much lower. Despite having that few controllers, we are still expected to/forced to work an increasing amount of traffic. We work more and more time on with less breaks. Six days a week. Nonstop traffic. Wasting crucial time trying to get a proper readback from skywest pilots and then hoping they actually do the right thing is the most infuriating part of the job. You have to be on point, read it back right and do it right because every second matters when timing departure gaps and frequency management.
So many controllers now are giving taxi instructions when the damn nose wheel hasn’t even touched the ground yet. Our SOP includes specific callouts that need to be made during the landing and rollout. Meanwhile a speed talker is giving us a full route taxi clearance. So fucking frustrating.
I completely understand the circumstances the ATC was working under BUT... the 'this conversation is over' comment was loaded and completely unprofessional. I work in a very intense, safety critical environment but even under those circumstances I have to communicate why I am making a decision to keep things safe, even if it is just to say I can't explain now, will do so later...
NO, Lufthansa tried to whine to ATC and take up controller and radio bandwidth over a problem that is Lufthansa's not ATC's. Plus, you want "unprofessional"?! Lufthansa dropped the f-bomb earlier in their traffic. ATC was nothing but professional; Lufthansa was nothing but (how do you say 'Karen' in German?).
@@yellowrose0910the problem is NOT the airlines policy. There is no NOTAM stating visual approaches only. Freedom of the airways allows him to ask for the ILS.
@@yellowrose0910 the f-bomb was not appropriate, but, it was in reference to the situation that would develop and not directed at the ATC... A simple 'we have to sequence several visuals ahead of you then try and bring you in' is all it would have taken to give the Lufthansa crew context...
@@__globalcitizen__ I mean try talking to 20 planes at once in an airspace such as NCT and the controller is probably coordinating things off the radio as well if i need to separate planes and you’re clogging the frequency, the pilot really needs to honestly shut up or else a missed radio call could mean the difference between having a mid air collision, airspace violation or loss of separation, there’s really no rule to explain yourself in that situation basically let me do my job and that’s about all the explanation you really need
I work at Dippin Dots too, it’s intense
"A couple foreign aircraft complained..." - I guess this term explains a significant part of the problem very well.
Yes, because in other countries there are actual safety rules. 😅
Loads of stuff that is allowed in the US is not in Europe.
@@rynovoski USA has way safer airspace and way higher requirements to get into the right seat of a narrow body. Just ask Andreas Lubitz
@@gotacallfromvishal That's not really accurate. Yes, they have a somewhat dopey 1500 hour rule, but they allow things that reliably generate runway incursions, and they know it, they refused to learn from Air Canada at SFO, etc., etc., etc.
Money comes first.
I have to disagree on one point. Being rude and unhelpful created confusion and broke planning ability on the pilot's end. They need more ATC's or assistants there to make sure confusion like this doesn't happen as additional personal could talk to the pilot through the issues on the ATC end. The creation of confusion is making an unnecessary hole in the swiss cheese and we know where that can lead...
With all respect, in XXI century being unable to accommodate an ILS approach for tens of minutes is simply unacceptable, regardless of the circumstances. It’s not the first time Lufthansa flying to this airport so ATC had many opportunities to learn that 99% LH crew will be requesting an ILS. At the end of the day ATC is a Service Provider…
Everyone who watches this channel frequently knows there were serious incidents in SFO especially with regard to night time operation, separation and high traffic situations. The controller in his initial message to you making fun of the FAA should subscribe..
Interestingly, this weekend Mentour Pilot released a video about a SIA aircraft that nearly ran out of fuel due to extended holds (albeit in this case, it was due to weather) and the background he gives speaks to this incident as well.
Great analysis. Thanks so much. But I still think it’s 100% ATCs fault and horrible communication. They could easily have said they have 16 planes in the pattern and they could have given a guesstimate how long it would take to make a gap for them. Instead, I still think they were being petty and leaving them hanging out there on purpose.
The guy working that sector has no clue how many planes are already in sequence behind what he can see.
@@taylordarland8772 If that's the case, it would be awfully poor planning by NorCal.
Sorry but this update does not change my opinion.
ATC was passive aggressive on this one and did not provide appropriate service.
I understand it's a disruption to their process (and I understand that process was clear from the onset). Yes LH had to expect some delay. And they did accept the delay. They ran a bunch of horsetracks and such. After that, though, LH asked for information on the likely further delay. LH did not do that because they were angry (I disagree with your title) but because they were in charge of a few hundred passengers and needed to plan and get ahead of a possible diversion. I think that's the right thing to do.
LH was not complaining about being delayed, they just wanted to know for how long for planning purposes. Instead ATC refused to answer. That's unprofessional.
What ATC should have done is give them some sort of estimate for when they were able (or willing) to land them. Or ATC could have said "can't accommodate, recommend diversion to Oakland". They did none of that and actually were particularly unhelpful and rather aggressive, border line unprofessional.
My opinion is that ATC were trying to make a point. I suspect they actually went out of their way and made them wait longer than really needed (and yes I see there are many more planes). To whom ATC was making a point? People flying desks who forced this spacing? LH policy makers? Someone else? Couldn't say, but they took a passenger plane hostage and to some extent endangered them for that purpose. Not professional.
If the answer was "go to Oakland unless you can wait for 45 min", so be it. Just state it, ATC. Don't be a jerk.
"No one's fault" is a completely wrong take. If a system works as intended, everyone doing what they are supposed to do, but the outcome is undesirable, then the people who are responsible for the system are at fault. It cannot be no one's fault. This situation was absolutely predictable yet the system was not able to handle it.
I dont think this was the first time that Lufthansa faced that problem. This was obviously a pilot's and lufthansa's foul, they land in sfo every single day, and no one expected a possible delay? If they are requesting the ATC to change the airport's operation, they obviously will face a big delay, san francisco is a busy airport. Knowing that Lufthansa has to put in the airplanes going to sfo extra fuel cause they're going to wait. And even without that in the flight plan, it was the captain's work to realize this and put extra fuel onboard.
The LH requested the ILS at the last fix of the arrival and were shocked by a delay
What? The system DID handle it. The pilot wasn’t able to hold long enough to get an instrument approach, so he diverted to OAK. I’d say that the situation was handled the best way it could be. You armchair quarterbacks need to get over yourselves.
@@EPA3 SAY IT LOUDER!!!!
@@mgfps1
So, how much extra fuel do you think an aircraft going non-stop all the way from Frankfurt, Germany to SFO could carry?
No visuals at night is a very safe concept. ATC is well aware of the issue and company policy. Controller told pilot 10 minutes. Pilot was extremely professional and doing his job. Controller was curt and rude and highly unprofessional. Pilot had serious fuel concerns and needed accurate information on the delay. ATC not having suitable resources is not the pilots problem. If it's that bad the FAA should be demanding more infrastructure. Pilot should have declared emergency. Controller should be dismissed, regardless of opinion, horrific communication, can't be tolerated.
Thanks for your great analysis. I have never seen a post like this from you and I appreciate it. The FlightAware images show how busy it is coming into SFO. Thanks for taking the time you took in to putting this together.
My opinion here is based on being ATC in multiple countries:
In the end it's a combination of stupid FAA and controllers being inflexible.
The controller who wrote in even said there were planes already holding on centre frequencies, it's not a massive imposition to accommodate someone wanting to use a safer approach, especially when it's against multiple airlines SOPs for good safety reasons.
Also would have been very possible use speed controls to make a gap in the sequence. Plenty of other places around manage similar traffic levels and configurations while still accommodating various approaches.
The controller was correct to abruptly end the conversion though, as any extraneous conversation while running a busy sequence is a potential danger.
Anyone who flies internationally knows how bad some of the ATCs in the US are. Its almost like they have something to prove.
@@cherryocola Honestly, I think we need to reinstate the "controller in the jump seat" flights at least once a year, and also have a pilot observe center and arrivals operations. It would increase that level of trust.
Agree - as shown at 17:02, there was a clear gap forming for Lufthansa, but the controller did not present this as an option (appreciate there might have been other flights not shown on FlightRadar). Given the attitude of the controller, it wouldn’t surprise me if they just filed the Lufthansa to the back of the queue out of spite. They did not demonstrate any flexibility in getting the Lufthansa on the ground in any reasonable amount of time, even if it was busy.
You’d think it would be possible to use speed to make a gap in the sequence, but according to this video assigning speeds and headings introduces an unacceptable level of risk to passengers and pilots…I’ve heard it all now
Thank you!!
For the explanation, the graphics. Really excellent analysis. The view of the traffic was clarifying.
It seems like the FAA telling the airport to be safer and the airport is. No we just had a bunch of near misses so we keep going. If they cannot handle the load safely, they cannot sell the slots and need to accept less traffic. And if they know they cannot handle a request the controller needs to say that up front not tell them 10min, after 15 min tell them another 10 min till the plain runs out of fuel.....
Now imagine the pilot accepted the 10 min, then after 15 min asks again gets another 5 min delay but then something happens that he must divert. They then arrive with minimum fuel at the alternate. And now they might not be the only one there in the same situation. So you now have multiple unscheduled airplanes at the same alternate with minimal fuel.....
If you cannot accommodate the request say so in the first place! Don't say 10 min unless you know you can do 10 min.
The controller’s letter proves my initial thought. Office politics was at play with this diversion.
100% UNACCEPTABLE ATC…as a 30+ year 121 guy, who did OPS at KSFO more than any place, that is “CARELESS AND RECKLESS OPERATION” by ATC. Forcing an International “Heavy” to divert should require a FULL investigation by the Administrator. MAJOR issues at KSFO ATC….been that way for some time.
Agree. I was based in SFO.
I disagree. As a pilot, unless you understand the operation of where you fly or you have visited the facility within your 30+ years of 121 experience, then unfortunately your gripe really doesn’t hold any water. Routinely I hear flight crews try to work traffic based on what they think they see, when they unfortunately do not understand the system and how it works. Just how controllers really don’t understand all that a flight crew is in charge of.
@@Spanikopita Buddy…I “lived” in and out of KSFO on the 757/767-400(PHNL) and 737. And yes, it is a VERY busy place.
In fact, we usually landed just ahead of ASIANA(Seawall Special). That day, both 28L/28R ILS was OTS. AND, both PAPI INOP, which was a BIG contributing factor.(never mentioned) I was there, all that Summer. Seen more “WIDEBODY Airshows” ..”SlamDunks” and just poor ATC than any other place..90% of my GOAROUNDS were SFO ATC induced…Not 100% sure if “Charted Visual Approach” constitutes IFR separation. ANY IFR aircraft per FAR is not required to do ‘anything visual” as far I know. Then again, I only flew 44 years..I did those “hundreds” of times. Easy-peasy most of the time. But if OPSPECS say NO…it’s NO. ATC should know that.
Finally some common sense and experience here@@rodcoulter997
@@rodcoulter997 again, it’s like me saying I have 30 years as an air traffic controller. I still do not have enough knowledge to understand or complain about what you do. At the end of the day the two jobs are in the aviation industry, but they are completely different.
If you want to blame someone, blame the airlines for increasing the amount of flights that SFO has to work within a limited amount of airspace
Thank you for this video. I appreciate you taking the time to show more information and go into the details. I appreciate and enjoy your videos. Thanks for all you do!
Thanks for watching!
Thanks @Vasa. It was clear from the previous video that some context was missing and now you've provided it.
Glad it was helpful!
It's the fault of pushing too many aircraft into what is now a marginally capable airport.
FAA changed some rules AND Airline companies changed some corporate limitations FOR SAFETY.
If one aircraft needing "standard separation" is this huge of a problem, then they need to reduce the scheduled landings per hour at the airport.
And... As soon as the LH Pilot said "10 minutes and I will be fuel emergency" That's a fuel emergency.
Then the controller stated, what are your intentions? Also, "emergency" tends to be mis-used.
Honest question: Why is SFO so (apparently) problematic when LHR can manage a higher number of aircraft movements per year with just two runways and we rarely hear about this sort of thing there? Is it simply because (as I understand) it isn't practicable to segregate takeoffs and landings onto separate runways at SFO like they do at LHR?
Hi USA! Try A-CDM. Regards.
I’ve flown for a major airline all around the world and I can safely say that American ATC are amongst the worst and definitely the most arrogant and rude. This SFO incident is sadly almost bordering on typical. It’s unprofessional and disgusting behaviour by ATC.
Also: Do they not remember a frightening near miss with a certain Canadian airline, or have no lessons been learnt from that AT ALL?
I have flown in the US and Europe, most of the time I would pick US controllers. I’ve never been to SFO, though, but it was always great at MIA, MCO and TPA, even in a single engine with progressive taxi to the FBO at MCO.
Thank you so much on the commentary and deeper dive into the video!
Wait. Why is nobody going over the fact that SFO metal was technically wrong at the time? There were 4 go arounds within 20 minutes of Lufthansa's arrival at SFO (some ATC instructed) due to low ceilings. Why were visual approaches still authorized when obviously there was an issue with the low visibility at SFO while METAR showed perfect vis?
Just say you’ve never flown a plane
@@tristan_fleming lmao. I haven’t. I don’t spend all day flying a plane to make minimum wage as a regional till im 40. Just simply stated the difference in the visibility as stated from the metar and its significance to the story overall
At many regionals average pay within the first 5 years is now around $ 140,000 per year. You can end up with the majors below 30 years these days.
it still doesn't change that MANY airlines do not allow visual separation at night and it's not like this unknown to SFO or US controllers. Why do we have slots if you then get an indefinite delay? and the next thing, if you say there are 40 aircraft and they couldn't fit them in, then they wouldn't later as well. The thing is as a controller you can easily calculate when you will have the next gap and the coontroler in this case was not able or willing to give an accurate estimate
and your virgin example makes no sence, first one airline having other sop's makes no difference, second the UK is not part of EASA anymore and always wanted to be special so no wonder here XD
Idk if u realize but center controllers follow the minimum separation requirements to the approach control there’s no way you’re just gonna make a random gap out of no where just for one plane especially when said plane is already over the field at 11k, you leave it up to NCT to make their own gap and if they have none, u make it so the least planes have to be delayed, if making one DLH hold for a bit, is what u have to do to prevent the centers line from getting clogged up from NCTs delay vectors moving the whole line left and right just to make enough space for this ONE plane…they’re gonna hold said one plane
@@michaelbonaga343 exactly so app knew that his first 15 min estimate was not gonna happen and they also know that airliners don't have 3 hours of reserve fuel laying around so why even put him in the south and tell him there will be a delay if you know he will reach min fuel before NCT can make a gap.
I’m curious what airlines don’t allow visual separation at night. I know of plenty, including my own, that require an electronic glide path at night into certain airports, but I’m not familiar with any airline that forbids visual separation. I’m genuinely curious.
FWIW, the very next night LH accepted a night visual. Now I’m curious who was right & who was wrong. And I’m curious enough to listen to more LiveATC recordings to see what the trend is with LH.
@@luschmiedt1071There was no 15 min estimate. NorCal said “expect an extended delay.” I suspect LH, with a language barrier, heard “expect a 10 min delay.” When they landed in OAK, that’s what the crew relayed to the OAK controller when asked about the diversion. “We were told a 10 min delay!”
Thanks for the deep dive into this. Would be interesting to have similar analysis on other situations presented on this channel. Thanks for all you do.
They did not explain it well to Lufthansa and were condescending. So you fly 10 hours from Frankfurt and get seemingly punitive vectors and an ATC pissing contest.. trying to show you who is boss.
Did you listen to the original traffic? Lufthansa drops the f-bomb in violation of FCC (and probably whatever the German FCC is) regulations, and then tries to whine because he works for a company that won't let him do what's needed of him. ATC is nothing but professional and calm despite the Karen-ing of the Lufthansa pilot.
From Munich but yeah, you're right.
A Karen for asking a safe procedure like on what planet do you live ? @@yellowrose0910
@@yellowrose0910 The SFO atc was definitely in the wrong in his tone and "ending the conversation". On top of this Lufthansa's policy is common and shouldn't cause issues. I was diverted on the exact LH flight MUC-SFO January 2nd 2023 due to a cloud intercepting 10R. Many other planes diverted due, but not for the policy but for the extreme storm. The ATC that was dealing with this aircraft has been involved in many incidents recently, including the double traffic United 737 go around a month ago (also on VASAVIATION's channel). This is a structural Bay Area ATC training failure
@@yellowrose0910 Air traffic control communications aren't broadcasting and have nothing to do with the FCC. Also, the definition of "what's needed of him" is your personal opinion. Different airlines have different policies, and Lufthansa happens to disagree.
While it may not be the fault of anyone on the recording, it was certainly someone's fault. This is a great demonstration of America's aging infrastructure not being properly funded and being unable to scale with the growth of air traffic over time. This isn't an issue at all confined to this airport, and it's an issue we're seeing cause lots and lots of dangerous mishaps all over the country. ATC is expected to squeeze an unreasonable amount of traffic into what is clearly a struggling and dated amount of airport, and pilots are expected to operate in congested and overly full airspace. Causing a lot of near misses and even more delays.
This will only end in tragedy and only a tragedy will do anything to end it.
After 2013 crash and several miss aproach of the foreighn airliners the FAA recommend for foreighn airlines to approach with ILS at night
I think the blame for this rests on ATC management, the root cause is a more systemic issue of staffing and congestion with arrival rates. The issue here is not the inability to accept a night visual approach, as this is fine for most airlines provided there is a usual underlying instrument approach to back it up with (as your friend stated). The issue is that their company procedures prohibit visual separation at night. The controller now offers up the only alternative which is the ILS, and then gives them indefinite delay vectors way south of the airport, with no real EAT. Not great, but I sympathize with the controller who is having to deal with likely dozens of arrivals and literally not having the time to explain further. It is problematic that ATC cannot provide them with ANY sort of expected further clearance time and instead just has them flying around in circles. I can understand the LH crew’s frustration at this as it limits their ability to plan what their next steps are.
We had a somewhat similar situation going into Boston 2 nights ago. Parallel approaches with us on the visual 04L (previously the RNAV 04L) and a jetBlue A321 right next to us on the ILS 04R, which eventually overtook us. They had us spot each other and maintain visual separation and it was night time. Not the most comfortable at night but it was permitted as per our flight ops manual and I would assume the same for jetBlue.
OUTSTANDING EXPLANATION!!!!! Thank you very much!
Well the controller should go back to school and learn differences between visual approach and visual separation !
I agree with the controller to some extent. However i agree with other comments that the treatment of the long haul crew, who dont need a divert, risk timing out etc wasn't too considerate if Lufthansa's SOPs were known well by the controllers
But wasn't SFO's SOP's known well by Lufthansa?! It works both ways. If you know you're held to a higher standard then pre-negotiate a procedure or expect to be a bother. It's similar (but not exactly akin) to going to a restaurant that seats people in whatever is available but needing to sit at table #32: you might have to wait a bit because of your inability (not necessarily by any fault of your own) to adapt to what's available. Or like the ATC advice said: if you need Runway 23L because that's the only one long enough but they're landing 15 then you're going to have to wait to be accommodated. And you should be aware that that is going to be the case.
This is poor flight planning by Lufthansa. They should have put a comment in their Flight Plan that they needed an ILS approach and couldn't take a visual; did they? They should have tried to time the flight to arrive in daylight or in less busy conditions; did they? They should have coordinated all this with ATC before even scheduling the flight; did they? But no, blame the overburdened controllers for not being able to throw everything to the wind for Lufthansa's self-made problem.
If all this came up from Air Canada trying to land on a taxiway then their SOPs should have been to monitor the localizer during visual approaches not banning visuals. What's next? "We can't land if another aircraft is operating on the airport grounds otherwise we might accidently land on it so can you please put all your planes away before we get there?"?! The airport serves many other companies and aircraft besides Lufthansa and they can't expect SFO to change everything for one operator.
It has NOTHING to do with flight planning and everything to do with how the arrival sequenced is planned and accommodated, imagine if an aircraft goes missed or worse someone blows a tyre on the runway etc…you effectively have the same problem, and I’m sure the SFO controllers would have made space.
If LH were aware that SFO wouldn’t accomodate them on the basis of capacity then this needed to be communicated effectively at the earliest point, it’s clear that the first the LH crew knew about this was when the were speaking to the SFO (BAY) area controllers, hardly the time you want to be backed into and ever shrinking corner.
@@777driver7 I agree, this is a regularly scheduled flight and within ATC the varying SOP's and approach requirements should come as no surprise to controllers and be able to somehow be accommodated, especially when sequencing during otherwise apparently normal conditions. I wonder if they're going to look at the scenario to learn what options they had and what actions they could have taken to accommodate that arrival.
I know that a visual approach is an IFR procedure, but on an IFR flight plan a standard instrument approach is more the norm than an extraordinary request, especially at night time. And yes, special requirements at SFO make this sometimes very difficult. “We pay all runway, we use all runway“ is a well known joke. I personally think that if NOTAMS don’t tell pilots otherwise, you can expect to use the full runway and an ILS if circumstances require it.
Absolutely love the commentary version of your videos.
Thank you!
I did not hear the pilot is being angry. A little frustrated perhaps but not angry.
Three things,
First the captain should have been made aware by the company that this issue could arise and should have uplifted extra fuel to deal with this case.
Second, the tone of the controller was a little gleeful discussing the divert, suddenly getting super friendly. Just passive-aggressive.
Third, I know there is a steady stream of aircraft on the way, but ATC is not helpless, they can slow down traffic, extend track miles to create a gap. Not sure from the audio that is what happened.
The only thing I do know is that they weren't very upset LH was diverting, suggesting they didn't go through the trouble to greate a gap, instead just waiting for it. Not updating the LH flight of the extra delay in a timely fashion was not professional.
I get the feeling that LH was seen asca trouble maker, the tone from the captain(?) was also not ideal, so perhaps "he was taught a lesson" by going in the penalty box, like they like to do if you misbehave in ports like this.
For the problem is the slightly unproffessional tone of a busy stressed ATC. If the pilot would have had a clearer waiting time (45 minutes for example) from the start or a little bit more context (stack full until SLC), he would have been able to better assess the situation and lower its stress level.
I've seen on this channel ATC resolving more conflictual problems by just staying calmer and give the exact piece of information that would solve unaligned mental representation of the airspace.
Was the controller talking aware it was stacked up to SLC? I doubt that airspace was all his.
I still uphold that a)the controllers knew inbound aircraft with mandatory ILS usage were coming, and they could have built gaps into their plan to have room for them, b) they could have told them "we can't accommodate you for the foreseeable future, please divert" right from the outset, because they knew what was coming and c) them just not offering ILS any more because FAA for good security reasons requires them to maintain greater separation is a case of childish malicious compliance and is bound to backfire. I also reinforce my claim that this kind of conversation should be - and probably was - continued at C-level.
I would not say I am angry here... though I probably am...
coldly put however, whilst I do take your points (& they are partially valid), the controller here is encouraging the Pilot to take the less-safe option, an option which he or his company considers dangerous.. thus, becoming a contributing factor to a potential accident.
I see this a lot in the US* (more so at JFK), that pilots are basically punished for their refusing to do dangerous things such as fly through a storm cell, or land with a strong crosswind, or make a visual in conditions marginal by the pilot's (personal or company) limits. sometimes, it also almost feels like a certain degree of racism is accepted in the air-traffic controller community, as certain pilots are definitely more picked on then others...
but that is not the main point...
the main point is: a Capitan penalizing a First officer for being careful (which sending someone to the back of the queue is) would be considered terrible cockpit CRM, however such an attitude seems normal in airport to plane interactions.
*(this is a problem elsewhere too, but usually, the ATC in most countries acts much more formally, making much fewer decisions personally, with more things being left to the pilots digression)
Wait a second... VAS speaks?
I forgot they did
It's been centuries since my last video speaking :)
You sound so much younger! ;)
VAS you drank the Koolaid. The controller wrote you to cover for his buddy’s obvious un professional conduct. Being busy is in the job description!
This controller did “not” get a congratulatory Pat on the back by his boss. Like for what?!?!
KSFO is an FAA certified IFR airport with certified ILS approaches. Every single arrival is entitled to a full ILS, only waivable by the crew at their discretion.
The “only” question that can be asked is “Do you have the field in sight?” Asking a crew if they will be able to maintain visual separation with other airplanes at some point in the future is not even a valid question. Like what other airplanes?!?!
The common limitation is found in many air carrier specific ops specs in one very simple sentence: “Night Visual approaches NA.”
This controller obviously had an attitude, and conveyed it clearly on the radio.
Every airplane deserves an ILS. Some may be able to help you out and some may not. Deal with it.
You bought off on a one sided good ol boy fellow controller trying to un embarrass his buddy.
The situation was absurd and he compromised safety. I apologize to this carrier and those passengers on behalf of the citizens of the USA. This was not normal and we will try to get this corrected.
Hi Dan, love your channel and your mission! From my understanding LH is allowed to do night visual approaches with full separation provided by ATC. I will check again with an older friend of mine. Chris used to fly the A359 for LH before he retired.
I appreciate the preamble from VAS.
This was fantastic. Thank you!
You said 4 times it was nobody's fault. I totally disagree; this was definitely the fault of ATC. The arrival stream into SFO ended as DLH458 started to divert. It appears that 458 could have landed at SFO at about the same time they landed in OAK. There was no need for the diversion, but the controller had lost all credibility in the eyes of the pilots when he told them another 10 to 15 minutes. Was he really incapable to provide a valid time?
The incident was reviewed and the controller was told he did a fine job. That's the problem with an agency reviewing itself; there's no accountability. Let's review again. A 12 hour long international flight, already 2 hours late, was diverted. That increased the delay to over 5 hours. I'm pretty sure OAK didn't have the customs agents present that would have been needed to process an A350-900. So the passengers probably stayed on board or had to wait and re-board for the reposition to SFO. I'm wondering which crew flew the reposition. The original crew probably started their duty day at 1500 Munich time, 0600 in SFO. That's a very long day. Every passenger that had a connection in SFO missed it. Many passengers on the return flight must also have missed their connection in Munich. An awful mess that could have been avoided, had the controller put his attitude aside and been proactive. In the case of crowding, landing priority needs to be give to long distance flights.
It was clear that the controller was NOT being professional and was intentionally delaying the flight. Totally unacceptable and this controller’s employment should have been terminated immediately. Absolutely dangerous and uncalled for.
You might as well be a dog watching a TV dude, you had zero clue what you were looking at.
A “visual” approach should never be the only option for aircraft on an IFR flight plan. An instrument approach must always be available regardless of traffic conditions at a given airport. 100% the controllers fault.
How can be controller's fault if the controller is just following the published procedures?
@@VASAviation The controller is doing what has been deemed the “most efficient” way to maximise arrivals per hour by reducing spacing. It should never be the only option. Whilst I emphasise with the tremendous stress controllers are under, I also truly feel more could have been done to accommodate Lufthansa by having some else slow, and follow their A359 in.
P.S. long time fan of the channel, keep up the great work!
@@VASAviationit's the controllers fault for acting like a little bitch
Lufthansa should have declared an emergency and requested priority handling into SFO. I’ll bet the controller’s attitude would have changed in a hurry and he would have actually done his job.
If you can’t accommodate a request for a simple ILS approach, something is seriously wrong.
You can't declare an emergency if there's no reason for it
That would have been a gross abuse of the pilot's authority. The result of all this was an inconvenience to the passengers and an additional expense for Lufthansa, neither of which comes close to the standard required to declare an emergency.
It is the pilots job to monitor fuel and divert to their alternate with enough fuel to get there and do a go around. Their alternate was Oakland, 12 miles across the bay. If they actually had a fuel emergency the pilots would dangerously incompetent. They did not declare a fuel emergency because there wasn't one.
ATC had 12 hours notice that LH was inbound, which is a regularly scheduled flight to provide sequencing for them. Vectors for a RNAV or ILS would be identical to vectors for a visual. Many airlines including mine refuse night visuals for safety reasons.
Terrible situation. And to imagine declaring an emergency would not allow them to land at SFO is literally criminal.
An emergency would definitely allow them to land at SFO
LH manages to do this properly every night, clearly this crew was new or confused.
It would be good to know how many Lufthansa flights arrive at dark. If it’s few there is no reason ATC couldn’t accommodate them. In my opinion. These guys just flew 8+ hours and they couldn’t help them out with an ILS. Just unacceptable from ATC.
Additionally…Can the pilots get the airport insight, then just fly ILS to the airport??
We need to also keep in mind. The pilots did what they had to do in the moment. ATC although frustrated and a frustrating situation was doing what they were tasked with. Maybe the EU Pilot unions/airlines connect with ATC facilities around the world to explain their operational restrictions.
They did try to help them and they refused to maintain separation of other airplanes. (which is what we do all the time when we fly).
Also, you should ALWAYS even when doing a visual approach, back the approach up with the ILS. The only difference between the ILS and the visual is that you're doing the ILS in visual conditions. I'm based out of Seattle-Tacoma airport and we do visuals all the time when the weather is leaning visual. As such, ATC still vectors us like we're on the ILS, even though we're visual. The only time they don't vector us like we're on an ILS is when they clear us for an ACTUAL visual approach, which is an RNAV procedure.
The result of a system being put under more and more stress with no competent change in how you operate it. Every time you turn around someone’s asking more and more with no management of the resources to accomplish what they’re asking. It seems to be in about every industry and trade lately and it’s getting worse. Quite exhausting. Great commentary and content as usual.
I would shrug this off as a rarity if it weren't becoming more and more common to have controllers take attitudes with flight crews and/or obviously intentionally take punitive action with delays or other inconveniences. Making things worse, the current generation of controllers seem to be pretty disconnected from the realities of flying an aircraft. For that matter so are the folks designing the procedures. Every week I face a handful of instructions or procedures that my 25 year old jet can not fly due to performance or systems limitations. Just yesterday I had a controller ask for at least 2000 ft/min descent from FL450, something we can't do and stay pressurized.... He "helpfully" suggested that I use my speed brakes, which we can't do above 20k in that plane. So we had to do a 180 in the flight levels at nearly 500 knots and fly 80 miles out of the way thanks to his poor planning. Something needs to be done at the academy to introduce these folks to aircraft and what they can do. Same goes for common SOPs and the like. It's not just about moving blips, it's also about how those blips CAN in fact move.
Everyone is blaming the controller, but don't you think that when a pilot says "I can really fuck up your sequence" he is being rube and pushy, so he gives the right to the controller to teach him a lesson of politeness and good tone. And I wonder what Lufthansa pilots talked about when commuting from OAK to their hotel.
making false claims about delays is bad but can happen. Refusing to give a new delay estimation by cutting the conversation short should get this guy fired.
If you ask to land on the 10s while 28s are in use...you would be told to get lost. Asking for a non visual, actual ILS should not result in a timeline they can't accurately determine. As this controller stated, LH comes in, when it is dark, daily. Oakland Center needs to figure this out.
Interesting video, thanks.
I happened to hear some radio calls about a gear related failure for a Westjet Flight (WS3135) at CYYC just after 22:05 UTC on Nov 10, 2023. Wasn't able to monitor to see what transpired, but i see that it returned to CYYC. There might be something interesting there.
Thank you for taking the time for a more complete review of this unusual arrival
Leopards don't change their spots. SFO controllers have a reputation.
Clown comment. Even beyond that, SFO and Norcal approach are completely different sets of controllers. It's a 2 hour drive from SFO to Norcal TRACON.
Thanks for explanation it was very informative and helpful
Glad it was helpful!
This leaves open some questions for me. Is this really that exceptional of an occurrence that SFO is that busy? It’s always a congested airport due to the limited runway layout from what I know.
Lufthansa lands this flight *daily* at that time. It should be a completely common occurrence for the controllers to get these “cannot maintain visual separation” / “need ILS approach” requests, and it is probably also a common occurrence that the pilots take some delay vectors when doing so. The conflict just seems odd in this context.
Also, if this is a repeated issue at SFO, LH pilots (or ops) could probably have known and loaded an extra 15-30 min holding fuel and made it in to SFO just fine in this instance.
It didn't help that the LH pilots waited until they were almost directly over SFO airport on the final fix of the arrival to ask for the ILS, when in this video, you can clearly see a line of airplanes coming in...
If you require something different from the standard arrival, you MUST notify ATC early of your request so they can better sequence and help you.
I was in Boston the other day. They were departing airplanes off of runway 9. My airplane (737-800 to Seattle) needed to use runway 31L for departure due to performance. Rather than waiting until I was on the taxiway, I called BOS Clearance Delivery 20 minutes before my pushback to inform them of the operational requirement. They gave us 31L for departure with no issues. When I called for taxi, I got 31L. Had a slight 15 minute delay due to landing traffic, but they were able to squeeze us out with no arguing on the radio.
This was incredibly insightful and informative! It truly gave a complete picture of the entire situation. So many times we are too quick to jump to conclusions. This was refreshing perspective and helpful knowledge that we will all learn from. Thank you so much!
actually, it is only part of the story... What, if anything, did atc do to create a gap for them? why couldn't they through vectoring or speed control of the other arrivals? Why wasn't the LH flight not made aware of an additional 15 minutes delay to a total of 30 minutes? thats 3000 kg of fuel they would have lost, you just can't do that on these tight margins coming over the atlantic.
This didn’t make the controller look any better
Is it beyond the capability of SFO to have a list of which operators prohibit visual approaches at night? Then they could plan their arrivals stack to accommodate that rather than waiting for a pilot to make the inevitable ILS request?
Okay... Now add in high mins pilots? Add in airplane capabilities and requirements? It is NOT the responsibility of the controller to remember every SOP and airplane/pilot specifications and requirements to be able to operate into and out of an airspace/airport.
@@erauprcwawell that can be solved with what we in the business call "talking to each other". Preferably in a civilised tone. And if the delay is going to be longer, why not just tell him? None of the involved can be new at that job.
@@Thisandthat8908 So by "talking to each other", one should have a full conversation on the radio of the airplane/airline SOP and performance specifications and the detailed requirements of the captain/First officer?
If the delay is gonna be longer, why not tell them? You're right. The LH queried the controller after their initial EFC time passed and they wanted an update. The controller then told them it'd be another 10-15 minute delay. So the controller did advise them of a further delay when queried by the crew. Which is what someone is supposed to do if instructions are unclear or a EFC time has expired.
@@erauprcwa why isn’t it? Why shouldn’t the controller have an understanding of what they are working with?
@@philsMLC How many airlines are there in the world and how many different SOP's and regulations do the airlines and pilots in question have to operate with? How does the controller know when to apply certain rules to said crews and airlines?
It's the pilots in question's job to notify ATC if they can't follow normal flow.
The one thing I've learned from this is the ATPs aren't reading the 7110.65 / FAA Controller manual.
i think that goes both ways XD a lot of Controllers have only a limited idea of how planes work. Having them be in the other position once during training would probably be a good idea
Thank you so very much!
Why is the audio so quiet? I can barely hear anything
Apparently my mic was so low. I was hearing it alright on my computer. Sorry, I'm not used to record this kind of videos.
Maybe you’re deaf
If the sequence was already built, to accomodate lufthansa, what happened to their slot when they were pushed out on delay vectors huh? There is obviously enough flexibility to fill "their" slot, so why didn't ATC move things around for them? Just petty IMO.
Because LH requested the ILS at the very last minute on the arrival and they couldn't accommodate.
Does it matter that SFO holds firm to "simultaneous charted visual approach procedures in use" from the ATIS when *they* are the ones who have made agreements with Lufthansa months in advance about how many DLH flights can be accommodated at SFO and they *certainly* are aware of the SOPs of several European airlines forbidding just the approaches that they are attempting to force on their traffic? If they can't accommodate Lufthansa's SOPs, then they shouldn't have agreed to let Lufthansa fly into SFO at night in the first place, simple as. I honestly don't think they should be allowed to ask pilots to divide their attention between flying the instruments and maintaining visual separation, it's a practice ultimately driven by money. Temp was rather close to dewpoint, what would they have done if the fog rolled in? Why would they allow themselves to create an unrecoverable situation like that, are they really so close to their maximum capacity that they can't make standard separation between approaching aircraft?
The problem isn't with the prioritization and maintaining flow and sending 40 aircraft on a wild ride to accommodate the Lufthansa.
The problem is that the controller said "ten minutes" and didn't get back to the Lufthansa with a new delay estimate.
Sure, he was busy. That's fine... But as a controller, you don't just get to keep an aircraft in holding pattern forever and if the Lufthansa would have waited patiently he would no longer have the option to divert. He would have to declare low fuel emergency and land there anyways.
So again, the problem was with the controller giving a bad estimate and then getting upset when the pilot was getting impatient as the pilot was approaching his fuel deadline.
It is most definitely an attitude problem, the controller could just have said he's sorry for the bad estimate and suggest going to Oakland instead of becoming authorative.
IF the traffic pattern is disturbed, it's not as big a deal as it would be if the Lufthansa would have to declare emergency and land with low fuel. There are safety margins for a reason as jets (especially heavy ones) don't do well without fuel in the tanks.
Something a controller that is sitting firmly on the ground never has to consider. His chair isn't going to fall through the floor when fuel runs out. A jet will however fall from the sky if fuel is missing.
This just sounds like the person messaging you is holding his "friend" behind his back. Though to me it sounds like this IS the guy on frequency explaining away his own shortcomings.
*Innumerable VASAviation videos with SFO being generally incompetent*: "I can't believe these bozos are still employed!"
*Video of foreign pilot calling them out for it*: "How dare you come here and criticize our controllers! Here's a 25-minuted documentary explaining why the lack of adequate planning and bad attitude is a-okay actually. HURRAH."
I usually don't stand by one side or the other. I just present facts, being a terrible controlling by SFO Tower or a terrible piloting by the guy that busts the airspace.
@@VASAviation Don't get me wrong, I do very much appreciate your posting this, it's valuable insight and my comment's not really aimed at you. However, it is striking that the reaction to this particular incident from some quarters has been very much at odds with other KSFO incidents, and the nature of the airline involved has been explicitly stated as a factor in that.
@@Targaff absolutely. Thank you much!
@@VASAviationI fly into SFO routinely and the controllers are some of the best. A significant part of this issue here was likely a language barrier misunderstanding. The controller told LH to expect an “extended delay.” In listening to the OAK tapes when LH landed there, he told the OAK controller he was told to expect a “10 minute” delay. Did he hear what he expected to hear? Or was it just a language barrier issue?
Either way, had the LH crew heard/understood “extended delay,” that likely would have prompted a query from them as to the length of the delay.
As for Philippines receiving the ILS, I suspect either the weather was dropping, or the arrival steam was becoming more manageable because nearly every aircraft after that also received an ILS clearance.
SFO, because of the close parallel runways AND departures off those same runways and other intersecting runways, has some of the most choreographed airspace in the country. I applaud the controller for paying attention to the dozens of other aircraft on his scope at the time while trying to find space for the separation LH thought they required.
Just making sure but you do know that the controllers that work in SF Tower and those that work in NCT work in 2 completely different facilities that are located apart 100 miles apart so the incidents over on tower mostly have nothing to do with NCT apart from the tight spacing with arrivals video
Thanks for your explanation
Tbfair that controller providing info, sounds very annoyed about the FAA ruling for safety against what they want to do. It DOES sound like they punish pilots who decline to follow their chosen procedures. Especially with his attitude.
Unacceptable really. You can’t have such a blasé ‘I’ll get to you later’ attitude to hundreds of people in the air, on limited fuel.
And what happens if they have a go-around? That aircraft never getting resequenced because ‘busy’? This is what holds are for!
It's not a punishment, it's basic fact. If you can't do X, then it'll be a slight delay to give you Y. If you can't take the delay, what's your alternate airport? Refuel and lets try it again.
@@erauprcwa I’m not rewatching to type out verbatim the lengthy section of transcript, but I suggest you listen again to the whole video. Maybe English isn’t your first language? (Not meant offensively, just was pretty obvious from the controller who wrote in, their tone).
Also, they’re saying they’re sequenced for a huge distance out - so what then? If they can’t break sequence into a hold for one aircraft, what happens if they have a go-around? Does that aircraft have to circle for an (refused to specify) unknown delay, in the hopes a controller wants to do their actual job or resequencing?
@@aps-pictures9335 They made the request for the ILS at the last fix on the arrival, almost right over SFO. They then said no to maintain traffic separation and was put into a hold due to high flow traffic volume into the area.
That's not the same as a go around.
@@erauprcwa you failed to understand my point. Both lead to the same outcome - which they (ATC) simply didn’t want to.
It’s not like LT never fly into SFO… it’s a regular flight - the controllers know their SOP’s and what they can/cannot do… the pilots could only have flown there once in 2-3 years. There’s nothing in the NOTAC’s about SFO refusing ILS or ILS not being standard.
Also, you don’t just put an aircraft in a hold and then make no effort to accommodate them. You certainly don’t forget about them/ignore them longer than your initial estimate if competent.
@@aps-pictures9335 Welcome to aviation. ATC are human just like pilots and prone to mistakes. ATC regularly forgets about airplanes on the ground and in the air. It happens. Not saying that, that is a good thing, but it does happen.
Also, an EFC is just an estimate, it's not a hard time. They were given an EFC and it updated. Not uncommon. They were given options to continue to hold or divert. There wasn't a hole to accommodate them. Tough cookies, divert, get more fuel, and try again.
Again, welcome to aviation.
All i see is a lot of round pegs and square holes in the video and comments. Visual Separation and Visual Approach aren't the same and lets come to the bottom of what's the problem that nobody seems to talk about: KSFO Using the Visual Approach to get around separation regulation of an ILS so they can cram as many aircraft in as they can. This is abysmal behavior that the American's have made common cause they can't be bothered to accept the limitation of a poorly built airport. Heathrow doesn't advertise max capacity nor does any major airport that operate under normal condition but it's only KSFO that does it. Build Better Airports or limit slots like everyone does. Nonsensical discussion about who is in the wrong when the focus should be why it is happening in the first place. Also it's not that difficult to slow down a "STREAM OF AIRCRAFT"; London Control does it every day by assigning Lower Mach numbers to be able to reduce the holding times. Poorly explained video with even poorer justification. You are just making a big fat excuse. Period.
Interesting to hear the explanation. Why is it necessary for the arrival sequence to be established some 100 miles away as opposed to use of holding and tactical vectoring closer to the airport? I’m assuming this is the most efficient way of achieving the desired arrival rate?
I think the suggested "fuel emergency" scenario comes from listening to BBC's "Cabin Pressure" show.
I remember, though, a time when planes were put into holding patterns for hours, burning tremendous amounts of fuel. And then, one day I realized that this didn't happen any more because your plane couldn't take off until you had permission to land at your destination at an expected time. Has this changed?
I haven't flown in a while, so I may have missed something major.
This is just controller laziness . “ I’m not going to vector 40 airplanes …….” . That’s bullshit. If a controller has to move 40 airplanes to make a 5 or 6 mile hole for one airplane to fit in he or she should try another profession. I truly believe if ATC really WANTED to they could have accommodated the Lufthansa . In this scenario, controllers are pissed because they have to work harder and their way of thinking is “ this guy should take visual approaches & visual separation like everyone else” . So they send him off somewhere presumably until the end of the line . ATC never gave the Lufthansa the EFC time either , which is expressed in ZULU time and is required. Saying “ expect another 15 min delay “ is against procedure. Really though controllers are a bunch of winers . I worked at ZOA for 28 years
So the problems is not ATC or Pilots, It's the airport itself.
Why they not upgrade SFO with new runways that can do parallel landing, or if they can't, built new one for domestic smaller airplane and make SFO primary for wide-body jets and international flights.
Basically SFO is too busy and already exceed it capacity to handle traffic. And this will happen all the time till there is another airport to use or solutions with new runways.
How do you propose a city builds a new airport surrounded by water, homes, and buildings?
@@erauprcwa They need to explore the options. i.e. reclaim land from the SF Bay for new Runways, expand and utilize more from Oakland Airport.
Airport not even need to close to city as long as transportation is convenient. It's weird that US can make 12 lanes interstate but hard to find land for airports ?
@@sfalpha (Iminent Domain)
You're right that SFO is too busy at times, but building a new airport isn't possible for so many reasons. The real solution is probably to continue to improve SJC and OAK access to the whole bay, to incentive airlines to use them more.