they were ready. "fly heading XXX, vectors for visual 28R", is them saying, "i'm ready for you to land". What norcal (not SFO) was not prepared to do was accommodate the extra wide gap that lufthansa's company policy would've required.
it was up to lufthansa to tell approach that they're not going to be able to accept the approach in use. It's being advertised on the atis that they would've been able to pick up in the air long before they got near the airport. (well, 10+ minutes before this interaction started anyway, they can probably get d-atis anywhere).
i'm sure it was said in the follow up video, but lufthansa knew what they were offering at SFO and if they needed something different they should've spoken up much sooner.
> i'm sure it was said in the follow up video, but lufthansa knew what they were offering at SFO and if they needed something different they should've spoken up much sooner.
How are they supposed to know that an ILS approach - a completely routine procedure - is not available? If the problem is them not giving ATC enough warning, what process is there for telling ATC ahead of time? What was SFO going to do if it clouded over, close the airport?
All of that information is published ahead of time by KSFO (and every other major airport) including runways in use, traffic patterns, minimum separations, available approach types, and how things will change in bad weather. Everything is available to the pilots and dispatchers ahead of time and in updates during the flight.
> What was SFO going to do if it clouded over, close the airport?
No, land planes at a slower rate (about half) because they can no longer land two planes side by side on the parallel runways. On a day when the weather is known to be cloudy and that is factored in up front, that's not a huge problem.
On a day when the weather is clear and planes are landing at the higher rate, it is a huge problem.
> On a day when the weather is known to be cloudy and that is factored in up front, that's not a huge problem.
> On a day when the weather is clear and planes are landing at the higher rate, it is a huge problem.
But it can get cloudy any time in SF. So suddenly needing to switch over to ILS operations should be something they're set up to handle pretty routinely.
They would normally have warning from weather forecasters about upcoming cloudy weather so they would have time to switch over to ILS operations in an orderly manner. Switching in the middle of a clear evening because of one plane is something quite different.
again, the ILS wasn't unavailable, but ATC for hundreds of miles had been planning on every plane taking the visual, with its reduced separation requirements. if a plane needs an approach with increased requirements, they need to tell ATC early so ATC can put them in their plan.
> How are they supposed to know that an ILS approach - a completely routine procedure - is not available?
it's not that the ILS wasn't available, it's that the atis would've said
"VISUAL APPROACH, RUNWAY 28L 28R IN USE"
and the lufthansa crew would say, "huh, we need something different than that". in aviation if you want something non standard, you need to let air traffic know so they can put you in their plan. If you don't tell them different, they're going to plan for you to do what's being advertised.
> What was SFO going to do if it clouded over, close the airport?
then SFO would've advertised the ILS (checks atis) like they're doing right now ...
> and the lufthansa crew would say, "huh, we need something different than that". in aviation if you want something non standard, you need to let air traffic know so they can put you in their plan. If you don't tell them different, they're going to plan for you to do what's being advertised.
So they should have, what, called them when they were back over the east coast? Genuine question. They filed the flight plan, they requested the approach they needed when they got there (which again, is a completely routine one that SFO uses every week), it sounds like they were sending all the communication that's expected?
the flight plan doesn't have any bearing here. norcal approach isn't (and shouldn't be) expected to know the SOP's for every company in the world. the flight's clearance limit was to SFO and they were being given the approach that their requested airport was advertising.
> called them when they were back over the east coast?
depends on who they were on with when they found out SFO was advertising an approach they couldn't take. At the very least they could've told oakland center; that's who they would've been talking to before being transferred to norcal approach, and is probably the one sequencing a good chunk of those other planes coming in.
You misunderstand the problem. APP did not say they they don't have ILS available, it said it will take some time before a long enough gap exists between incoming traffic so they can allow for LH to insert themselves for landing.
In aviation, times are almost always estimates, not hard figures. Just like when the captain announces every 15 minutes there will be 15 minutes more delay, the same happens when controllers have other things to do, they route you over a holding pattern until they can deal with you.
And seriously, you don't delay 20-30 flights because one non emergency flight can't do visual approaches at night.
