Hacker News Reader

Comment by dilyevsky | Hacker News Reader

> ATC: I can’t have this conversation with you. Either divert to Oakland, or you can continue to hold, it’s up to you.

> CREW: Okay, you promised me 10 minutes, that ran out four minutes ago. So how many more minutes?

> ATC: Conversation is over. You want to divert? Or you want to continue with the delay?

Is this normal for ATC to communicate like this? This sounds like some people I worked with in previous job with much lower stakes involved…

Given all the recent incidents I suspect it’s basically decided that US ATC will cause a major crash we just don’t know when

View on HN

> Is this normal for ATC to communicate like this? This sounds like some people I worked with in previous job with much lower stakes involved…

Caveat, while flying I'd hate to hear this from a controller if I'm on the edge of consuming my reserve fuel. But before judging this particular controller I'd be interested to know what the other comms traffic was like, both with this plane and also the pace of the rest of the arrivals. I don't want to pick on ATC if the seemingly sudden onset of aggression was cherry-picked for the blog from a conversation that had already tried to handle the matter politely.

It's also important to understand that many US ATC facilities are understaffed, the controllers are overworked, and a high incidence of rostering them for extra shifts will leave them fatigued. It doesn't make it any easier for the pilots to get the plane on the ground when they're getting short shrift from ATC like this, but the core of the problem is ATC training and turnover rates. Not one particular controller getting cranky with pilots because he/she is powertripping.

The ATC frequency isn't for complaints. The controller needs the frequency free to communicate with other planes. When he says "I can’t have this conversation with you," he literally means that he cannot have the conversation and continue to direct traffic.

What's printed in the article is a summary of what was actually said. The Lufthansa pilot was talking much more than necessary.

>Is this normal for ATC to communicate like this? This sounds like some people I worked with in previous job with much lower stakes involved…

No, it's not normal. I've watched a lot of "ATC recording incident videos" and SFO are notable for how many there are and how egregious.

another example of a powertripping controller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzBTZctiAg&t=2m20s

I assumed this was about SFO before I read it. What is it about that area to have the worst controllers?

Yeah, seems like one lesson to learn is don't let ATC be jerks.

ATC doesn't have time to fuck around.

This whole thing is Lufthansa fault for mandating that they so special that they get an ILS approach while everybody else can do a visual approach.

Their drama, their problem.

> While a delay in air traffic is understandable, adhering to the announced duration (which clearly had the characteristics of an Expected Approach Time) is crucial to ensure safety. In this case, the crew experienced confusion when their EAT was not met, leading to concerns about fuel reserves and potential emergencies. Efficient coordination between ATC and crews is essential to prevent such situations

Sounds like atc having in fact time to fuck around was the root of the issue here

Whoa, slow down there.

> The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has banned foreign pilots from making visual approaches to San Francisco airport runways 28 left and right.

This was in 2013. My understanding is some foreign carriers took this into company SOP.

https://www.pprune.org/fragrant-harbour/520332-faa-bans-visu...

If memory serves that restriction was lifted in large part because Lufthansa complained.

> This was in 2013.

And it looks like it was temporary due to a glide slope indicator being out of service, and was supposed to go away in late August 2013.

If this is their standard procedure surely it made its way into the flight plan they filed. A Lufthansa requirement for an ILS approach should've come as no surprise to anyone at SFO.

If the ILS was unavailable for some reason there should've been a relevant NOTAM, in which case the crew would've either diverted or not performed the flight.

And lastly, even among domestic airlines nighttime visual approaches are not always allowed by SOP. e.g.

https://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-368284.html

This flight has been around for at least 10 years, Id assume anyone working sfo atc should also be aware of their procedures

Reply on news.ycombinator.com