undefined | Better HN

0 pointsKennyBlanken2y ago0 comments

It's a safety issue when the plane is getting low on fuel and the crew are fatigued from a long international flight, and the only reason they're being told no is because of policies designed to maximize airport/airline profits.

Controllers had hours of notice the flight would need an ILS approach. They petulantly ignored it because ILS approaches take up more space in the pattern, which means less landings per hour, which means less profit for the airport operator.

In the EU visual separation at night is not permitted but it's routinely done in the US because airports and airlines can run more flights in and out of the airport due to closer separation distances and it also reduces controller labor.

Airlines are pushing the system to the breaking point.

0 comments

10 comments · 4 top-level

trentnelson2y ago· 2 in thread

“Visual approaches in use” is less labor intensive for ATC than instrument approaches in visual conditions. It also allows for higher flow.

Bit on the hyperbolic side implying visual approaches push the system to the breaking point.

lmm2y ago

> “Visual approaches in use” is less labor intensive for ATC than instrument approaches in visual conditions. It also allows for higher flow.

It's not unusual for a safety measure to be labour intensive and/or reduce flow.

ajmurmann2y ago

Like, not running tests gets your code to prod faster

nradov2y ago· 2 in thread

Crew fatigue is not an ATC concern. Long haul flights like this carry relief pilots and have crew rest facilities so fatigue shouldn't be an issue in the first place.

Controllers mostly work for the FAA. They have volume goals to meet, but they aren't accountable to airport or airline management for profit targets.

sneeze-slayer2y ago

Crew fatigue is an ATC concern insofar as it contributes greatly to accidents. The controllers may have volume goals, but the ultimate goal is safety.

nradov2y ago

Crew fatigue really isn't an ATC concern. The FAA and airlines set rules for crew fatigue management. Flight plans are designed to keep the crew within limits even if they have a delay or diversion. It is simply not a controller's job to assess a flight crew's fatigue state, or second guess whether they need an alternate plan due to fatigue. Controllers aren't trained or qualified to do that.

stevage2y ago· 2 in thread

>They petulantly ignored it because ILS approaches take up more space in the pattern, which means less landings per hour, which means less profit for the airport operator.

Can you explain this? Do planes have choices over where to land once in the air? If not, all the landings needed to happen, so why does delaying some by a few minutes affect the total income for the airport on that evening?

I'm just questioning how an airport's overall profit motive would affect an indiviual air traffic controller's decision making like that.

kccqzy2y ago

The total number of landings is not fixed. If landings can be more frequent, airlines will schedule more landings so they are more frequent. Just like adding lanes to a highway induces more cars to travel on the highway.

stevage2y ago

I'm talking about the the situation on a given day when the planes are already in the air. All those scheduled flights are presumably going to end up landing at that airport and paying the agreed fee, no?

gruez2y ago

>Controllers had hours of notice the flight would need an ILS approach. They petulantly ignored it because ILS approaches take up more space in the pattern, which means less landings per hour, which means less profit for the airport operator.

source?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse