> There's no such thing as "an ILS approach where the pilot agrees to visually maintain separation from aircraft landing on the parallel runway"
Not a cleared instrument approach, but nothing stops the pilot from following the ILS procedure with approval from ATC on such a "visual" approach.
A full ILS approach could be approved with an aircraft landing in parallel, however, if the required separation was supplied by the cooperating aircraft trailing just behind the ILS-landing aircraft.
> The following conditions apply to visual approaches being conducted simultaneously to parallel, intersecting, and converging runways, as appropriate:
> Parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet. Unless approved separation is provided, an aircraft must report sighting a preceding aircraft making an approach (instrument or visual) to the adjacent parallel runway. When an aircraft reports another aircraft in sight on the adjacent extended runway centerline and visual separation is applied, controllers must advise the succeeding aircraft to maintain visual separation. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
If the Lufthansa was not heavy (and thus not required to slightly trail the parallel aircraft), the required separation could have been supplied by the other pilot, and it would apparently comply with Lufthansa's SOP. It's somewhat counterintuitive to me that Lufthansa would prefer to trust any pilot other than its own to provide the required separation.
You can see an example of a parallel landing at SFO (on 28L) after sunset here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ1mUkxj0UM. I first spot the strobe of the other aircraft (eventually landing on 28R) at 4:00, and at 7:00 the aircraft are parallel and in close proximity. For comparison, here's one in full darkness: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m2sR3lVotw
The issue is the parallel runway, not the traffic in front, which has a much larger separation. What the environment at SFO does not permit is for a pilot to be able to rely on the controller to guarantee separation from the airplane landing in parallel.
The other problem with the Lufthansa is, being a heavy, it needs to be the one staggered slightly behind the other aircraft for wake turbulence reasons.
> Lufthansa 458 heavy, just for my planning purposes and for the Final controller's planning purposes, can you maintain visual separation with the aircraft at night?
> 458 heavy, exactly that is what is not allowed [laughs]
The controller was trying to give the pilot an out by allowing him to comply with his company's procedures prohibiting visual approaches, but allowing him to make an instrument landing so long as he was capable of looking out his window to ensure that he has specific other aircraft in sight. Note that this is required for parallel landings at SFO because of the very close proximity of the runways otherwise prohibits simultaneous approaches.
The problem is that, under the FAA regulations, all aircraft operating in visual conditions (which includes a clear night) have a duty to maintain vigilance "so as to see and avoid other aircraft" regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules. 14 C.F.R. § 91.113 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.113)
In essence, the Lufthansa pilot was telegraphing his refusal to even comply with the basic flight regulations that all aircraft have to comply with (regardless of instrument or visual flight rules).
The combination of (1) refusing to accept a visual approach, and (2) refusing to even abide by the minimum requirements for operation in U.S. airspace (to see and avoid other aircraft), even on an instrument approach, caused the excessive delay.
One aspect of aphantasia that I haven't seen mentioned yet is memory of Chinese characters / kanji.
I absolutely cannot for the life of me visualize any* of the characters I can easily read and write. However, there is a trick I can do for the ones I can write: I can trace the strokes in my head in the correct direction, order, and proportion. And I have to do it by imagining the muscle movements I would use. Although I can't visualize the result, it's the closest thing I can get to seeing anything in my mind's eye.
*Almost true; exceptions exist like 十，人，个，大. But something as easy as 车 is too complicated for me to visualize, but very easy to mentally trace.
In the accident flight, the first officer (FO) inadvertently activated the "go around" mode during landing, then, in surprise, pushed the airplane into the ground.
> According to one check airman at [FO's previous airline], the FO could explain things well in the briefing room and performed some expected tasks well in the simulator. However, when presented with something unexpected in the simulator, the FO would get extremely flustered and could not respond appropriately to the situation. She said that when the FO did not know what to do, he became extremely anxious and would start pushing a lot of buttons without thinking about what he was pushing, just to be doing something.
Interesting that you picked "mow my lawn" as an example.
In California, gardeners are considered employees. The only reason most people don't have to deal with employment taxes, payroll, insurance, etc., is because they typically hire gardening companies that actually employ the workers.
> On or about September 25, 2018, in the District of Kansas, the defendant, for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce an online certification that he (1) read and understood the Kansas Board of Regents policy concerning conflicts of interest, (2) understood that any external personal professional activities in which he engaged that take time away from the University must not interfere with him meeting his faculty teaching and research responsibilities at the University, and (3) agreed to secure approval prior to engaging in any such external activities; all of which was in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343.
The indictment doesn't say whether the fraud was that (1) he didn't read or understand the conflict of interest policy (presumably not, since that would indicate this wasn't intentional); (2) he didn't understand that external activities must not interfere with his University work (same); so it must be (3) that he agreed to secure approval prior to engaging in any such activities.
So the fraud is that he agreed to secure approval, but didn't follow through.
The indictment also claims:
> Tao certified to KU that he did not labor under any conflict of interest.
But the only certification mentioned in the indictment was that he agreed to secure approval, not that he lacked any conflict of interest.
Regardless, the result of this failure to secure approval for a conflict of interest was a four count indictment for wire fraud and theft by receiving salary, plus a forfeiture request. He allegedly "embezzled, stole, and obtained by fraud" grant money that funded his University salary, by virtue of continuing to receive that salary.
Here's a recap of the pertinent NTSB's conclusions from the last time this happened. How many will apply again this time?
“There was sufficient sight distance to afford time for either the truck driver or the car driver to have acted to prevent the crash.”
“The Tesla’s automated vehicle control system was not designed to, and did not, identify the truck crossing the car’s path or recognize the impending crash; consequently, the Autopilot system did not reduce the car’s velocity, the forward collision warning system did not provide an alert, and the automatic emergency braking did not activate.”
“If automated vehicle control systems do not automatically restrict their own operation to those conditions for which they were designed and are appropriate, the risk of driver misuse remains.”
“The Tesla driver was not attentive to the driving task, but investigators could not determine from the available evidence the reason for his inattention.”
> Every NTSB report has a "probable cause" section determining who or what was at fault. And then the FAA hands out fines and courts award additional damages largely based on that finding.
In case everyone is not aware, NTSB reports cannot be used in court to establish fault or otherwise be used as evidence when seeking compensation for damages.
"No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report." 49 USC 1154(b)
> The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd amendment only prohibits the federal government from "infringing" on your right to bear arms, and not the states.
This was true only between 2008 and 2010. In 2010, the Supreme Court clarified that it was incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment.
I'm not seeing any connectivity between Cogent and Google.
Try Cogent's Looking Glass[1] and test connectivity to www.google.com, for example. ("Destination unreachable: No route")
> Hell one of the reasons passenger trains is shit in the US is that passenger rail does not get priority over freight
They do have priority:
> (c) Preference over freight transportation. -- Except in an emergency, intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation in using a rail line, junction, or crossing...
You can see the list in the link above, but the short answer is very few, such as domestic support (alimony, child support) and administrative expenses of the bankruptcy. The most important creditors with higher priority who are not on the list are secured creditors, such as lenders with mortgages on real and personal property -- but I'd be surprised if this varied much internationally.
Prioritized wages get paid even before unpaid taxes do.
In the U.S., employees are also protected to a degree. Unpaid wage claims up to $10k, including vacation, severance, or sick leave pay, are prioritized over general unsecured creditors. [1]
Not a cleared instrument approach, but nothing stops the pilot from following the ILS procedure with approval from ATC on such a "visual" approach.
A full ILS approach could be approved with an aircraft landing in parallel, however, if the required separation was supplied by the cooperating aircraft trailing just behind the ILS-landing aircraft.
> The following conditions apply to visual approaches being conducted simultaneously to parallel, intersecting, and converging runways, as appropriate:
> Parallel runways separated by less than 2,500 feet. Unless approved separation is provided, an aircraft must report sighting a preceding aircraft making an approach (instrument or visual) to the adjacent parallel runway. When an aircraft reports another aircraft in sight on the adjacent extended runway centerline and visual separation is applied, controllers must advise the succeeding aircraft to maintain visual separation. https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...
If the Lufthansa was not heavy (and thus not required to slightly trail the parallel aircraft), the required separation could have been supplied by the other pilot, and it would apparently comply with Lufthansa's SOP. It's somewhat counterintuitive to me that Lufthansa would prefer to trust any pilot other than its own to provide the required separation.