[ralph84]

Cool story, but of course the SFO ATIS specifically mentions visual approaches when they’re in use. In fact it’s night VMC right now and the current ATIS says:

> SIMULTANEOUS CHARTED VISUAL FLIGHT PROCEDURES IN USE. LNDG RWYS 28L, 28R

https://datis.clowd.io/KSFO

[inferiorhuman]

Cool story, but FAA regs state that

  Before advertising non-precision approaches, priority should be given
  to available precision, then APV approaches. 

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/atc_html...

SFO prioritizes non-precision approaches because they're prioritizing throughput over safety. They got lucky with Air Canada, but at some point their luck will run out. The bigger issue here is that ATC gave the flight a 10 minute penalty instead of denying clearly communicating that they would not make an ILS approach available.

You can check the active NOTAMs here:

https://www.notams.faa.gov/dinsQueryWeb/

You can see that the ILS will be non-op on 5 December (and 6 December for 28L). If SFO is going to deny use of ILS they should clarify in the published approach procedures and/or in a NOTAM. As it is the ATC had no business trying to bully a pilot into doing something they're not comfortable with.

[ralph84]

Visual approaches are not non-precision approaches. They’re visual approaches.

Lufthansa wasn’t denied the ILS, they were put in a hold until separation could be created. The same thing happens every day at airports all over the world. The difference is the vast majority of pilots don’t whine about it on a congested frequency and expect to get priority.

And any pilot who is not comfortable performing a visual approach shouldn’t be at the controls of an airliner.

[glompers]

Well -- that's one fewer criminal conspiracy to worry about! Thanks!