全部
← Back to Squawk list
FAA no longer letting foreign airlines land alongside another plane at San Francisco airport
U.S. aviation officials are no longer allowing foreign airlines to land alongside another plane when touching down at San Francisco International Airport in the wake of the deadly Asiana Airlines crash. (www.washingtonpost.com) 更多...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I am sympathetic to your concern thar there are some great foreign carriers with great pilots who wouldn't have any trouble performing VFR or IFR parallel side by side approaches at SFO's close runways.
The problem with discriminating even for appropriate reasons without refkection or due process is:
1. Need to implement rule quickly for safety's sake
2. Creating a list of acceptable and unacceptable foreign carriers at a moment's notice without any due process will create a hornets' nest of recriminations and accusations of discrimination and wanton destruction of their carriers' businesses.
3. It is easier to give back a privilege to select carriers (after showing that can gandle it) than to take away a previledge from only a few carriers without damaging their business and being retaliated against by their nation state for doing such damage to their country.
It's not arrogant to start this new rule uniformly. It is political expediency.
----
On a side note, while I don't disagree with your list of some potentially qualified foreign carriers, it was a Lufthsnsa pilot that wrote an apologetic piece that made an attempt to blame SFO and the 777 (can you imagine) and held the pilots mostly blameless, in a that-could-be-me sort of way, and seeing nothing wrong with pilots being overly dependent on automation, and didn't acknowledge the value of manual piloting skills proficiency. He put himself into the boat with the Asiana pilots.
That defense of pilots who screwed up royally gave me pause. I don't see any problem with lumping all foreign carriers (or more specifically part 129 carriers) into one group to be sorted out later.
I don't see how you can sort them out officially without some sort of official due process. I say let the airlines decide for themselves, which would be willing to hold themselves to the part 121 standards, and which prefer to remain part 129 with greater restrictions. That seems fairer, and gives the airlines some control of their own destiny without taking away the FAA role of regulatory oversight.
It seems more arrogant to think that the FAA can decide with no reflection, which foreign carriers are worthy and which foreign carriers are not worthy of special treatment in enforcement of this rule.
The problem with discriminating even for appropriate reasons without refkection or due process is:
1. Need to implement rule quickly for safety's sake
2. Creating a list of acceptable and unacceptable foreign carriers at a moment's notice without any due process will create a hornets' nest of recriminations and accusations of discrimination and wanton destruction of their carriers' businesses.
3. It is easier to give back a privilege to select carriers (after showing that can gandle it) than to take away a previledge from only a few carriers without damaging their business and being retaliated against by their nation state for doing such damage to their country.
It's not arrogant to start this new rule uniformly. It is political expediency.
----
On a side note, while I don't disagree with your list of some potentially qualified foreign carriers, it was a Lufthsnsa pilot that wrote an apologetic piece that made an attempt to blame SFO and the 777 (can you imagine) and held the pilots mostly blameless, in a that-could-be-me sort of way, and seeing nothing wrong with pilots being overly dependent on automation, and didn't acknowledge the value of manual piloting skills proficiency. He put himself into the boat with the Asiana pilots.
That defense of pilots who screwed up royally gave me pause. I don't see any problem with lumping all foreign carriers (or more specifically part 129 carriers) into one group to be sorted out later.
I don't see how you can sort them out officially without some sort of official due process. I say let the airlines decide for themselves, which would be willing to hold themselves to the part 121 standards, and which prefer to remain part 129 with greater restrictions. That seems fairer, and gives the airlines some control of their own destiny without taking away the FAA role of regulatory oversight.
It seems more arrogant to think that the FAA can decide with no reflection, which foreign carriers are worthy and which foreign carriers are not worthy of special treatment in enforcement of this rule.
Not arrogant at all. Let's call if politically expedient.
How do you devise a list of approved foreign carriers and unapproved foreign carriers issued by the FAA for the purpose of enforcing thus rule. Such a list would be accused of discrimination, no matter who makes the cut, or because of it. You'll tend to havd more Anglo nations on the approved list because if their standards. But that's not how ut would get played in the press.
They're just avoiding a hornet's nest.
It's easier to approach a few select foreign airlines with top notch pilots, pilot training, and airline policy, and invite them to apply for a waiver.
Don't worry, the problematic airlines wouldn't consider to publicly request a waiver and be turned down. That would be a marketing nightmare for them.
Get foreign carriers in competition to meet standards. Raise the bar across the board. Challenge all airlines to not only meet American standards not only on US soil but back in their own countries. The best will rise to the challenge. The worst will complain.
It's time for America to lead again. For too long, the Americans have been acting like a dog with its' tail between its' legs, in an uncertain world of globalization and mixing values.
Let's say unequivocally that safety and pilot competence are endearing values above all others in aviation. Set tough standards for both American and foreign pilots. Let foreign carriers complain about the tough standards. Allow people to make flight purchase decisions by who meets tough standards and who complains.
Aviation will be better for it. The world will be better for it. Globalization need not be a race to the lowest standards, but a competition to achieve the highest standards.
How do you devise a list of approved foreign carriers and unapproved foreign carriers issued by the FAA for the purpose of enforcing thus rule. Such a list would be accused of discrimination, no matter who makes the cut, or because of it. You'll tend to havd more Anglo nations on the approved list because if their standards. But that's not how ut would get played in the press.
They're just avoiding a hornet's nest.
It's easier to approach a few select foreign airlines with top notch pilots, pilot training, and airline policy, and invite them to apply for a waiver.
Don't worry, the problematic airlines wouldn't consider to publicly request a waiver and be turned down. That would be a marketing nightmare for them.
Get foreign carriers in competition to meet standards. Raise the bar across the board. Challenge all airlines to not only meet American standards not only on US soil but back in their own countries. The best will rise to the challenge. The worst will complain.
It's time for America to lead again. For too long, the Americans have been acting like a dog with its' tail between its' legs, in an uncertain world of globalization and mixing values.
Let's say unequivocally that safety and pilot competence are endearing values above all others in aviation. Set tough standards for both American and foreign pilots. Let foreign carriers complain about the tough standards. Allow people to make flight purchase decisions by who meets tough standards and who complains.
Aviation will be better for it. The world will be better for it. Globalization need not be a race to the lowest standards, but a competition to achieve the highest standards.
Lots of really dumb laws are born out of political expediency. Sadly, I think that's what people crave these days, are knee jerk reactions. We need to stop doing that and make laws that make sense long term.
This time political expediency was in the service of the quick implementation of a rule to increase the safety of the flying public.
There is time for nuance later, making exceptions for airlines that can show that they deserve to be exempt from this rule after they show they deserve such special treatment (eg. they accept regulation and enforcement equal to part 121).
In the meantime, don't mix this effort with other idiotic government actions that don't have such a strong case for action.
There is time for nuance later, making exceptions for airlines that can show that they deserve to be exempt from this rule after they show they deserve such special treatment (eg. they accept regulation and enforcement equal to part 121).
In the meantime, don't mix this effort with other idiotic government actions that don't have such a strong case for action.
You're right... Let's not mix your type of political expediency with laws like this:In the middle of the night (because it's expedient!), CT passed a law that prohibits the purchase of magazines that hold greater than 10 bullets and banned "assault" weapons in the wake of the Newtown shooting. Newtown was a sad event, but the knee jerk that followed was "political expediency" in action. Democrats who wanted stronger gun control expediently preyed on public feeling over the event and passed some really stupid laws. Political expediency somehow usurped people's 2nd amendment rights! Because this "badly needed" law's in place, we won't have any new school shootings in CT. After all, no one can shoot up another school now that clips can only hold 9 bullets and the guns require you to manually pull the trigger 9 times to empty the clip. And of course, criminals will abide the law and not buy those magazines and weapons in another state nearby that allows them. And the kids that are bullied are very familiar with this law and will think twice before they "borrow" mommy's guns to go do it.
Question for you: "Globalization need not be a race to the lowest standards, but a competition to achieve the highest standards." - Shouldn't this statement apply to our law(rule)making too?
Question for you: "Globalization need not be a race to the lowest standards, but a competition to achieve the highest standards." - Shouldn't this statement apply to our law(rule)making too?
> "Question for you: "Globalization need not be a race to the lowest standards, but a competition to achieve the highest standards." - Shouldn't this statement apply to our law(rule)making too?"
What I'm saying is not have some countries or airlines with stricter safety standards (which has a cost) and the resultant great safety records, being unduly pressured to compromise their commitment to safety, because other countries/ airlines operate with much less regard for safety but sell many tickets because they're able to sell at a lower price with greatly reduced safety, maintenance or pilot training costs.
The same can be said of companies in other industries in regards to environment impact, worker safety, etc.
It is better to help other countries step up to better standards, then feel completive cost pressure to give up our commitments to customer safety, worker safety and environmental safety. At the least, better airliner crash prevention safety standards would be better than pressure tk cut corners and to lower standards.
What I'm saying is not have some countries or airlines with stricter safety standards (which has a cost) and the resultant great safety records, being unduly pressured to compromise their commitment to safety, because other countries/ airlines operate with much less regard for safety but sell many tickets because they're able to sell at a lower price with greatly reduced safety, maintenance or pilot training costs.
The same can be said of companies in other industries in regards to environment impact, worker safety, etc.
It is better to help other countries step up to better standards, then feel completive cost pressure to give up our commitments to customer safety, worker safety and environmental safety. At the least, better airliner crash prevention safety standards would be better than pressure tk cut corners and to lower standards.
Congress acting the way they did on 3407 was for political purposes. Changes needed to be made to rules for 121 qualifications. But not hard core laws that will drastically change fulfilling those requirements. That was a knee jerk reaction by those who were clueless.
This was not a law nor even a rule change to the FARs. It was merely a change to local procedures given the questions of foreign operators and the very close proximity of two, parallel runways.
Asiana 214 was off center as it was. They barely missed the approach light array extending out into the bay. Given what we know thus far, I'm nearly surprised they were not as far off laterally.
This was not a law nor even a rule change to the FARs. It was merely a change to local procedures given the questions of foreign operators and the very close proximity of two, parallel runways.
Asiana 214 was off center as it was. They barely missed the approach light array extending out into the bay. Given what we know thus far, I'm nearly surprised they were not as far off laterally.
I would think there has been (and maybe there still is ongoing) a review of all approaches at SFO (that was inspired by the Asiana 214 crash).
The creation of this rule, that treats pilots from foreign carriers differently from local pilots, strongly suggests that there was a greaty divergent performance in one group as a whole vs. the other group as a whole, in their landings at SFO.
The safety of the flying public is reason enough to implement this rule immediately applying it to all pilots of the underperforming group. Even if some pilots in underperforming group are just a good as the higher performing group.
There's time to make adjustments to the implementation of this rule later, to better account for any differences in performance of the underperforming group.
Safety first. Politics later.
The creation of this rule, that treats pilots from foreign carriers differently from local pilots, strongly suggests that there was a greaty divergent performance in one group as a whole vs. the other group as a whole, in their landings at SFO.
The safety of the flying public is reason enough to implement this rule immediately applying it to all pilots of the underperforming group. Even if some pilots in underperforming group are just a good as the higher performing group.
There's time to make adjustments to the implementation of this rule later, to better account for any differences in performance of the underperforming group.
Safety first. Politics later.
I assume that regulatory authorities abroad will adopt a similar approach to US carriers flying in to their airspace.