lawguy

> 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.

> 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.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AA...

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.

Non-renewables (edit: all minus solar and wind), hit their peak at 6pm and stayed there until 8:30pm.

The problem is that solar isn't available during the late evening hours, where, e.g., A/C demand remains high.

https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/Household_Employer.htm

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1197256/downl...

> 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.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...

[1] http://www.cogentco.com/en/network/looking-glass

http://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-49-transportation/49-usc-s...