ATC vs PILOT. Kennedy Controller Insists he's right. REAL ATC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- Main playlists:
EMERGENCY - • EMERGENCY
REAL ATC - • REAL ATC
CRASHES - • Crashes
If you enjoyed please support channel by subscribing and hitting the notification bell to get notified on new uploads.
Source of communications: www.liveatc.net (usage permission)
#REALATC #AIRTRAFFICCONTROLL #AVIATION
Good call from the pilot if he felt safety was in jeopardy.
"Tight" is not defined in the ATC manual.
so? you think ATC operates with extra space on purpose? that minimum is there for a reason
if you and try and run 5 mile finals at a place like ATL good luck
@@andrewlorenzo6611right. The separation was fine. However, if the pilot is not comfortable, it’s ok to go around. Nobody to blame here.
So the tower man flys jets every day? Somehow i dont think thats in his job discription.
ATC has no business questioning the pilot in command on what to do in his situation! "tight" is that common phrase?
He isn’t questioning. He is giving his opinion. Him asking: “what was the reason for the go around” is a normal question they always ask.
When controllers screw up, they don't die.
Nobody screwed up here. Let’s not be over dramatic.
“I do this (put lives at risk) every day”
No, runs it efficiently all day. Air India was clear of the runway as the Delta turned, and accelerated, had plenty of room for them to land.
@@LiamsCarsandblocksno jfk isn’t always efficient. The controllers are often aggressive especially with foreign pilots and eventually it’s going to cause an accident. The pilot has the final say he’s responsible for all the lives behind him. If he thinks it’s too tight he goes around. The controller literally admitted it would have been tight. He’s not the pilots boss. Rather have a cautious pilot than a rushed controller making the final decisions
@@LiamsCarsandblocks What if Air India had to reject from whatever reason?
@pingvin385 had plenty of time to go around in that case. Which is why the separation standard exists.
@@LiamsCarsandblocks Well i don't agree, and neither did the pilot.. Do you know how much time it takes to decide to reject and to notify ATC and then ATC to notify another pilot? And who is faster? Plane who starts take off roll or plane doing approach speeds? Going around doesn't kill, but hitting another plane on runaway does
ATC, what a hideous reply. So unprofessional.
There was no drama here. Nothing unprofessional.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 i'm not an aviator but I'm a submariner, another place communication and coordination is key. there's no need for snark, it's *absolutely* unprofessional even for a new yorker
@@tychosis there was no snark. He explained his view, hoping the pilot would understand that there was enough room, for the next time around.
The pilot has 100% the right to go around. He should go around, because the Air India was taking his focus from the task at hand.
However, he wasn’t too close. 999 out of 1000 pilots would’ve continued.
I wish the pilot would have said unsafe landing conditions or something with the word unsafe. Just to get it on record.
Except it wasn’t unsafe. He was just uncomfortable. Which is fine, that’s why he did a good job around. But to call it unsafe would be a lie.
Somebody needs to remind the controller that the PIC is the one who has final say on the safe operation of his aircraft.
There was no drama here. They had a discussion. The controller was actually right, but so was the pilot. Nobody to blame here.
Doesn't the pilot fly every day? "I dO tHis EveRy dAy"
Sorry. I just thought that was such an unprofessional thing to say...
This is one of those they were both right situations. ATC didn't issue any clearance that was wrong (Even the new RWSL system and REL lights doesn't kick in until traffic is on less than a 2nm final). DAL45 figured it was not safe so they did what they thought was safe. The added dialogue wasn't necessary but no one was wrong.
Agreed. Finally someone who knows how this works.
Unless the controller is also an pilot then he doesn't know.
Of course he does. 🙄
Talk about pushing tin.
The controller may do this every day, but the Delta flight crew does this every day also. If a flight crew feels it's too tight, then it is.
Not really. But the pilot was definitely distracted by it, so the go around was correct. The reason he mentioned was not though.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 2.5 miles and Air India is just starting it's roll. I don't want to be a passenger on either heavy. Go around is the decision I want my pilot to make in that situation every time. 500 lives were at stake.
Egos kills people. Sometimes in the hundreds. That controller needs to get his ego in check before he goes down in history as that guy who killed a US record of passengers cattered across his airport.
Time for a vacation, or smaller airport.
@@slartybarfastb3648 so you have an opinion about something you know nothing about.
The rules is 6000 feet and the previous airplane should be airborne. This happens hundreds of times a day, where one airplane is lifting off at the end of the runway, while the landing aircraft crosses the runway threshold at the beginning of the runway.
This happens all the time. This is the minimum that the controller has to abide by. When the Delta did his go around, Air India was already airborne.
I have landed many times where I watch the aircraft taking off to make sure it gets in the air, before I touch down. It’s no big deal and it’s definitely not unsafe.
Having said that, this pilot was obviously distracted by it all, so his decision was indeed correct.
But 999 out of 1000 pilots would’ve continued and done so safely.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 It's going to get many people killed and has caused many people to get killed. That's not a opinion.
GREAT CALL BY PILOT, DONT QUESTION IT WHEN IT HAPPENS AGAIN! GO AROUND,
time to add more runways
I was always taught to not answer a question with a question. If ATC was certain it was safe he had the opportunity affirmatively state the it would be clear when asked by delta if he NEEDED to go around. Instead he asked if delta was going around. To which Delta answered yes because ATC couldn't or wouldn't provide that affirmation. To end to eliminate any further back and forth or confusion the decision was made.
"it would have been tight" is not what you want to hear
Would’ve been tight in regards to the minimum distance allowed. Not tight in regards to safety.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 My brother in christ, that still has regards to safety. You literally repeated what you said except exchanged the word "safety" for "minimum distance allowed." MDA is literally for safe operation and being tight on the MDA is being tight on safety
@@frankieM_ nope, absolutely not the case. Everything right up to the minimum is considered 100% safe. They have these limits, otherwise you cannot operate at busy airports efficiently.
When he said: “it would’ve been tight”, he means that it would be close to that minimum buffer, before a go around is required.
I’ll simplify it for you. You have a river with boats. There is a waterfall, which is dangerous. So the span a safety net (the go around in aviation) 50 meters from the waterfall, that stops any boat. Anywhere up to this net, is safe for anyone. When you say: “would’ve been tight”, means you get close to that safety net, not the waterfall.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 My brother in christ it absolutely is the case, wtf are you on about? Minimums are the required point of a go around, yes, but they're not the only thing that requires you to go around. Pilots have final say in the operations of an aircraft for the specific purpose of avoiding shit that would still occur even if you followed regulations.
Ill put this in simple terms so you can understand: a safety net 50m from a waterfall isn't going to stop a cruise liner from going over, and neither will regulations guarantee you 100% safety
@@frankieM_ I never said the pilot wasn’t in his right to go around. He was distracted so he should’ve done the go around. But he was not too close and he was not unsafe had he continued. The rule is 6000 feet. That’s the absolute minimum.
You can say all you want, but you are incorrect. You are not in aviation, so you have an opinion about something you don’t have an understanding about.
There is no cruise liner on a small river. But if you want that, we will replace the net with a fortified steel barricade that can stop a cruise ship. You missed the point.
Where is the singapore airlines turbulence??????
AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNICATE. The pilot was right.
This happens at Pearson quite frequently, too.
with pressures on airfields getting higher, atc's need to land and start even more airplanes, this is a very dangerous direction. When an ATC still debates it is possible when a professional pilot says it is not safe. Another signal this will go very veyr wrong soon. Only after a huge accident with lots and lots of deaths, then maybe something will change.
Oh stop it. The controller was correct. The minimum distance was never reached. There was nothing dangerous here. The pilot was uncomfortable. 999 out of a 1000 pilots would’ve landed, but this guy decided not to. Which is his right. Nobody at fault here.
Private jets are causing a lot of incidents at large airports. I have seen a few go arounds caused by private jets misjudging the roll out and taxying slowly on the runway. Sometimes they brake too quickly and the runway does not have an early exit. Or they are not doing a proper performance calculation to work out where they will stop. They should fit in just fine, as they can fly faster and brake faster than a large jet but the pilots fly to so many different and small airports they won't be as familiar with operations at large airports.
None of what you say are things that are happening. 🙄
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 tell that to the aircraft which regularly go around on ZRH 14 because some Pilatus can't keep up the speed and vacate at the end.
@@loopbackish you are not in aviation. I know that, because you seem to think that calculations are made so they know where the aircraft will stop on the runway. 🙄
Only thing calculated is the runway length required.
A Pilatus is not a Jet, unless you refer to the 24, which can keep up with airline traffic easily.
Airlines and corporate jets sometimes roll out to the end. And sometimes, some pilots are selfish and don’t ask or pay attention to what’s going on. But no, there is no epidemic of corporate pilots creating go arounds.
@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 I calculate the stopping distance and autobrake setting so I stop next to a turnoff which actually exists rather than braking randomly and being stuck far from an exit. I'm just saying maybe private aircraft do not use these tools.
@@loopbackish LOL, thats impossible to do, since you have no idea where you will touch down. You also don’t have these “tools”. Only the newer Airbus products have it where you can tell it which runway exit you prefer and the auto brakes will adjust accordingly. And with that I mean, it calculates this after touchdown.
But that’s not what we are talking about. You claim you can calculate before landing, where on the runway you will get to taxi speed. You simply can’t.
It’s simple, you land, you slow down and you take the first available taxiway.
Do you slam on your brakes if you don’t make your exit?