Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Private Jets COLLIDE ON TAKEOFF & LANDING | Runway Incursion
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 окт 2023
- Preliminary FAA Statement- A twin-engine Hawker H25B departed without permission from Runway 22 Hobby Airport at 4 PM when it collided with a twin-engine Cessna C510 that was landing on Runway 13 Right. No injuries have been reported.
_____________
Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASA...
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
Working hard midnight to have this released as early as possible. Your support is really appreciated.
*NTSB UPDATE 25OCT 1730Z* "Around 3:20 p.m. on Tuesday, authorities say an air traffic controller instructed a Hawker 850XP airplane to line up and wait on Runway 22 at Hobby Airport. The Hawker started a takeoff roll and its wing collided with the tail of a Cessna 510 airplane (N510HM) that had landed on runway 13R. The pilot of the Hawker continued the takeoff before returning to land.
The NTSB has sent a team of six to being the investigation."
Fricken hell. Get this to Blancolirio asap.
You're a legend!
As always, thanks for your hardwork! Love your videos.
You're a valuable asset to have, Victor. Thank you for all you do for aviation.
@@rickrickard2788 thanks for your support!
I was SWA 2214…we heard tower tell 9AA to stop at least twice before the collision occurred. Very glad everyone is still alive.
Hey Nate, KMANOUT B787 retired over here at American Airlines.
The controller appeared to not be aware of anything when 9AA called back with an “issue”.
Your thoughts?
@@EleanorBrand Thoughts? The Hawker Pilot has some sort of "issue" with ATC or a cockpit "issue"? NTSB had thoughts on their preliminary report. "At 1518:01 the local controller instructed the crew of N269AA to LUAW on runway 22, to which the crew acknowledged. The local controller did not give a traffic advisory to N269AA." ... "N269AA was in the takeoff roll on runway 22, when the flight data/clearance delivery controller alerted the local controller about N269AA’s movement, and at 1519:47 the local controller stated “november nine alpha alpha, stop, hold your position.” There was no response from the crew of N269AA, and at 1519:53 the local controller again stated, “alpha, alpha, hold your position, stop,” to which there was still no response."
A tiny change in the timing of the collision could have made this a deadly disaster.
or nothing at all, exept a possible pilot deviation
Especially given the fact he vectored that em aircraft back into his arrival stream which didnt make sense. Ive controlled a while i know that can be stressful but gotta maintain. Cant assume the southwest are gonna move right away. Triage, better to lose one than too. Glad everyone made it out on
I would say about 3 feet.
Can you imagine if they hit one of the Southwest?
Speed of the hawker would have been about 65 m/s. 0.1 seconds later and it might have been a complete miss (0.6 m, ~ 2 ft). 0.1 seconds earlier and it could likely have been deadly.
0:49 "you guys cleared somebody to take off or land" - yes exactly and it wasn't you! 😫
Imagine the reaction when he hears the tapes. Well actually we don't know what was said beforehand, as there are no radios to be heard here before the incident.
my thought exactly
yeah he was awful upset at the tower for the mishap that he caused by taking off without permission
"Why is everybody driving the wrong way?"
@@zone2Ironman Typical boomer charter captain. Spent way to many trips with assholes like this. Everything bad that happens is always someone else's fault. He will hear the tapes with his stupidity clear as day and STILL find a way to displace blame.
VAS Aviation is 'The Fastest Gun in the West' for aviation incidents, practically as soon as they happen.
Maybe they are causing them? 0.o Good way to get views... sounds like a viable conspiracy theory.
Well they are always first on the scene... 🤔@@codeblocks4067
@@codeblocks4067 I never thought of that. You might be on to something
Don't think he heard about this one as he usually is spot on within a couple hours. I messaged him on Instagram about this incident a few hours after it happened
"Call me back in 10minutes"
"The airport remained closed for 4hours"
Yeah, I'd love to hear the back story on that one. I'm guessing somebody pulled out the strict interpretation of the FAA / NTSB post-crash ops book that says "leave everything where it lays so we can work out the incident progression". Probably not needed in this incident. Four hours of delayed, cancelled and rerouted inbound flights stinks but they could have had a bunch of dead people midfield so it all worked out.
Sounds better then call me back in 4 hours
well... things were quite hectic at that moment, so basically "in 10m, i'll hopefully know what's going on and can give you more info. in the meantime, please let me handle the current situation"
@@jimmiller56004 hours can be justified if, like it seems to be, the collision occurred on the runway: that being the case you need an inspection per every runway that could have been used by the accident planes.
@@1972challengerI’d rather hear four hours. I’mma goin to George Bush.
THANKS for posting so quickly Victor! Juan-Patreon Supporter
Thanks Juan, loyal Patron you are! Really helps. I can't wait to see if you throw some more light into this one. Awaiting for more official releases too.
Just to think of how super close this was to being worse... Think about it - the left wingtip of AA clipping the rudder/aft of the landing aircraft means that the front/cockpit fuselage must had barely missed the rest of the landing aircraft in order to the wingtip to clip it nearly at the same elevation..
Waiting for your analysis Juan!
@@xDefender11 Hawker pilots departed when they weren't supposed to. Done.
Can't wait for Brownie's assessment of this accident. I imagine the NTSB will be examinig the CVR from that Southwest jet???
For everyone asking to hear what happened right before, the official recordings get locked down pretty much immediately after a major incident like this. Even within the agency the tapes can't be accessed except by the people that are investigating. Videos like this that get posted right away get their audio from live atc, which doesn't record all frequencies at all times.
Fellow pilots, I can't believe I (or really, I shouldn't) have to say this, but this the reason why you and your crewmate, if applicable, need to be actively listening in these critical phases of flight. LUAW doesn't mean take off immediately, it means line up and wait. I guarantee the tower controller told them to LUAW and that there was landing traffic on the intersecting rwy. I've seen this kind of complacency a lot recently in these ATC videos and its getting on my last nerve. If you're unsure of the last ATC request, ASK THEM FOR CLARIFICATION. ASSUME NOTHING. It costs exactly zero dollars to double check your clearance. Jfc, suck your damn pride up and ask.
If that Mustang had touched down less than two seconds earlier, we'd have a mini Tenerife on our hands.
Complacency. Kills.
Complacency kills. So do race quotas and incompetence.
Yeah I wouldn't jump to any conclusions until we hear the conveniently "unavailable" audio. The FAA has lied plenty in the past.
@@michaelnuttall5896love how you took something that has absoulty nothing to do with it and shoved your opinion in there
@@its_whack It does not alter the facts in the post though.
@@its_whack Which of these two options is safer for the aviation community, in general?:
1. Hire ATCs based on qualifications and merit, REGARDLESS of skin color.
2. Hire ATCs based on meeting a quota for a certain amount of "not white people" in the tower.
So if I'm understanding right, 9AA took off without clearance and then got angry at ATC for clearing someone else to land while he was clear for T/O despite the fact that he was never cleared? Even a student pilot can tell you that you don't takeoff from a controlled field unless you are cleared.
that's my read too
Clearly he thought he was cleared.
He obviously thought he was cleared…..
Your fired! Then he has an attitude.
He was obviously cleared - the tower expressed no surprise whatsoever that he was airborne
The Hawker is a 2 pilot jet…more than 1 pilot is responsible for taking off without a clearance.
The DuPage Aerospace corporate fleet that includes N269AA also has a Gulfstream with tail number N501HM. The plane that N269AA collided with has tail number N510HM. Both pilots may fly several planes in the fleet including N501HM. They may have suffered temporary loss of situation awareness when hearing N510HM was given clearance to land given the similarities in tail numbers. You can hear the pilot having difficulty in recalling their tail number over the radio coms. Several times he starts rattling off "Romeo romeo..." before correcting himself. Incidentally, the corporate fleet also includes a Hawker with tail number N416RR.
No. We fly different call signs every day. If you’re not sure it’s you, then you verify
For the Hawker to be taking off through an intersecting runway and not be concerned about another aircraft on that runway and visually checking is amazing.
@@GWN_GarageI don't think he was implying it wasn't the pilot's mistake. Of course it is. An explanation into the thought process and the reason why it happened doesn't transfer responsibility. WHO was responsible and WHAT was the cause are two different concepts, and both are important. Saying "It's the pilot's mistake" is the beginning of the analysis, not the end. At no point did the @B4s3MXxD say it wasn't the pilot's fault, or that he should get a free pass on anything. I'm not sure why you assumed that. All he was doing was identifying the exact errors made in the pilot's thought process, and discussing possible reasons why it might have happened, because understanding those things are how we improve aviation safety.
When someone brings up, "The pilot often flies a plane with a similar tail number as another plane that was cleared," the implication is not "Oh, well that's OK that it happened then," rather, the implication is, "Holy shit, that's an easy mistake to make if we're not careful, and that's why we all need to be extra careful about verifying ATC instructions."
@@B4s3MXxD excellent example of swiss cheese effect in Safety. Thanks for sharing
N269AA pilot getting pissed off and he's the one who took off without clearance. Brilliant.
Maybe just very stressed not knowing the extent of the damage to the plane they were in(in the air).
I guess our first inlination is to believe ourself correct in a conflict. And he was under a lot of duress at the time. But, yeah, very bad look for the Hawker N269AA.
To be fair, they might have thought they had clearance. From the FAA and NTSB initial reports, it's clear he had a Line Up and Wait will no clearance for takeoff. So their tune will change when the FAA confronts them with the recording.
Average Hawker pilot 😊
@@jackielinde7568 yep, we've seen countless examples over the years of pilots thinking they have clearance to do something having never been given clearance.
Absolutely insane to have departing and landing traffic crossing and not paying any attention to someone landing on a crossing runway. The pilot messed up on many levels.
Interesting to note that in both readbacks from N269AA (the right turn to 310 AND the cleared to land) the person reading back says "Romeo" something and then corrects to "Alpha Alpha" maybe the Hawker pilot was mentally still flying another plane with a different tail number (with R in it) and that is part of the taking off without a clearance?
he did seem convinced that he was in the right and the aircraft he hit was in the wrong, so quite possible.
@@jwenting Interesting week regarding mental health and pilots I'd say.
Wonder if any other aircraft on the field or in the vicinity had R or something similar in their tail #?
I heard that too. Funny that he was being a little testy with ATC, yet it was his/their fault.
@@Helicopterpilot16makes ya wonder if they're being pushed to hard
wow, that was chaotic. But well handled by the Tower
SFO needs to get a lesson from these men.
Most importantly ATC didn’t lose time arguing and lecturing the faulty pilot. They focused only on fixing the situation.
No need to find out who s guilty at that moment.
Other ATC should learn from these guys
yep the ATC workload just surged but it was handled very well
Agreed, but I question the wording "Go ahead and hold..." seems like a poor choice of words.
I realize I'm an armchair quarterback here, but in a stressful situation "go ahead" should not be used to tell someone to stop.
(Any criticism I offer is made fully aware that I wouldn't last through training in that job, much less the first shift.)
Houston controllers in general have hearts of gold we must protect them at all costs
Very unfortunate to not have the radio coms of the 1 minute prior to the collision.....
Yes, surely there is GND audio of N269AA taxi clearance? I can't believe they taxied all the way to the runway without clearance! But, maybe it wasn't archived publicly. FOIA!!! ASAP!!!
@@c200d45e95 the last transmission recorded for AA was to monitor Tower. Unfortunately they are combined in one feed and some transmissions are missing
Houston ATC is funky - sometimes early morning Hobby is clearing flights into IAH
And the quality is always trash
I went back earlier after I first pulled the audio, and heard nothing, funky setup at KHOU, it all comes thru one berry receiver there, so you usually don't get the full conversation as it goes back and forth between freqs
KHOU Gnd/Twr/App
Archive Access: KHOU Gnd/Twr/App
Facility Frequency
Hobby Approach (Final) 133.050
Hobby Ground 121.900
Hobby Tower 118.700
@@c200d45e95
The FAA has already reviewed the incident and determined that the aircraft taking off did not have permission. Would be nice to hear it, but the FAA has already heard it, so at least we know what happened.
Both ground and tower handled this beautifully. I'm genuinely impressed with the speed and effectiveness of the response, they took their emergency training to heart.
I really love these total generic comments regarding incidents like this.
@@kinghans6266 *insert 20 comments about skilled cryptocurrency trader and how to reach them*
I really love these total generic comments regarding these total generic comments regarding incidents like this
You must be a lot of fun at parties, assuming you get invited to any.@@kinghans6266
Yeah fr, they worked this situation perfectly. Everyone was on top of the problem and there was no arguing at all.
Every time I hear ATC directing aircraft in an emergency I think to myself, “I’m so glad I never became an ATC!” So many things happening at the same time….good job to the folks who do it every day!
Ill hold judgment for now. We really need to see the tapes before the takeoff to understand what happened
Absolutely. I just showed what the official FAA statement said. I assume they are a realiable source.
@@VASAviationAbsolutely: FAA (just like any other national aviation governing body) has the raw recording from the ATC perspective. So, discounting a massive blunder on their part, they know what they're talking about.
Smart man
This is too big of a mistake. He took off without clearance, the FAA wouldn't release that statement unless they were SURE.
@@user-xu1bm6ot6u "This info is preliminary & subject to change."
Thanks a lot VAS for the quick upload
That Hawker pilot was awfully pissy for having just caused an accident and shut down an airport for four hours. He needs to lose his license. He could've killed a lot of people.
Because he knew it was his fault, I see it with traffic accidents every day. They're embarrassed and don't want to accept responsibility. It isn't right at all, but that's why it happens.
Given how people often act after causing an accident in a car when they have pulled out a junction without looking. (Why were you going along this main road, what do you mean I ran a stop sign you and the others should have stopped.)
It surprises me how shocked some get that pilots and ATC can do the same thing
Regardless of who's at fault, the airborne pilot was just involved in a midair collision. Pissiness can be excused under the circumstances, even if he's the cause.
@@SlipShodBob "You ran the stop sign"
"WELL IF YOU SAW ME RUN IT WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP? I WAS IN A HURRY!"
Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about lol. Entitled, unaccountable people.
If they took off, they thought they had clearance, even if it was not the case. You can clearly hear he doesn't understand he's at fault. In any case, it's shocking, at fault or not.
I see a lot of people commenting on the attitude of the Hawker pilot. You must realize as quickly as these situations transpire the pilot probably had no clue he was the one who messed up (and without the audio we don’t know exactly how the exchange went with ATC). As a controller of 10 years it is very common to get annoyed or upset with a pilot does the wrong thing or almost causes an incident, then sometimes you come to find out later it was your fault, and remorse sets it. In the moment however, you’re just mad that it happened and you may have no idea that an honest mistake on your part is what caused it.
Absolute and complete professionalism on ATC’s part. He kept his cool and immediately got to work getting everyone separated and vectored.
you have no idea what "professional" means if you thnk that was well handled. it was close to a complete shitshow fro the get go.
@@iatsd I don’t thnk you would handle it any better if you were the controller, he didn’t freak out and issued corrections to everyone in sequence.
It would appear that you have no idea what you're talking about and should stop posting. I've been in aviation all my adult life and some of my teenage years, and I can tell you that this was very well handled by the tower and the ground controllers.@@iatsd
Yeah, not only does the controller seem completely unfazed that the Hawker has taken off without clearance, upon hearing of a collision, requests clarification "Say what?" Truly consummate professionalism all around.
@@lcm7541The local controller did turn the Hawker towards SWA1644 at similar altitudes and was late giving climb instructions to SWA. Not perfect but they did well.
Amazing fast work Victor! Houston news is saying the hawker took off without clearance.
Thanks. That's what the FAA says. Statement shown in the video
Ah my bleary morning eyes couldn't read the message on my phone screen 😊
"you guys cleared somebody to take off or land" Oops. His tone is probably going to change when he finds out who the culprit is.
Maybe you have never heard of a clearance given by mistake. We have had several incidences like this recently.
Thanks for your work VAS, crazy if the jet departed without clearance!
Nice job Hobby tower getting that sorted fairly quickly.
and the planes taxied off the runway to where ever they were directed to park. They were not stuck on the runway or a taxiway. How long should it take for KHOU ops people to clean up the runway? 4 hours?
0:48 The fact that the pilot is not 100% sure of who had clearance confirms that maybe they weren't listening or paying attention to the comms. Glad this did not turn out to be a big disaster.
@VASAviation thanks for the quick upload!
Hopefully the audio or a transcript of the preceding communications will be released soon.
Thanks for the fast upload! Seems like that was just seconds away from a fireball on the runway, gee.
The stress level of the Hawker pilot is understandable. Regardless of whether clearance was/was not given or nonstandard terms created clearance confusion, it would be terrifying to see another jet pass by at 80-90kts mere feet in front of you, feel the impact of the collision jolt throughout the aircraft, and know you are past V1 and have to rotate with an aircraft that you don’t even know will fly or how damaged it is. Yeah I might be a little stressed and short sounding too after being told by ATC to fly away from the airport over dense residential homes having no idea if the plane will remain structurally intact and you will retain your flight controls. Look forward to hearing the pre-incident tapes/report on what communication happened that led the Hawker to think he was cleared to takeoff.
After hitting another A/C I think you could well justify aborting after V1. I'd rather overrun the runway than fall out of the sky. A collision isn't the same as a system / engine failure.
@@RunwayHeading Difficult decision either way. If you abort overspeed with full fuel you are guaranteeing a crash will occur and almost guaranteeing a post flight fire. The main airport entrance road and a residential area are right off the end of that runway which would factor into the decision. Fortunately he made the choice that resulted in no further damage to persons or property.
@@RunwayHeading Not a pilot, but I agree; there's a video on Mentour Pilot detailing an incident where the pilots decided to abort after v1, and it was later deemed correct decision.
@@kathrynslye471 very true, I was being pretty general mainly responding to your statement of “having” to rotate. I did not look at this particular field or runway in use or anything lying beyond it
@@kathrynslye471 Everyone is different, but honestly? If I feel a collision before leaving the airport environment then I can't trust the plane is airworthy. 99% of the time I'm going to cook the brakes. I might even consider landing if I'm only just off the ground and there's usable runway in front of me. I'm not a test pilot and I'm not going to figure out how an aircraft flies with missing parts.
Would have liked to hear the clearances (or not) for the landing and take-off.
Eventually. I figure NTSB will release ATC transcripts, or at least I hope so. Glad everyone came out of this relatively OK!
I'd love to hear the coms from the minutes before the collision. Someone misunderstood something here. (Yes, I am aware Victor says there is no audio from before the collision).
It's all well and good saying N269AA took off without permission, but why? Did they mishear an instruction? Was an instruction given to them but actually meant for someone else?
Many variables here. The pilot seems agitated, (who wouldn't be?) so he clearly thought he was doing nothing wrong.
I hope we get to learn the timeline of events and hear/see what went on leading up to the collision.
The main thing is, no one was hurt or worse. Everyone walked away. That's the best part.
Yes, unfortunately the communications prior to the incident are not recorded in the HOU feed
Exactly. Very recently there was a video where a pilot read back an instruction that was not for him, but the atc also didn't correct the mistake. Accidents are never a one factor thing. The full report will be interesting. Sadly by the time those come out I will have forgotten about this accident.
An incident involving two aircraft crashing and shutting down a major airport is going to get a full report done.
I'm old enough to remember when every pilot was forced to take an experimental drug or lose their flying license. That has nothing to do with the uptick in mental and physical lapses, right?
@@bosshog8844do you have any details on this? All I'm finding is a bunch of COVID denial and anti-vax material which I hope you're not referring to
As always, Great Job, Victor ! 🙂
Thanks for watching
Ironically the Pilot with the attitude might be the reason for the mess!
Even if he is the cause, he's airborne after colliding with another aircraft midair. Just because he's at fault, it doesn't make his aircraft less damaged, nor does it make it any safer to fly.
@@PrenticeBoy1688No, but it also doesn't mean he gets to cop an attitude without consequences.
@@Ea-Nasir_Copper_Co I dunno, man. That situation could've been deadly. He should face the music for his negligence, but getting shaken up after a collision is understandable.
@@Ea-Nasir_Copper_Co no need to discuss that while he's airborne as Tower perfectly did. He didn't start a debate, just helped the aircraft come back and land right away.
Where do you see an "attitude". All he is saying is he needs to come back immediately, which is a very responsible decision. He states that with the appropriate, assertive tone because it is really a priority.
Just listening to that made me nervous! I've flown in and out of there dozens of times and maintained a/c there for years. I know of several incidences there that didn't turn out so well.
269AA has a lot of attitude for someone who apparently took off without permission.
Why would that make it less stressful when flying an airplane back to the airport with an unknown amount of damage?
It would be interesting to hear conversations for the whole event. I don’t know whether Victor has edited this down, but 9AA appears to have made a very rapid return to the airport. They ask tower if they have clearance to land. There doesn’t appear to be any prior vectoring.
Edit: They’re given a 310 downwind by tower but nothing after that.
Some communications are missing in the recording. Also you have the clock on the radar for time reference
Yeah, I wanna hear the non-clearance for runway 22.
@@MSJDesign unfortunately it's not there on liveatc. The liveatc feed for HOU has approach, tower, and ground all on one feed. During the entire 2 minutes prior to the Hawker saying he hit somebody it doesn't have the tower talking
@@BelowMinimums It makes me wonder if someone is protecting the Hawker pilot/crew.
@@markmaki4460 No one is being "protected". Not all ATC frequencies are available on LiveATC.
What kind of things are done in a 4 hours closure? A broad thorough debris sweep would seem less, and both planes seemed to taxi to hangars (right?). This might seem to be more of the "10 minute variety" at first blush, so what kind of things come into play?
Perhaps higher than just basic systems checks confirmed? E.g., test each airport communication element is functioning? All software operating? Any liquids in addition to debris? Sufficient personnel to relieve the involved controller/ground personnel? Spitballing here.
Four hours sounds reasonable to me.
@@redcat9436 Glad to hear it. Too bad no one gave any kind of explanation at all, leaving open the interpretation that brushing a wingtip at the gate would be a 4 hour airport closure too.
I've worked a few crashes and we can theorize all we want, but until all facts are known, we should not jump to conclusions.
WN1073 was an inbound emergency aircraft prior to the collision.
TPA-SAT divert to HOU then changed to IAH.
They too had a full day.
Do you know the reason for their emergency?
Those controllers were doing work!
I understand this is a serious emergency that controllers are handling in real time, but I would have loved to hear; “9AA, you’re cleared to land 13R, and sir, when you have a moment I have a phone number for you to copy down” 🤣
I fly into hobby all of the time, just Sunday as a matter of fact. Landing on one and departing on the the crossing. The controller that I dealt with was VERY clear on the things that were going on ie “aircraft holding on my runway and one departing on the crossing prior to your arrival”.. if I’m reading correctly the Hawker departed without clearance? Let’s see how it plays, very lucky that there were no injuries
Lmao at SWA 2476 “ready to push” 🤦♂️😂 - yeah, and I’m ready to copy the winning lottery numbers for tonight also.
He knew the answer. Pilot will Ben paid the same and get to sleep with his own wife tonight. You can not win if you do not play. It’s not a flight club, it’s a scheduled airliner, he needs to ask not assume
I'm neither a pilot nor an ATC controller (but I am a railroad dispatcher, a role roughly analogous to ATC for the rails). I see a potential for a second collision between N269AA and Southwest 1644 as they both try to land on the same runway. The tower didn't give a landing clearance to the accident airplane until (it appears, looking at the altitude readout) Southwest confirmed that they would cancel landing and climb, but the pilot of the accident aircraft was likely focusing on getting a damaged plane back to the ground as soon as possible, and not looking for conflicting traffic. The danger here is an inconveniently-timed loss of communication, from radio failure, pilot not listening/wrong frequency, etc., causing a mid-air collision.
I won't pretend to know if anything could be done differently in this scenario, but on the railroad we work in a completely fail-safe manner, where the railroad will be in a safe state if communication fails at any time. That means always restricting the previously-authorized movement before allowing another to conflict. ATC seems to be fail-deadly, where planes are given landing clearance when another plane is still on the runway. If that plane aborts takeoff, you're counting on your ability to communicate with the landing plane to order them to go around.
Again, I don't know how to solve this. Unlike trains, airplanes can't stop and wait in midair. But perhaps a different perspective may be interesting to the conversation.
1644 and 9AA do get close, and probably break separation minima, but you can see by the time 9AA is on final there is well over 1000' separating them vertically. A lot of ATC separation does ensure separation in the event of a comms failure (IFR separation). Generally, if an operation is not fail safe, traffic is passed such that if something goes wrong AND comms are lost, there is an expectation that pilots provide their own visual separation, hence why passing traffic is so important.
This situation was clearly non-routine as 9AA was in an emergency situation. There will be lots of talk about how things should have/could have been handled here. The reality is that a whole bunch of planes end up wanting to use the same small pieces of ground at around the same time, every day, all across the world. In order to make this work, margins have to be pushed, and a lot of work goes into ensuring it's all done as safely as possible.
Regarding this specific incident, tower was probably willing to accept a possible loss of separation to get the emergency back on the ground and there was no way to make the emergency a/c extend to land behind SWA.
Regarding your general comments, I am ATC though not in a tower. You’re right. Some of the videos you have seem lately seem contrary to a safe operation. Having one or 2 a/c cleared to land where you have an a/c taxiing to depart does seem to be pushing the safety limits more than I would be comfortable with.
There will be lots more to come on this incident but my 20 years in the job opinion says in this particular incident the controllers at HOU did a really good job keeping anything else bad from happening
Would like to hear comms prior to incident also though
CETC deals with 2D movements; ATC deals with 3D movements. CETC can also change the vectors/deconflict the vehicles themselves via switches, interlockings, etc. while ATC relies on pilot compliance with clearances to do the same. A last note is that, in your world, your last line of defense to stop an incursion is through PTC automation, while the world of aircraft has a multitude of automated systems performing the same types of jobs (TCAS, ARIWS, RAAS, etc.)
Plenty of vertical separation between them, ATC made sure that SW climbed and that meant he could get AA directly in to the field.
To further drive your point home at 1:25 the tower uses the wrong callsign to tell SWA1644 to go ground and he has to waste time making a second call at 1:32 with the correct callsign which even then never got acknowledged. Though from the looks of it, SWA1644 had already decided to go around (either on their own or TCAS) as their altitude started counting back up right after Hawker 9AA was given landing clearance at 1:25.
A lot of people are already placing blame on the Hawker pilot when we have not even heard that part of the recording yet. He was pretty upset at what had happened and he clearly does not think it was his fault. The tapes will tell the tell, but at least wait until you hear them before judging anyone.
I had commented something similar and was immediately attacked by commenters.
Not only have we not heard the audio portion of Tower's instructions to the Hawker, nor have we heard the readback from the Hawker. Having said that, I feel strongly suspicious from the controller's "business as usual" attitude as nothing major had ensued while vectoring the Hawker to proceed towards its planned flight. Tower had absolutely no concern whatsoever regarding: 1. the Hawker taken off without clearance, and; 2. a catastrophic accident had almost happened because of a runway incursion between a landing aircraft and a departing aircraft.
It seemed as if it was really the controller's fault but he just wanted to tuck it under the rug as if nothing had happened until the Hawker informed him they had collided with the landing plane.
Then the shit hit fan, so to speak.
@@Ba_A I obviously agree with everything you are saying. I did read a comment from another pilot that claims he was there and heard the atc. He said the last thing he remembers is atc yelling "stop, stop, stop". He was saying he never heard the "Hold and wait" instruction or a readback that reflected that. But did say there were several people talking over each other at the time. This will certainly be an interesting investigation. With all that said, if I had to bet, I would say its the pilots fault. But I would like to form my own opinion based on actual atc recordings. Not some commenter telling me what his sisters mothers aunt told them.
@@busterellis7188 How about what the NTSB has claimed? Why disregard their findings? Just curious
Or how about the prelim report. "At 1518:01 the local controller instructed the crew of N269AA to LUAW on runway 22, to which the crew acknowledged. The local controller did not give a traffic advisory to N269AA." That "business as usual" attitude, after not giving clearance, then reacting to the uncleared roll by the Hawker by twice telling them to stop and having to continue operations is what some might call professionalism.
@@candlercando Your right, the prelim report was very telling. Thats all I was saying, lets wait for the facts to come out before you make any judgements. Ive seen the prelim report myself and I will say at this point the Hawker pilots dont have much of a leg to stand on. I am still gonna wait until I hear the communications (which have not been released yet) before any final judgements. I personally want to listen to it because both pilots in the prelim said they heard "you are cleared for takeoff". That will be the most telling in this case. Because to me, its hard to believe both pilots heard the same thing. Either they are lying something on the recording will sound like "you are cleared for takeoff". I thinking it will be they are lying.
I was a Corporate Pilot for 37+years flew mostly Dassault Falcon Jets. DA10,20,50& 900. Thankfully I never scratched a plane or a person in all those years.
All of those Southwest planes got to do a fun 10 minute repositioning flight from IAH to HOU later that night.
Holy crap! That could have been much worse!
This seems to be happening more and more! Great work Victor..
i love how n269aa is like, we cant do that we just had a midair collision! you cleared someone to take off infront of us! and the tower is like, ok do you wanna tell me and declare an emergency or just assume im all knowing and get upset with me first lmao
Whoa that happened too quick in the beginning- we need about the previous min ½ of atc audio added to this to really get an understanding of who did what. Otherwise, great job as always VASAviation.
I will wait for the NTSB report to be released before making any kind of judgement here, due to a lack of information.
What is going on with all these pilots not following ATC instructions. This have to be the 5th major one in 2 weeks? I don't remember it being this "normal" for pilots to be this incoherent when it comes to ATC. Are companies just hiring anyone with a pulse and a part 61 or 141 schooling?
When supply drops and demand doesn't, requirements drop as well. There are police departments so desperate that they're hiring people with criminal records.
Media is reporting one aircraft did not have clearence for departure
@@logicplague. That is normal for cops. Only criminals
@@logicplague Hey, they have "experience" !
@@nobodyspecial7185 No, it wasn't, but thanks to ACAB people like you it will be for the foreseeable future because no one wants to be a police officer anymore and deal with the hate they receive. Good job with that defund thing.
Even though there was no ATC audio before the incident, it seems right off the bat the departing aircraft tried to pass blame to ATC for clearing another aircraft to take off or land. It will be interesting to see how the NTSB investigation turns out on this once. This happened during the afternoon and I noticed the pilot said ATC cleared another plane to take off or land but made no mention of himself being cleared for takeoff.
"At 1518:01 the local controller instructed the crew of N269AA to LUAW on runway 22, to which the crew acknowledged. The local controller did not give a traffic advisory to N269AA."
Those Swiss cheese holes are starting to line up more and more each day.
When I hear the voice and attitude of the mishap aircraft I’m immediately thinking I know ultimately who the culprit is. This one won’t be hard to figure out.
I don't know. I can see someone in the right being as indignant about damage to their plane. It's more an admission of attitude, not guilt.
@@jackielinde7568 yes, agreed. But I don’t think most pilots I know would be so immediate to judge their own “rightness”. His attitude caught me as being pretty “off”. Of course we don’t really know where to look yet, but it seems likely to me either the takeoff aircraft without clearance or the tower messing up. And the landing aircraft had a chance to potentially spot this coming too. Proof we all need to be paying max attention. There is a lot at stake.
And sure enough. Looks like he took off without being cleared. Some kind of radio screw up, but he was so arrogantly sure he was right. I say a lot of times, luck over skill any day, in this case he was about 1/10th of a second away from being super unlucky.
And after handling that so well, the ATC will get dinged for not saying "traffic alert" between southwest and 9AA
Not if they had visual
I'm not sure about the departure without clearance.
ATC contact him and did not mentioned anything about an unauthorised clearance for take off. Or am I miss something.
ATC is very quick to let an aircraft know if he did something illegal.
Yes, the comms make absolutely no sense if the Hawker rolled without clearance. He would be getting screamed at
@@quiznoes69he did get yelled at to stop. Twice.
how quickly the house of cards can come down...
very close to disaster
Awful lot of Monday morning quarterbacks in the comments when we don’t even have the pre-accident audio.
Just taxied out on Monday morning. I literally said “this airport looks benign but is an accident waiting to happen”. The cross traffic is standard Ops.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has released its Preliminary Report on the runway-intersection collision between a Textron Hawker 850XP (N269AA) and a Cessna Citation Mustang (N510HM) at Houston Hobby Airport on Oct. 24 (NTSB Accident No. DCA24FA017)
The NTSB report indicates that the Hawker crew initiated its takeoff roll on Runway 22 *without clearance* and suggests the crew may have been distracted by anomalies related to avionics displays. The crew reported in post-accident interviews that, as they approached the takeoff runway with a clearance to “line up and wait,” V-speed indications were missing on their screens. And during the subsequent *uncleared* takeoff roll, they also experienced rudder-bias and pitch-trim alerts, the crew reported. In the meantime, the tower controller had cleared the Citation to land on Runway 13.
The pilot who was agitated at the tower took off without clearance.
Source?
@@waldolemmer FAA
Who was "agitated"? Did I miss something?
@@Chr15T 0:49 "you guys cleared somebody to take off or land"
@@David-yh4wz yes. stated in a calm voice, and probably completely correct.
Impacted another plane but didn't bother to declare an emergency? Sure, anyone paying half attention would've assumed, but "we can't do that" isn't "this is an emergency." Maybe that's why ops had to chime in to stop a damaged aircraft from taxiing?
Failure to declare an emergency does seem a pattern in many of these videos and repeatedly seems to result in confusion.
i think the words "unable', "need to return", and "we just had a midair" constitute a emergency return....notice the EM appear after the controlled called it for them....I think he "bothered"....Yup, also that aircraft has to stop so ground grew can check for leaks....pretty stupid to let it taxi to the busy FBO ramp dripping jet-A......Thats why ARFF are the experts and tower and Hawker boomer are the students....
1:18 "cleared to land" isn’t a question. You ask for "permission", "cleared to land" is a sentence that is only used when reading back the clearance from tower.
And then "yes sir" from the tower, lol.
Identical issue to tenerife, in an interview with investigators the pilot said “I thought I heard we were cleared for takeoff”
I didn't realize 9AA took off... yikes! These guys were all very luck, quite possibly 1 second difference in time and the impact would have been catastrophic.
More like milliseconds... 1 second more or less and they would have completely missed each other at that speed
Assuming a slow 180 km/h (just for a quick and easy calculation), one travels at 50 m per second, more than the length of these planes 😁
We’re getting closer and closer to a big one
Will be interesting to see if there is clear audio recordings that the tower has access to. Otherwise it would be ATC’s word against the pilots’? Probably the CVR from the plane itself will play a role in the investigation.
CVR and Tower tapes will figure this out
2:41 "We’ve got the third one airborne… inbound."
Were there 3 emergency aircraft?
Closer & closer we get, to what we all dread the most... I pray I'm wrong...
I miss the good ol' days of competency in the aviation community!
Aviation is far safer now than it's ever been
you wouldn't know about it in the good old day without the internet.
@@guitarexpert2245 Hey, I got the "Monthly Slab" delivered to my cave down by the river.
@@tomkandy I didn't mention anything about safety.
I watched a close call when a C208 PT6 MT 5blade monster we usually jump out of almost crashed 12 o'clock with a UL piloted by a student as the C208 was in final. The UL almost hit the right wing while passing under it to prevent collision. Bet I was shocked standing just 25m besides screaming in the radio "Paul, 12 o'clock!"
guess dan gryder will be sneaking onto the tarmac to find a piece of wreckage for this next video
Wow! Someone’s guardian angel was working overtime for everyone to have survived this circus.
I hate crossing runways. They are unfortunately necessary to maintain a small airport footprint, but mistakes can become magnified at these types of airport layouts.
Definitely a bad layout! It's like a figure 8 race track.
Yes, and this has happened there many times. I suppose that those old military airports with that layout were built with the assumption that there wouldn't be takeoffs and landings on more than one or two runways at a time. That has been a very busy airport for decades, too. I think it was busier in the past before aviation slowed with the increased costs.
Crossing runways are nice when the wind shifts....provided all runways are equal
Green and red lights that are controlled by tower that are on side of runway giving visual indication of take off clearance. The simplest ideas tend to work best.
0:46 "You said what?!" 😳
"do you want to come back?"
"nah we are fine we just hit another plane no worries water under the bridge man"
Last year an ITA pilot hit an AF at JFK and continued to Rome
Next level post take off manners though. Patiently waiting for a break in transmission to avoid stepping on calls, before passive aggressive announcement of collision. No need for a PAN PAN or MAYDAY…because you should know from the tone of his voice that you’ve done something wrong, and ‘no, I’m not ok’. If it weren’t for the deep voice and the fact that she definitely isn’t a pilot, I could have sworn that was my wife manning those radios…
Wow, those people are lucky to be alive! ...would not want to have been on the inside of that airport terminal for that extra 4 hours tho!
I'm trying to figure out why the Hawker was even taking off from that runway. Given the METAR information, he was taking off with an almost straight crosswind of up to 27kts. That sounds like a pretty scary takeoff roll to me. The Mustang had an almost direct headwind. When there are two runways with close headwind, why takeoff from one with a straight crosswind?
All departures were using that runway due to Houston airports configuration
@@VASAviation ok, still sounds rather scary to me to take off in winds like that, but I'm just a sim pilot still.
Aren't pilots supposed to read-back a takeoff clearance the same as hold-short instructions? I'd think the tower should have caught that if the Hawker was told something like "Line up, cleared for takeoff after the arriving Mustang" but the pilot only read back "Cleared takeoff." Hard to know what happened there without the pre-incident audio.
Here we are again. Our dependence upon saturated voice communications is long overdue for change. A partial list of voice-com fallibilities includes: blocked transmissions, non-native English speakers, mis-understandings, too much to convey in too little time. Everyone doing their best to make it work. Too often it’s just dumb luck that saves the day. There’s got’a be a better way. Someone smarter than me needs to figure it out sooner rather than later.
As a student pilot flying patterns at an uncontrolled airport, I often feel like the only thing keeping us from colliding is a big sky and dumb luck.
@@flutetubamorg "big sky and dumb luck" There is an element of truth to that. Keep your eyes open and expect the unexpected.
You buying...?
who the fuck takes off without clearance
Video was released before the runways opened again !!!!. FAST !!!!!
What instructions were given to N269AA prior to him departing? Just wonder why he thought he had clearance to depart.
What a year for aviation, too many incidents and accidents that got nothing to do with any mechanical/weather issue
There has been no increase in runway incursion incidents. The total number of incidents in 2019 was identical to the number in 2019 (1,753 total incidents in the United States).
I'll be honest, my wife and I were considering going for our private pilots licenses (which is why we started listening to ATC recordings in the first place), but over the last year the number of close calls in the air and on the ground have made us rethink that plan.
I think we will stick to motorcycles, it seems safer.
How things seem and how things actually are are not the same. I still recommend motorcycles, but don't assume they are more safe. If you start looking for motorcycle crashes, you'll see all kinds of fun videos to scare you off of that too.
As both a former pilot (because it's just too expensive for a hobby) and a former motorcycle driver (no longer, because I finally recognized the danger a year or so after I got hit) while they both have dangers involved, the motorcycle is in an entirely different class of danger. I would never ride on the road again with the drivers I see every day. A pilot in a light plane does have an enhanced chance of major injury or death, riding a motorcycle on public streets is a flat out death wish.
@@dave50266 These days we do either track riding or on empty back roads, riding in the city is for people with a death wish.
@@A.J.1656 Riding on closed-course track environment with large runoffs and gravel traps before the air fence significantly reduces the risk of being hit by someone driving a Suburban while texting.
@@BlindIo42
...and flying an airplane practically eliminates the risk of being hit by someone driving a Suburban while texting.
I ride motorcycles and fly. You should do both. Just don't kid yourself about which is safer. If safety is your primary goal in life, do neither. For the record, I fly for a living and have witnessed zero fatal accidents. I attend track events occasionally for fun and have witnessed multiple fatalities.
Boy does that Hawker pilot have egg on his face. Turns out he took off without permission, not Tower inadvertently clearing the Cessna to land. Please take that man's license away and make him watch the Tenerife disaster film a minimum of 50 times as compensation... Oh and pay for damages
News reports say the Hawker (the on that got airborne and landed immediately) took off without clearance.
Yes, I showed that on video
I'm not a flyer, but I'm even aware of the lessons of Tenerife: Don't take off without clearance.
Stand by for the rest of the story. I am not buying that this pilot just took off without talking to anyone at ATC. Somewhere there is a recording of some radio calls that led to this incident. I am not saying he was cleared for take off, but I find it hard to believe this guy taxied all the way out to Runway 22 without talking to somebody on the radio.
Nobody said that he NEVER talked to ATC, just that he didn't have a takeoff clearance. Maybe he got "line up and wait Runway 22" and then took off with no clearance.
FAA stated that they toof off without permission, that's all.
Do we know if the pilot thought he was cleared, or misheard another aircraft being cleared as his own? I hope he didn't knowingly take off without clearance
@@jazzi_0453 This video literally says "No audio available before the accident." I appreciate Victor's work here, but as a pilot, I would like to know how this whole mess got set up as far as communication is concerned. Live ATC often doesn't get all of the transmissions, (I am sure that is a source of frustration for Victor when he is trying his best to capture the event and it wasn't recorded. Thank you Victor) but I suspect a recording will be released from the FAA at some point giving us the rest of the story. Thus my comment.
@@jimaperkins ok, got it, I misunderstood what you were saying, I agree, the FAA definitely has the complete recordings.
The ground controller and local controller audio from 5-10 minutes prior to will be valuable.
1) unsure if the departing aircraft had a clearance since he didn’t know his own tail
2) assuming he had one, we just didn’t get it in the audio because no one flying a corporate a/c would takeoff without one (I’d hope)
3) atc makes mistakes and I’ve seen accidents like this because the pic didn’t listen and make a proper risk assessment before acting
4) clearance could’ve been “cleared for takeoff, traffic on short final, no delay” and he wasn’t ready in time hence point number 3
The report is out, he took off without clearance, he was told to stop twice, no other aircraft was given a take off clearance, another aircraft was cleared to land on the crossing runway and on the same tower frequency, he had multiple failure warnings on his take off roll.
Seeing past close calls escalate in the last few months, I think this incident is the cherry on top. FAA must act now.
What do you want the FAA do to here aside from investigate the pilot? This was pilot error. Not an overall issue with ATC issuing incorrect commands, or anything of the sort.
Pilot misheard, and took off without clearance. He'll get dealt with individually.
@@sakumisan I think complacency on the fact that this is a major escalation (aircraft contact and resulting damage) is not good at all. I would support improving safety systems for simultaneous operations nationwide.
Somebody tell this Hawker pilot it's called "touch and go" not "hit and run", and "altitude" not "attitude"
Me thinks that someone's ticket is going on the shelf for a while.
A second here and they might've missed each other entirely, a second there and everyone on both planes would probably have died.