NEAR MID-AIR COLLISION departing Phoenix International | Wrong Departure route
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 сен 2023
- Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASAviation
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
Any further information on what departure route AAL1388 was issued by Clearance Delivery is appreciated
What was the occurrence date?
According to another channel it was Aug 7 2023 at 5:07pm local.
Depending on the date, Flight aware clearances show MRBIL1 and FORPE1
I've read that AA1388 was initially set for 25R and got switched for 26 withouth getting new instructions. So they ended up taking off from 26 with the headings received for 25R.
Good data point. Perhaps cross referencing with a lookup of the SWA will help. @@joshuabrooks9360
Poor ATC guy lost 10 years of his life in those few minutes.
ATC tone/breathing says how close the encounter was.
Those guys live for these moments. Adrenaline junkies all.
Poor passengers almost lost all the years of their lives lol
@@Charon58
He didn’t say call the tower, he said I’m done with this. Somebody might call you, but it won’t be me.
@@Charon58 Saying that something is 100% true all the time is a fallacy. Saying that "all" ATC's are adrenaline junkies is a fallacy. There may be some that are, but who knows.
Extremely impressed with the controller. You could hear the intensity pick up in his voice and his speed of talking increase just a bit but he stayed clear and gave instructions that resolves the situation. Good for him, seriously. Nice job.
@@iain8837 TWR controller should read the waypoint, not departure
@@iain8837Yeah, but then why blaming departure for something tower failed to do?
@@iain8837easy to nitpick when you're not in the middle of a pretty dangerous situation. Unfortunately mistakes happen all around the world, not just the US. "anything goes in the USA" is an incredibly silly thing for you to say.
@@iain8837and it's departure's responsibility because...?
I disagree with your impression. Ok your reasoning is fairly sound except “I’m done with it” is NOT the right attitude (definitely not the right phrasing) for an air traffic controller. I want him retrained
I feel for the poor departure sector ATC
That guy almost had a heart attack seeing two radar blips sticking together
and he said the right thing that it is up to higher authorities to question and investigate what had happened
There should be no further discussion of the incident in the frequency he still had to handle other traffic at the time
Where was "copy number for possible pilot deviation?"
@@encinobalboa The year is 2023. In every civilized country, there is a system to report incidents without giving phone numbers over the frequency.
@ Do you know what you are talking about?
It most likely was not a pilot deviation. Something went wrong with ATC. @@encinobalboa
@@encinobalboa Do you?
Similar happened to me. SFO switch our departure runway to 1L but did not change our SID. We were cleared for takeoff at the same time as runway 1R. We asked tower to verify our departure instructions and he quickly realized both of us were about to turn right. Mistakes happen. It’s up to everyone to make sure what’s happening makes sense.
I was wondering if this might have been caught by the AA pilots simply through situational awareness. If they knew the parallel runway was CTO at the same time, and also knew that they (AA) were about to turn left after takeoff, wouldn't that raise a red flag in their mind? Not a pilot, so I might be missing something obvious...
@@djnorm98 they could have caught it but not necessarily. It helped me that I was very familiar with SFO. In PHX I might not have had a clue.
you mention SFO, I've been trying to figure out watching the channel for the last few months why they don't just designate one runway to landings and one to departures (like EWR for example). Any ideas?
Maybe maybe not. PHX is notorious for launching departures off runways that are the opposite direction of their departure procedure. 26 is usually used for landing but occasionally for takeoff. PHX prefers all takeoffs use 25R in a west flow.
@@mblumber they need all four when they’re busy. Land 28R&L takeoff 1R & L .
The only thing scarier than this situation is verifying that my family and I were on that Southwest flight.
damn. all the best to yall moving forward. have a great life
@@amaramachupa6422 Thanks! I probably should have bought a lottery ticket when I found out 😅
@@user-yg8cv2ff6l 😂🍻
@@user-yg8cv2ff6l Why? You don't like money?
The pilots most likely saw each other during takeoff, I think there was no serious danger. The TCAS system most likely informed them as well.
Most airports that depart parallel runways simultaneously will state the first RNAV waypoint flown to on departure (LAX and DFW, for instance). “RNAV DOCKR, 25R, cleared for takeoff.” I guess Phoenix doesn’t use this practice. It’s a good chance to trap this kind of error.
26 departures are quite rare at PHX mostly being heavy 777's and 787's using the N runway 98% of departures are on 7L/25R. A parallel departure from 25R and 26 I have never seem happen at KPHX. I honestly think there was a miscommunication in the control tower giving them clearance at the same time.
Yes, completely agree.
@@robinguess1704 eh. departure obviously thought the AAL was supposed to be on another departure than SWA... so... ?
Well, it is required.
AAL stated they had been cleared for this departure and "never heard of FORPE", so I believe that even if they did state the first RNAV waypoint the tower might just not know that that departure was incorrect and just agreed with the waypojnt
You’ll notice that neither takeoff clearance included the initial fix. The initial fix is a requirement for takeoff clearances issued by ATC tower into an RNAV departure. This gives the crew one last chance to ensure the FMS is programmed the same as ATC expects.
Phoenix seems to frequently omit this required part of takeoff clearances (my experience).
Wow his vioce was shaking. He handled that like an all-star . The ol yeah someone screwed up we don't have time to argue about it. All good here 🤣
Mr. “ATC” ..you did good. A real Pro. In our PDC world, mistakes do happen. The “human element” saved the day.
From a 30+ year 121 guy.
Why thank you! 🙂
ATC solves the incident, and is not for a second interested about dishing out blame. What a legend.
yeah...I wonder if that's because they were to blame....
Unlikely. Takeoffs were cleared by tower, this was approach
Holy COW. That is nuts! You can clearly hear the controller is having a rough time keeping his head on his shoulders after that NMAC. He didn't hardly have any time to deal with the situation.
"I'm done with it."
Sums up how I feel with this whole timeline.
I wonder if the controllers at PHX are going to start confirming first departure waypoint now.
Or maybe the initial turn. That would be more straight forward.
they should - same as lax
I notice that the South controller did tell SWA "in your SOUTHBOUND turn". Have to think that word was there deliberately as a cue to the pilots.
They SHOULD HAVE. From the 7110.65: FAA Order 7110.65 dictates: "When conducting simultaneous parallel runway departures utilizing RNAV SIDs, advise aircraft of the initial fix/waypoint on the RNAV route...PHRASEOLOGY-RNAV to (fix/waypoint), RUNWAY (number), CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF. " Paragraph 5-8-2(d). So the controller was supposed to confirm both the American and Southwest's first RNAV fix because it was a simultaneous RNAV departure.
@@Freedom4Ever420 based on what lol?
These things do happen, thats why in a takeoff clearance many airports and controllers will mention the sid or the first fix on the sid in the clearance to takeoff as a last minute safety net SFO and LAX always do that. PHX not so much.
SFO rarely does it though. If I picked up CPDLC already, they almost never mention departure clearance. Only the takeoff clearance
If they had two different frequencies for tower and they were both actually cleared the same departure, I'm not sure that this would have helped anyway. I have heard what you're saying before though where I've gotten a reminder of the first fix or the SID in my takeoff clearance.
I was wondering this when I was in PHX the other day. Almost every other Bravo tower will tell you "runway XX cleared for takeoff RNAV XXXX"
These things are not supposed to happen. The attitude of these things happen is when you get crashes.
Great job from the departures controller there in dealing with what was thrown at him.
Here comes Juan!
my favorite sky cholo
Love that guy.
Give that man a raise ... well covered... could have been terrible!!!!
And he had the class to not to get into an argument with the pilot. Well done sir.
Some wires definitely got crossed somewhere. Great job to ATC who noticed it immediately and did what do to be done to make sure everyone was safe. Hopefully he got relieved after sending those planes to Center to take some time to recompose himself.
Great job by the controller! Handled himself with the utmost professionalism!
This is when ATC gets real.
yessir
Question for those who would know as im unfamiliar with PHX airport, if you were taking off the on the right hand side runway and you know it was a parallel takeoff, wouldn’t you be skeptical of a left hand turn after departure?
In logic land yes but this is America so anything goes and little makes sense...
@daveyg54 Don't think AAL1388, or SWA2286 for that matter, knew it was a simultaneous parallel takeoff. That's why the first thing on the video shows that both of their takeoff clearances were read by 2 different ATC freqs at the same time (hence the stereo). And looking on Goggle Earth, I don't think either aircraft on RWY 26 or RWY 25R can visually see the other aircraft during taxi or lineup.
LAX does this all day everyday. The tower controllers coordinate with each other who gets to go next when there is a crossing SID like that. I'm sure many other airports do as well. As a pilot you have to just assume the procedures were followed and you're good to go.
@@Raiders33 regardless if its a simultaneous parallel takeoff or not, only in the USA could you have your fist turn into the path of the parallel runway. The rest of the world turn away.
@@qbi4614 It is normal to have a departure path turn towards a parallel runway all over the world. RUclips seems to not like links in comments, but google something like "Heathrow Departure Procedure charts" or other parallel runway airports and you'll find lots that have a turn towards the parallel runway. One example is London Heathrow Brookmans Park departure.
I think it was a dispatch/Delivery issue from American. as the controller thought American was on the FORPE1 I think both SWA and AAL both had the BROAK1 departure.
No, SWA was on the ECLPS1 departure, which has the same initial turn to the south as the BROAK1. Seems odd getting the BROAK1 for a departure off 26 though, it's a southbound turn.
@@chrisschack9716 good to know thank you
@@chrisschack9716they were NOT getting BROAK 1 if you listen to the audio that was a mistake on their part. They were given FORPE 1.
@@63076topherno, departure asked if they were doing the Forpe and they replied they were given the Broak. The only key to the mystery is what clearance they were actually issued. That information isn't present here.
@@FirewallFilms1 Try again at 0:44 they are asked to confirm Frope which they confirmed RIGHT AWAY.
Is it just me, or did the pilots seem a lot more chill about the situation than that controller.
They had visual on each other. ATC likely did not.
@@MB-hc2xwwell the ATC is in a dark tracon. No windows in there, so of course he didn't have them visually
If they had visual them, they were OK, if they didn’t, then they were blissfully ignorant.
Pilots were probably like SWEET! Let's see how close we can get and maintain visual separation! Formation flight isn't allowed with passengers... so we can't officially call it that... but oh well.
Dude was johnny on the spot to ID it that fast and work real time correction. I am sure at the end he was thinking he had no time to pull tapes - hence the I'm done w it.
I'm not sure how long "the tapes" last, but I'm sure they can be pulled sometime later after the incident.
Yes. Probably quickly reported to the shift supervisor too.
@@TheNixie1972 that's why they are there!
You could hear someone in the background say “woooo”
controller should get a free trip to the bahamas after this lmao
Just make sure its not on American
it's the cause problem -> fix problem -> reap rewards pipeline
I talk to the PHX departure controllers on a daily basis. Upstanding crew at PHX TRACON
Oh man. That's like one the crazy scenarios from that old ATC simulator game.
Confirming that first departure point fixes that issue and most airports do that.
How about the initial turn. More straightforward. No telling what the crew might assume is in the box.
Sounds like even if they had confirmed this woulda happened. Issue seems to be that they were cleared for a conflicting SID. And there’s unfortunately no way for anyone but the one who cleared them to know that it’s a conflict.
Controller's fault. From the 7110.65: FAA Order 7110.65 dictates: "When conducting simultaneous parallel runway departures utilizing RNAV SIDs, advise aircraft of the initial fix/waypoint on the RNAV route...PHRASEOLOGY-RNAV to (fix/waypoint), RUNWAY (number), CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF. " Paragraph 5-8-2(d). So the controller was supposed to confirm both the American and Southwest's first RNAV fix because it was a simultaneous RNAV departure.
@@kaijohnson5033 Yes, both AAL1388's assumed BROAK ONE departure and SWA2286's ECLPS ONE departure have the same 1st waypoint at JUTAK (240° left turnout course).
@@Raiders33not if the tower had him on the FORPE .
What he says: "I'm done with it". What I hear: "I'm done with it, off for a beer and God forbid John gets in my way or I'll thank him personally, this was the second one today."
He's done with it because he knows he's under a microscope now. Having heard his voice for sometime, I know people who refer to him as "mr happy"
Nice try, but not under a microscope at all! Nothing but praise from Washington DC and all the way down. And thank you for the nickname! I will certainly run with that one!@@justaguy427
Definitely picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue
THIS is why Air Traffic Controllers have to retire at 56. And pilots go to 65, and apparently 67 someday. I'd be VERY curious as to what happened. They almost assuredly got their clearance from CPDLC or PDC, both digital, and via ACARS. Thing is, pretty much any time the clearance we get differs from the flight plan, when I search our flight in Jeppesen FD pro and WSI, the new route is the one that I see popping up. Our FMC will usually auto load the original and then you have to load the changes. One thing I was told early on in my career is that most lateral deviations occur on the ground. Meaning, you missed something at the gate. It's so true. I don't know what's happening with American and the other airlines right now. We just had that situation at JFK earlier this year. This is why the idea of single pilot airlines is ludicrous. It doesn't matter how automated planes get. We all have heard that people working together is greater than the sum of the parts. But only if we work together. And someone didn't work together here. Either ATC effed up the clearance, or the pilots did. And I have to say, it's most likely the pilots.
What's interesting is usually PHX mainly departs the middle runway. 7L or 25R, with landings happening on the outer ones. So already, this is an unusual configuration for PHX, which increases risks. But, if I was going off the north runway, departing northeast, with simultaneous departures on north and south runways, I would be asking questions about a south looping departure, and if confirmed, then at least being vigilant about see and avoid. While the CVR might be long gone, ACARS and radio communications are recorded. So hopefully someone can and will get to the bottom of this.
Fantastic comment.👍🏻
I wonder if AA didn't even realize that departure went south.
I am not sure, but i think that its most likely someone in ATC effed up.
From the recording available in this video, i would assume that they have received the wrong clearence, or got another runway assigned without them recriving the forpe SID.
Reason: The crew of AA1388 transmitted: „We never heard of Forpe“. If they were cleared to forpe, atleast one of the pilots would recall atleast hearing about forpe.
I did not know ATC had to retire at 56
@@Dr_Sauerkrautaltho in the english language never heard off can also meen did not know it existed. Therfor putting another departure in
Not being accusatory or anything but, 1388 seemed to be taken a little by surprise, the initial request from ATC, it seemed to catch them offguard and there was some silence there that jacked up the ATCs blood pressure before they realized there was a problem.
Whether they were busy with the workload or expecting a normal departure that few seconds really hit the ATC hard. I'm not a pilot and it looks like the missed step wasn't the pilots fault and I don't believe it was that ATCs fault.
I dont fault the pilots asking about the departure and I definitly dont blame the ATC for his response, pilots were just asking and ATC was trying not to have a stroke.
Thank you very much! This was indeed another very close call! Fortunately it didn´t ended in a midair collision. But if such incidents are continuing the Good Luck will unfortunately run out at one day.
To know the original clearing for American 1388 would be necessary to say more about this event.
This is why it’s important for Tower to give the first fix in the SID when giving a take off clearance. Neither of the controllers did according to your video.
Well, I can't be the only person who stopped breathing for a fair portion of that? Jeez...
In DFW when issued a takeoff clearance you are told to RNAV to a fix. That is usually the first clue that something is wrong when you have a different fix loaded.
On nearly parallel runways, takeoff rolls are separated by distance but not time. Then one problem can cause a collision, like human error or yaw from an engine failure.
Wow, what a cluster-#!
Resolved like a pro, hope the controller gets supports after that near-miss
What kind of "support"? It was resolved safely. If you mean that he handled it well and bears no blame, I understand you. If you mean, say, psychological support, that's ridiculous. If anything, the ATC departure controller should feel proud of the job he did to avoid a big time mid air.
"Support!!" I don't think that ATC guy sounds like the sort of snowflake who needs "support !
Or a real stiff drink! (After he's off duty of course!!😊)
@@buckfaststradler4629 Why not get it anyway?
That’s not a near miss, it’s a near hit.
If the two aircraft collided it would be a near miss (as in “dang, you nearly missed him”).
That is just nuts and the innocent people on both flights have no idea……scary stuff!
My guess is most people on the flights are so ignorant that anything happened.
@@neilkurzman4907 That makes absolutely no sense…..I was on a Southwest flight that the landing was aborted and all the Captain said was due to traffic on the ground……Your reply is ignorant!
@@eddie_alabama7997
So, in this particular case you think the captain said we’re turning now, because we almost crashed into another plane. But don’t worry we’re good now.
As far as your incident for all, you know, the plan ahead of you took too long to get off the runway.
The only thing the people on these flights might’ve noticed his an unusually steep bank.
1:23 you hear someone in the background saying, “phew!”
@Azoth Daemonii - I saw your reply in my notifications but couldn't find it here. I and my family were, indeed, on that Southwest flight (have the documentation to prove it). If, as you said, you were responsible for keeping my family safe (and I have no reason to doubt that) then the only thing I can say to you (and it's nowhere near enough) is THANK YOU! May the blessings that plane, its passengers and crew received that day come back to you 10 fold. I don't have many heroes but I just added another one to the list.
Great…just booked flights into PHX next month. All kidding aside, great work to quickly deconflict.
Formation departure, you don't see that very often. .
Controller's fault. From the 7110.65: FAA Order 7110.65 dictates: "When conducting simultaneous parallel runway departures utilizing RNAV SIDs, advise aircraft of the initial fix/waypoint on the RNAV route...PHRASEOLOGY-RNAV to (fix/waypoint), RUNWAY (number), CLEARED FOR TAKEOFF. " Paragraph 5-8-2(d). So the controller was supposed to confirm both the American and Southwest's first RNAV fix because it was a simultaneous RNAV departure. Now I don't know how the clearance was, but seems like they should have been on the FORPE
Damn this exact situation happened and Boston a couple of years ago
NY Times article of 21 August…. ‘Airline Close Calls Happen Far More than Previously Known’……..that journalist has it spot on….yet another one here
A journalist got it right?!?! Damn, someone must have reversed the polarity and crossed the streams. 😂
Nytimez is commie propaganda
@@logicplague2077Not only a 'journalist but a New York Times 'journalist'
The world has gone mad.
Isnt is also a matter of perspective? I mean it depends on the definition of "near miss". What distance is a near miss?
@@wouterbmx072 Probably within the TCAS cylinder.
AAL1388 is normally PHX-JFK. I tried looking up info on SWA2286, but from my search, it normally doesn't have a leg into PHX (it looks like the flight originates in LAS some days...)
This stuff reminds me of the Breaking Bad distraught ATC father episode with the plane crash. Especially this one with mention of Albuquerque.
Sum 1 had a near miss over the small town in UK in the week a flying school in a Cessna 152 & a Augusta 109 were pretty close 250-300 feet in altitude difference (FR24). and it looked (from the ground) as though was within a wing span or 2 of each other. I emailed the flying school just to check in case it was someone on a solo and the pilot was shaken up.....and there was an instructor and said he was aware of it.
When I was doing my PPL out of Skeggy in the mid to late 80s we were climbing out VFR to the North and passing about 2,000ft, I spotted some aircraft on the starboard beam, same altitude, heading west. By 'some aircraft', I mean a flight of 8 A-10s. Nothing we could do except to waggle the wings to increase visibility and hope. Two went in front, two behind, two above and two below. It wasn't 'just a few 10s of feet' close, but a change of trousers was still required on landing.
@@ChucklesMcGurk Bearing in mind that this happened a short time after an A-10 took out a Cessna and didn't notice until paint was found on its wing when it got back, that was definitely at the forefront of our minds.
Awesome controller
KPHX has Standard Instrument Departures (SIDS) built so that any aircraft can fly any runway (there are three) , with any desired destination, with almost any SID. It is very unusual to have published SIDS that can turn a plane south after departing of the north complex. It is also very uncommon to not have a procedure in place to verify the SID and first fix in the clear for takeoff readback. I think that AA got a very last minute runway change up to the north complex. I can not tell for sure but it may be possible that the PDC for AA was actually BROAK ONE while at the gate. The ships computers accept the PDC and load the FMS as received so it eliminates human error because the box essentially gets loaded by ATC.
Several takeaways from this near miss:
1) ATC should stagger simultaneous launches off close parallel runways for this purpose.
2) Crews should always question SID and first fix after any ATC induced runway change after leaving the gate.
3) Crews should be aware with good situation SA about simultaneous formation launches where possible. In this case it might not have been possible for either flight to see the other during takeoff or after liftoff initially.
4) Crews should be vigilant and fully aware of a situation with known simultaneous ops and "clear left" by the PNF when turning left (south) towards a known parallel departure path.
I believe that the departure controller did a nice job fixing it quickly, I am just not yet convinced of what really happened here. I initially thought just an AA crew error. Now I am not so sure. Time will tell on this one.
1:20 as P50 S you can hear someone say "Whoo!" in thr background.
The 737 FMS auto loads the flight plan and departure runway for the pilots, and they also load the filed SID based on the flight plan. Something changed between the expected runway/route and the actual runway/route and it didn't get properly modified. Whatever they had loaded in the box was turning them south straight into Southwest which created the conflict. This can happen to any pilot.
Like was asked, shouldn't the 1388 crew have questioned their LEFT-turn BROAK1 SID when they were taking off from RWY 26 that has a published RIGHT-hand Traffic Pattern?
We have to manually load SIDS and STARS. If the runway changes, we have to verify fixes.
Wouldn't TCAS be alerting as well? Nobody talked about any RAs being issued.
Usually TCAS isn't active this low to the ground.
I think it doesn't activate low to the ground to avoid commands that will led to terrain collision.
TCAS RAs are inhibited within 1000' of the ground. No idea what happens if a conflict is present within that limit and then they climb above the limit, if it will wake up, or just ignore the conflict created within that range. I have yet to... test it out. Good question though.
There’s usually just too much traffic in the airport environment for tcas to determine what is a real threat and what isn’t. Avoids “nuisance “ alarms. The system would be saturated with potential conflicts. Not perfect yet.
As the above fellows mentioned, TCAS do not work on low ground to avoid terrain collision. To explain more the RA only gives vertical instructions for avoidance (climb/descend/maintain altitude) but not lateral instructions (turn left/right) , that's why it wouldnt kick in in such low altitudes.
Pilots need to remember to always be more assertive if something does not feel right. However, it still feels good to know that we are working with competent, cool and collected ATC men and women, willing to help us when human errors occur.
Good ole FORPE (four peaks)
“If you can turn left immediately do so.”
Interesting indeed
Can you review the crash of King Air N220KW, that went down just short of KORD on Friday 9/8 at 1841 local. Appears to have multiple contributing factors aside from fuel starvation.
departure was probably like, "tower, I have a number for you to copy"
Even if you could hear clearance frequency you most likely will never hear airliners on it. We get clearance via PDC or CPDLC
insane the amount of shot that transpired in 3 min
I heard a touch of Kennedy Steve there...
Any chance you are going to cover the Air China engine fire in SIN? Many thanks!
Talk about a bad day at the office.
Reminds me of AirForceProud95's video "that's not my problem anymore"
Check out Alaska, pilot got intercepted violating a TFR (I believe for POTUS) around Anchorage.
ATC was pissed...then he was out of breath. Can't really blame him.
With automation and PDC comes new features like the SID, However if ATC ground or tower changes runway at last minute, this causes heavy workload in cockpit just before takeoff.
We all know SIDS's are runway specific. Not interchangeable despite what ATC may provide in future clearance.
Let this be a warning to all pilots. Lucky it was VFR and both aircraft just happened to be given takeoff clearance from two different controllers manning two different runways.
Everyone was lucky this time
Not all SID’s are runway specific. Multiple SID’s out there can be used for every runway that airport has. Different feeding routes sure, but same SID. What happened here. Both SID’s AA and SWA used have paths off 26 and 25R. And they both feed into one waypoint. That is where both flights were heading towards. Both have them heading toward JUTAK.
Great work tower
the pucker faktor ist real with this one
My guess is that IF they were cleared the "wrong" departure, then that departure belongs to the OTHER runway, and they got switched runways while taxiing (there was another plane on the other runway about the same time, right? :-) )
Woah! That was too close for comfort. It was great hearing how calm the pilots remained , although I can’t blame ATC for feeling the heat on this one. Am I right in assuming it was an ATC error?
“All in a Day’s Work”
As Reader’s Digest’s Real Stories !
Was flying a TOL touch and go landing patterns over at M54 the other day. Had 1 guy proceed to almost hit me head one while in the pattern, a second guy taxi onto the runway when I was on short final (had made all my calls) and then had the same guy 10 minutes later take off when I was on short final again. I’m convinced a common sense test needs to be added to piloting standards. A lot of people that have a license at different levels would fail.
Wild.
Can’t wait to read the ASRS on this one.
In Atlanta the Tower always says the first waypoint on the departure during the cleared for takeoff call. (Ex. American#### RNAV to RONII, Runway 08R Cleared for Takeoff). If all control towers did this at airports running simultaneous departures, that would help eliminate this exact issues easily!
Maybe not so much, LAX uses the exact same set of initial waypoints for the runways. What it DOES tend to avoid there is confusion over which runway you're departing vs which runway you have programmed to depart.
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i lol i got news for ya
They have tower control divided into sectors north and south? Can anybidy explain to me, why two ATC are managing the traffic?
Yes, I believe PHX Tower is divided by 2 freqs for the north & south RWYs. All PHX plates display freq info as:
TOWER - 118.7 (Rwy 08-26)
@@Raiders33 clear, thank You ;)
"I'm done with it" What's going on in PHX, they had an incident not too long ago too
this is getting ridiculous!
Donald Margolis in the ABQ Area again - BrBa
ATC did a great job sorting this out - could have been really nasty. I wonder where the ball was dropped. American clearly believed they had been given the same departure as southwest - was it an error at the point of giving them their departure clearance... all in all alot closer than it should have been.
On these RNAV departures ATC needs to say “RNAV first fix……etc”. They don’t do that at PHX and system failed
Opinion as a flight dispatcher: The solution… delete ABQ in BROAK1, delete MAXXO in FORPE1. The end.
Currently both fixes are shared in both SIDs with conditional language on its use and it’s up to flight dispatchers to know or ATC/automation to enforce the correct routing. The fault could be anyone (dispatcher, TWR, TRACON/P50, or ATC ERAM).
That still leaves the root cause of the incident, where 1388's BROAK1 SID *AND* 2286's ECLPS1 SID have the *SAME* first waypoint at JUTAK.
Did I miss when this happened?
P50 S is PISSED 🤣🤣 he fucked up
ATC got a little testy!
He was on his way to the restroom.
Is TCAS disabled near the airport because there's too much traffic?
Resolution Advisories are inhibited below 1,000'.
@@cobra10908
Thanks!
Our ATC system is in desperate need of a total revamp. Reliance upon a system heavily dependent upon saturated voice communications is a primary weak link. I’m not smart enough to have all the answers but a next gen system will involve A.I. with human oversight. What we have now is, too often, at or beyond acceptable limits. Unfortunately . . . the NATCA union will delay needed change until blood is shed.
A.I. agrees and sees these benefits:
Enhanced Efficiency:
AI can assist in handling routine tasks, such as data processing and basic decision-making, allowing human controllers to focus on more complex and critical aspects.
Increased Safety:
AI systems can process data quickly and with precision, helping to identify potential conflicts or hazardous situations in real-time.
Improved Predictive Analytics: AI can analyze vast amounts of data to make predictions about air traffic patterns, weather conditions, and potential congested areas, allowing for better planning and rerouting.
Reduced Workload: AI can handle repetitive tasks, reducing the cognitive load on human controllers and potentially mitigating fatigue-related errors.
Enhanced Communication: AI can facilitate seamless communication between air traffic controllers and pilots, helping to streamline operations.
Quick Response to Emergencies: AI can provide immediate alerts in the event of unexpected situations or emergencies, allowing for swift decision-making.
Advanced Monitoring and Alerts:
AI can continuously monitor aircraft trajectories, detect deviations from flight plans, and issue alerts for potential conflicts.
Optimized Resource Allocation: AI can assist in optimizing the allocation of airspace and runway resources, reducing congestion and delays.
you clearly have zero clue what you're talking about. I'll happily take a day off but the disasters would be far worse with AI.
It's true that AI, like any technology, is not without its limitations. It can make mistakes and may not possess the nuanced decision-making abilities and adaptability that humans do. That's why the concept of human supervision is crucial. AI should be designed to assist and enhance human capabilities, not replace them entirely.
A well-designed AI system in Air Traffic Control would be one that complements human controllers, handling routine tasks and providing valuable insights, while allowing humans to focus on complex, high-level decision-making and unexpected situations.@@atcdude067
Sure, okay atcdude. I've no clue. Would you agree our system of voice communications is too often saturated? What is the fix? More Band-Aids on top of countless previous Band-Aids? The existing technology is in over its head. Need a fresh start. There’s got’a be a better way. NATCA wants more dues paying members. I want a revised system that can safely handle a lot more traffic.@@atcdude067
The understood hostility from the ATC operator is palpable. I’d have been upset too.
In my opinion perfect response. Controller resolved the issue, no need to think about that any further. Needs awareness for other acft in the air.
Anyone know how close they came
Sounds to me like “less than a mile”… probably not swapping paint but still scary
300 feet vertical and .33 mile lateral according to ADSB data.
What’s going on with American airspace in the last couple months??
Only a matter of time before an actual collision occurrs..
I think it has always happened more often than you think... it's with the internet and everything being recorded and reported on people see it more often.
Here we go... I wonder just how many more people are going to parrot this same tired shit. At least change the sentence up a little would you please.
The population of inept ATC is growing
Pilot makes a mistake, number to call. Error on tower or somebody... "I'm done with it". I don't think that is the appropriate resolution
After reading other comments. Whose fault is it if it is not the tower and ATC did a good job with mitigating the error
Once again, two aircraft and ATC on one freq with very little space. I'm assuming all comms were heard in this limited time frame. Yet I counted three instances where communications were blocked because two people pressed the transmit button at the same time in the first 2 minutes. Time (and possibly space) was wasted when neither aircraft heard all the instructions and ATC didn't even know whether their instructions were heard or not.
Oh well, we'll just wait to see if one of the blips disappears...
These radios were designed at least 75 years ago! They are not designed for the density of aircraft flying around our crowded skies.
Always wondered why aviation radios don't use a "Roger Beep" or "End of Transmission Tone" like police and fire use to stop blocking transmissions.
@@Raiders33 Those tones are data bursts for the trunk system. Aviation radios don't need that. The closest thing to a roger beep is the double mic press but all aviation calls you have to respond with a callsign anyway so that wouldn't be much good for anything.
@@squeakersc063 And as we've seen, even with this incident, ending callsigns do nothing to prevent blocked transmissions especially in rapid consecutive readbacks that happen everyday. Some blocked trxs have been a layer in the Swiss cheese model of accidents.
@@Raiders33 Well yes, but you're suggesting police band radios can prevent the same kind of jamming and they cannot. It's a limitation of radios operating on the same frequency. Not an issue of the radio itself. Unless we went to a TDMA or CDMA system like cellphones or situational datalinks which don't handle voice well and are pretty limited in saturated environments.
@@squeakersc063 No, I'm not suggesting that aviation half-duplex radios could prevent blocking by using Roger Beeps or electronics. I just think the tones would give a consistent indication that the TX has ended (especially with all the tailored tones available --- a unique one for acft types, unique one for Ground, unique one for Approach, unique one for Departure, etc.). The reasons for stepping on an aviation TX (I'll use the CB term instead of "blocking") are just too numerous to fix this chronic, daily, problem with radio training and discipline.
Controller damn near crapped himself, but he handled it like a real pro. That was wayyyyy too close.
Like the legendary comedian George Carlin once said: "It's not a near miss...it's a near hit! A collision is a near miss! **Boom!** Look...they nearly missed. Yes...but not quite!"
When did this happen?
07 August 2023 at 05:07 PM Phoenix, AZ local time.