Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
"Listen, take a deep breath and get me out of this!". Real ATC Audio
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- Thank you for watching!
Your support is very important. Don't forget to leave a comment and hit the like button if you liked the video. Thanks!
Watch more here:
Funny audio: - • Funny Exchanges
ATC Audio: - • ATC Audio
Incidents: - • Incidents
Emergency: - • Emergency
Crashes: - • Crashes
#atcaudio #realatc #aviation
In an emergency the workload and stress is high and the pilot just needs a heading and and altitude because he can't cope with much more. Telling him information charlie is no good, read him the charlie, weather, wind, temp, runway in use, QFE, don't expect the pilot to tune into ATIS whilst he's dealing with an emergency and its no time for a controller to get pissy
It would have helped that the pilot just declared that he is in IMC like conditions but does not have an IFR license. I had it once, 40 years ago as a novice PPL pilot with limited instrument training, when the weather just dropped to 300Ft cloud base. I declared an emergency stated my situation to ATC and got a dedicated Air Traffic controller assigned just for me who vectored me into Amsterdam Schiphol Airport. no ATIS, Frequency changes, just vectors and altitude changes. Very relieved to see these approach lights breaking out of the clouds at 250ft. Then spend 1 hr being questioned on my flight preparation and as given the all clear having done every thing right, read did the right preparation and declaring an emergency.
The pilot is asking for vectors and an altitude assignment to avoid clouds. This is not an emergency. The controller is unable to see the clouds… it is the pilots job to see and avoid. The pilot is way out of line.
@@robbroere1384this was a CFII with a student on an instrument flight plan. They had just taken off, so ATIS “Charlie” was the same he left with. Basically, ATC confirmed with him that nothing had changed.
The pilot was no longer in an emergency situation. They had gotten into severe turbulence and dropped a wing 50°. Now he was out that. He should’ve accepted the ILS, but instead, wanted the controller to fly his airplane. Pilot was wrong here.
@@Airtraffic101right.
@@Airtraffic101 he said mayday mayday mayday, so it was declared as an emergency and clearly felt like an emergency to him. I don't think it's the controllers job to disagree with that at the time. Those type of conversations are best had on the ground afterwards
Once the pilot declared an emergency it is the responsibility of the controller to treat it as an emergency. The time to decide if it should have been one is when the plane is on the ground and safe. If you can't do that you have no business being a controller.
Incorrect. Once you declare an emergency, it’s the controller’s responsibility to ascertain the nature of the emergency so as to determine how best to assist. Being in IMC and weather isn’t an emergency, unless you’re non instrument rated. In which case just say so, you stuffed up, own it. Declaring an emergency just to get vectors for a visual, and getting shirty if you don’t get them, is really poor.
@@julianturecek2373 There's a lot of assuming going on everywhere on this one, in the control tower, in the airplane, and in the comments.
Wrong
You’re slightly incorrect here. Yes, the controller will treat it as an emergency however the air traffic controller has standard operating procedures that go with that such as ascertaining the nature of the emergency. The thing I don’t understand is why the pilot was calling the beacon in sight. As an atp rated pilot with over 5 type ratings, I can assure you that I wouldn’t call the field or the beacon in sight if I wasn’t comfortable doing the visual. The pilot failed to call the field in sight with the intention of landing which is what the controller was asking for. So the pilot says he has the beacon in sight…it is then reasonable that the controller will clear him for the visual approach. For the pilot to get snarky about getting a clearance is out of line, not professional and escalates the situation. On another note…if an instrument rated pilot, takes off on an ifr flight plan and then proceeds to declare an emergency over light rain, light turbulence and IMC? Maybe you shouldn’t be taking off in IMC to begin with? Anytime there’s clouds…boom there’s moisture. Anytime there’s clouds, boom there’s turbulence. Anytime there’s clouds? Boom there’s loss of visibility. This is such an odd thing to declare an emergency over. I would be surprised if the FAA doesn’t send him a letter in the mail explaining himself. He may want to lawyer up to. Last thing you want as a pilot is the FAA pouring over your records with a magnifying glass.
@@lalochivafan suspect he’s not instrument rated, hard to know
It’s obvious the pilot had entered inadvertent IMC, which is very easy when over the ocean. I don’t know the amount of instrumentation or whether the aircraft was IFR capable. Even if it is, if the pilot doesn’t have an instrument qualification or isn’t current, it is an emergency. Once he declared an emergency, the controller should do everything he can to assist the pilot. In this case the controller pretty much treated the guy as if he was an airline pilot until the pilot asked him to take a deep breath. The controller then got frustrated and began bullying the pilot with fast communications and correcting on his altitude. There is no need for it. One thing controllers hate to hear but is absolutely true is that they support the pilots, not the other way around. Controllers wouldn’t have a job if there were no pilots. So it’s important that controllers, who are vital to safe aviation operations, provide assistance to pilots rather than try to be the boss of pilots.
It's obvious, but unless I'm mistaken he never said it. I mean, instead of dancing around the nature of his emergency, he could just have said he can't fly IFR and the conditions are IMC. End of the story and then the controller won't be trying to give him an ILS approach like he did, among other things. That said, yup that controller sure could have been more understanding and helpful
@@julienb5815at the .30 sec of the video the pilot declares an emergency.
@@josephroberts6865 I'm well aware of that, but he never says what the problem is. When eventually asked at 1:05, he says rain and turbulence... Later on around 2:45, there's again talks about turbulence and the nature of the emergency. Again a missed opportunity to talk about IMC and not being able to fly IFR, he makes it sound like there was simply a bit too much wind...
@@julienb5815controller has a massive ego problem, dude asked for a vector, he gave him a vor, and making him find the atis himself is purely idiotic, he's clearly annoyed about having to deal with this, knowing the nature of the emergency wouldn't have changed anything about how this controller acted
@insomnia20422 No doubt.
Wow. Everybody to time out! This is quite a demonstration of the escalation of tensions between a pilot and a controller when communications get muddied. The pilot may have been overreacting out of fear - fear is quite real when finding oneself in IMC with what seems to be limited capability to fly in it. The controller sounded annoyed that he had an increased workload but should remember that he is sitting at a desk safe and sound while the pilot needs help.
The only I could possibly fault the pilot for is not telling atc that he’s not instrument rated. ATC, on the other hand, was way out of line through the whole process.
When I flew at that airport, the owner of the school warned me that Maui is a training location for new controllers.
This controller is absolutely awful for emergencies. Most certainly one of the last people I want managing the safety of people's lives both in the air and on the ground...
Name and shame. He needs to be fired and never work as ATC again
Both parties need LOTS of additional training, especially Mr. Attitude (the ATC controller).
I would have a very short "chat" with that controller.
Completely understandable - ATC couldn't catch any waves earlier in the day.
Can you PLEASE ALWAYS post the date / location of the incident?
He doesn’t want to, because most of his videos are reposts of incidents that others posted on RUclips a long time ago.
@@neilsingh5311 Then he gets the thumbsdown.
@@neilsingh5311 I think it's fine to go over historical incidents which are well-documented, as long as you're up front with us about the ESSENTIAL FACTS (who what when where why) . What ISN'T fine is NOT telling us the incident details. It LOWERS the value for me. It looks like you (video producer or staff) are trying to hide what YOU consider to be a liability.
@@BillHustonPodcast I’m not a video producer or staff. The hell are you on about.
The location is in the video, the Pilot said Kahului airport which is PHOG in Hawaii
I remember this one, but forget when. Can you please refresh me?
I’m also curious what became of the controller since then
We pretty much never find out what happened to the controller after an incident like this.
This is an absolutely terrible controller. I hope he's no longer employed. They both were terrible at communicating what was actually happening, but he copped an attitude with a pilot that had declared an emergency. This is actually infuriating to me. What a little punk.
The pilot should have simply said that he was not instrument rated and needs help. The controller was totally confused
This was a CFII with a student on an instrument flight plan. That’s why the controller was confused. They left like 10 minutes earlier.
Terrible ATC controller. He needs to be suspended.
Honestly, I'm glad I no longer have a medical, because the more I've seen of these lately....the less likely I am to have ever actually flown again. Man. Some of this is worse than the road rage I see on the damn highways.
This video pops up on my feed from time to time and it angers me every single time. As a private pilot, if you declare an emergency, it's because you need help. This controller couldn't have cared less. When you are getting handled by the weather you are just trying to get to safety - it's awful lonely up in the cockpit of a small plane when things aren't going to plan. I hope this controller was separated. I sure hope I don't encounter anyone like him if I find myself in trouble.
lol the sarcastic tone the controller takes with his instructions starting at 4:00 critiquing his altitude and all. Curt and sassy. And then earlier, trying to ask for the intensity of the turbulence. Dude sounded like a middle school mean girl
That controller was just waiting for his shift to end and go surfing...
He sounds like he's completely baked.
DEI
Once the pilot says there is clouds and he is an emergency he should ask him if he wants visual or vectors plus he has to be helpful and read ATIS... it's an emergency not a joke
The pilot is supposed to communicate to ATC.
Do you know like when he said, unable earlier in the communication.
Very odd exchange on both ends. An ILS approach might have been the better option.
How do you know the pilot was instrument rated? Would he have declared an emergency, or simply asked to go ifr if he was?
@@vkl2023he is operating under an IFR flight plan, so I would assume he is IFR rated.
Wow! Those pretty-pink-party-frocks went waaaay over both their heads very fast!
Love it! How did you make the map and animations?
“Possible controller deviation. Let me know when ready to copy the phone number”.
Except the controller did fine. Pilot was wrong here.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183:Disagree. The pilot asked for vectors numerous times. All he had to do was vector the Cessna toward the airport and put him in a position to see it. Once the pilot asked for vectors again I would just have told him to expect the instrument approach. It’s not that hard. I was a controller for ~34 years at the world's busiest facility.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 Nah telling a pilot who declared an emergency to listen to the ATIS tells me that guy was a clown
@@sanantonio855 the airplane took off on an IFR flight plan, 10 minutes earlier. The same ATIS was in effect. The controller knew this. By asking if he had the ATIS, he expected the guy to say yes, not for him to listen again.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183the guy flying the plane through a spiral descent isn't thinking with the most level headedness, keep that in mind
he's going to check the atis because that is what the controller told him to do effectively
That controller was out of line. That's how people get killed in planes, just get the plane safely to the ground and then ya'll can sort out your differences.
Oldie but goodie.
Controller shouldn't let his ego or attitude be the reason for someone's death. The pilot is in over his head, he doesn't want to be there, and he needs help to stay alive. Why risk that for your ego or correctness grounds. This is an old one, but one of the good ones out there to teach others how not to act when someone is asking you to save them. Yes the pilot needs some talking to about how to avoid IMC and such, but the last thing you want are pilots afraid to ask for help and muscle on themselves. History is full of deaths from that.
The pilot was a CFII with a student on an IFR flight plan. This instructor is notorious for creating problems over there.
The emergency was over. He was out of the severe turbulence. Then he accepted a visual approach, but lost the airport. Now the IFR rules come back.
He simply didn’t communicate good enough. The controller did fine, except he sounded a bit bored.
The pilot said he could see the airport, but never told the controller that he lost sight of it.
The controller thought he was good to land. Turns out he wasn’t.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183
The controller sound more annoyed than bored
@@neilkurzman4907 right.
Ok I’m still a learning Student Pilot but correct me if I’m wrong, if the Pilot had IMC and turbulence if he’s IFR rated would you just request an IFR clearance to get you through those conditions??
Depends on the turbulence, you might just want to get down. You just have to experience severe turbulence in a small plane by yourself.
Try it when you're upside down after IIMC in turbulence.
Spatial disorientation can have a massive impact on your mental capacity. They were in a spiraling descent over the ocean, he was probably pretty freaked out. Yes the answer is to lock onto your instruments but that’s way easier said than done when you know you’re heading to the ocean and yet you have to ignore your body telling you something different than the instruments indicate.
Even for an experienced IFR pilot, if you’re flying VFR and experience inadvertent weather penetration it can make things really dangerous really fast. For one thing if you’re in cruise you’d have to coordinate an entire IFR flight plan if you didn’t have one on file which is a huge brain suck even in clear weather, assuming you did successfully recover from your spatial disorientation and are still maintaining a good instrument cross check even while you’re trying to look at this stupid paper and figure out your routing and altitude and fuel on board. That’s why the advice for VFR pilots upon entering the weather is to just reverse your last heading and 180 outta there. If you are IFR rated it’s not a bad idea to have a flight plan filed either because then you can activate it real quick and transition pretty easily if you need.
In this instance he might have gotten away with requesting a local IFR clearance, and they’d have just given him the squawk and probably vectors to final for the ILS. You can Monday morning quarterback this thing all day but the big takeaway is he ended up getting down safe. A benefit of trying to get visual with the airport is you can maneuver more freely and in theory it would do wonders for your situational awareness and orientation.
ILSs also aren’t too difficult to set up (if you are instrument rated another good safety tip to have in your back pocket is to have some kind of approach loaded/tuned and configured for your departure airport in case you need a quick approach in a situation like this) but it still takes the attention to detail of having the right course and frequency, not to mention being able to read the plate, and pulling the right DME if applicable. There are redundancies like listening to the identifier for the localizer and DME source but still, if any one of those are incorrect you could be shooting an approach on incorrect data which would make a bad situation worse.
The benefit is obviously the pilot doesn’t know where the weather is clearer and maybe the tower has some idea but they can probably only tell from what they see out the window. I think the pilot kind of just grabbed for vectors right away to free up his brain bytes a little but vectors don’t really do much if it’s socked in solid IMC. Maybe if he had better clarity of mind he could’ve asked for vectors to midfield or something to try and see if he can visually identify the airport but it just depends on how thick the weather was and if it was realistic or not. You see how he mentioned intermittent visual contact with the airport.
So, yeah, Monday morning quarterbacking, I’d say the safest approach to this situation is having the ILS tuned and ready to go on the ground. Backup IFR plan filed wouldn’t hurt at all but assuming it’s not too much of a hassle to get a local clearance especially in an emergency not totally necessary. If he already has all that ready to go it becomes a matter of an unusual attitude recovery, taking a deep breath, and getting vectors to final for the ILS. Way easier. But assuming he just departed VFR and got way freaked out, we can assume he did best he could.
Now that begs the question why he departed VFR in the ocean when there were a bunch of clouds and rain. Surely that would be forecast. So that’s weird unless he isn’t VFR…don’t remember the full story with this one. But your question is a great question because this is the bread and butter of what aviation is about, risk management and mitigation. Great lessons learned.
You want my advice, people say getting your instrument rating makes you a better pilot, that’s true and in my opinion it’s because it forces you to consider contingencies and possible obstacles you might foresee. I think the best way to be a great instrument pilot and therefore a great pilot in general is to assume worst case and how you’ll fix it or avoid it, and have the foresight to set everything up you need at groundspeed zero sitting on the ramp in case you need it. Don’t have a navaid thats tuned to something random, make it something useful. Have your comms preloaded and ready to go. Have an idea of possible diverts and alternates and their pros and cons. A lot of people forget clearance for an approach includes the missed approach, tune that in if you have to track a different navaid to go missed. Always assume you’re going to go missed and be ready for it, just like a go around or an abort on takeoff roll. Those little habits might seem like busywork 99% of the time, but 1% they just might be the difference of making things as easy as possible on you when you need them to be the most.
I agree that the controller wasn't great, but it seems a lot of people don't understand the system. He can help, he can give vectors, etc, but dude refused an instrument approach, and was unwilling to find a way to accept the visual. While I can only imagine the weather based on conversation, the controller cannot, even in an emergency accepts all responsibility for getting the airplane on the ground. A lot of comments on this video from people that think controls can wave a magic wand and get the airplane out of IMC and onto the runway.
pilot was panicking and trying to blame ATC
the airplane involved was not equipped for IMC. The ATC is supposed to be trained to vector any plane to within 1 mile of the runway, one course for the runway with a 3 degree margin for error.
@@jasonmcmillan6598 vectoring to the airport doesn't not take care of the vertical. Unless they are equipped to do a PAR, which I don't know if PHOG is able. Also, I am not sure how you know if the plane was IFR capable? He was issued a visual approach, which is an instrument procedure, and the communication generally sounds as if this plane was on an IFR flight plan, as no one ever indicated inadvertent IMC.
I think most people are like the pilot - 1. try to be helpful 2. give him some vectors. He's not asking him to land the plane.
I don't understand. Don’t controllers have evaluations and check sessions? If so, how is this guy clearing those?
I’m not qualified pilot, I’m not a qualified traffic controller. I know little about either job, but this traffic controller seems to be completely useless and very limited assistance was given to a pilot in trouble.
Hope that controller is not in the frequency anymore
this atc should be fired.
This sounded like a lazy controller with an attitude. The controller sounded Hawaiian and the pilot sounded like a Caucasian. Those familiar with life in Hawaii will understand
A lot of attitude from both.
Not really. The pilot was pretty reasonable. He got into a situation he wasn't capable of handling and rightfully declared an emergency, and ATC decided to pick a fight over it. Crazy.
Too much attitude and not enough altitude? I'll see myself out.
The ATC Controller seems UNCLEAR ON THE CONCEPT of an Emergency Declaration. WTF! "direct to VORTAC" / "advise ATIS charlie" ??? NO concept at all of the workload involved while the pilot's life may be hanging by a thread? ... Message to this controller - Do Better or find other work.
What’s the deal with these controllers? The pilot is not there to make your job easier, the controller however is there to help a pilot in any way possible, pathetic behavior!
Isn't this from a few years back?
yes
I put that one on ATC.
A good chunk of this is the pilot calling the field in sight so the controller clears him for the visual. I can tell you as an ATP rated pilot with over 5 type ratings…never call the field in sight until you are confident you can land. Just don’t say anything. You’ll get re vectored. I don’t know if having the beacon in sight qualifies as an opportunity to legally clear someone for the visual but that is purely technical at this point. The pilot then gets mad because the controller understandably assumed the pilot had the field in sight. This is where the pilot is in the incorrect and I would be surprised if he didn’t get a letter from the FAA explaining why an instrument rated pilot on an instrument flight rules flight had to declare an emergency over light rain, light turbulence and IMC. Trust me, as a pilot, the last thing you want is the FAA looking over your records with a magnifying glass.
Good controller will see past that and help rather than punishing him for it in the middle of an emergency.
Such an annoying ATC controller..omg. Help him..
This was an old one...and I still think the pilot was being pr**k. Didn't like the fact he didn't get what he first requested...then declares and emergency and talks about extreme weather that has him in a spiral.... then miraculously gets himself out of that weather and doesn't want to talk about it with ATC. Pilot was clearly out of danger and ATC wants information so he can advise any other aircraft in the area. ATC gave pilot all the information he asked for and the pilot kept as much information about the situation to himself.
No, in aviation safety is paramount. It's best not to take a risk guessing whether it's an emergency or not. Once declared, the ATC must treat it as such.
@@felipevernaza3108 The ATC did take it serious, asked all the questions that he needed to know and gave the pilot what he was asking for in the situation. This pilot was out of the supposed bad weather and had his aircraft under control. He didn't report mechanical issues or being low on fuel. Once again, the ATC was asking questions so that he could report it to other aircraft in the area. The pilot had time to tell the ATC he would talk about it on the ground...and then told the ATC to "take a deep breath." But had no concern about other pilots safety. I honestly think he was being overly dramatic and really just needed to take a leak really bad.
@@jaredjones6292 When dealing with emergency the routine questions are not what it is about. What it is about is to help pilot fly. If he saw the field beacon from how far? 7 miles? a lot might have happened until he reached it when he needed to slalom between clouds, or even rip through them. This is why he neeed vectors.
Maybe he was low on fuel and just didn’t want to admit it. Or was about to poop his pants and needed to get on the ground ASAP.
I took it as pilot is only able to do VFR and got into IMC, which is an emergency, since, if don’t know how to read attitude super well, could lead into going to water since over the ocean. The emergency was the clouds and pilot isn’t instrument rated. Otherwise being given, ILS, direct to VOR and clouds wouldn’t be an issue.
ATC needs training or needs to find another job.
A lot of people who don’t know any better, blaming the controller.
This was a CFII (Certified Flight Instructor Instrument). He had an instrument student with him on an instrument flight plan.
About 10 minutes after take off, they encountered turbulence and the left wing dropped 50°. Somehow they student got the plane in a spiral and the CFII got them out of it while declaring an emergency.
By now, the emergency is over. The airplane is stable and not in any danger. The controller asked him if he had “Charlie”, which he shouldn’t have to listen to, since he just took off with “Charlie” on the ATIS.
The pilot did not want the ILS instrument approach, which would be normal, for an aircraft on an instrument flight plan.
He wanted a visual approach. He claimed he saw the airport and was given (and he accepted) the visual approach. This means, IFR minimum safe altitudes are no longer in effect.
When he asked for a vector and altitude, it indicate he is not in visual conditions. Hence the questions from the controller. As soon as the controller was able to establish he was no longer able to fly visually, the instrument rules come back into effect. Hence the 140 heading and the 4000 feet. (And no, 3700 is not good enough).
Besides sounding bored, this controller was doing his job. The pilot on the other hand, expected the controller to fly his airplane with a remote control or something.
The research I’ve done, this pilot was notorious in that area about these sort of things. Sometimes you just have pilots who shouldn’t be.
No.
@@nimbuskhannk627 very well explained. Thanks.
The pilot repeatedly asked for a vector and the controller was too lazy to assign a heading.
@@lynndale4718 listen again. First he asked for a vector and the controller told him direct to the airport. (Most gps equipment can do that). Then he asked a 2nd time he wanted a vector and was given 140. Then he wanted that vector one more time and the controller changed it to 090. Which the controller repeated 2 more times.
Then he said he had the airport in sight and was given a visual approach clearance. At this point, vectors should be done and over with. So when he asked again for a vector, that was alarming to the controller, because it indicates he is not visual anymore. Once he confirmed that, he CANCELLED the approach clearance and gave him a vector and altitude. So no, I don’t hear what you are hearing.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183 You want an explanation? …It is pretty simple.
An airplane, any airplane, always has a PIC. It does not matter if it is a captain on a A380, a CFI in a Seminole, a TRI/H on a helicopter or even a solo student in a Cessna 150.
It is the sole responsibility of that PIC to declare an emergency when he/she finds it necessary to do so.
A controller has 2 modes of operation, the regular one and the one dealing with emergencies.
When dealing with emergencies, what is required from him/her is to provide expeditious, appropriate and to-the-point assistance to the PIC of the aircraft in distress.
It is NOT his/her function or purview to question, analyze or muse about how appropriate the emergency might be.
If the emergency was declared in an irregular, undue way, there are regulations and investigation panels to evaluate that at a later date, on the ground.
The matter of fact is that there are many American controllers that, on top of using absurd, “creative”, non-standard phraseology, have a confrontational attitude while providing ATS to aircraft. We hear it, here in YT, all the time. Here, in Europe this would have been IMPOSSIBLE to happen because…well, because European controllers are extremely professional, actually have bosses that act as bosses and are fully accountable.
ok, we only have the video to go by but I smell BS from the start. Pilot declares emergency when he's refused what he wants - an old trick. His manner certainly doesn't sound like he's in a spiral descent - sounds more like the tones of an entitled type used to getting his own way. But even if the controller suspected what I do, he failed to act appropriately and should have shelved any resentment/frustration until after landing.
090 is a RIGHT turn, no?
I mean it depends on what direction you're facing... He was on a heading of 140 so it would be to his left.
90 can be left or right.
If your current heading is 360, a turn to 090 can be a 90° right turn or 270° left turn. That's why nearly every time you will hear ATC direct "left turn" or "right turn" followed by the expected heading.
The pilot is expected to turn in the shorter direction to the heading unless otherwise instructed by ATC. He was heading 140 so a left turn is mandated.
090 is an absolute direction, not relative. It doesn't mean "turn towards your 3 o'clock", it means "turn east".
The level of incompetence of this pseudo-pilot : incredible
Nah dude the level of incompetence of the controller is insane . Like holy cow, the pilot declares an emergency and asks for vectors and ATC tells him to go to a VORTAC? The pilot says he's in a spiral and uncontrolled descent and ATC decides to give him large turns to 090 away from land. Then tells him to get the ATIS instead of reading the relevant parts while the pilot is already in an emergency situation struggling with the airplane. Then the pilot requests vectors to the airport again for a visual approach and instead of providing any vectors the controller just states to report the field when able. The controller then wants to argue about whether or not the pilot was experiencing an emergency WHILE THE PILOT IS STILL IN IT! ATC continues to argue about the visual approach clearance when the pilot very clearly states that he needs vectors to the approach. Absolutely wild. Not every pilot out there is a 2000hr+ ATP pilot, and this pilot rightfully declared an emergency when he deemed it necessary for safety of flight. The behavior of the controller was so wildly inappropriate that every pilot and controller that listens to this should be pissed off about it.
All the more reason for ATC to help him get on the ground.
@@Dub-ro9tk shroud letting touch an airplane anymore (I hope)
@@bro9479 I totally disagree … your negligence and incompetence got you into it. Fess up and take it like a man instead of hiding mistakes. Visual but … heading but perhaps … in Yankee’s land people can get a PPL easier than buying a gun (cit. Hunter Biden).
@@bro9479 Good summary of all the issues.
Controller was fine. Pilot is not very capable and wants the controller to fix HIS mistakes. He called the field in sight and got cleared for the visual. DONT CALL IT IN SIGHT IF YOU DONT WANT THE VISUAL. Stay on the ground if you can’t handle it.
I'm not a pilot, but what is the problem here??
The plane was in weather it couldn't handle and needed to land. The controller was giving directions to fly to waypoints originally which are named reference points, not too different from pointing someone to drive to a certain park then get further instructions in driving directions. The problem with that is if the pilot isn't familiar with those points and they're in bad weather, trying to pull up a map, give it the attention to find those points, and handle the airplane can be a lot to handle (think of being out of town and being told to drive to that park, you don't know where it is and you can't exactly stop to pull out a map while driving and there is no pulling over in this situation, and for bonus points, it's storming out).
Instead, the pilot wants the controller to say which direction to fly in degrees, because that instrument is right on the dash and so it's much easier to handle, and that's not an unreasonable request. Because of the weather, the pilot could only get the airport in sight intermittently, but to clear the plane in for a visual approach, the pilot has to see the airport as the name suggests. The pilot wants to get directed where to go along the approach course until they're below the weather and closer to the airport.
I don't think either of them are particularly right or wrong here aside from getting unprofessional with each other. They both have procedures they have to follow, and they're kind of butting against each other due to the situation. Because the pilot declared an emergency, however, some of those procedures can be bypassed to get the plane safely on the ground, even if the plane isn't still in as intense weather as it was at the beginning of the clip.
That's my reading of it. I'm also not a pilot so I might have misinterpreted some points.
there are a few things wrong here that people are going to argue back and forth but the biggest issue is when a pilot tells the controller they have the field in sight, that means you are able to navigate on your own without having to be told what headings to fly, etc... So you either 1) HAVE the airport in sight and can get there on your own ("cleared for the visual approach"), or 2) you DO NOT have the airport in sight and ATC will give you headings to fly to get there. this pilot said the magic words "I have the field in sight" but still expected ATC to vector him in. that's not the way it works. he never should have said he had the field in site, then ATC would have had to hold his hand all the way into the runway. there's more to it than that but to me that was the true turning point in this interaction.
@@JDrapicthis was a CFII (instrument instructor) with a student on an instrument flight plan. So he is extremely well known of the waypoints and airspace.
He is also known to be a trouble maker.
@@h2oski1200 I think the "field in site" problem might stem from an abundance of honesty in some people maybe? Because yes, he had the field in site, but no, a visual approach was not a good idea given the intermittent cloud cover. What if the protocol was to ask something more about the likelihood of making a visual approach? I dunno, maybe it is fine the way it is.
@@sherpajonesit is. Pilots should understand the implications of what they say. “Field in sight” means “I can maintain visual contact with the field”, not “I can see the field right this second”. If you lose visual you have to discontinue the approach, at least until you reacquire visual or just decide to go missed and try again. Maybe this dude was just super stressed out and declared too early as a kind of mental positive reinforcement. I personally think more people need to read the pilot/controller glossary way more. It’s no secret American general aviation is insanely lax with the communication standards and that can be dangerous.
Both are jerks... But also this is some old stuff.
What are the odds of finding an incompetent ATC talking to an incompetent pilot in 2023? Pretty damn good given ATP, American Flyers, & US Aviation Academy....what's the FAA's excuse? Not only incompetent but a touch of asshole to both as well. You guys both need to become cops or lawyers.
another expert on RUclips
Appalling controller. No empathy whatsoever.
Aviate Navigate Communicate.
Wow bagging on the controller ??? Really he did nothing wrong the issue is that a controller cannot clear you visual until you say you can see the airport… pilot giving half ass answers was the problem here putting controller in a no win… now agree he should have given atis info.. but pilot is poor at best
non-pilot here.... this one is interesting with the comments divided on who was in the wrong here, although the people thinking the controller is in the wrong seem to just kind of really believe that he is. Not much reasoning. But again, I'm not a pilot so I have no idea.
I believe both are at fault here. It seams like this pilot shouldn’t have taken off in these conditions.
The thing I feel that the controller did wrong is argue with the pilot when he requested vectors. If a pilot declares an emergency, it is ATCs job to give that pilot what he needs to get safely to the ground. Everything will go through review. If it were a clear day and an emergency aircraft requested vectors when they have the airport in sight, just give them vectors. Getting upset with a pilot because he’s asking for instructions that you don’t feel make sense isn’t helping.
I believe both need better training and to cool their egos. However, ATC IMO has to assume the pilot needs all your help and leave it until after landing safe to sort the rest out.
It’s mostly because the controller is adding unnecessary stress. I think both are at fault in different ways. But the aviation way of saying “if you have anything nice don’t say anything at all” is “clear, concise, and correct” comms. Anything outside of that is just sucking brain bytes for no good reason or eating up time on the frequency when someone else might need it.
It’s kind of like the pilot is trying to ride a mechanical bull and the controller is throwing peanuts at his head lol
ETA: and this was just obvious to me but worth pointing out, pilots declare an emergency for ATC to help them out. So if I go back to my mechanical bull example it would be like the pilot is getting pelted by peanuts when he was assuming the guy was gonna help give him tips for how to stay on
There is so much wrong with this whole scenario. First, there is so much abuse of the Mayday call by pilots and controllers. Mayday is only used when there is the likelihood of the loss of the aircraft or loss of life. The pilot should have used the call, PAN,PAN,PAN. Captain Sully used the call, “Mayday” when he knew he was gonna land in the Hudson. The controller needs additional training at the very least or a complete review of his actions up to termination. At any rate, when the pilot declared a MAYDAY he, the pilot, should have set 7700 in his transponder. This would have set off an alarm at the controllers position. The controller should have immediately acknowledged the MAYDAY call and asked the pilot to state his intentions. The controller did none of this and instead issued a heading. The controller never asked the pilot for souls on board and fuel. The controller should have pointed out airports in his vicinity. When the pilot stated he wanted to return the controller should have given him a heading straight to that airport and distance to the airport. Instead he instructed the pilot to get the ATIS. All this could have been given by the controller. Next the controller should have told the pilot any runway was available and just land on whatever runway he could make instead of assigning him a runway and vectoring him to the downwind or base for that runway. I’ve experienced so many controllers reacting to a MAYDAY in this fashion. Instead the controller went into some BS mode with attitude. For Christ’s sake, the pilot is dealing with an emergency! So, look, in the end, everybody needs more training in the classroom in this whole scenario. The controller especially! The pilot too - on when an emergency is really an emergency. When to scream MAYDAY or when PAN,PAN,PAN is appropriate! Rain and light turbulence is not an emergency. Crashing in the ocean is!
Approach controllers won’t issue you a clearance to land. They issue an approach clearance.
@@Airtraffic101 agreed, they normally coordinate with the tower. I only ever had to declare an emergency when my landing gear on the DC9 would not come down and show locked down. MCI gave me all my instructions on their freq. In the de-brief - ATC did it this way so I didn’t have to fumble around with changing. He also gave me the ATIS rather than having me leave the freq. for that. I’ve heard a lot of MAYDAYs in 40+ years. The sharp approach guys/gals were way ahead of of the incident. In my case, all I had to do was read the checklists and land the airplane. Men and equipment were standing by. The company had a tug and tow-bar to tow me in. Thanks for everything you did by the way. I have a feeling you were one of the sharp ones.
@@Airtraffic101 True. But many times approach will coordinate with the tower and will have the tower issue a clearance through the approach controller. The approach controller will also relay the active runway and ATIS information to save the pilot changing freqs when they are busy with flying the airplane and navigating. We were trained with Aviate, Navigate and then Communicate.
@@Steve757-fl1hd yeah, IF there’s a true emergency, clearly this was not the case. The pilot is a chicken shit who should never attempt IFR conditions again.
You raise a good point, there was so much the controller didn't do in a response to an emergency. It sounded like he was skeptical from the start, and that bothered me.
Pilot said he has airport in sight and wants vectors. You're either VFR or IFR. Pick one. Controller did a great job, pilot was being a knob. 🙂
I was ATC 31.5 years. This is by far the STUPIDEST controller I've heard in my life. What the hell? Help the pilot in distress!
And, he WAS on a visual approach, which means descent to the ground, couldn't keep airport in sight, because of those cloud layers pilot reported and showing on the METAR and TAF, thus he descended below 4,000 on the previous clearance.
That controller should be fired immediately.
His special kind of stupid can’t be corrected.
For what, exactly?
@@LowandFast357retardation, asking about atis during emergency, questioning previous turbulence description unnecessarily and other definite signs of first degree douchekuntery! 😅
Nope!
@AircraftBrokerDG if you have to ask "for what exactly?" then you're just as fucking stupid as the controller.
Controller: do you have visual of the airport?
Pilot: Yes
Controller: great, cleared visual approach.
Pilot: no I want vectors and an altitude assignment, now. There’s clouds out there.
Controller: do you have visual of the airport or no?
Pilot: no I don’t.
I’m not sure what the controller did wrong here. He needs to ask the nature of the emergency.
Terrible pilot. Terrible controller. One should get training and an attitude adjustment. The other should be shown the door, he’s in the wrong career field.
Looks like the pilot is in over his head. He is expecting the controller to get him out of a situation that should have been avoided. the pilot is on VFR, visual flight rules, means not in the clouds. Pilot needs to be violated by FAA.
That's not the way it works dumbass. The pilot got into an unexpected bad situation, spoke up, declared an emergency, then asked for help. Exactly what pilots are suppose to do when in a bad situation.
That's the wrong attitude to have. Some talking to once on the ground about how to avoid getting in this situation and such, but when you are VFR and get stuck in IMC, the last thing you want is to have pilots be afraid to ask for help fearing retribution. His life is at stake for goodness gracious. There are numerous accident investigations with conclusions that it could have been avoided by simply asking for help and admitting you are in over your head.
What a mor0n. Shyt happens, and vfr in bad weather is a very real emergency. doesn't matter if computer pilots (and pretend human pilots) in big airliners can handle the same route or not IFS. Weather/satellite info isn't perfect. Things can creep up on you. Sometimes you move one way to avoid and find yourself in deeper shyt. The reasons are irrelevant. it's not the ATFs job to scold, educate, or correct. it's their job to support and assist as needed then STFU.
Such thing called “inadvertent IMC.”
By the sound of the pilot’s voice, I’d suggest he handled himself very well through this experience. He got himself into a jam and used his procedures to get himself out of it. Controller is sitting on the ground at zero airspeed- it’s his responsibility to get the pilot to a safe state. Figure out the “situation” on the ground.
@@cajinguy218what exactly did the controller do wrong? The controller put him in position to make visual contact with the airport as confirmed by the pilot. Is it also the controllers responsibility to keep the pilot clear of clouds??
another yt channel with very old events trying to skim of vsaviation and similar channels.
This guy has no business being an air traffic controller period.
You clearly don't know a single thing about aviation, period!
@@elmodiddly Prove that you do.
@sherpajones I am guessing you haven’t got the faintest idea either. I don't need to prove anything, but as someone who has held a PPL for over 20 years I do know that shucky doesn't have a clue.
The worst controller I have ever heard
listen to the lady at SCT try to control EVA airlines
I say the problem is with both the pilot and controller. ATC was very professional until the pilot started sounding bit cocky. Pilot should know VFR rules and IFR rules are very distinct and nothing in between them.
Declaring an emergency because of light rain and turbulence is an abuse of the system. And demanding vectors when he is given checkpoints is being an a-hole.
That controller really needs to seek another line of work.
Definitely an incompetant controller
That is exactly how to say you know nothing about aviation without actually saying you know nothing about aviation. Well done George, well done sir.
Gotta say worst controller ever
I was an ATC for 29 yrs. This controller should be fired.
The controller was well in control and gave the pilot everything he required, the pilot was clearly spooked and unnecessarily got hissy about it. When you say you were in ATC for 29 years, were you the cleaner?
@@elmodiddly when a pilot tells you that he is having trouble controlling the airplane you don't tell him to go get the ATIS. This controller sounded annoyed that he had to do a little bit extra work. A typical lazy Hawaiian.
@@kurt515 did they teach you to use slurs against peoples/ethnicities in your 29 years of ATC?
@@LjL-Videos No, I learned that on my own after living with lazy racist hawaiians for 5 1/2 yrs.
Controller needs retraining too
This is the copy and paste RUclips channel
I'm a recently retired controller and can tell you exactly what's happening here. The controller is trying to talk about surfing with the controller next to him, and this stupid pilot keeps interrupting with dumb questions like wanting a vector. HELLO? Use your GPS. Welcome to Biden/Buttigieg's new FAA where controllers are now selected based on ethnicity (only indigenous and LGBTQIA are now hired for Hawaii for example) rather than knowledge or interest in aviation. They could care less what pilots have to go through, have no idea how airplanes work and don't care. Get used to it because this is the new reality.
You realize this is an old recording right? Biden has nothing to so with it….
But good job exposing yourself as conspiracy nutter…
This audio is old, years old. where did you decide to steal this from to pass this off as your own creation.
Worst controller ever. I spent over 28 years as a ATC, DTW, ORD, LAX, BAYTRACON, LAS, and MIA. Never heard such BS when a pilot needed help. I guess DEI is act work.
Why are you assuming the race of the controller? There’s absolutely zero evidence DEI initiatives had anything to do with this.
@@ianflood1 It was broadcast all over the media that it was. This was way back in May 2024.
@@johncarter1137right wing media. This is a ridiculous statement
Ridiculous statement. The controller wasn’t even wrong. The pilot was.
@gary....
Do you understand how you reduce your credibility with that last part?
This controller is awful.
DEI hire.
You don't know that. I could say you're an asshole, but I wouldn't because I don't know that.
Controller was stupid!! Should not work aircraft.
Is it the non-pilots in the comments siding with the pilot? The "pilot" was not qualified to be in command of any aircraft. If you need your hand held like a little baby you shouldn't be flying without an instructor.
That’s something that can be taken up on the ground. When any pilot declares an emergency, it is ATCs job to get them whatever they need to get safely to the ground. You can’t jeopardize someone’s life because they aren’t qualified to be in the position they’re in.
@@MikesDIY To be clear, he initially declared emergency for weather. He was then out of the weather, so emergency was over. If you are saying he was still an emergency aircraft, then the emergency must have been his utter incompetence and inability to pilot the aircraft.
But ATC did not know that. They rightfully assumed emergency was over when pilot was out of the weather. So not sure blaming them is the right thing to do. They still held his hand and got him to the ground.
@@jasonkimball7617 "If you are saying he was still an emergency aircraft, then the emergency must have been his utter incompetence and inability to pilot the aircraft." Which is then a legitimate emergency, and ATC needs to hand hold him to the ground and not question if it is still an emergency if the pilot has not declared an end to the emergency. As someone else said, it can all be taken up on the ground. A stubborn pilot endangers himself and others. A stubborn ATC endangers others. ATC needs to swallow their ego and take it up on the ground.
@@jasonkimball7617I mean not necessarily. Just because he got out of turbulence / spatial D once doesn’t mean he couldn’t run into it again. Shit with weather in the pacific for all he knew he could’ve started dealing with a microburst by the time he got on short final. Everyone has their different thresholds for what constitutes an emergency but I don’t see the point in getting bent over a conservative call. Doesn’t affect any of us personally in the slightest. All a conservative call means is someone ended up on the ground safe and maybe they’ll need to do some paperwork they wouldn’t have had to otherwise no big deal
@@bigblue207 Yeah I guess I just wasn't a fan of his attitude. ATC guy was a bit out of line at first, took a while to provide a heading. But man this pilot, I would never want to fly with this guy.
DEI?
Oh god with this constant stupid DEI thing based on having absolutely no information pointing towards that. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Horrible Controller. Just horrible.
I’m not qualified pilot, I’m not a qualified traffic controller. I know little about either job, but this traffic controller seems to be completely useless and very limited assistance was given to a pilot in trouble.