Pilot argues with Tower controller about separation at New York Kennedy Airport. Real ATC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июн 2024
- THIS VIDEO IS A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATION IN FLIGHT:
18-MAR-2024. A Delta Air Lines Boeing 767-300 (B763), registration N186DN, performing flight DAL45 / DL45 from Dublin International Airport (Ireland) to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (USA) being on short final at New York Kennedy Airport, at about 1.7-mile final, decided to go around. The pilots reported that there was no room for landing because of departing Boeing 777-300ER. But the controller said that there was enough separation.
Join me on Patreon: / you_can_see_atc
#realatc #aviation #airtrafficcontrol
Image from thumbnail was provided by a passenger.
_______________
Timestamps:
00:00 Description of situation
00:17 Delta 45 is cleared to land at New York Kennedy Airport
00:57 Air India 102 lines up runway 31 left
01:47 Delta Boeing 767 is going around
02:15 Controller explains that there was enough separation
02:42 Delta 45 contacts Approach controller
_______________
THE VALUE OF THIS VIDEO:
THE MAIN VALUE IS EDUCATION. This reconstruction will be useful for actual or future air traffic controllers and pilots, people who plan to connect life with aviation, who like aviation. With help of this video reconstruction you’ll learn how to use radiotelephony rules, Aviation English language and general English language (for people whose native language is not English) in situation in flight, which was shown. THE MAIN REASON I DO THIS IS TO HELP PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND EVERY EMERGENCY SITUATION, EVERY WORD AND EVERY MOVE OF AIRCRAFT.
SOURCES OF MATERIAL, LICENSES AND PERMISSIONS:
Source of communications - www.liveatc.net/ (I have a permission (Letter) for commercial use of radio communications from LiveATC.net).
Map, aerial pictures (License (ODbL) ©OpenStreetMap -www.openstreetmap.org/copyrig...) Permission for commercial use, royalty-free use.
Radar screen (In new versions of videos) - Made by author.
Text version of communication - Made by Author.
Video editing - Made by author.
HOW I DO VIDEOS:
1) I monitor media, airspace, looking for any non-standard, emergency and interesting situation.
2) I find communications of ATC unit for the period of time I need.
3) I take only phrases between air traffic controller and selected flight.
4) I find a flight path of selected aircraft.
5) I make an animation (early couple of videos don’t have animation) of flight path and aircraft, where the aircraft goes on his route.
6) When I edit video I put phrases of communications to specific points in video (in tandem with animation).
7) Together with my comments (voice and text) I edit and make a reconstruction of emergency, non-standard and interesting situation in flight.
The captain is ultimately responsible for everyone onboard that aircraft. If he says he needs to go around, there's no arguing with that.
It the pilot´s call, but it's perfectly fair to argue whether he made the right call or not. (Although arguing should wait to the aircraft is landed.)
Going around is always the “right” decision. Even if everyone else thought it would have worked. There is a reason in the U.S. we have no fault go around and the airlines can’t punish you for it.
People who know regulation say the spacing was more than the minimum allowed by FAA. So ATC wasn't in the wrong. At the same time, the Captain knows it's aircraft and the crew. Maybe he flew with a new FO and he wasn't sure how he/she will behave in the event of a sudden go around. Or maybe they were at the end of a long day, and he just didn't want to take any chances. So he wasn't in the wrong either.
Both did what they are trained to do.
Absolutely! Atc cant fly the plane.
@@BlueSkyUp_EUwhere atc was wrong was arguing the pilots decision period.
When the controller says “it would have been tight”, that’s says it all.
To make it "tight" (safe but efficient) is the controllers job.
Really?
When he said it would be tight, he was actually talking about his boyfriend.
He also said, "I do this every day." meaning safety was not infringed.
@@N_Wheeler Or it means safety is infringed every day
I flew for 38 years at United. I was the PIC for many of those years. If I decided to go around, it's the tower, or controllers responsibility to get us back around. If ATC wishes to discuss my decision to go around, give me a number, and I will be happy to talk about it, ON THE GROUND.
As the saying goes: "When the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. When ATC screws up, the pilot dies." If the pilot didn't feel comfortable with that separation, he was right to go around. If ATC feels butt-hurt about it then that's their problem.
ATC probably didn’t like the “it was never going to work” from the pilot. Based on the info of 1.7 miles out and the departing traffic was at 54 knots, that was going to work all day every day. There was no ATC screw up here so the saying you said is ridiculous for this instance lol
@@coltonakins4820 at 140 knots the captain has 38 secs to decide if air india is far enough off the runway, what if they need to abort? feel like its a tight spot, Air india also needs about 150 knots for takeoff speed.
@@tomit-nl if air India was already at 54 knots then where do you think they’ll be in 38 seconds? That’s actually a long time in the ATC world. If the aircraft had to abort takeoff then delta just goes around which is a normal maneuver. Air traffic would grind to a halt if you always had to think about a hypothetical aborted takeoff.
@@coltonakins4820 and if the Air India had to abort? You don't fly for what is happening, you fly taking into account what could happen. That controller was putting them into coffin corner. Good call by the crew on Delta. Really dumb thing for the controller to say. "would have been tight".
@@steveburton5825 if ATC had to act like air India would abort takeoff for every single departure across the country then air traffic would grind to a halt and I don’t think you realize that. For example LAX would not be operational at all if ATC had to account for hypothetical aborted takeoffs. Thats also extremely uncommon btw.
The Captain is the final authority, regardless of what ATC says.
But he should respect ATC as well. "There is no way this gonna work" is kind of disrespectful.
@@juli99475 When lives are at stake, no one cares about hurt feelings from being "disrespectful".
@@juli99475it’s not. ATC shouldn’t have questioned him on it at all. Disrespectful would have been “well you fly the tower and I’ll fly the plane”.
Sure but then the next video where delta gets a 40 mile final you will be saying there is no room for that attitude either
@@amg2022they are required to ask for the reason. There is paperwork to be filed. If delta has the time and ego during a go around to say “never going to work” then ATC has every right to come back at them with that it was going to work. Based on the info that was given that was going to work all day everyday.
I know the tower does this every day, all day, but the final decision is with the Delta pilots. Good call if you feel it's too close.
Exactly what I was thinking.
The tower may do this "all day every day", but they aren't the ones going to die if it doesn't work.
If somebody is flying a wide body for Delta, they have been flying for a long time. He does it every day too..
@jaredf.5607 exactly! Pilots more professional than I would've been. I'd have said "I do this every day too and that's not a decision you get to make."
@@jaredf.5607 If the speed of the 777 rolling was accurate (54 knots) then the spacing would have worked.
A point to note - the controller will run approach/departure separation hundreds of times in a month. Your wide body captain might only see it once or twice in a month with arrivals and departure runways split at a lot of airports and limited approaches flying long haul. Having said that, final authority rests with the captain and there was no need for the controller’s comment.
Pure class and professionalism by the Delta pilots. Almost sounded like the controller wanted to get into it with the pilots, but they didn't take the bait.
Sounded more like he was wondering how it would look to supervisors, him trying unsuccessfully to squeeze one in.
Good call by the DL flight crew.
@@RetreadPhotoridiculous notion. They have strict guidelines. He wasn’t trying to squeeze anyone in.
@@rtbrtb_dutchy4183no more ridiculous than the ATC thinking he has a right to lecture the pilot.
@@marspp he wasn’t lecturing the pilot. He was explaining. In this case, both the controller and the pilot were correct and they both handled it just fine.
The controller knows his airspace. He runs hundreds of similar approaches a day. Air India started rolling when Delta was 2.5 miles out, so this should work.
However, the pilot is fully in his right to go around. He had a long day. We, nor the controller, knows how his day has been going. Obviously, this Air India was a distraction. You lose focus when you are concerned somewhere else.
The controller only said that it would’ve worked. He is probably right, but it didn’t work for the pilot, so the go around was the right decision. The controller knows this.
Better safe than sorry . Kudos to delta pilots for their safety !!!
The pilots know what's best for them and their aircraft. Good for them for going around!😃
SRS is like 8000 feet? I think, I was never a tower controller, that is a lot of space
@@matthewa8713 SRS is like 8000 feet? I think, I was never a tower controller, that is a lot of space
Exactly right. He probably would have been fine, but had something gone wrong he'd have been faulted easily.
Where is this 'Pilot Argues' you mentioned in the title
It's called "click bait".
If you are not sure what you are doing, Don't do it! No matter what ATC says. Kudos to Delta Airlines pilots .the rule is clear Safety is first! better safe than sorry, prevention first is more important than the impulsive action here!
The ATC doesn't "do it every day" with this particular plane and this pilot, and he admitted that it would be tight. The pilot did the right thing.
I don’t think it would have been any where close to srs required. Citation sure used a lot of runway, it was a good plan. I just don’t know of one accident under this type situation
I don’t think it would have been any where close to srs required. Citation sure used a lot of runway, it was a good plan. I just don’t know of one accident under this type situation
@@phillipwhite8463 until it happens. not a good excuse
If Air India had needed to reject takeoff after Delta had commited to land there would have been a bit of a problem. I would be more than happy to have the Delta captain in charge of my plane.
If that had been the case, there was still time to conduct a go-around. 1.7NM from the runway at a final approach speed of 130knts leaves 47 seconds before reaching the runway. It might not seem like a lot, but that's plenty of time to react if required.
its called a go around LMAO
Sure, but you are not qualified to make that opinion
Good point!
@khlua4590 it was not an opinion, but a statement of fact. I controlled busy single runway ops for nearly 10 years. This was my bread and butter. If all pilots were like this one, operations would have been slowed way down. Aircraft overshoot, or go around at any time all the way to the runway, some do unplanned go-around even after touching down.
Love how the pilots kept it purely professional when they gave their reason and the tower controller got his feelings hurt and got defensive over it. No room for egos like that in this business
Lol. Everyone in this business has an ego.
Love my NYC controllers though, the accent, attitude all of it.
If there was no room for egos, then there would be no pilots.
Saying it “never would have worked” is not pure professionalism tho… especially during a go around. A simple “we didn’t like/agree with the spacing” is perfectly fine. The pilot took it a step further than that.
I'm always suspicious with the "I do this everyday" type of argument
I'm a semi truck driver, and I hear "you can make that turn easy, we do it all the time" - from forklift drivers. No, you don't make that turn any more than I drive your forklift. Moreover, my truck and trailer might not be exactly the same. Hell, I'll admit straight up if my abilities aren't equal to the other drivers you've seen. Nice to see the PIC making the same choice - with a lot more on the line than I've ever hauled.
As a controller who also does this every day, it 100% would have worked
If he does this "everyday", then he likes to live dangerously...what an ego. Kudos to the pilot. He has the final word
I did not hear the pilot ARGUE with the controller. The pilot just did his job while being somewhat irritated with the ATC practices which made him work.nore rather than less. Good job by the pilot...
He didn’t work more. He got recurring practice and a teachable moment for a FO, and proved the safety management system works.
Yeah, this video's title says "argue". I agree that the conversation didn't sink to that level.
@@RetreadPhoto if he wasn't a training captain, he was not in a position to "teach". Extra stess and possibly missed connections for passengers...
@@Chantillian agreed. more like ATC being rude
The system worked. Pilot is in command of his aircraft, if he doesn't think it's safe, it's not safe.
As a tower controller, based on the distances being mentioned, I would have thought it would have worked but, yeah, tight. However ultimately it's the pilot's call as to whether they think it's safe. As usual, US controllers are way too verbose and the extra gibberish cost a few valuable seconds here.
Thanks, I was wondering what the absolute minimum acceptable separation would have been in the circumstance.
@@derekchechak5371 Air India needed to be in the air by the time Delta crossed the threshold.
What instruction was so verbose that that it cost any time here? Because there isn't one that could have made any difference as far as I can tell.
@@Peter-sv4mk fair comment, probably not much here other than giving Air India the position of the traffic on final which would cost 1 or 2 seconds tops. Better off just giving an immediate take-off clearance but unlikely to have made a difference here.
By telling Air India the "aircraft 2.5mile on final" he was really giving necessary info in lieu of giving an instruction with a meaning somewhere between "don't dilly dally" and "expedite".
When in doubt go around.
It would have been tight is just fine when you are sipping coffee in the Control Tower! Too much attitude from ATC! Great job Captain!
Well stated, Jeff.
Perhaps the lack of information from the controller regarding the diminishing separation, albeit acceptable, was the real concern on the deck. If the controller had been more proactive in his communications to the Delta aircraft, then perhaps they wouldn't have made the decision to go around pre-emptively. As others have said, No one has ever died in the tower due to an ATC error.... An ATC saying it would have been tight raises serious concerns. It may have been frustration, or poor terminology/ phraseology, but "it would have been tight" conveys a belief, in the controller's view, that the there was a real possibility separation could have fallen to, or below, minimums.
Repeating a behaviour that carries risk, or taking deliberate risks, on the basis nothing has ever happened before so it must be safe, does not make it safer. It just means it's one more repetition of a cycle closer to a failure in your multiple layers of risk mitigation. So the Captain electing to go around is a classic example of depth in defence. His decision to do so removed the aircraft from a possible chain of events in an accident sequence. I think the lesson here is the best pilots are not necessarily the best aviators; But they sure as hell are the best risk managers.....
@@michaelmerrett538 less dissertations on youtube brother
Very tight doesn't feel very safe.
Think about this, for every single incident where a controller taxied someone across an active runway, or made any other type of mistake or miscalculation. “They do that everyday,” right? The fact that he works every day doesn’t make him good or invincible. And if he “pushes it” every day, eventually he’ll gamble on the wrong horse. And there’s hundreds of people on that plane. He sounded exasperated because he knew the pilot was right, and it reflected poorly in him. Tight ain’t the goal. Alive is the goal. Don’t get me wrong, though, his is not an easy job by any means, they’re very stressed and probably always understaffed and not compensated as well as they should be. But accept that maybe that wasn’t gonna work, teamwork got it done.
Tight is the goal in busy airspace. If the requirement is 5 miles and you keep using 10 miles then you are wasting space and planes are starting to back up. You need to let those planes compress and go from 10 miles closer to 5.
^ this is it.
@@spades9048yeah, but when Air India was given takeoff clearance the tower clearly said that DL45 was 2.5 miles out. Which is noticeably less than 5 miles.
@@dcviper985 Tower doesn’t need 5 miles. Separation standards change depending on airspace and other factors.
@@spades9048 you said in your earlier comment that the standard was 5 miles...
As a former tower controller I know approach does not like working an aircraft twice so inquiring about the go around is something I would do, Tight is still legal but of course the pilot has the final say. We used to run them very tight at FLL. 6000 ft and airborne was just fine by me and based on the spacing mentioned it would have worked IMHO. . My personal opinion of Delta pilots, in general, is that they were prima donnas.And JFK controllers will be JFK controllers.
The pilot had the right to go around. The Pilot In Command is solely responsible for the safe operation of their aircraft, not the ATC controller.
The Controller says he does that every day. But He doesn't actually fly or land an aircraft. He sits comfortably in the block house and isn't responsible for the safety of the aircraft or the lives of the crew and passengers.
Exactly ! Totally agree with you bud .
The last caption was incorrect. The pilot actually said, "We were within two and he still wasn't rolling."
Thank you 👍
At 140 Knots the Boeing 767 would cover the 1,7 miles distance in 38 seconds and Air India was only doing 54 Knots rolling on the runway... If Air India rejected the takeoff for some reason, it would be really dangerous!!! At least one more mile of separation... This is incredibly tight! Excellent decision of the Delta Captain and I think some risky behaviour from ATC... When ATC says '(...)Probably would have worked(...)', that's something you don't want to hear from him... The safety margin was not there!!!
If the air India’s would rejected takeoff, Delta would had 38 seconds to go around. Expecting a runway to be completely clear 1.7 out is well, delta keeps it reputations of not excepting visuals following other traffic
@@phillipwhite8463 If the have to abort close to V1, that may well be another 8 sek. Then you some delay for either air india report the abort or delta noticing the decrease in speed. from straight behind, that's actually not that easy, and the should be focused on their landing, not be distracted. that's easily another 10 sek. engines don't react instantly, probably 5-10 sek to spool up. anything else goes wrong...
The Pilots Job is to make sure it's safe above all else. Not his problem that the US lacks in infrastructure.
With an estimated ground speed of 150kts, at 1.7 mi Delta was about 41 sec from crossing threshold. At 58kts Air India maybe 15 sec before rotation at most. It would have definitely worked
The ATC is pushing it and acknowledge it was tight. He was certainly hoping for a faster runway vacation from the first plane. Maybe it was still OK but "doing it every day" is not an argument. He tried to squeeze it, it failed and he should at least respect the pilot decision without comments. The main problem here is the ATC bad attitude after the fact. Nothing wrong with what the ATC tried and the pilot decision.
ground speed was closer to 200. the differential is less than you state. 5-10 seconds makes a huge difference
And if Air India rejected takeoff for any reason?
@@Nickbaldeagle02 Then Delta goes around and everything is still fine.
@@Peter-sv4mk Delta is passing the threshold.
"It would have been tight" does not sound safety first. Controller needs a break.
In recent times US ATC shows a lack in situational awareness, by that it makes sense to be extra cautious by the pilots. Of course JFK shows its typical New York attitude.
If your response is "it would've been tight but it would've worked" you need to re-evaluate a couple of your priorities. This man is pushing tin and not directing aircraft with people in them.
The Slowtation is really at fault here for using up all the runway to shorten their taxi time to the FBO and in doing so, delaying Air India’s takeoff clearance.
However, a 1.7 mile-final on a 3° glideslope is just above 500’. If Air India was already at 54 knots, then Delta would have made it in. However, both the controller and the pilot are “in the right.” It would both have been close but worked; also, the PIC is ultimately responsible for safety, and is in the right to initiate a go-around even if it is exercising an excessive amount of caution. Nobody was ever worse off coming around to try another approach as long as you have the fuel for it.
PIC 100% responsible for every life onboard. When in doubt, go around.
Controller is actually Angel Hernandez.
Only slightly obscure and totally unexpected baseball reference here!
Angel would have ejected him to EWR!
Lmaooooooooo
These ATC at JFK are playing with fire and there is no ramifications for it
too funny
ATC "I do this everyday". Pilot upper class: remains collected.
Nice one Cap! kudos.
"I do this for a living, Max!" Vincent in the movie "Collateral."
Reason for the go around? ... There seems to be a screw loose at the ATC. Tighten it up, and we'll be back for a "risk-free" arrival, sometime in the future. G'Day! 😅😊
This is exactly why I exclusively fly Delta. Their professionalism at all levels is amazing and the folks at the pointy end have THE final say about what’s safe and what isn’t. Well done Captain.
Professionalism brought on board after the merger with NWA
"I do this everyday" from the safety of his tower. Kudos to the pilot.
I agree that it is the pilot’s responsibility and would never criticise them for going around as I was not in their position on that specific day. My only observation is that at that distance from the threshold they were at probably just under 800ft at 1.7NM, minima would’ve been just over 200 ft on ILS CAT 1. To wait until minima to decide would have been approx 50s further down the line and the Air India was already above 50kts when they were at 1.7NM. Take off roll for 777 probably about 45-50s from low speed rolling start (guesstimate), my guess it at minima the 777 would’ve already been airborne a few seconds earlier, if not could go around then. Kudos to the pilots for the calmness in their dealings with ATC
Where’s the argument? This Kennedy controller was pretty tame compared to other instances, and Delta didn’t argue at all. Both were calm.
That’s not an argument, just a conversation.
Controller's voice got super shaky when he switched the Jetshare to ground's freq, like he knew at that point he was hoping for separation between Air India and Delta, rather than ensuring it. If only got worse after the Delta pilot said they were on the go.
His lecture to the pilot afterwards tells me everything I need to know. He's a narcissist, super sensitive to any perceived criticism, and everything is always everyone else's fault. Dime a dozen in ATC...
The pilot is in his full right to do a go around.
However the ATC is maintaining a distance that is (slightly) above the minimum requirements, which means the pilot should be able to land safely. ATC would really be a mess, if every pilot had their own idea for how much seperation is needed.
There would be way too many missed approaches, and missed approaches also add a level of danger to a flight.
The approach controllers usually do an excellent job in maintaining an efficient, but adequate separation of arrivals. The tower however is playing way too tight with the decision of letting AIC go before the delta. In my opinion, it should not be necessary to rely on urgent action from the pilots to maintain an efficient flow. It increases risk and illustrates bad planning. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast.
@@Azchk What are you talking about? That's exactly what the controller did. The Jetshare landed, then the controller told the Air India flight to line up and wait as the Jetshare flight taxied off the runway, then the controlled cleared Air India for takeoff once the Jetshare was clear.
@@Peter-sv4mk That's right my mistake.
Thank you.
I've had this a bunch of times, I don't play those ridiculous games with ATC anymore. All that has to happen is Air India has a rejected takeoff at Ref -10, as Delta is crossing the fence, and Delta will be the last people to hear about it.
And "I do this everyday (regardless of how sketch it is)" is textbook normalization of deviancy. Do better, ATC.
No argument needed but 1.7 will get 6,000 and airborne. Did it yesterday and I’ll do it tomorrow when I go in. Does help to tell the pilot, but either way - it’s the PIC’s call. Maybe the pilot needed another approach for his currency :) safe travels y’all!
👍👍👍
What tower do you work at so I can give them a call?
@@Dfpijgyt564s65sgt for what
Based on the data, Delta was at 500 feet when the 777 was taking off. It probably would have worked but it would have been very tight.
Maybe we're looking different sources. Anyway, the distance was about 1,7 miles.
@@YouCanSeeATC1.7 miles at 140 knots is nothing
Yeah I know, but Air India wason the roll. So technically it was possible. But I don't wanna blame anyone. Pilot is flying the airplane. He is responsible for everyone there. Controller is responsible for safety. And he has time, 1.7 nm, to instruct them to go around if the runway was occupied.
@@YouCanSeeATCSo yea, about 500 feet. 3-to-1.
Controller needs the departing aircraft to be 6000 ft down the runway and airborne before the arrival crosses the threshold. He would have had it all day. Delta is perfectly within their rights to go around, but he was wrong about the spacing. The controller had the required separation.
I don't know how accurate the altitudes on the screen are but going around at 800 feet is, in my opinion, unnecessary. At 800ft you're roughly 1 minute from touchdown, if like the video said AirIndia was at 54kts they would have been airborne within 20 seconds at the most. I remember one time in Stansted we were given landing clearance at roughly 100ft from the ground because there was a runway inspection due to a bird strike from the aircraft that landed before us. I could see the cars for the inspection clearly as it was a clear day.
Going around is NEVER a bad decision, but this (if the values on the screen are correct) is definitely a premature go around.
This is a weird situation where contrasting statements/actions are BOTH CORRECT!
Both the ATC and the Captain were right FROM THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE!
ATC knew - from protocols and experience - there was enough time between the departure and the landing, so clearance was correctly given.
The Captain believed - probably from experience alone - that there may be insufficient a time-gap for a safe landing, so he correctly called a go-around.
🍌🙂
I just keep coming down until I know for sure there will be two airplanes on the runway. I don't blame the Delta Captain, but going around in that position is no safer with the Air India about to rotate right underneath.
Things probably went a little south when the Citation decided to exit at MC after ATC asked if he could. Controller probably thought he would be clear in 4000 feet and keep the pace up for the first exit after.
Private business jet charters are the worst for this. They're usually not as familiar with the airport and couldn't care less if the aircraft behind has to go around.
Sweet work Jet Share
Data for this situation? What was the actual time gap and space gap for this Delta? And what is the average, if this can be discerned, during “busy” periods? And what is the regulatory minimum?
It seems the Delta pilot ever flew to Oshkosh EAA fly in on opening day. But, better to give way to discretion if he feels uncomfortable with the situation.
“I do this everyday.”
My response would’ve been: “So do I.”
DAL45 to A.T.C.: "When was the last time you flew that chair you're sitting in❓"
I would say the word "argues" is a bit click-baity. They stated they opinions and got on with flying and controlling.
Thank you. I really didn't want it to be click-baity. But as for me, there was enough separation. At least, about 30-40 seconds to make a decision. But the pilot stated that there were unable to do that. So I didn't know what word was the best to describe this.
Anyway, appreciate your comment.
@@YouCanSeeATC Thank you! This is great. I totally agree, while not totally arguing but it was still professional. As many damn words in the english language sometimes there is a lack of the word to carry the right nuance.
It's happening, pilots are not trusting ATC, too many near misses. It was bound to happen, and about time. ATC are putting aircraft too close together, and pilots don't like it.
ATC had no business making the comments that he did, and if the pilot doesn't like the situation he is put in, he has every right to exit the situation and go around. The crew of that DL 767 are 100% in the right here, and good on them for not taking the bait when ATC snipped at them.
The controller is right in that it *probably* would have worked - but that cannot be how it *practically* works, because ultimately the pilot is responsible if something goes wrong off the approach. This is a US thing - clearing aircraft to land with any number of aircraft ahead of you on final and to depart. In other words, despite a clearance to land, the runway is not physically clear. In most other countries, a *clearance* to land means the ATC has taken responsibility that the runway is indeed *CLEAR* for you to land on (you see where I'm going with the wording).
I'm not judging the way the US does it, but it will only mention that it does come with caveats - specifically, that if the pilot says they're going around, then that's just how it is - you left it to his or her judgement, so expect him or her to make a judgement call. As an ATC, you can't try and squeak it all through a tiny window when the pressure is on you to do that, BUT it's not your responsibility if there's a balls up.
As somebody who operates around the world, every place has it's quirks, but the US has a lot of quirks, relative to the rest of the world that is. I don't mean that disparagingly, they obviously flow a lot of traffic and it works for them - but......this is an example of phraseology that becomes counter-intuitive when used the way they use them.
Same runway separation 7110.65 3-9-6 a 4. Make your own decision. don't forget to factor in a Displaced threshold about another 1/2 mile.
A couple things stand out
Delta 45 heavy asked “Do you want Delta45 to go around?” ATC misunderstood and says “Delta 45 Heavy you said you’re going around” , THEN Delta.45 says “Affirmative” I have run quite a few squeeze plays in my life but when you are dealing with heavy jets departing they just take too much time and you are leaving yourself open to interpretative criticism for implying an immediate takeoff or rolling takeoff clearance for the Air India 777 ( the manual says
WAKE TURBULENCE APPLICATION
Do not issue clearances which imply or indicate approval of rolling takeoffs by super or heavy aircraft) If I’m Air India it’s pedal to the medal time if you get my drift.
Sorry...where is the part of the title "Pilot argues with Tower",,,,???
As a passenger, I'm siding with the pilot. Lord Farquaad over in the tower willing to sacrifice lives because he does it everyday.
I fully agree with action taken by going around. Absolutely unnecessary by the JFK controller to squeeze that Air India triple 7 in there. It might work with flight crew that very often fly to JFK and know that when they get take off clearance that they must roll without delay, but not with foreign crew who might need those 10-15 extra seconds to get ready
Take time out of your busy schedule to "nu-uh" the crew. I wonder how many pilots give in to the pressure and do things they instinctively wouldn't do?
It just happened with the United 737. Guy had over 30 years experience and was told to expedite off the runway. It was wet and raining, he taxied way too fast on the turn off the aircraft slid into the grass and ripped the landing gear off the plane.
I've had 4 situations as a passenger when the tower and our Captain disagreed. 3 were re: spacing, one was two aircraft landing at the same time in intersecting runways. When I say the same time, I mean exactly the same time. The other 3 were spacing and I swear they were testing shortened spacing, cause it happened at 3 different airports with us flying through the wake turbulence of the meet in front of us. LGA (last minute abort), ORD & DEN (went to the back of the line).
Take my pilots decision over ATC every time.
ATC and pilot disagreed? Turns out they do not have a vote unless they direct a go around or cancel a landing clearance, etc
@@FighterPilotPoker quoting the pilot from that day in Syracuse. " Ladies and gentlemen if you look outside the left of the aircraft you may have noticed a plane landing on a perpendicular runway. The tower and I have had a disagreement as to whether we're going to meet where our runways intersect. I overruled them. We're going around and will be on the ground shortly "
Delta pilot was right. If he didn’t feel it was the appropriate thing to do then he was correct in not doing landing.
No argument there. Just the captain made a choice with his comfort level.
Controller was rushing to get the 777 out in time. Looks like he may have even cleared Air India for takeoff before the Citation declared clear of the runway. "It would have been close, but it would have worked" means the you would have broken some rules, but you probably wouldn't have crashed. Controller lining up the holes in the swiss cheese because he "do(es) this every day". Only matter of time before we have a big accident the way things are going right now with ATC and some pilots. This pilot took his responsibility correctly, made the call and didn't get aggressive over the air even though tower wanted to get into a pissing match about it. Good job Captain.
You don't know that. You don't know if the recreation and the audio are synced up.
Not only the pilot did a great job at going around for safety, but jfk be having a lot of near misses and a lot of problems when it comes to traffic control
And how fast was that controllers chair going? if there was an accident who gets blamed, the controller or the Captain? Never let ATC fly your plane, write up the controller and file a nasa report.
Controller needs the departing aircraft to be 6000 ft down the runway and airborne before the arrival crosses the threshold. He would have had it all day. Delta is perfectly within their rights to go around, but he was wrong about the spacing. The controller had the required separation.
Concur. The PIC is the final authority for the safety of the flight. However, they did go around at 800ft (assuming the video is correct). That's 2 miles from landing.
I don't have a problem with "Go around". Better safe than sorry anytime!
'I do this every day, sir. It would have been tight but it would have worked.' Doesn't he really get that the departing traffic might reject the take off for any reason? Regardless, a bit of an attitude from the controller.
Lets not forget that this is jfk, a lot of near misses and problems happen all the time here like crazy
Guess what, the pilot does their job every day as well, and they know that landing on a runway with a plane still on it results in a major boo boo
ATC - it would have been tight but you could have made it. Really? What would have happened if the flight taking off blew a tire or had to abort takeoff for another reason. All of a sudden it goes from being tight to being a collision. They should reprimand that ATC!
If Air India 102 blew an engine before V1, Delta 45 would have been in a bad spot with that bird sitting on the runway with potentially pieces of metal all over the place. PIC is the ultimate authority and if experience or gut feeling says don't, then don't. Poor ATC - we don't care how many times you got away with it before, this landing is the only one that counts. Maybe it would have worked, but maybe it wouldn't - and we know who sits in the hot seat if it doesn't.
If you don’t feel good on an approach then go around until you feel good and safe
If you feel unsafe- you do what you need to. Go around. Idc what anyone says
He tells an inbound heavy jet that can hold 300 PAX + Crew it quote "would have been tight" Unbelievable. Those are four words that should never come out of the mouth of a controller to a pilot, let alone one who was less than 2 miles with a triple 7 not at the very least on the roll at cross speed. Ridiculous.
Would have worked until it was the case that resulted in catastrophe lol. Past successes do not forecast future failures
“Would have worked” = would have been done with the legal separation minimum and safety margin. “Not working” = the controller telling the delta pilot to go around if it became apparent that he would not be able to land with the required separation. Neither scenario involves a catastrophe.
Once again, ATC pushed the limits of safety which, had Air India had a problem and aborted take off, would have forced a very late go around. Delta45 acted properly by initiating a going around.
I do this every day poorly is what he should have said JFK ATC is a mess. Time for new management. “What was the reason for the go around? ATC poor performance”
If Air India had aborted takeoff…which can happen…it would certainly have been an issue. ATC even admitted it would have “been tight”. Captain of Delta flight made a wise decision .
I'll trust the guy flying the plane.....
“it would have been tight” ... might have been too tight, if Air India had aborted it's takeoff ...
Then DAL45 would have gone around. It is amazing how visual approaches work.
Sure, it would have been tight, but only if everything goes perfectly. What if the India flight had rejected takeoff? That could have been a troublesome situation. Sounds like the pilot is thinking of contingencies and ATC is playing the odds
I'm still waiting to hear why American 45 went around...
I agree with the captain’s decision. Safety first
Didn't JFK just almost have a disaster like last week?
I'll never forget one time I was at a business meeting and there was a retired Air traffic controller speaking ( I can't recall why) and I clearly remember him saying "If ATC really wanted cause the worse day in air travel history with hours of delays, cancelled flights, gate holds and hundreds of planes in holding patterns". All they had to do is, Go exactly by the book.
The saying is "if in doubt, bottle out" was a bit tight esp if say the air india was to abort takeoff
Just because the controller does that every day does not mean he was right -- in fact, because of his attitude, that controller is *UNSAFE* -- his arrogant attitude will one day lead to a close call, or worse, an air disaster.
The captain/pilot flying did the right thing by rejecting the clearance. If it were me, I would also export that controller, citing safety concerns.
That is literally how JFK functions every day.
They would have to cancel flights if they didn’t.
I feel like the controller is doing well in this situation and pilot is doing his job as well. However, he felt unsafe, so he should go around. But telling ATC "there was no way this is gonna work" is kind of disrespectful. Don't just argue with a "go around is always safer". That is not the point here. Not go flying at all is also always safer...
India still rolling with DAL on 1.7 final? What if India rejected for some reason? That's not enough separation IMO.
I didn't even have to open the video before I said: "lemme guess, Kennedy."
Would prefer pilot of any aircraft on which I'm flying to play it safe all day / definitely with the pilot on this one 🤷♂️
Well. Moved a few iron birds in my life. This is a case of jamming. Been their done that. Was it smart? You get away with it most of the time but it can bite you back big time. Listen to the controllers voice when pilot tells him he is going around. A little quiver like oh shit. The controller was on the roll. Thought he had his timing down and poof, brain scramble, gotta work this out. Separation required departing aircraft clear of runway before arriving aircraft crosses threshold. Both aircraft made aware of situation. Probably would have worked BUT. Pilot is always in control. Controller is not flying the bird. At ORD, unless I was familiar with the pilots abilities, I never put a non U.S. carrier on the runway for departure in front of arriving traffic if it looked close. I found foriegn carriers less responsive to my need for, lets get it done situations. You even get to know which carriers move quick and those that don't. Air traffic control is not a job for the faint of heart, especially at the majors. This controller is good. Knows his stuff but got bit, which, sooner or later, happens to all of us. Remember there are passengers on these aircraft. People who could die. Controllers develope a 3D picture of separation in their brains. I sometimes felt like it was an airborne chess game. Extremely satisfying to end my shift knowing I had won the game again getting them all in or out. I loved every minute of it. They are going to hire 3,000 new controllers! When I went through ATC school we had an 80% washout rate. There are good controllers and bad controllers but there are no mediocre controllers. This guy is good. My advice, stay away from remarks over the air. Suck it up and keep moving iron birds.
The same airport that recently cleared an aircraft for takeoff while crossing 4 aircraft on that same runway. Yea I’ll pass.
I would not have landed while I visually still see a plane on the runway. If the plane takingg off had a mechanical fault and had to abort take off and the landing jet was flaps down and landing it could have been a disaster. The atc did not take that into account. He assumed the take off would go as planned. Dummy.
Doesn’t EVERY approach into JFK involve a plane APPROACHING (not landing) with another plane on the runway?
I’m sorry, but conducting a go around 1.7 miles out with traffic on a decent departure roll does not warrant a “safe go around.” If anything, I find this to be more dangerous.
With initiating a go around, you are closing your distance on the departure aircraft with increasing your speed.
Let’s be real here. If the Air India were in fact to abort close to V1 which is crazy and highly rare, you would have adequate time to initiate a safe go around procedure.
Times are definitely different. I remember flying into SFO and the controller requesting departure traffic on 1R to have their engines spooled up while 28R landing traffic to clear to get them out.
Sit down armchair pilot 😅you have no clue
You’re right, I am not a pilot and have no clue. Thanks anyway
What if the air india flight needed to abort?
Then the go-around would have happened a few seconds later.