JET PASSES ~100 feet OVERHEAD Southwest on the Runway at San Diego!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 авг 2023
- Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASAviation
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
![[REAL ATC] Brickyard SUFFERS TRIM RUNAWAY | CONTROL ISSUES at Atlanta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzoEsM0L2CM/mqdefault.jpg)
Local controller was distracted and heads down with that reroute instead of focusing on the aircraft on the runway.
The amendment should have been the LAST thing she needed to do in that sequence…
Similar scenario to USAir 1493 @ KLAX 2/1/91. Very fortunately the same outcome was averted due to the alertness of the Citation pilots.
Exactly! She took her focus away from the task at hand. The rerouting could have, and should have, been handled on ground or clearance delivery. Where was the Tower Supervisor?
@@timinclt7895I've read some comments saying that at SD, Tower is also Ground and Clearance. I find it hard to believe, but if that's really the case, than the FAA should investigate themselves and not this controller.
@@andreea007 Clearance and ground are different frequencies, Tower is another. She could have referred them back to ground and clearance for the amendment.
Edit for fact checking
Thankfully, it's pretty hard to visually miss a southwest 737 in front of you on the runway if you can see it in time. If the visibility or clouds were much worse, this could have been a deadly mistake. SCARY!
The minimums on that approach would have easily allowed the incoming aircraft to see the Southwest and decide whether they needed to go around.
@@N1120Aeasily? Disagree when you’re moving at 140 knots and the 737 stands 40+ feet in the air, especially if rvr is 1600
@@Levi-ci7yo Yes, easily. If they're flying the approach at that speed they should be using the Category C minimums, 680 - 1 3/4. If flying the approach below 120 knots, they can use Category B, 680 - 1, which is still a solid 30 seconds
I disagree. The SW was at the very end of the displaced threshold. The touchdown zone for the Citation was much further down the runway (If the images that VAS used were accurate at the time of publication).
@@Levi-ci7yo The 737 is not lined up on the threshhold, let alone the glide slope runway intercept point. There would be plenty of vertical clearance with a threashhold crossing height of 65ft and glideslope of 3.5⁰ which would put the approach 140 to 170 feet above the lineup and wait portion of the runway.
I think I can imagine what happened. Delta landed and was still on the runway. She cleared 4HV to land, 5+ miles out. She told SWA to line up and wait. I geuss the plan was to launch SWA as soon as Delta is off the rwy, then let 4HV could land.
Then someone hands her a stack of route amendments (I don't know how that is handled there), causing her to get overwhelmed and forget about SWA and 4HV.
Judging by the instructions she gave to Delta, she was handling all traffic on the airport, including Ground, so there was no sending the planes with amendments back to Ground, she had to tell them somehow. Sending them to a different frequency just takes up more of her time, no point to it. Yes, the F'up was hers, but she was set up to fail by crappy management. I really hope there is an investigation that doesn't stop at "the controller f'd up" but instead asks some pointed questions as to why the controller was that overloaded. I wonder how long she had been working in that position by that time. I know we had the rule that a controller could work at most 2 hours then had to have 1h break. But that was 30 years ago and in Germany.
She overloaded herself with her own bad decision-making. Why are you trying to pass the buck to airport management? Management's decision here is whether to send her home for more training or fire her.
@@darkwood777 To get to the ramp, you need to cross B, could have been done with prior coordination but we don't know one way or the other.
@@darkwood777I just want to ask you: have you ever sat at that console? You’re pretty judgmental for having logged 0 hours behind the scope. Personally, I wouldn’t have put that Southwest on that runway in the first place either but it would be worthwhile to see if she was overloaded. Besides that, look at that runway and how far the numbers and aiming point is from where that Southwest sat. I’m going to look at the Jeppsen chart and see where that glide slope threshold ends.
Correct sequence!
@@JimAllen-Persona exactly... except, I would have put SWA in position and cleared him as soon as DAL was off... all the speculation by all these experts of what she may have been doing is ridiculous! The threshold is about 1900' down the runway. The citation was sent around.
I hope the Business Jet pilot and the Southwest pilot both filed safety reports.
Business Jet is in the wrong they should have went missed approach well before controller told them to.
@@MrCleanMachine48How are they in the wrong? They attempted to confirm landing clearance with Tower but were stepped on.
@@7nichLong live the RUclips comments section! Aviation and pet care videos are infamous for attracting these kinds of comments. It's what makes RUclips RUclips.
@@7nich the pilot is responsible for the safety of the landing.. if they see a giant jet in front of them they shouldn't wait for the controller they should just go around. They shouldn't have gotten down to 100 ft. If the 737 had taken off seconds before the runway would have had strong wake turbulence making it impossible to land if they are too close behind.
They should have called their own go around.. no sense in cutting it so close. They are PIC not the ATC.
@@acasualviewer5861 Mostly correct except the part about wake turbulence. The arriving jet would have landed way upfield compared to the Southwest rotation point, way downfield. That's where the wake begins. You may have meant to say Jet Blast from the Southwest Jet.
Competely the Tower's fault
Her priorities were completely incorrect… giving an amendment to an altitude clearance with an aircraft LUAW and aircraft short final… she got some splainin to do for sure!
She is most likely a diversity hire. Scary!
The air traffic controller identified as a Man when she made that decision... women will do anything to avoid taking the blame.
Where as I agree that the majority of the fault lies with the tower, the pilots still have the responsibility to maintain situational awareness.
Upon clearance, Southwest was advised that traffic was on a 5 mile (approx 2:30 at 120 knots) final, he should have queried tower.
The citation pilot should have heard the Southwest’s clearance and been aware, as well as seen him visually.
There was a similar scenario at LAX in the 90’s that ended in disaster. Everyone should take responsibility for safety buuuuuut ya, the tower controller definitely screwed up.
@@pilotpaul7347 ceilings were 1100. the citation jet would not have seen the SWA until they were on like a 2 mile final.
Also the LAX incident happened at night. This was day time. Completely unrelated.
Wow there was way too much going on here: Delta clearing the runway, a Citation cleared to land, SW line up and wait for Delta to clear, Alaska cleared to land behind the Citation, a departure clearance amended on the fly, the Citation being told to go around, SW being taken off the runway for Alaska now on 2mi final and put at the end of the line, SW complaining about now being number 5, SW being allowed to make a U-turn to C2 so they can get back to the head of the line. Crazy.
And it all would have worked out, if she did not switch her attention from aircraft on the runway and approach, to the re-route for a Baron that was #4 for departure.
Yeah, imagine if she was working at a busy airport
@@karlhungus1569 SAN is one of the busiest single runway airports in the World!
This exact scenario goes on thousands of times each day across the country... and hundreds of times at SAN each day. These people are professionals at what they do. It was a simple mistake that was caught and corrected.
Her priorities were totally wrong! DAL clears, launch SWA, ignore ASA and deal with the reroute. Rule #1 of working local (tower) is one doesn’t load the runway unless one can launch the aircraft. 🤦🏼
And this is why we don't give landing clearances until the runway is absolutely clear over in Europe. I still can't wrap my head around being cleared to land with aircraft ahead of you.
@@Cory_Springer That's nitpicking. It's just as bad to issue a clearance for a take-off, a line-up or a crossing of a runway that's been reserved for another aircraft for landing (which is the essence of a landing clearance, it's confirmation the runway is yours and yours only). There's absolutely nothing wrong with a "continue the approach, expect a late clearance", yet controllers in the US just don't seem to be able to wrap their head around that. Nothing on Gods green earth prevents a plane or a pilot from flying an approach down to their decision minimums without a clearance, and if by then there's no clearance for the landing, it's for the better to go around. This practice is just plain irrational, dangerous and not logical. It makes flying in the US more dangerous and has literally no benefit.
If an airport has ASDE it's completely legal. That controller completely dropped the ball; it happens.
the fact that this is happening so much recently is making me think its a staffing issue/overwork issue rather than controller issue. easy to see controller making a mistake in isolated instances, but if controllers are being overworked/too much put on their shoulders at once then mistakes will happen more and more
@snoober6690 - great to see someone else on here with a broader viewpoint and an eye towards root-cause analysis.
Yep and the staffing shortage will be fixed once there's a major fatality incident that even tcas can't prevent, and not a day sooner
And some of us know why there's a staffing shortage.
diversity hires
@@lisanadinebaker5179 A breath of fresh air, right? Every time, everyone quick to judge and condemn the individual, rather than fix the underlying issue.
I've heard pilots say it is a bit uneasy feeling to "line up and wait" on the runway and then while waiting hearing the controller clear other planes to land on the same runway.
Yeah, I would've expected SWA to pick up on this sooner. I always feel like a sitting duck lined up and waiting there. Like Harrison Ford could show up at any second.
@@tyler.donatiyou're safe on the runway!..he only lands on the taxi ways!😂
In Canada, they're not allowed to be cleared to land until they are ACTUALLY cleared to land (ie. runway is 100% clear)
@@ecnivosame in Europe. The rule in the USA seems very dangerous
@@bradders838 agreed
Because of their way of handling it, I expect that the next catastrophic incident involving two or more aircraft at the same time will most likely happen overseas in the USA. European airports can rival them in terms of movements per hour, but have fewer such incidents, and those that do occur are usually caught much sooner.
I really liked the different colored boxes around the planes when they were talking. Also the maps were really clear!
1:17: The final straw: When the critical landing clearance verification call got blocked, the ATC gave zero consideration to the question who she stepped on with her less critical and more lengthy amendment call. Of course, the need for a go-around was already assured at that point, but it was NOT yet assured this wouldn't end in a crash. ADSB and alert pilots saved ATC's ass.
History repeats - unclear communication between tower and aircraft contributed to the 1978 San Diego mid-air collision between PSA 182 and a Cessna. Got lucky this time.
When you get stepped on you might not notice it, if you were transmitting before they started their transmission and they stopped transmitting before you were done. We can hear it, but the transmitter can't. Especially difficult to spot when both start and stop at the same time, which is why you sometimes hear a third party say: "stepped".
@@paulnieuwkamp8067 As happened in this case. Someone did say "blocked", and ATC could have used that moment to check her situational awareness, and ask herself: Who's trying to call me here, and could there be a reason their call might be more urgent than this leisurely thing I was blocked from doing just now?
They stepped on each other. Neither party heard the other.
Hopefully she got heavily reprimanded. She was given some guy an amended clearance with all those aircraft on short approach and on runways, I'm a pilot and that is totally uncalled for. I know there's a shortage of controllers that are we that desperate?
I've spent most of my life in San Diego and have always been amazed that airport handles the traffic it does with only one runway. It's some pretty complicated airspace too, with numerous small airports and military airports within miles of each other, including Fightertown USA just over the hill. The approach to Lindbergh takes you right through the city between buildings, somewhat close to the ground because it follows downward-sloping mountains. I would not want to be a controller, especially at that airport.
A 5-mile final means about 2 minutes until that plane lands.
I was "tick tock". If I'm LUAW, as soon as I cross I think I'd announce ready to go as a reminder I'm there since ATC can't be relied upon to keep their head out of their arse.
Which is normally plenty of time for a professional pilot who has his FMS configured to execute a relatively routine departure.
@@marklupus IF nothing goes wrong.
A 5 mile final is more than enough for a departure, not even close.
@@jazzi_0453 First time I was cleared to land with another just landed plane still on the runway I thought to myself "Ummm, are you sure about that? Because there's another plane down there." Fortunately I didn't say that out loud, because I was only going 65 kts in my little Bugsmasher, and the other Bugsmasher cleared the runway probably a minute before I landed, lol, but I was watching him on the runway for a minute too. (Time might be screwed up, I was so focused on that guy getting off the runway.)
Completely unacceptable by this controller. Most controllers are terrific, vast majority, but this was damn near a horrific situation. The corp jet should've gone around much earlier anyway but nevertheless the controller major league screw up.
@@xxhockeymaster03xx Dude you've said this 10+ times.
@@Astro95MediaPlease report as spam to get rid of this clutter.
@@Astro95Media and yet it still doesnt detract from its truthfulness
@@Astro95Media Dude, you can count. Don't let anyone ever tell you otherwise!
@@Astro95Media In this thread or in response to other VASAviation videos?
If the former - maybe it was a technical glitch with RUclips seeming to not take the comment?
If the latter - the fact there _are_ so many of these "Danger Will Robinson" ATC clips post-Covid is a little concerning in and of itself.
Would have been better to send the reroute plane back to the ground frequency to not clog tower frequency.
Considering they only have one runaway, it may be that she is also Ground, idk...
@@andreea007Doubt it, with all that so called traffic, she would be a fool to set herself up for trouble.
@@rubenvillanueva8635 Well, it would hardly be the first time a worker in a risk-filled industry had trouble from what is actually a bit of short staffing getting normalized as ""enough people for the job"".
@@terryboyer1342 There were two controllers in the tower, but one of them was on break in the break room and not in the cab. And, yes, it was a stroke as I recall. This was late at night, though, with not much traffic around. The planes just controlled themselves as if they were at an untowered field and they called in the emergency responders, though, as I recall, her coworker found her before the emergency responders arrived.
The Vegas incident was overnight if I recall, so coupling of frequencies in low traffic happens. This was at 19: 00z so 12: 00 local time, KSAN would be jumping then, no way it would be single controller trying to manage tower, ground and clearance.
The biggest problem is being allowed to put a plane full of people on a runway where another plane has been given clearance to land.😮
Indeed, exactly.
Definitely forgot about Southwest...
REAL FOOTAGE video: ruclips.net/user/shortsEZKj-MFzY1Q
*Close calls playlist*: ruclips.net/p/PLi0SM524ylKUNJV12UP_FrYVNuKyA6Koj
This is what happens when the best person for the job is not hired. This female was most likely a diversity hire to boost female ATC numbers. Hopefully she was fired. 100 foot separation? She’s going to get people killed.
The fact there is a playlist makes me want to quote _Broken Arrow._
No, this is a vicious way to proceed, once you've cleared someone to land, you must not clear/instruct anyone else to enter, use or cross the runway..!! I'm not familiar with the FAA playbook, but ICAO does not permit 2 clearances at the same runway at the same time, and she makes 3..!! The citation, cleared to land, the southwest into position and holding, and the Alaska also cleared to land when even the citation has not landed yet!!
I'm an active atc at MMMY twr
@@enriqueantonioviterodrigue6402 Welcome to the USA.
She was definitely in the wrong, but the operational tempo at some of these airports is insane, and that means mistakes will happen. Since many can't expand due to surrounding cities, and people (and airlines) don't want to fly into alternate airports to reduce congestion, we need to find alternate solutions.
Of course, we had an adequate resolution here (I'd have preferred to have the landing aircraft go around on their own) but the problems I see, as an amateur, are radio congestion (there were several stepped on calls, at least one critical) and improper clearances. I have little to suggest for either of those problems.
Completely forgot about him. Puts a guy in position with a jet on 5 mile final. No problem at all especially at a place like SAN. But you don’t read an amendment to a guys clearance until you launch that guy on the runway 🤦🏻♂️ I feel for her. You can hear the embarrassment in her voice when she has to exit the SWA and he’s asking why. Well she lost her one gap that Final gave her to launch him. Unfortunately, her priority of duties were all out of order. I learned about that my first couple days on Local Control.
Retired ATC here, safe orderly flow of traffic is the target, she my have missed the bullseye but the Swiss Cheese layers of safety worked. She did her job once the situation was identified, just not as smoothly as she wanted but we never get to see a video of the smooth operations.
If you want some good ones check out Chicago O'Hare ground (ORD). They have put some impressive work in getting taxi instructions.
A sober, insightful and informed comment. Well put, @markprestrude.
As a kiwi controller, the fact US ATC are allowed to line up a plane AFTER a following plane is cleared to land is bizarre…
Blows my mind more everywhere except the US is allowed to use conditional LUAW
There’s just more traffic in the US. There would be lines of airplanes waiting to takeoff
@@essel23fly In AUS and NZ, the plane on the ground given the conditional line up usually waits to line up behind the preceding landing aircraft rather than the other way around… just makes more sense a plane isnt given “CLEARED” to land with a plane holding on the runway…
@@essel23flyNot necessarily... Controllers could just give the cleared to land instructions at the proper time rather than automatically when a aircraft checks in on tower frequency. Such as this controller that saw a gap for the Southwest, cleared it into position and hold, once the Delta 2895 traffic cleared the runway given clearance for Southwest to take off and THEN cleared the citation to land. When an aircraft checks in on local tower frequency the controller doesn't have to imminently acknowledge it, especially if they are busy. The allowance for an aircraft to be cleared to land while the runway is occupied will cause a massive loss of life sooner or later...
@@essel23fly I wish Americans would stop with this "It's just busier here!" BS. It isn't. Europe has a *much* higher density of air traffic than the US and on a movements basis, is busier. But then, Europe also uses the ICAO standards as written (like the rest of the world except the US) and controllers are better trained, without the dick waving culture of "Say it as fast as possible so you look cool" BS
This is happening often enough it's hard not to imagine it eventually ending badly
Statistics in a nutshell.
It will likely happen at an airfield in Cali...
In one video, the controller made an airline go around twice. The pilot expressed his displeasure to the controller and he said that Approach is the one who is sequencing the planes to tight for landing and landing planes have priority. No excuse for the controller forgetting, obviously. Mass casualties are on the way, though.
@@user-mp9rd4hg8b yeah :-/
That is what they call the incident pyramid.
Many incidents like this one lead to a fatal accident.
Given the complexities of that airport and only one runway, I don’t know how in the literal hell there have not been countless accidents there
Thank you very much for picking this incident up! It was another very close call in a short time. It´s really disturbing.
I've had that happen, controllers make mistakes too. One night at PHL we were in a CRJ200 inbound for 9R. Tower cleared a B737 to line up and wait. I realized they'd forgot about us. My F/O is throwing a fit wanting to go around but I said hang on, let them catch their mistake. About 2 miles out I called tower and asked to "reconfirm landing clearance 9R?" A moment of silence then tower sent us around. We cleared the 737 by 500+ feet so no big deal.
Nice job! As hard as we all try NOT to make mistakes, human factors are present. The system works because of professionals like yourself and the controllers keeping calm and helping rather than losing their cool. I commend your demenor in the situation! Fly Safe!
Wow the tower really fell behind the traffic on that one. They almost waited for traffic to be on top of each other before issuing the go around.
Biggest problem is the controller let herself get distracted by the amended clearance. When she got walked on, she tunnel-visioned on that and lost awareness of the planes moving around. Needed to clear the Southwest departure before going back to that.
Biggest problem is the controller has too much crap going on. Task saturation is not a choice (even if you call it that), it is inevitable with too many moving parts. Ask any fighter pilot, even the best ones aren't immune to it.
The biggest problem is that the management let the controller get distracted by the amended clearance. The number of tasks dumped on 1 pair of shoulders by the airport is a recipe for disaster.
While I fully agree this was the controllers error and against regulation, if you’ve ever flown into SAN you’ll see how unique the approach is over the city and how the displaced threshold end is actually a distance from the touchdown markings. In other words even if the citation completed it’s landing it was nowhere close to a collision with the SW jet.
Glad to see there wasn’t any unnecessary discussion or snide remarks about the mistake made.
This needs to be addressed. How could she have screwed this up so bad.
Sounds overworked. Were they running the entire airport? Are they short staffed?
Forgetting about a plane on the runway has already happened 30 years ago, USAir Flight 1493
This one's on the TWR Controller 100%.
Great observation!
@@djborcalli1020 Thank you! 😃
Do arounds seem frequent at SAN. Gone around twice there, once on a Delta 757 and another on a Hawaiian A330
Possible Tower Deviation
Always smart to tell a flight to line up and wait right after you've given another aircraft clearance to land.
Yep, should be cleared for takeoff no delay.
Add this to my growing list of problems caused by clearing multiple aircraft access to the runway at the same time. I absolutely hate when I'm forward to land number 4... A lot can happen between airplanes 1 through 3.
and a lot does happen... that's how that systems keeps running. I'm sure you take the LUAW when aircraft are on final.
Agreed. Here in Canada a controller can't clear an aircraft to land unless the runway is actually CLEARED.
San Diego is a very busy international airport, heavy SWA traffic, and yet there is ONE RUNWAY. Everyone has to land, take off, and taxi off/on/around just one runway. You do the math.
This seems to be caused by the ability of atc to clear an aircraft to land on an occupied runway. In the UK this is absolutely prohibited
It's prohibited here too, you can't clear someone to line up and wait if someone else has been cleared to land on the same runway.
The way things are going, pretty soon we'll start hearing instruction such as...
"You are cleared to land however traffic is lined up and waiting on the runway so please don't land short"
Maybe all airports will start having green and pink dots on the runway like they do at Oshkosh...
Am I cleared to land over the plane sitting there? When was the Citation going to call off the approach on his own? Either he could see it or if paying attention would have known it was never cleared to take off or move elsewhere.
There is a huge displaced threshhold there. Would have been an interesting conversation if the citation had landed
Wow. That was a huge ATC mess up.
The controller was definitely having a bad day. Unfortunately, when a controller had a bad day, it could be disastrous for others.
Indeed.
Someone forgot to clear Southwest for departure. Not gonna name names, though….
Clear everything and hoping that it works out good
I like how this popped up in my suggested feed when I’m flying out of SAN tomorrow.
Clear to land should never been followed by "line up and wait", I could see why in busy airports with little runway options you can try to expedite landings and "take off no delays". But line up and wait is hard for me to understand.
Or at least "expect late clearance" if the runway isn't clear yet, give the inbound flight a heads-up. I've had plenty of those while training at my local airport.
it will require another disaster for the FAA to change the way they are "pushing tin"
And yet, she said it so normally, as if they had all the time in the world. Weird.
I wonder if when she cleared the Southwest onto the runway she was meant to give a take off clearance rather that a "line up and wait?" Just wondering because she gave the wind. I don't think I've ever heard that given on a line up and wait clearance before. Just my two cents
Not that it would affect this situation but she did refer to the citation as Victor Hotel, should be HV, as in HyVee grocery store.
Sorry, not a pilot. But in what sane universe do we allow planes to line up on an active runway and wait for a plane to land? What if the landing aircraft comes in short or has a sudden wind sheer / air pocket thing and drops?
That’s not what happened. SW was told to “wait” because there was a plane that had previously landed still on the runway. SW should have been cleared to take off as soon as that traffic had exited the runway. Then the Citation would have landed behind SW after the latter was gone. Unfortunately the controller got distracted and forgot about everybody.
This is shades of the LAX, USAir /Metroliner accident years ago. Still haven't learned!
Her priorities were completely incorrect… giving an amendment to an altitude clearance with an aircraft LUAW and aircraft short final… she got some splainin to do for sure!
DEI
Almost Cleared for Disaster!
Id be pretty interested to see the Tower's POV with computer screen(s) and out the window. That would explain alot.
Southwest was not on the runway. The 737 entered the paved overrun from taxiway B1 which is right at the base of the hill. That is 1800 ft prior to the displaced runway threshold & 2800 ft prior to the touchdown zone. Due to the presence of the hill, it would have been physically impossible for the 2 aircraft to have collided.
I was amazed at how calm the controller was, she had to have realized the mistake when the citation called back in asking again.
And then tower completely mocked Southwest by making them exit the runway and holding short again.
That controller messed up pretty bad
I expect tower went back to basics when this decision was made.
After SW took off, they've asked N564HV to do another go around, so I guess it went smoothly only for Alaska.
@@xxhockeymaster03xx we heard you the first, second, third, forth, fifth...... twentieth time.. lol
Exiting the runway made sense, they couldn't launch SWA with the go-around, they couldn't hold SWA with ASA on short final.
Alaska would have had to do a go-around if Southwest was still lined up, so they weren't going to be taking off anytime soon.
That's pretty unbelievable. What is she doing sticking an aircraft on the runway when she was nowhere near letting it depart.
She almost certainly was about to clear it for takeoff, but then got distracted by that reroute for the other aircraft, which took longer than she had planned because of other aircraft stepping on the transmissions (especially the aircraft on final that was trying to confirm whether or not they were still cleared to land.)
She should have waited until after Southwest took off and perhaps until after the corp jet landed before giving that amendment. Or sent them back to Ground to get it.
@@vbscript2no excuses for the controller as they should have not become distracted, but I also feel for this controller and agree with you
Should have held them short until the other aircraft landed.
Agree about the route amendment, they can take a while and tie up the frequency. She didn't have the time here, needed to have sent SWA just as soon as DAL was clear then things would have probably been ok.
You can thank 'equality and diversity' for this.
Nice!
RIMCAS saves the day again. There's a good Mentor video on the system - I think it's the Air Arabia one if you want to take a look!
Indeed.
"Traffic 5 mile final, line up and wait"
Her priorities were completely incorrect… giving an amendment to an altitude clearance with an aircraft LUAW and aircraft short final… she got some splainin to do for sure!
5 miles is basically 2 minutes. So if you are going to cut them loose almost as soon as they are lined up then that's OK. But she couldn't let them go for 15 minutes by the sound of things, so she should have had them continue to hold short until they could go.
@@cageordie Sounded like she forgot the takeoff clearance, you hear her give another aircraft turn-off directions from the runway sometime before the incident, SWA should have been given takeoff clearance as soon as the runway was clear.
Plenty of time to release Southwest with a 120kt Citation 5 miles out. She for whatever reason put 10A into the picture when she didn't have to and forgot about Southwest. I'm glad the Citation spoke up.
@@Matt-mo8sl everything would have worked out fine if she didnt forget about SWA LUAW’ing. She also never should have attempted to give that other aircraft an amendment to their clearance.. she should have told that aircraft to go back to ground or to clearance to deal with that.. towers too busy to deal with that. Her priorities were not where they should have been.
On a daylight VFR approach, how far out can you spot a brightly colored S.W. 737 on your end of the runway?
Prolly 3-4 miles. But the big issue is the 737 is sitting ~2,500’ behind where the Citation is looking at to land. Can easily go unnoticed
In Europe acft don't get landing clearance until the Rwy is completely free.
If there is tfc on Rwy they get "continue approach".
Plenty of blame to go around, but kudos to the Citation pilot for being the one to avert disaster.
He should have gone around when his first transmission asking if he was still cleared to land was blocked. He cont seeing the 737 on the runway.
Do I have this correct? The controller had cleared a plane to land, but because they were still 5 miles out figured that they could get the Southwest aircraft to depart just in front of the landing aircraft. 5 miles seems like there's time. But why didn't the Southwest aircraft take off? Did the controller forget to give them their take off clearance?
Sounds like she dropped the ball and was more concentrated on giving the reroute versus getting them off the Runway prior to arriving traffic. These Runway incursions are happening more often and will one day result in tragedy. The FAA places a high emphasis on expedient movement of aircraft but, this often result in safety being compromised.
Southwest were not given takeoff clearence.
@@Molon_Labe1776 I know this is going to sound like a dumb question but why do controllers give a "line up and wait" instruction to aircraft and then issue the clearance? Why don't they give the take off clearance before the aircraft enters the runway, that way they can get on and take off as quickly as possible.?
@@tchevrier What you suggest is what happens most of the time, but they can't be cleared for takeoff until the plane that just landed taxis clear of the runway. As soon as they were clear the controller should have issued a "Cleared for takeoff" possibly with a "no delay" modifier, but she dropped the ball/lost situational awareness. Line up and wait is intended to reduce the interval between a landing and the next takeoff as much as possible.
@@tchevrierAn instruction to "Line up and wait", is given by the controller whenever, there is another aircraft, vehicle or obstruction on the the runway. It is also a means to get the next departure in position for takeoff, expediting traffic flow. As soon as it is resolved, the "Cleared for takeoff" is issued.
It's hard to tell how much time has passed since SouthWest lined up on the runway, (shortcuts in the video) but to me it should have been ordered to take off immediately. Then everyone would be on time.
However, since they had already passed the go-around, SouthWest could have been given permission to take off and there would have been one plane less in the queue. The exit from the runway took quite a long time, so the start would also fit in that time.
I had the same thought, but my guess is minimum separation requirements. The southwest jet needs to wait a certain amount of time before he can take off with the go around, give or take 30-40 seconds. At that rate, there wouldn't be enough time for the incoming traffic behind them on final, at least that's my impression.
@@headstrong52 That's why there is such a command - immediate takeoff, entering the runway without stopping and immediately takeoff power up. Often used at very crowded airports where take-offs and landings have to be squeezed in between.
Aircarft behind the ciation would then not have been able to land and there may not be enough space for the southwest to get in the air safely anyway - depends what was behind them.
@@adamw.8579 ah, you meant take off immediately after turning onto the runway. It does sound like there was someone who just landed and was pulling off the runway, so maybe that's why?
@@headstrong52 If the runway was occupied, it was before the movie started. But that would explain the delay.
Sounds like the Controller was completely focused on the SWA 737. Thank goodness SAN has that long, Displaced Threshold.
For passengers with a window seats, landings at Lindberg in anything but ideal conditions are terrifying... 😬
Controller lost situational awareness, there. With the Citation on a five-mile final she had a good two minutes to launch Southwest as soon as the previous traffic cleared the runway, which was, presumably, the reason for the LUAW. She made her mistake when the got distracted with issuing the amended clearance. That should have been her lowest priority. If she didn't have time, she should have sent the other aircraft back to Ground Control to pick up the clearance. (Unless, of course, she was working both positions, which does happen.)
Definitely adding insult to injury by making them exit the runway
There was traffic on two mile final behind the citation jet and ceilings were low and tower couldnt see the traffic so she couldnt launch the SWA in case the ASA traffic had to go around (she needs 3 miles to legally launch the SWA when she cant see the arriving traffic out the window. Thats why SWA had to exit.
@@xxhockeymaster03xxnobody cares about you
SWA should have never been issued the line up and wait.
I'm guessing Controller meant to clear Southwest for takeoff and just... forgot.
Is it common to use lineup and wait when you have approaching traffic as well? I think I've only seen it in DEP, DEP, DEP situations to keep traffic moving while avoiding wake turbulence. Of course in this specific situation it is obvious that SW should've been holding short.
I've never understood why in the US you get cleared to land when there is traffic on the runway. It kinda takes away the entire purpose with being cleared to land.
Yeah every time this has happened to me the controller calls me and says "continue", not cleared to land.
Because they want to maximize the use of the runway.
If she had given instructions for the plane to leave when it should have, there would’ve been an issue.
She left it there so long that a second plane was getting ready to land
@@neilkurzman4907 In other nations the use of the runway is maximised without "Clearing" you to land on a runway that is not presently clear. A lot of these near misses in the US happen after a flight is "Cleared to land" on a runway which is not clear.
@@danmat9769 yeah it does make the term "clear" a bit meaningless
Controller mistake. Guy on final was acutely aware of what was going on.
not aware enough to execute a go around much sooner than he did. total screw up on his part getting that close the airplane on the runway.
The thing here that really has me bewildered is letting that Southwest sit on the runway for so long. I know to the armchair controllers out here, you're going to say it's obvious what went wrong, but it almost seems like she forgot she lined him up, or thought she already cleared Southwest for takeoff. It certainly seems like Delta was well off the runway, so there should have been no obstructions down there. In no way should that reroute have taken priority over a takeoff clearance, so that's my only explanation.
Ultimately, everything apart from that was pretty standard operation. For sure, the Citation should have gone around earlier, but I think he was worried the Southwest was going to start its roll, and then they'd be flying next to each other (as we saw in Austin or Reno or....). However, his question to verify the landing clearance was the way pilots point out that they want controllers to take another look at what's going on.
When instructed to line up and wait with a 5 mile final, expect a fast takeoff clearance, if not received, ask the controller... The southwest controller remains silent. Good advice next time...
Tower is 100% to blame for this - clearing to land, instructing to line up and wait, then totally abandoning BOTH these planes to chat to some other random dude. To top it off, the Southwest being told to scram. Ridiculous. I cannot believe this is legal in freedom land.
unfortunately freedom land aint so free anymore. 😕
It's not legal
@@warddc At least you are free to get shot at any mall/theatre/school at any time! No other first world country has THAT kind of freedom! Yippie kay-yay-!
yes it is are you dense?@@cdesha
@@andrewlorenzo6611 go read 7110.65 and get back to me
maybe stop giving cleared to land clearances when the runway isn't actually clear?
More go arounds?
The "Clear to land" was given BEFORE the "Line up and wait" - sequence is everything - the tone of the SW pilot was "Did I really hear you tell me to line up and wait when there's one only a couple of minutes out cleared to land"......
Wow. Woah!! That was close. Tower needs to write down a phone number !!!!!
Looks like controller is performing multiple roles here. Acceptable when traffic volumes are low, but this looks pretty busy.
Short staffed? Cost cutting?
Ronald Reagan cutting the FAAs funding in the 80s lead to this, there's been a constant shortage ever since.
I don't care how "real-world professionals" might defend it, allowing any third party runway access AFTER you've cleared a second party to land will never not make me queasy.
She actually cleared multiple aircraft on approach to land. Common practice in the US, I don't know why they are so reluctant to just give them the standard "continue" until they are actually the next one to use the clear runway 🤷♂️
@@luschmiedt1071yet you’re okay with every other country doing conditional LUAW? Gtfo.
A landing clearance can be removed with a simple “go-around” command. Its not hard to understand.
@@36thstreethero have you watched the Video? It's not hard to understand why only giving landing clearance after the runway is clear gives you an extra safety margin
It throws the whole integrity of the word 'clear' into question. Is it ''Cleared to Land'' or ''Cleared to land behind the other three aircraft ahead of you''., It's ridiculous and in a low-visibility situation I want to know the runway is CLEAR @@luschmiedt1071
As a European it baffles me to hear cleared to land when there is traffic on the runway or there are approaches in front of you.
I'm not sure what system is better but it does feel weird
aS a EuRopEaN 🤓🤓🤓
Yea I totally agree! I think in Europe its more ''Better safe than sorry''
Almost never hear about this in Europe and if it does it’s because someone crossed without clearance
@@nemo4597 ofc it is "as a european" EASA laws prevents this from happening in europe..
As a Canadian it was always weird in the US hearing that clearance and watching a plane in front of me on the runway. There was more than one occassion flying light aircraft where I was holding off touching the runway as the plane in front of me was accelerating and still had not rotated and knowing the guy behind me who is bigger and faster also already has clearance to land... on top of me unless I get off the fucking runway asap. It never felt like a safe situation flying in the US. If I had to go around for any reason there was always a huge potential for flying into the aircraft taking off or flying into the wake of the bigger plane taking off and tossing me straight into the ground while I'm low and slow on the go around. How there are not more crashes in the US is a mystery to me with what I've seen.
1:21 pilot of the citation questions landing instructions and the tower transmits over him with the amendment. Should he have declared missed approach immediately following?
I think so, but I wasn't there. I bet a lot of CFIs would agree with me if I was to say, "If you think you need to abort the approach, you're right." #YouCanAlwaysGoAround
100% They should have. At that point they would have seen the SWA 737 sitting there with all its lights on. From behind in the daylight, they would have seen the strobes and beacon flashing.
My word 😮
Two thoughts: 1) stop trying to stuff 100 airplanes into a 40 airplane sack (looking at you again, LGA); and 2) by regulation, assign priority to either landing or departing traffic and make controllers hold one or the other until a bigger gap is available. This will create more delays (short ones), but I'd rather be delayed than dead, and if this keeps up, we're going to have one aircraft landing on another and killing a lot of people sooner rather than later.
If I were either of the pilots I would've requested a phone number to call! We'd definitely be having a conversation about this!!
"Possible controller deviation. You have a number for me to call. Advise when ready to give for me to copy."
She was definitely rattled after the go around instruction.
The 5 freeway blocks the view, of aircraft on the active runway at KSAN. Good alert by the crew.
The Citation should have declared missed approach on their own instead of asking about their clearance. Were they going to go ahead and land if the controller said ok?
Totally the controllers fault though for getting caught up in administrative traffic when they had an airplane parked and waiting on the single active runway for arrivals and departures.
The Citation saw the runway wasn’t clear, which is why he made the call to confirm still cleared to land. It was more of a “you messed up” call and he would have gone around without her. The correct phrase would be “XYZ Going around, traffic on the runway”. It’s not a missed approach. A missed approach is when doing an instrument landing and you need to abort.
I would add after my going around call, “Tower, possible controller error, i have a number for you to call. Advice when ready to copy”. 😂
@@MD-sj2dnwhat are you talking about? A missed approach is a missed approach. The reason is irrelevant.
@@dermann439 No, a missed approach is “A maneuver conducted by a pilot when an instrument approach can not be completed to land…”. A go around is “Instructions for a pilot to abandon the approach to landing. “. Or a pilot announcing such intention
Refer to the Pilot/Controller glossary in the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM)
@@MD-sj2dn "A missed approach procedure is the procedure to be followed if an approach (note: does not matter which type of approach) cannot be continued. It specifies a point where the missed approach begins, and a point or an altitude/height where it ends. (ICAO Doc 8168: PANS-OPS)"
@@dermann439 Now you’re quoting missed approach procedure. I think your confusion is that a go around is a go around for any reason. A missed approach is a go around when flying an instrument approach, which then results in flying the missed approach procedure.
What was the visibility like? First of all, that Citation should NEVER have gotten that low with an aircraft stationary on the runway! I would have gone around at 500 feet if there was a plane on the runway that wasn't moving. But the real culprit here is that controller, she was totally behind the power curve!
I've flown that approach into San Diego dozens of times and it always gets 100% of my attention because it feels like you are flying through people's clothes lines as you come down the hillside, and I'm always worried about doing a touch and go on the top level of that idiotic parking garage!
Man, I would have been screaming about that airplane on the runway as we descended.....
The METAR at 1:25 says 1100 foot ceiling and 10 miles visibility below the clouds.
And its 19:00 in San Diego, so it would have been quite light out.
Actually, come to think of it, the Cessna called to verify clearance to land first. Makes me think he did see the 737. I wonder if he was planning on landing if the tower didn't call a go-around?
Thats if you saw the airplane. The 737 is sitting on the displaced threshold which is 2,500’ behind where the Citation is looking to land. Can quite easily go unnoticed until really close.
I don't buy that at all. With 10 miles visibility and an 1100 foot ceiling, the 737 should be visible approximately 4 miles away. At 500 feet, they were less than two miles away; If they cannot see the Southwest airplane then they need to lose their medical.@@russellbedell8198
We shall see.
What if landing clearance could only be given with no plane on the landing runway, with a rule for go around if not obtained by a certain point. I feel that would be much safer than having planes cleared to land on final with planes lined up and waiting and taking off. Sure they can cancel a clearance but that won't work if there's a comms failure or if it's late and someone is stepping on the transmission.
Basically if within 2 miles or so of the runway and no clearance, go around. If nearing 2 miles and the runway is clear, tower gives you a landing clearance if not done already.
Maybe wouldn't work with the tight schedules but I feel it would be safer.
this seems to be happening quite a bit, ATC are cutting these landings and departures so close there is going to be a major disaster soon.
Given how many of these have been happening, I can’t help but feel there needs to be something done about “traffic in position, cleared to land”. It so contradictory.
In Canada, traffic is only cleared to land one by one and only when the runway is actually clear
@@SCRedstone yep, only in FAA country are ICAO rules ignored
@@SCRedstoneand in every other part of the word aswell. Only the US think they have to have their own special procedures like always. No benefits, just risks.
Amended clearances can wait or be done on Ground frequency. Police officers have badge numbers. I think it's time Controllers have numbers for "Possible Controller Deviation", what's your ID number.
I wonder what the effect on landing/take off rate would be if "continue approach" was used rather than these non valid landing clearances.
Nothing at all. Stupid US procedure. Same efficiency, just way less dangerous. Look at Gatwick.
I saw this developing as Southwest was cleared into position and hold. With traffic on a five mile Final, there is no time to get a 737 in position for takeoff and hold, as there was a plane exiting the runway. These situations are occurring way too often recently.
Tower controller doing too many things at the same time.
How is 5 miles not enough time? That should be about 2.5 minutes for most corp jets, shouldn't it? If the controller hadn't allowed herself to get distracted by that reroute, this situation would have been fine. She should have waited at least until Southwest was off the ground before giving that reroute, or, better yet, sent the aircraft back to Ground to get it.
5 miles is plenty (assuming the controller doesn’t do something else). At DCA we routinely get line up and wait (with a very quick clear for takeoff) with a plane 3-5 miles out.
How long does it take to move a 737 from a dead stop off the runway into position, and then have to stop and wait for another aircraft to exit the runway? These are not little planes, and was the Cessna really at five miles on final? Think about it.
Assuming is the operative word here.
@@A-A-Ron64
The second that tower told SWA to line up and wait after the other jet was on final, I thought, "uh oh, bad idea". I'm no ATC controller but I'd get that plane off the runway and in the sky in good time.
I'll keep practicing on my home flight sim :)
That's why I don't use ATC on my X-Plane - and no other aircraft. Sure never to have a collision.😁
they probably were planning on having them go after that first plane ( the one being sent to ramp) got off tbe runway.. they probably would have been fine had they had sw takeoff as soon as they were clear, but then for some reason decided to give someone else instead of focusing on the waiting plane
It happens hundreds of times a day... you're right... you're no ATCer!
That controller screwed up and it could’ve been fatal for both aircraft.
Wooow!!!
The same thing happened to me while controlling at Milan Malpensa... ON VATSIM!
If I were a pilot of SWA, I wouldn't move on a runway if I had heard clearance to land for another aircraft. My CFI once told me, not to move aircraft if you're confused or unsure about the situation. Always engage with your controller.
You'd likely never get off the ground at KSAN then :\ They're launching and landing at a high pace, it's fairly common to get a 'line up and wait' while another aircraft has just landed and is about to turn off, and have a stack of 5-10+ planes on the approach for that runway. There's almost always at least 2 landing clearances plus someone who's going to lineup and wait, then get takeoff no delay once the last aircraft turns off and clears the runway.
@@Barrien 5 to 10 aircraft means that in 1 hour every landing traffic will get 5 to 6 minutes of average time gap between each landing. Still enough to maintain a maximum separation of 3 minutes between each aircraft taking off. That is why ICAO phraseology has approved this statement for controllers, "behind landing traffic, lineup and wait behind." If the controller had spoken up about this statement, the confusion of colliding traffic might be mitigated and would be less burdensome on busy radio communications.
@@Pilot-Ali 5 to 10 aircraft an hour at SAN. Come on man.
@@Pilot-Ali I think you're putting words in Barrien's mouth...where did the "per hour" part come from? I thought Barrien was saying that in general there are 5-10 planes on final all at once.
@@backandforthupanddow It is not impossible, normal for any busy airport.
That was close. Pay attention guys
Automation computers saving the day with a good deed!