Pilot Asked to Break Rules | ATC vs Pilots
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2024
- Air Traffic control puts two planes nose to nose and neither has space to turn around but that doesn't mean ATC didn't try to get them to break some rules.
Be Part of the 74 Crew:
IG: / 74gear
Twitter: / 74gear
Facebook: / 74gear
Flight Simulator Gear I use:
Yoke: geni.us/SimYoke
Computer: geni.us/GamingComputer
Flight Gear I use:
Aviation Headset: geni.us/AviationHeadset
Backpack: geni.us/PilotBackpack
Traveling headset: geni.us/DHheadset
Video Gear I use:
Camera: geni.us/VideoCamera
Action Camera: geni.us/Actioncamera
Flight Audio Connector: geni.us/FlightAudio
ND Filter: geni.us/NDFilter
I may receive a commission on some of these links but it will not change the price you pay for the items.
Chapters:
0:00 - Intro
0:43 - Now What?
4:01 - You First
9:19 - Wing Walker
11:38 - KLM
16:44 - But...I want it
19:06 - Direct Weed
The controller earned his Golden Towbar award that day. Good job on the pilots for not getting suckered into doing something they shouldn't
I'd say bad job on the pilots for even pressuring each other like that
is that a term controllers use?
@@74gear yes, as well as other....more "colorful" euphemisms. But, Golden Towbar is widely accepted as the unofficial official term
@@74gear why aren't the planes towed to the runway all the time? Why rely on jet engines to push a plane on the ground instead of a tug?
@@viliamklein much faster, not even for speed but also a tug has to connect and disconnect which takes time... Also would need many many tugs, other workers for no reason, waste of time and money (for the airport)
ONE word for dealing with ATC: "Unable".
Problem solved-
Hahaha you made me spit my cafe
Hahha this is too funny
Problem NOT SOLVED… I was VFR, in Class C airspace, controller tells me to turn right to 350,, I looked, and a cloud was there, I said “unable”…
She asked again and I again said “unable”… this third request sounded panicked and there was a Boeing announcing he was “with them and climbing out of a large commercial airport”…
I a flash I announced compliance and turned to the heading… A large Boeing was about to exit a cloud in front of me.
I decided the cloud was much softer for my little C182RG than becoming a bug on the window of a Boeing.
Yes, sometimes Inadvertent IMC is the best choice.
@@thatguy7085 That's nonsense. If you were that close to a cloud you were not adhering to FAR required VFR cloud separation distances. And if I were you I would delete your post because if the FAA figures out who you are you've just set yourself up for an FAR violation, the FAA nails pilots from posts/videos on RUclips all the time. By the way, inadvertent IMC penetration by non-instrument rated pilots kills dozens of pilots [and their passengers...] every year.
......Get your shit together!
LMAO 😂 „wingwalker sounds super gangster“ had me laughing hard😅
The Direct WEED was funny. A pilot friend told be about once having to ask ATC for a "vector to HECTOR".
ATC:"I double dare you!"
Delta:"I double dog dare you!"
Envoy:"I Triple dog dare you!"
Narrator:"Shwartz created a slight breach of ettiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat."
LMFAO
Spirit: "Hold my beer"
@@jblyon2 LMAO
yes, the do-deca dare times infinity cubed!!!!! (do-deca is a multiple of exactly 20, such as the famous do-decahedron, also known in the P'n'P gaming world, as the 20-sided die.)
Nice one! Nerd dare etiquette. I love it! Just don't get a bunch of immature nerds going, because it can keep escalating for hours, as they show off their mathematical acumen...........Nerd fight! LOL.
Good reference!
Coming up 😎
"I'm going to file a report." is that guy's equivalent of "Do you know who my father is?"
in this case the father is KLM
Hey Kelsey, I’m an ex-Envoy E175 driver … not sure if anyone has advised you and followers yet but … Envoy definitely does NOT permit TR reverser operation in it operations manual, I have no idea why the Envoy crew even offered it to ATC as an option but I suspect they did a quick looky-lookup in the ops. manual and changed their minds 😜
It sounded almost like sarcasm, which atc took as a serious suggestion.
@@CaptSlog if they said that sarcastically they should get fired. Sarcasm and flying do not go together well...
Is the prohibition due to engine wear, fuel use, or just danger backing? Or something else?
@@johnyoung9649 Ask Air Florida Flight 90 why you don't use a thrust reverser on the ground to reverse a plane.
@@dzlockheadTTU that was really icing related.
“He’s not being rude, he’s just being Dutch.” -Sam Obisanya from Ted Lasso. 😜
We're not good at subtlety
I've got a Dutch friend who legit says that lol she mentions pretty often that a Dutch characteristic is brutal honesty bordering on rudeness 😂
@@amythechocoholic5761
We consider it rude to waste someone's time or lie to their faces.
It's a matter of perspective 🙃
@@MrNicoJac understood. I'm a lot like that, too, but unfortunately most of my country doesn't really agree and I risk an ass-kicking. Best to just just mutter under my breath and roll my eyes.
@@amythechocoholic5761
Oh, I wouldn't say the Dutch way is perfect, either...
If both sides are talking cloaks and daggers, but know exactly what it means, that can work too (and just appear more civilized).
But when you combine a direct Dutchie with a polite Brit, things can go hilariously wrong!
In short, as long as both sides use the same perspective, everything is fine, regardless of which perspective they adhere to. But mixing up two perspectives....
Thank you for taking the time to make these. I'm a baby dispatcher for a regional airline, so I don't get a lot of the pilot perspective, but it greatly helps me better understand the tools and people you have to deal with. I can 100% confirm that both ATC and pilots from the majors know that we're new and will occasionally try to take advantage of that for their convenience.
You have a GREAT job....
Delta Tug 2: My day to shine has finally come!
I was on a flight a couple of years ago waiting to depart the gate, when the pilot announced that there were no tugs available to push back, so he was going to use the reversers to back out from the gate. He said that he wanted the passengers to know why he was spinning up the engines. Went well with no problems.
If something happened to the plane, then that would be on the pilot. The reason you wait for a tug is because it’s not like backing up a car. You can’t physically see behind you. He willingly put everyone at risk for convenience. I would have been anxious as hell if I was on that flight when all that was happening. Pushbacks can visually see where they are backing the plane to, and they have wing walkers with them who can tell them to stop or if the taxiway is all clear. I’m glad it went well, but it could have easily caused a lot of damage.
Were you on an RJ or MD-series? Aircraft with tail-mounted engines can and do perform powerbacks because the risk of FOD ingestion is much lower than on wing-mounted engines. It used to be really common practice in the 1970s and 80s with DC-9s and MD-80s but fell out of favor over fuel costs and noise.
@@N9830G Probably an MD series, but I was just a dumb passenger.
@@terrymiller552 Nah man, unless you're an aviation nerd they all look the same. I've picked my wife up from the airport and ask her what kind of plane she flew on and she'll say, "umm....Southwest?" Joke's on her, she unwittingly answered my questions as they only fly 737s. See? This aviation nerd thing is a real problem.
@@bambicrandi Of course, of course, of course he had wing walkers before doing this along with personnel connected on headset at the nose gear area that were watching and providing directions to the pilot and were authorized by ramp control (if doing so on a controlled ramp).
Broken lights, new tires, repairs, reports? None of that happens when I run over the lights in flightsim 😀
Pushing out a 737 a couple of days ago on an ice-covered ramp and we were concerned about traction. Capt said they could throw on the reversers for us if we needed a little help to get going. We were surprised by this because we didn't think they were allowed to use reverse thrust on Wing mounted engines (except for landing of course) but he claimed that they do it periodically in SLC when there is ice and snow on the ramp.
Maybe they were less worried about ingesting debris if everything is frozen. There is also an element of how high above ground the engines are. Newer smaller jets with big engines low to the ground would never reverse, but older large jets might have enough clearance that the risk for them is low.
Last time they did a powerback on a 737 in snowy conditions, the plane ended up in the Potomic. It was an Air Florida Flight 90.
@@RajKoona And a guy named Lenny was a hero that day!
I'm guessing they'd be "fine" with it in idle reverse. It would kill the forward thrust pushing opposite to the tug at least, which might be enough to get you what you need, without too much danger of ingesting anything.
@@RajKoona no, that wasnt the last time they did a powerback on a 737 LMFAO
Both commercial flying and working in air traffic control sound like a nightmare.
What makes this even more comical is ATC is in a building somewhere looking at a computer screen. The tower doesn’t say a thing because the aircraft aren’t lined up for takeoff or landing. Ground Ops is like , awe hell no. 🤣
Tower and ground control are usually in the same building (the tower) and can see the airport through the windows.
Can we just thank Kelsey for keeping us entertained even when he has a giant job? And have you ever flown to Minneapolis international airport?
It's a big lift but someone's gotta do it.
Mhm
He makes money doing this
there is immense downtime being a Pilot, you could even hold a second job in most cases. ( i mean obviously you can't because of stand by, but you catch my meaning.)
no
1 million subscribers coming up this year 💯💯💯
I love how Envoy and Delta were basically like two kids saying, "Nuh nuh, you first!" 😂
My exact thoughts 🤣
I’m like, “those 2 are children”
PPL rookie.. still learning: first time hearing about Ocean crossing tracks. You're videos are fun, but also informative. Thanks Kelsey!
glad you enjoy them AV8R!
Helicopter pilot here… can’t say I know much about them either. If I lose sight of land it’s a really bad day! :)
@@MeppyMan So, keep the coastline in sight!
@@ilsavv that’s usually the idea. My point was about how we don’t fly these transoceanic routes :)
Also some exceptions: oil rig work, flying off ships, rescue work, etc.
Awesome
"You can send it to someone who's probably not going to care" 🤣
American used reverse thrusters to push back off the gate at DFW all the time when they were running the Super 80's. It was much quicker than waiting for an available tug and hooking up and disconnecting after pushed back. I think there's actually a couple RUclips videos showing the procedure. I only know this because my father was manager of ramp operations there for about 15 years and so I traveled non rev quite a bit as a child and I thought that was so cool when they did it. Also, it's worth noting that the Mad Dog had high mounted engines in the rear, not low slung under wing engines like I suspect the Envoy was, so FOD wouldn't have been an issue back then.
@Night Rider plus, planes with tail mounted engines had a lot less risk of picking up debris off the ground than planes with engines under the wings.
I remember flying out of Detroit once in the 90s. There was a terminal where all of the jets were using reverse thrusters to back out of the gate. We were in a DC 9, and the rear engines seemed to lend themselves to this procedure.
Flew in a few MD-80's, and 90's.
I'm not sure of the airplane but they did when I flew out of there. The pilot made an announcement stating it was not the norm but allowed and faster than getting a push back.
Reversers throw FOD and thrust at the terminal and damage stuff/hurt people. That's the main reason it's prohibited.
The standoff episode was hilarious start to finish, but what came to my mind listening to Kelsey is that either way a report and paperwork must be filed, it's just who's gonna do it (envoy, delta or ground). I mean, it's really a minor thing, but someone instantly runs into paperwork... and this paperwork thing is runnable into for a multitude of nuisances, I guess, just about anything is paperwork
Who needs to do paperwork when Kelsey has already detailed the incident with live communications and commentary? Just send an email with the link to this video…. ;)
@@enigmawyoming5201 Right =))
Kelsey seems like the coolest guy to hang out with. Wing walker totally sounded so cool and gangster.
I found your videos, and for the longest time I’ve had irrational fears of flying. Watching your vids has made me so much more knowledgeable about the actual risks/ going ons in a plane to the point where I’m no longer scared of getting on planes and now I’m excited to identify the planes I’m on and learn more about them. Thank you for sharing.
look up mentour pilot he goes into crash investigations and what went wrong BUT also what was done too prevent it happening in the future.
Indeed, Mentour Pilot will probably help reduce those fears too 👍🏼
There's nothing irrational about *having* a fear of flying, because flying *is* inherently dangerous, but by understanding the many layers of mitigations that are used in commercial aviation you can likely come to a place where you accept that those mitigations are sufficient such that it is very unlikely that anything bad will actually happen to you. Planes do crash, just like cars crash, but most people accept the (far less rigorous) mitigations used with cars. Personally, I think the irrational people are those who *aren't* afraid of driving in a car, rather than those that *are* afraid of flying.
@@homomorphic
Rational people recognize they will die one day.
You can only mitigate your risks.
In that sense, rational people would ALWAYS take a plane _rather than_ a car.
EVEN if they had to pay extra, the reduced risk might still be worth it, lol
(well, at least with bigger airlines; small/regional companies can have very different safety records)
So, depending on how pedantic a mood we're in, we could say that fear of flying _is_ irrational, especially since most of those people are less afraid of getting in a car, even though that's a more unsafe way of travel 🙃
@@MrNicoJac absolutely, but the fear is perfectly rational so long as one is afraid of both planes and cars. If one happens to be independently wealthy and live on your own island, then it is perfectly rational to expose oneself to neither risk as they are risks (no matter how small).
Hearing Envoy say they can throw the reversers on gave me a stern pause. I'm like this doesn't sound like a situation in their ops manual where they can just freely use the reverser without wing walker guidance, and since they are on a taxiway that person should just drive a tug out there, and thankfully that is what happened.
He was probably a reservist pilot on the C-17
@@drdave1947 reservist? Nah...he was a reversist.
Bruh, as an ATC myself, if a pilot told me they'd toss on the reverse thrusters, I'd pause and say no, against airport ops. 🤣 I've been so lucky to not have a golden tow bar and gridlock the airport. I've been close, but I've worked it out and got things rolling.
As for saying ATC was pressuring the pilots, you have to remember, our perspective is extremely different from yours on the ground. Ramp, well, ramp is ramp (not ATC, not apart of the agency US ATC works for. They're hired from the airport itself as city employees. ATC is Federal) and yeah, again, that controller earned his golden towbar, he was just trying to get things unlocked as fast as he could and tows take forever. He should have just accepted it, and got that moving. He could have also very likely had a supervisor making him ask all those questions a million times. Been in that boat myself too with a sup using you as a puppet, it gets very uncomfortable for the controller already in a bad situation.
15:46 “You’ll have Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Etcetera…” I guess Echo has been voted off the island! 🏝😂
The "confusing" part about the oceanic crossing issue to me was that ATC+KLM seemed to be aware of it and ATC was trying to offer them an alternative before they reached SUNOT.
The conversation starts off with ATC telling them they're estimating KLM will reach SUNOT at 15:26 and basically saying KLM needs to slow down or they're going to have to give them a dogleg (to delay arrival at SUNOT)... KLM responds back that their aware and working on it. Presumably some time passes (its clearly a different controller) and KLM is now arriving at SUNOT at 15:26 and ATC is saying... "well you didnt slow down and you didnt take the dog leg so now here are your options. You can take FL390 for track Charlie or you can take FL370 or 380 on track Delta"
Its at that point that KLM gets upset with ATC. They seem to later confirm that their "working on it" didn't actually resolve the arrival issue as they start talking about NorShuttle accepting the clearance at 15:22 so they have 4 minutes almost 5 minutes separation (15:22 + 00:04 = 15:26) which to me suggests KLM was in the wrong and their argument that its "not going the way of our clearance" is incorrect as ATC advised them they should not arrive at SUNOT at 15:26. Ultimately, it seems they should have accepted the dog leg from the first controller
I dont know much about jets at high altitude but would S-turns or a hold at SUNOT be an option for them? Even if they dont do the entire hold and just did a 360 that should give them 2 minutes (maybe longer for jets no idea but longer is better in this case). Looks like Norshuttle is crossing at 23 and they needed a 4 min separation. KLM was gonna cross at 26 so a circle would take it to 28 giving them an exact 5 min separation. (This is a question to @74 Gear as well)
@@MrXtachx I'm also not a jet pilot flying at altitude, nor doing Atlantic crossings for that matter... but a hold at lower altitudes generally adds at least 4 minutes (1 minute to turn 180 outbound, 1 minute to fly outbound and 1 minute to turn 180 inbound before flying 1 minute inbound), even if we cut off the outbound/inbound leg and said to do a 360 its 2 minutes at standard rate turn to complete a 360. At higher altitudes, this would actually be increased as the ICAO hold standards say "standard rate or 25 degree bank, which ever requires LESS bank" and above 14,000 feet they can "hold" at 265kts which would exceed the 180kts at which you can do a standard rate turn AND hold 25 degrees of bank or less, so a hold in that scenario is even longer due to the longer turns. Honestly just the act of slowing to 265kts from cruise at 500kts would probably have added the extra minute needed but the plane wont accelerate from 265kts to cruise speed instantaneously, so a hold or other major speed adjustment which would probably muck up the timing and separation of the aircraft behind KLM.
S-Turns could theoretically work but they'd have to be really shallow s-turns as a result of the airspeed and probably would be difficult to build enough separation as a result. I dont want to say S-turns are risky, especially when they're as shallow as the s-turns would have to be for KLM, but they do require more precaution and are a lot more work. I'd also be surprised if they'd be allowed by KLM's ops manual.
I'd also note that passenger comfort factors come to mind in both scenarios as well. Holds, especially at altitude and enroute, are increasingly uncommon, as are regular or prolonged turns and changes in direction that occur outside of the initial climb and/or final descent so either maneuver is likely to catch their passenger attention. KLM would have been far better off just accepting the dog leg.
Thanks for that clarification. I was really confused as to what was going on there
@@MrXtachx holding at SUNOT is definitely not an option. At high altitudes, holding is extremely inefficient and takes a long time, and because the north atlantic runs at such a high capacity it would create huge delays for everyone following the KLM. The "dog leg" *is* S-Turns, that would have been preferable but the pilots declined them earlier saying they'd get their crossing time back and didn't, the end result being that there likely wasn't time or room for a dog-leg. Ultimately the KLM pilots put themselves in that position.
A note on timing: I'm not sure when that clip is from but up until very recently (mid-2020) 10 minutes was needed between aircraft on the same track at the same level as a baseline, reduced if the preceding aircraft is faster. Unless that Norshuttle was absolutely booking it, 4 minutes is just not going to cut it. Nowadays, with ADS-B and stuff they have a minimum of 17nm, off the top of my head. I'm not a Shanwick controller so take that with a pinch of salt, but those guys are magicians with how they fit so many airplanes down the tracks with such tight timing tolerances and such high capacity. It's impressive stuff.
wasn't it the arrogant attitude of a KLM pilot that caused the largest air disaster in aviation history in Tenerife?
I'm a 767 FO for a major cargo airline and literally, the words coming out of Kelsey's mouth were exactly what I was thinking. Bright minds think alike, I guess.
That KLM pilot was an asshole! Sorry....
Great video!
Though in his defense not quite on the same level of asshole-ness as that infamous KLM pilot who said "Vi jaan!"... (or possibly "vi gaan", I can never get Dutch gutturals right)
The full Atc convo on the envoy and delta,, the controller gave the two planes clearance on the same taxi way and realized it way too late thats why there is commotion overthere..
Premium content as usual. As a pilot, there's a lot to learn about how cruical a personality of a pilot can be to conduct safe and efficient operations.
We just learned from 2 examples of pilots holding their ground where they should, and others holding their ground where they shouldn't.
The right mindset, personality and temperament of a pilot, would be a great content for an entire video!
Keeping the blue side up meanwhile!
I'm a little surprised that you found the idea of using the reversers in this way so dubious. I've been retired for 20 years but I was a pilot with a major international airline and a technical rep with our pilots association as well as IFALPA. In the 90's in my airline there was discussion of how powerback which was what we called it could be safely accomplished if necessary. Although there were opinions against it was pointed out that a US airline, I can't remember which, had carried out more than a quarter of a million departures at, if I remember correctly, Atlanta. So we developed a procedure for it although it was seldom used.
If it was Atlanta, and a quarter million departures, then it had to be Delta.
Retired controller here. American used Powerbacks everyday on their MD80/88's where I was working in the 90's and 2000's.
i love ATC vs Pilots! thanks for doing what you do kelsey!
glad you like it ci
When I worked at SJC we had gates at the end of the terminal we'd do power backs out of. The other gates we'd blow the windows out of the terminal if we powered out of. This was when the dominant aircraft was MD80/88's.
"and you can send it to somebody who's probably not going to care". That cracked me up.
PSA (Pacific Southwest Airlines) used to operate MD80 aircraft up and down the west coast of the USA. Their aircraft would taxi into a gate and shut down the engine on the gate side and leave the other running, passengers would deplane, others would come on (open seating) they would close the door and reverse out of the gate onto the ramp, then close the reverser and move down the ramp and start the other engine on the taxiway. Their business was all about quick turn and maximum aircraft utilization.
Hello Capt. Kelsey, for many years flying in New England, I remember backing away from outr gate using thrust reversers - especially on the DC-9 on US Airways. On one day, we were packing out from Pittsburg heading to Syracuse when one of the engines shot fire towards the front of the plane. While the pilots were able to engage the fire suppression system ulimately, I was told by a flight attendant to open my overwing exit door which I did. We all exited the palne safely, but now when I am asked if I am "wiiling and able" to assist from the exit row, I always answer willing & "experienced". The flight attendants love it!
Someone else posted this..
@@drewsoraci5368 This comment is the original one. Lol's comment was only posted after this, where they took this comment and re-posted it for more recognition and subscribers
I'm REALLY not trying to be "THAT" person, but as someone who has also flown around New England a fair amount because I am from Boston, I had a good, light-hearted chuckle at your comment. You mention "many years flying in New England" then almost immediately mention two places that are not in New England. Pittsburgh is in Pennsylvania, Syracuse is in New York, and neither PN nor NY is in NE :)
P.S. Clever username & thank you for your willingness to help others (then and now).
Any chance you will be covering the Trevor Jacobs plane crash video? Would like to know your opinion on the matter. Thanks for all the amazing videos!! I am a nervous flyer, but your videos help me feel more safer when on a plane!! Cheers!
Insurance fraud, pure and simple.
I don't think he'll file an insurance claim, it was all for RUclips views.
@@flyflorida2001 view fraud, plain and simple. No insurance company is going to see that video and say oh yeah claim approved, when it’s as deliberate as that
@Robin No point on talking about such a c*ntbucket. Hopefully the FAA finds him guilty, YT kills his account and he has to take some serious life-lessons from it.
I love it when you use the term "meet the chief pilot"! A career nightmare! My brother was a causality of flight 242 and since then I've always been interested in aviation and flight safety. Thanks for a great channel.
So sorry to hear about your brother. The term you used ("causality" rather than "passenger" ) prompted me to look up the accident. Was your brother one of the ground casualties, or was he on the plane? Either way, I'm so sorry. I'm sure that a pilot's worst nightmare is crashing an airplane/killing people on the plane as well as people on the ground. I don't really know enough about the accident to know whether pilot error was involved, but -- either way -- I'm sure no pilot wants to be associated with a crash even if it wasn't his or her fault. I hope you and your family have been able to find peace ❤️ I lost my brother as well... but definitely not in (or due to) an airplane crash.
*Casualty (seems that both of our phones auto-incorrected!)
Kelsey you always make awesome videos, but I would absolutely love to hear your coverage on air accident investigations at some point! Currently hour building to go for my CPL now... Seeing your videos keep me motivated! Thanks.
These videos make me feel so much less stressed about talking to ATC (about to start my PPL) because I get to see the wcs of my imagined issues and see that they're resolved in a professional and rational manner, but also how the ATC is there to help and not to make it difficult, it's just a conversation. Thanks Kelsey! :D
Sir. I have no idea how I JUST found this channel, and I have no interest in becoming a pilot, but I am a huge fan! I love your humble attitude but also confidence in your knowledge and even though I work in a completely different field, your demeanor is exactly what I admire to be :) I love your clear explanations and just loving every bit of all your videos so thank you!!!!
Hello. I just wanted to say that your videos help me. I want to go to Europe one day but I didn't really like flying. But you Mr Kelsey creating your videos and explaining things are helping me overcome my irrational worries. So thank you!
Also, my childhood friend is a pilot, so you give me things to talk to him about :D . Love the videos! I hope you had a good Christmas and new years!
You did a fantastic job of explaining how ocean tracks work. Way better than I could of
The part about the Atlantic tracks was really interesting! Would love to see vids going into more depth about that (or Pacific or other big crossings - not sure if mountain ranges ever qualify for something like that).
I want to hear stuff from El Paso Intl. Airport. It's about 1 mile from Biggs Army airfield, and 10 miles from Juarez (MX) international airport, plus it's just East of a mountain range. I know a military pilot and per her, she says flying in is always interesting because of the three different overlapping airspaces. PS: we get to see the Super Guppy a lot as it's based in El Paso, and it's the only one left flying.
Mentour Pilot talks about the Atlantic tracks often.
You know what personally find frustrating. At the end of every video you say if wanna see more of this or that then check out these videos. I get all excited then I realize I have already watched them. Oh to be that viewer that is newly introduced to your channel, the good old days. Thanks for all you do! Awesome channel! You should consider taking a week off and show us the entire video that you did where you played all the characters. Thx
at 18:10, It sounds like Kelsey is referring to the prechorus from the Sheryl Crow song "Everyday is a Winding Road""
Jump in, let's go
Lay back, enjoy the show
Everybody gets high, everybody gets low
These are the days when anything goes
Fascinating insight to flight planning and margins.. More of this 🙏🏽👍🏼
I suspect that at least some airlines have power back options buried somewhere in the books somewhere but at a minimum you need 3 guys on the ground... 2 wing walkers and a flagman. One wing walker cannot possibly see both wings at the same time and the flagman is there to watch both wing walkers and tell the pilot where to go. Doing so in an aircraft with wing mounted engines is not the best idea as it just cleans off all the loose junk on the taxiway!
Cheers,
jc
"loose junk". Hmm...
Kelsey thank you so much for taking your free time to upload videos, you’ve taught me so much and I’m so happy your a RUclipsr!
thanks for watching Leo
@@74gear do a review on the Trevor Jacob plane that he intentionally crashed
@@Straightahead101 Please, no! The guy is an idiot who wanted more fame. Don't give it to him. Just call him the idiot who crashed a plane for attention and move on.
Really neat to learn how precise and careful the Atlantic crossings are. I mean I figured they took it seriously but I didn't grasp how seriously
i don’t deal with airline industry but the drama
between two employees in the same industry is so interesting.
I am sure you will get to 1M subscribers. Today's video is a good example why. Thanks for your excellent work (with your videos, and - I am sure, as a pilot)!
Excellent prediction. Looks like roughly one year after your comment, Kelsey only has 12k to go.
We would reverse thrust out (727) of the gate in the 80s. My next airline allowed reverse (727) out of one specific gate till mid 90s. Backing up with underwing mounted engines is never a good idea, FOD. For non pilots, we don’t have backup mirrors. If Envoy backed up, it might have cost the Capt his job.
Northwest routinely did powerbacks from gates on their DC-9s and 727s at least as recently as the late 90s, perhaps into the early 2000s. I seem to recall American doing that, too, but I might be wrong about that. I definitely remember Northwest doing it all the time, though.
@@vbscript2 Yeah, I *definitely* saw Northwest powering back from gates with reversers on their DC-9s in the 2000s.
How could you not have back up cameras? You really need to have cameras 360 so you can know what is going on in space and time.
@@suem6004 Why? Planes don't go backwards. The only things an airliner needs to see they can see out the front.
@@suem6004 it’s not a car or boat. A large jet is not designed to go backwards. When an large jet is moving rearward it’s via a tug and large ground crew. Even when powerbacks were commonplace Boeing said the airplane can “technically” powerback but we rather you didn’t. In the case of Envoy with underwing mounted engines, it’s never allowed- due to FOD ingestion. Imagine telling your chief pilot, hey boss I powered back allowing Delta to proceed to their gate, do I get a pat on the back. CP: I’m sure your future employer will give you that pat on the back but here you’re getting a kick out the door for trashing $30M in engines.
Kelsey seems like he'd be cool as he'll to have dinner with and just talk about flying. I know NOTHING but I like learning. I often sit with a regular at my favorite bar that's a NASA engineer, same kinda deal. He tells me amazing stories about NASA space projects, I love it
Love these videos, the traffic I work is rarely complex but I like hearing about different situations and how to solve them!
I've seen a C 130 once at an airshow at my local airport reversing into a parking spot. It was very interesting, they shut down the outboard engines, 1 and 4, and just simply reversed. It was really neat to see, I was only about 50 feet away.
Wait until you see a C 17 do it on the active. Super cool 👍
@@pjhaebe I bet it is.
The military are more concerned with the utility of an aircrew being able to be autonomous rather than keeping maintenance low. And they have high-mounted wings and engines.
@@pjhaebe where'd u see it?
@@Tom-jz8xj last November at the Fort worth airshow
Yeah, for Trans-Oceanic flights, it is always easier to change altitude... I remember when I was relaying ATC clearances for those flights in Northern Quebec/Canada, and most would chose a FL change, instead of a track change.
Kelsey, love your videos. Keep up the good work. But, yeah, there are some things that we did in the "good old days", that you youngsters don't have to deal with, such as backing up using reverse thrust.
As a new B-727 Captain I landed at Baton Rouge one night, and at that six-way intersection I mistakenly turned down the taxiway that parallels 4L/22R and headed to what in those days was the GA ramp instead of the taxiway leading to the terminal. Realizing that it would not be safe to taxi through the GA ramp to get to the terminal, I stopped and called OPS asking for a tug to push the airplane back to the intersection. They advised that instead of a tug, they would send out a crew with a headset, and we could power back to the intersection, so that's what we did! And yes, at AA with the 727 and the MD-80 we often did power backs from the gate. It was only authorized at certain gates, since, as was already said, it could be dangerous depending on how close the terminal building and other ground structures were. As was also already said, the higher tail mounted engines were OK as far as picking up FOD, but it was never done by aircraft with wing mounted engines.
Airlines usually allow reversers on tail high mounted engines. I remember Northwest did that to even pull from the gate. Can't remember the model, it was many many years ago. Was very surprising to see that.
Didn't think I had that big an interest in aviation till I realized I've been watching Kelsey more and more this week. Thanks for making it interesting and informative to listen to!
You never fail to make my day Kelsey :)
We had an Air Tran pilot back out of the gate at ATL one afternoon. Conversation overheard was that the tugs were all busy taking care of Delta flights. That was an exciting time in the cabin.
Great channel! Thanks for posting!
Not sure about Envoy's procedures and I agree that they're banned at most airlines today, but powerbacks used to actually be quite common, including at major U.S. airlines and really not that long ago. It used to be common for both Northwest and, as I recall, American, for example. It was typically the aircraft with tail-mounted engines that were approved for powerbacks, since FOD wasn't as big of a concern with those. For example, it was very common with the DC-9/MD-80 family and 727 family aircraft at least as recently as the late 90s and probably at least somewhat into the early 2000s. There's no regulation against it, it's just up to each airline's rules. As such, ATC doesn't necessarily know what each airline's rules are and a pilot saying that they could do it could certainly be interpreted by the controller as meaning that that airline's rules allow it.
It is usually a UNION rule, not an aircraft operation rule. In Miami it was ALPA honoring the agreement IAM had with Eastern that stopped the practice of "power-backs" from the "Outer Gates".
@@stay_at_home_astronaut My understanding is that it has to be explicitly allowed by - and have procedures spelled out in - the airline's OpSpecs in order for it to be allowed. The OpSpecs are indeed airline operational rules (OpSpecs = Operational Specifications) and must be approved by the FAA, at which point they effectively take on regulatory status. I don't doubt that union negotiations are involved in the development of the OpSpecs, but it is the latter the ultimately governs what is allowed from a regulatory perspective. Of course, there could be an agreement with the various unions to simply not do a practice that is allowed (but not required) by the OpSpecs, but union rules can't allow what the OpSpecs don't, nor ban something required by the OpSpecs.
When I was a frequent passenger on American MD-80s and Northwest DC-9s (and even AirTran 717s), I experienced power pushbacks many times in the 90s.
I had a powerback "experience" on a US regional flight in, I think, 2015. I was really surprised as I had no idea that such a thing was even possible.
There's always room for botching the back up process but when there are low hanging fruit low engines there's more chance of picking up dirt & rocks FOD into the intake.
I've experience a power back procedure on a DC-9 when flying Value Jet. Some others mentioned doing this in derivatives like the MD-80, MD-90 and maybe 717?. Also note this was airport dependent they would do it a some airports and not others with the same aircraft. I've never see it done with low mounted engines or even smaller RJ with tail mounted engines.
A lot of airports banned the procedure before the airlines did themselves. It was very easy for debris on the ground to be blown at and damage equipment on the ground and the terminal. While it was normally safe from an engine perspective for aircraft with tail mounted engines to perform a power back, it uses a good amount of fuel. Fuel is expensive so airlines don't want pilots doing it. Aircraft with wing mounted engines just have too high of a risk of damage from debris to attempt the procedure, though any aircraft with thrust reversers can do it. I have to imagine it is significantly less effective on high bypass engines vs low bypass engines with bucket reversers though.
Q: What is Kelsey's favorite yogurt?
A: Plane
I am new to watching your videos, but I have learned a lot about flying and pilots! I enjoy the conversations between the pilots and tower. I fly back and forth from Detroit to St. Louis for work every 2 weeks, on a flight home to Detroit a couple weeks ago, as I was exiting the plane, the pilot was standing in the cockpit door, I said 'Great landing, nice spool!' I could hear him chuckling as I stepped off the plane as he thanked me...too funny...keep up the great work Kelsey!!
I think on your next ATC VS Pilots video, you should include the audio clip of how the "17 yrs old female student pilot landed her plane after losing the right gear"
Love your aviation content❤👍
agreed, that is probably the best work I've heard on any ATC recording
Old.
I wish I could find it for you Kelsey, but there is a pilot V controller video on here whereby a controller is asking a BA pilot on the ground of course, to "make a turn, there is small plane but you should clear it with your wing" to which the BA pilot replied "if you seriously think I'm going to put my wing over the top of a smaller plane you really do need to look for another job"! I think that was a way of telling the controller that would be a highly dangerous manouvre and not one his company would approve of. Happy New Year and happy landings
If you are putting your wing over the top of another aircraft, that aircraft is going to be dangerously close to your jet wash. That could be lethal to the occupants of the smaller plane as it goes flying earlier than expected, and its flight path could intersect with the larger aircraft as well, causing damage that grounds the airliner.
Always appreciate this channel. This was next level, literally!
Have been out of internet range for a while. Have missed you so much,....I'm binging today! Yay! So great to see you Kelsey!
I have backed up 727s, and I've been on DC-9s where they reversed out of the gate. But it's only a good idea with tail mounted engines, under wing is not a good idea, there's a good chance of sucking something in the engines.
The E-Jet SOP specifically forbids it. FOD ingestion is the main issue.
@@flugjung afaiu there is also a risk of the tail hitting the ground if not careful with the brakes
I saw a c5 back up using TR’s one time 😂
The dysfunction between the pilots, ramp crew, and controller here is just unbelievably hilarious. I don't know if I'd have believed it if it wasn't for the captured audio.
In the mid 80's we were flying out of Heathrow on a DC-10 when the ground handlers/tug-operators went on a wildcat. The pilot joking said maybe rather than waiting for the ground handlers he could just back out. About 1/2 hour later the pilot announced that the tower had given them permission to back out from the gate under own power, which we did
Love the channel and summaries. Thank you! And, as always, I get a chuckle when I remember the "boiled owl" comment from way back!😁
I remember being on an AirTran flight out of ATL years ago and it seemed standard procedure for them to throw the reversers on to back out of the gate, but at least they were 717s and had marshallers.
The basic DC-9 layout (DC-9/MD-8X/MD-9X/B717) has it's engine mounted high and far back, using reversers for pushback or taxiing are MUCH safer on aircrafts with engines placed like that instead of under the wings - much less chance of FOD and that ignores the wear it puts on the engines and the fuel used.
AFAIK one of the wear factors for many jet engines are the number of "high thrust" cycles and if they use it for push-back they've likely either increased the number necessary for the flight by 50% or 100% depending on whether thrust-reverser are used during landing or not. Yes, engine hours also matter and so do many other factors but my understanding is that for short-haul engine cycles can often be the limiting factor so greatly increasing it might mean more frequent service and it doesn't make money during that time.
Thrust reversers use during landing often doesn't reduce the landing distance that much (though in some cases it can matter) but it drastically reduce the amount of heat dumped into the break assmbly and waiting for the breaks to cool down sufficiently (has to be able to handle a high-speed abort!) can actually be the limiting factor for turn-around on shorter flights - especially budget airlines that specialize in the absolute shortest turn-around possible. Basically they've calculcated that keeping the airliner on the ground longer at each stop costs them more than the more frequent engine overhauls (including being grounded during the service). The calculation is likely different for long-haul flights because the turn-around time for those are much longer so the brake heat isn't a factor anyway.
I also expect this was a considerable number of years ago (at least 7 since it's AirTran), there's a good chance you won't see planes using thrust reversers to push back today even if you look only at those that fly planes with high/back mounted engines for many reasons (FOD risk, engine wear, cost of fuel and so on).
It used to be a standard procedure way back, but now it's forbidden - mostly because of the fuel usage and the wear on the engine, as far as I know
@@Torbjorn.Lindgren oh exactly! Low mounted engines are a recipe for disaster for fod when it comes to that! It was probably 17 or18 years ago that I was on that AirTran flight. The last one I was on did use a tug for pushback, probably 15 years ago!
@@Torbjorn.Lindgren E=1/2 M*V^2. Taking 40 knots off the top of the touchdown speed is worth a lot more than the next 40 knots, or the bottom 40 knots.
I was in a traffic collision once when one driver signaled another that he could go and this guy without looking came off a ramp straight into us. Nobody was hurt thankfully, but both vehicles were damaged and we had to spend the next couple of hours filling out insurance papers and waiting for a friend to come pick us up, cause the car wasn't going anywhere after that.
Bottom line is, never rely on anyone else to tell you where you can of can't go. Always check for yourself and if you're not certain, stay put.
Traffic directors make me nuts. I know they're just trying to be nice but it's not your job to direct traffic. Just get to the intersection and do what you're supposed to do.
Thank you for your review and great analysis.
That info about the trans-Atlantic tracks isn't something I had encountered before. I figured that they would be a thing. Thanks for giving me my daily dose of learning.
The pilot being asked to reverse should GIVE ATC a phone number to write down so ATC can talk with the chief pilot of their airline.
It was the pilot who offered to powerback. ATC just approved it if able. There is no regulation against it, so, for all the controller knew, Envoy's operational rules might have allowed it. As Kelsey said, the controller doesn't know what your airline's rules are and the FAA itself has no rules against it, so the controller didn't necessarily do anything wrong.
LMAO.......
Hi Kelsey. First of all: nice channel, I love it!
Then: I have now figure out, how crossing the Atlanitc works. And I wondered: How does crossing the Pacific work? Is there a similar system in place?
pacific is a lot easier and relaxed compared to the Atlantic.
The Pacific has specific routes, but most of the time you get a clearance that has a small part of the route, and then what they call “Random” route after. It is much more relaxed for sure, mostly because there isn’t as much talking on the radios.
What an awesome sounding job, A wing walker with light sabers, hahaha.
Ooof. Whenever I hear “KLM”, I think of the Tenerife collision and crash.
I’d like to learn to fly, but I’m not sure I have what it takes to be any kind of pilot! It’s probably a job that one shouldn’t do unless they’re absolutely passionate about flying. It’s an amazing feeling being in the cockpit and seeing that sky all around you though. I got to go check it out once, when I was a kid. ‘96, I think- halfway into the flight, flying from London to Toronto. The sun was coming up and the sky was beautiful- the clouds carpeted the sky below us, far as you could see.
Could you do something on crossing the Pacific? That's probably a huge endeavour
Surprisingly, much easier than the Atlantic. The NAT Track system is much more involved and moves daily. For the most part, Pacific routes are fixed and less communication involved.
Back in 1974 in Canada my father authored a 250 page report on the feasibility of powering off the gate using reverse for the 727, 737 and DC 9. This was at the request of Air Canada, Canadian Pacific Airlines and Pacific Western Airlines. The need for this procedure was at airports without tugs that were serviced by said aircraft.
The study involved McDonnel Douglas and Boeing engineers, test pilots and powerplant producers. Under specific conditions (ie no gravel operations), clear of men and materials, wing walkers and etc the procedure was approved.
Today, flying the 787 I ran a sim exercise. All up weight, brakes set to 0 (off) and feet on the floor. That is, at touchdown, fully loaded all up weight and absolutely no braking and using ONLY reverse, the aircraft stopped in 7000 feet (airport elevation 340’, paved runway 9000 LDA). As an experiment, with engine N1 at 20% in reverse thrust mode: the aircraft easily started to back up. THIS WAS DONE in SIM.
Cheers,
Geoff Quickfall 27000 hours; DC10, 737, 757, 767, 777, 787. 5000 hours on float planes.
From what I've been told, reversing was taken out of procedure not because it couldn't be done, but because on occasion dangerous situations would arise?
@@Shade01982 that is true! FOD such as gravel could injure ramp personnel. Being human there is always a chance of an incident. In Whitehorse, British Columbia the mobile gate is very long, such that a 737-200 could power forward and turn to clear the terminal. If the nose of the 737-200 does not hit the terminal building then the wings will not. That applies to the 737-200 and 100 ONLY😉 I use the 737-200 as an example as that of the era for power back at smaller uncontrolled airports with minimal ground support. In Canada this would frequently involve uncontrolled and unsupported strips and gravel kit 737s; another project my dad was involved with in conjunction with Boeing and PWA. Cheers!
And how do you know that particular data point was qualified in the sim package ? As you know there are many things not correctly and certified even in the most realic sim package today. Stall beheviour is one, actual landing behaviour is another, I'm pretty sure the reverse on ground for taxi was not part of the certified data as well. Too costly to do for no gain in training.
@@12345fowler: you are absolutely correct. That may not have been a certified, correct, representation of the actual reverse on the aircraft. It was anecdotal. however, having flown the 787 for 4000 hours I noticed that it was the most effective reverse of the aircraft I have flown. The reverse on the 787 is so effective, the stopping distance on the QRH performance sections compares extremely favorably to the aircraft that I have flown which were allowed to to reverse off the gate, (B737-200). The stopping distance portion of the reverse thrust in the SIM is, however, is a well proven and correct simulation of the aircraft and as such is a useful tool when used in comparison to the QRH performance data stopping distance or WAT charts or whichever system you employ to calculate stopping distances.
So again, you are correct, the reversing of the aircraft versus the reversing of the aircraft in the SIM may not be a direct function comparison, but in my experience, (as useless as that anecdotal evidence is) there is no reason to doubt the ability of the aircraft to ‘back up’ using reverse. The question is, why would you do it.
And again, without actually talking to CAE technicians, the stopping power of the reversers during the slow down phase of the sim after touchdown is realistic. As a complete loss braking may be an unexpected event; the reverse simulation is an extremely accurate 1 to 1 comparison to the actual aircraft.
I learn so much from your videos. I am not a pilot and do not plan on being one... Not even playing a pilot on tv (ha ha) seriously, it is so entertaining and educational. I really want you to thank you for all this great content.
Heard this ATC before, but love the pilot context to it, makes so much more sense now
I have to disagree with Kelsey on this one. "Wing walker" *is* gansta!
One of the most entertaining parts of the flight too if you have a window seat... love it when they put some funk on it
9:50 Had Ops9 told them they had enough room, guided them, and then they hit something following Ops9's guidance. Would envoy have gotten in any trouble? I'd suppose no, given that the whole purpose of a wingwalker being there is that he has better visibility and can maneuver you more accurately, but I'm not sure.
Most probably they still would’ve gotten into trouble for taking an unnecessary risk as there was still a safe option available (the tug). Airlines aren’t fond of pilots that take unnecessary risks.
Pretty sure the pilot in command is ALWAYS responsible for the operation of their aircraft, no matter what ATC, OPS or whoever else not sitting in that left seat might say. See Kelsey's video about the collision warning system on aircraft. Doesn't matter what ATC might be saying, when that system says "climb" or "turn" or whatever, they do it.
Safe operation of the aircraft is 100% the responsibility of the two people in that cockpit. 100%, no excuses.
@@immikeurnot yup. PIC is PIC. Responsible for safe conduct, bottom line.
@@immikeurnot The TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) rules where an RA (Resolution Advisory) is always followed instead of ATC came about because a DHL 757 and a BAL TU-154 collided in mid-air because DHL followed the RA from TCAS while the BAL followed ATC instructions. (Unrelated to TCAS but an interesting if sad fact a Russian family member of a victim on the BAL flight tracked down the ATC controller and murdered him infront of the controllers wife and children. He served less than 4 years in jail for the murder, and upon returning to Russia was hailed as a hero by the government and awarded a medal.)
A similar incident happened a year and a half earlier in Japan, but the collision was narrowly avoided since one of the plane's pilot visually saw the other airplane and maneuvered away, it was still such a violent maneuver that 100 passengers were injured.
Everyone across the world is now told that a TCAS RA is obeyed above all other orders.
Awesome video man!!!! I bet you're a wonderful pilot. Thanks for the information!
Kelsi, that is called "GOLDEN TOW BAR AWARD" given to a ground controller for causing a nose to nose situation requiring a tug to pull apart. I witnessed two controllers at KFWA get the golden tow bar for two B727's nose to nose which to make it more entertaining it had rained several days so the Cargo company had to go and purchase a pallet of plywood so that the tug could get around the airplanes to hook up and pull them apart, Took the company over 6 hours which screwed up operations all morning long.
Power back. Power back operations prohibited. After having a minute to think and breathe and without more peer pressure, they knew what they initially offered was wrong. Common sense and SOP prevailed.
And maybe after getting slapped on the wrist by the captain
The thing is that even if power back operations were allowed by their airline, it never would be approved without having a marshaller there to provide guidance and insure safety.
Hey Kelsey, for that past several years, many large airports no longer use marshallers, but rather an automatic parking system. Could you explain pretty much how it works? Is it similar to sector lights on an approach to a marine port? What about distance to ensure the front gear is parked in the correct zone? Just curious.
Yup..kind of like a stoplight arrangement. Sensors give a direction and a stop light adjusted for lineup
Hi Leland. Captain Joe. Did a video on this called how Planes park. About 9 or 10 months ago. If you want to cruise over to his site,
@@paulebelmesser2699 yes...found it... many thanks !
I would say its less than 10% of the places I go to but it just tells you how far you are to stop and directs you left or right thats it. But someone still needs to be there to chock the tires, bring the stairs etc so people are still needed to do a lot of tasks within minutes of parking.
@@74gear Hey Kelsey, have you looked at trevor jacob incident?
Good thinking and good advice, Kelsey. 👍
Watching your videos has been a great resource during flight school! It would be fun to have you as a CFI!
Kelsey: got a video for ya
Lara: starts playing it
Lara 2 minutes later: gets distracted by 3 aircrafts in the sky above her house…
I thought that the reason for not using the reversers to back up was that the reversers on aircraft with underwing engines (most modern ones) will kick up FOD/anything from the ground which could then be ingested by the engines. Aircraft like MD-80/727 have high engines in order to avoid this and so were able ot reverse safely (i don't know what aircraft were involved here). I didn't feel the controller was putting a burden on the pilots he was simply clarifying that there was no way to get out of the situation without brining the tug out so he could get the tug brought out. The ramp controller was really cheeky to say there was lots of room if there wasn't - OPs was a star for jumping in and getting the tug. KLM pilot was a d!£k...
Tangent: SpaceX put thrusters up on the nose of the Starship, so when it lands on moon it will kick up least amount of dust. Moon dust is both very fine, and sharp edged as knives. That's gonna be a problem in future. [sigh]
Too bad they can't just spray all that dust with water to settle it down. [grin]
More tangential: NASA is offering a $10,000 prize to anyone who can figure out how to unload Starship cargo (on the moon) efficiently. [scratching head]
In future I suppose they'll be cranes and ramps to be rolled up and all kinds of equipment, but the Lunar Space Port is a little underequipped right now.
@@veramae4098 The tendency to dig a hole is scaled by some exponential power, so it wasn't such a big deal with the LEM. But with Starship it would dig a big uneven hole that would rarely be level. The other thing is that those bits get accelerated to orbital velocity and become a hazard to other operations Moon-wide. Unless the thing is accelerated to escape velocity, it will return to the Moon's surface, somewhere.
They (NASA, ESA, etc.) are actually looking at ways to create landing pads using the regolith, and either energy to fuse it, or some substance that can turn it into concrete.
I’m on maternity leave right now, and I miss work so I’ve been binging your videos. Airplanes are so amazing to work with.
I remember as a kid at SMF the Air Cal Super 80's used to back out of the gates with their buckets as well. It was cool to watch.