Kelsey As a retired controller, and also someone who is intimately aware of KSAN airport I wanted to add some insight. First of all I will agree that the controller messed up on her priority of duties, and that was the primary cause here. Here are some mitigating issues particular to SD. There is a very large 6 story parking garage just over 700 ft from the arrival end of the runway, it sits about half way up a hill from the runway and is a primary reason for the displace threshold. Prior to its construction the available landing length was about 500ft longer. The biggest issue is the garage blocks the view of runway end for some distance. If this occurred in the afternoon or evening the sun would be right down the runway making it even harder to see someone taxiing into position. It is likely possible that while entering the runway a pilot might not see someone on a 5 mile final as well for similar reasons. The lower to the ground either pilot sits the harder it is to see. I can see a scenario where the landing aircraft doesn’t see the departing one until inside of a mile. And as you will admit, the initial reaction by the pilot might be “did we miss something” prompting the question. The question by SWA about the reason probably had more to do with his thinking “okay you messed that one up, he’s going to be out of the way, why can’t I go. For those of you who write the comments about “here’s a number for you to copy”. I assure you this controller will be getting the ATC equivalent of that call.
It’s simply insane that the office building was allowed to be built in the first place. How the hell did this happen? Sounds like some serious corruption was involved.
Thanks for adding that valuable context. Kelsey should have looked into this, not just post an "I dunno what happened here" video. Makes more sense now.
@@richardcoughlin8931 yeah pretty much. It was a city councilman who pushed the parking garage through for campaign contributions. The FAA has no input on these issues. The only response they could give would be to displace the threshold even more or remove all instrument approaches to that runway.
I was a bit surprised by this clip. I think the Citation crew knew full well they couldn't land. They were maybe trying to get the ATC to acknowledge their error without coming across as obnoxious. If ATC had have replied "you are still cleared to land" I believe the Citations crew would have just gone around anyway
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It didn't really give a "hey, we're still cleared to land? Cool, lets send it" type of vibe. It defintely felt like they were getting ready for a go-around and just wanted the controller to observe and action the mistake, before taking matters into their own hands. Hypothetically another thing to consider is that with such a long extended threshold, and if the Citation crew were unfamiliar, its very possible that they were thinking maybe some provision at that particular port permitted an aircraft to land with an aircraft lined up that far back down the threshold - although if that were the case it should be in the arrival briefing and the crew should have known beforehand.
I think the Citations pilot was making a point as well, lol Like, if you in the tower and just turned around to look at them, they were probably having heart attack.
As a dyslexic pilot I think he did the right thing he drew attention to it and if he had to use that wording phrasing or hinting, it worked that's all it's important. We certainly can come across as literal and that can be exciting in aviation but we do have an excellent sense of self-preservation. Single engine land 30 years, 2700 hours, 500 of which is upside down.
That is my opinion too, it is my belief Citation were doing a soft challenge knowing they had an out of the go around, as you say they were looking for an acknowledgement of error without being obnoxious. Same with Southwest when they said "reasoning".
Is it possible that the "verify clear to land" call was intended as a polite way of telling the controller they messed up and that they had no intention to land even if the answer was yes?
And a polite way of telling the ATC to "Look out your damn window!" If it's a clear day, the controller should be able to see the plane sitting at the end of the runway.
I'm going to add something to this, the citation pilot was probably perfecting the record because all of the traffic control audio is recorded. I bet he had no intention of landing he just wanted the controller to tell him to go around so he could say to the controller "possible controller deviation, let me know when you're ready to copy a number". When asked about the reason for the go around, the pilot can say I was told to by the controller because they put us in a situation that shouldn't have happened. In that way maybe the controller will get more training on prioritizing.
"It's like you took a pimp suit and wrapped an airplane in it," is perhaps the most S-tier description of our livery I've ever heard. Thank you, Kelsey, for making my day.
Yeah the Citation was taking the tactful route…. He was saying that he knew the SWA was still on the runway and asking what she wanted to do about it. They most likely weren’t planning on landing. The bigger story is the controller forgetting that she had the SWA in position and starting doing other less essential things.
That may be true only the citation pilot knows for sure but if he knew he wasn’t going to land he should’ve simply announced “going missed” or “traffic on runway going around”, this would’ve saved valuable time, would have “politely” (if that was a concern) told controller she screwed up and had everyone aware of the problem and plan earlier, time delay here was unnecessary and could be critical. If your going around announce it asap don’t ask “are we still cleared to land” , makes no sense.
@@marlinweekley51 I'm not an aviation expert, but it sounds like you're working hard to find fault with the Citation pilot, when all the blame lies with the ATC. The pilot was given clearance to land, he later gave the ATC a second chance to realize her error, and you're griping about what the _pilot_ should've done???
Perhaps this is just my desire to think the best of people, but I interpret the Citation's "Please confirm" call as a subtle way of saying "Uhhh - lady, there's a problem here, WTF?" Which if true, worked. We will obviously never know but I choose to believe that if the tower had said "go ahead and land" the Citation would have called the go-around on their own.
Don't underestimate the "evidence gathering": this all goes on "the tape". That pilot may have already known what was going to happen and was making sure that *who* messed up was clearly identified for when the FAA goes around and has a chat to everybody involved.
It is to be hoped for. Planes have landed on planes following an ATC command to, "Position and hold." I witnessed a female ATC instruct a 172S to take off at the same time as she cleared a GV-5 to land. The GV-5 PIC told her, "You just cleared a 172 to take off and me to land at the same time. You need to get your act together." She responded, " GV-5, go around." , GV-5, "Your screwup is going to cost me $300.00 in fuel. ATC, "I can give you a number to call if you want to file a complaint." GV-5, "Never mind, going around." ATC screws up enough to have caused incidents. Both pilots need to be alert for and compensate for that.
Kelsey, I can see the Citation pilot asking to verify they are still cleared to land. I think it was a non-invasive way to point out to the controller there was a plane on the runway. Had the controller reaffirmed the landing clearance, the Citation pilot could have come back with, “You have an airplane sitting on the runway. We’re going missed.” The Citation pilot’s request could be similar to when you are flying off your assigned heading and the controller says, “Kelsey74, verify you’re flying heading 340.” You turn to 340 because you were on a 360 heading and tell the controller you’re sorry and on 340 now. Just my two cents.
I am a retired FAA controller. A single runway and crossing runways operations increase the opportunities for errors. The safest runway operations are parallel runways for just arrivals and just departures.
London has many runways. 2 (parallel) at Heathrow, 1 at Gatwick (ok, physically 2, but only 1 is ever in use at a time), 1 at Luton, 1 at Stansted, 1 at City. i.e. other than Heathrow, they're all single runway airports. Personally I'd be more concerned about operating an airport with runways going in different directions!
Is the Citation pilot really intending to land or, seeing the Southwest, just asking about the clearance as a passive way to get the tower to notice something isn't right?
Definitely. Instead of saying "OK, you told Southwest to line up and then left him there, I'm going around, you stupid bitch", he chose to gently prod the tower person to realize what's going on and resolve it sort of gracefully on her own. He even asked her to spell it out. They will have to land there in a moment again, dealing with the same person, so proably wanted to play it gently and not make an instant enemy of her. This is what it looks like to me.
@@68MalKontent Well that was 2 different extremes. You made your first comment very toxic to inflate your 2nd option to make yourself seem smarter then you actually are lol. if you're going to make an example, at least make it realistic - like why would he call her a b*itch? or flip out on her lol. That's a good way to get a write up and risk losing your license regardless of the situation that is unprofessional- using your example you just said it was acceptable to completely flip out and dehumanize someone for making a mistake. think before you comment lol. he could have just said "traffic on runway, are you sure? what's going on with the traffic. Would have did the same thing and called them out for making a mistake that could have ended badly
If I remember correctly, the Air Canada flight that nearly landed on the taxiway with several airliners on it also asked several times to verify cleared to land, because he was seeing something and wasn't sure. Then someone spoke up, Air Canada went around and didn't create one of the largest disasters in aviation history. Basically, asking the tower to verify you're cleared to land is saying, "something smells fishy around here, please verify it's clear on your end".
9:40 I don't believe the Cessna was "asking for clearance." I believe he was alerting the controller to the fact that she seemed to have forgotten ... That she had an airliner already sitting on his runway.
Every morning when I'm driving to work and pass by the airport, I'm going to see those Southwest planes and think "pimp suit," and snicker to myself. 😂
I feel like the citation pilot asking if there were still cleared to land was a way of calling the controller an idiot, like 'you cleared me to land and then put someone on the runway in front of me?'
is that a normal thing to do in america, clearing someone to land then letting someone line up in front? Im from the UK and that seems quite a weird and dangerous thing to do
@@samiturk5975 I don't know, but SFO is famous for doing it and having multiple go-arounds as a result. I don't think it's supposed to happen, but controllers aren't held to the same standard as pilots.
Kelsey: I’m a retired military controller who’s worked both single runway and multiple runway operations. I found the single runway operation to be harder. But I was taught to NEVER give a landing clearance when I had an aircraft in position and hold. I was taught to tell the inbound aircraft to “continue” until I sorted out the aircraft on the runway.
I get the impression that controllers for whatever reason are being pushed to experiment with such sequencing in order to see how close they can get aircraft (in sequence it is thought, but also to disaster in reality), rather like the entire populace has been and is being used in great big 'vaccination' experimentation.
That's how the rest of the world still handles landing clearances. In the U.S., the FAA decided that landing clearances can be given on the assumption that it will work out.
It's allowed with certain safety equipment, otherwise you can't LUAW with somebody cleared to land (or the option generally), and you can't clear to land with somebody LUAW. You CAN send somebody directly, like "Traffic 5 mile final is a Citation, runway 27, cleared for takeoff" is legal all day long.
Regarding that citation requesting confirmation. Clearly, the controller forgot about them. If they are going to go around, it's not a bad idea to let the controllers know that they are about to be low and over the runway and not clear Southwest for takeoff at the same time.
As someone that fully trained over 25 years ago as a Canadian ATC but never did it live, I've been confused if something has changed. An airplane only got clearance to land if they now "owned" the runway. Multiple planes would never got clearance to land, and no plane would be told to enter the runway after someone had clearance to land. The same applied to takeoff clearance. Basically, only one plane could have takeoff/landing clearance for a runway. Other aircraft would be told "expect clearance". I even experienced this when we were taken up in TC100, the Transport Canada plane that was (is?) used to calibrate all landing systems in Canada. Back then a Twin Otter was used, and YVR's northern parallel runway 08/26 had yet to be built. After a tour of the area, when we returned to YVR we were told there'd be a 20 minute hold until we could land. The controller, though, quickly recognized the abilities of the plane and the skills of the pilots and came back to ask if we could land on runway 31 and hold short of the main runway. When our pilot said we could, we were cleared to land and the plane on final for runway 26 (now 26L) and were told of the traffic to our right which was heavy a few miles out. The heavy was given the winds, told of of us as traffic, and was told to expect clearance. When we landed and came to stop in under 1000', our pilot quickly radioed that we were stopped. Only then was the heavy that was about to land cleared for the landing. As we started a 180 turn on the runway to taxi back the opposite way, the slowing heavy roared past us. I know it's possible that Canada does things a bit different, but since most things are the same world wide I'm curious if this is just a difference or is instead something that has changed since then.
I so love ready your post Kelsey, as my Father bought himself a small piper in his later years, as he had been in the military as a pilot .... He would tell me all these stories and my old DOD Boss was a retired Marine Col., Korean War Pilot, even wounded and my last DOD job was at an airbase working for the Army. I retired here in Australia as a teacher and met many US ex-servicemen who like me were recruited to work for different companies like Qantas, and Hawker de Havilland Aerospace and after Ronnie Reagan broke the controller's union, several got jobs here (including free health care and Medicine Price Caps). The US VA told me last month that there are still over 30,000 Veterans working here, plus over 300,000 American citizens living here. Your post bring back some good times I had... thanks so much.
Sounds to me like the Citation pilot was incredulous upon seeing the SWA jet, and he was trying to ask "are you serious?", but in a more professional manner. IMO, it doesn't sound like he was determined to follow through with a landing.
Kelsey is the best huh? He gets us all thinking on our own. That is so important. Dan Gryder, if you have watched any of his videos, pointed out the possible need for a seperate clearance delivery controller. Generally SAN isn't that busy, but can be.
That type of query occurred well beyond where one of the two crews should have used plain, clear language to sort this out. "Position and hold" and "Lineup and wait" should trigger an internal mental clock in every crew's minds, whether they are approaching to land or especially if they're in position.
I was an air traffic controller and the citation’s inquiry was more of a polite reminder to the controller. This was a total screw up on the controller’s part. You once mentioned that an agency examiner would not compromise safety in any way shape or form to meet hiring expectations, it is unfortunate that the same is not practiced by the government. Individual capability must be the sole reason to certify or not certify.
My bet is they double checked the landing clearance to focus the controller's attention on the dangerous situation she set up. I suspect if landing clearance had been restated, they would have immediately announced a go around.
Lindburg also has a big hill on approach you have to skim over. The citation might not see the departing plane as clearly as at other airports. Just speculating. He also tried earlier to verify but was stepped on.
Many years ago, I went to Las Vegas to work trade shows in the days when I was in the tech industry. One flight in, the pilot did two go-arounds. After the first one, he told us ATC had a plane just about to take off as we were very close to landing. We climbed back up into the pattern, came in a second time, and ATC did the same thing again. Third time, there was nobody on the runway. The pilot explained that while the planes on the runway were starting to roll, if they had to abort takeoff for any reason, our plane would be at risk of hitting them. On the way off the plane, most everyone stopped to thank the pilot for erring on the side of caution. As it happens, we were about 30 minutes early when first approaching, and ultimately landed at the time we were supposed to arrive.
Getting a landing clearance while the runway is still occupied or you are cleared to land as number 2, 3, 4… is something I only know from the US. In Europe and all other countries I’ve been flown you generally won‘t get a landing clearance when the runway was not clear of other traffic (PANS ATM 7.10.1, 7.10.2). The only deviation to this would be „reduced runway separation minima“ which would in this case have required - amongst other prerequisites - that the SWA was already airborne and has passed a point of at least 2400m from the landing threshold (PANS ATM 7.11.7)
However, the metar at the time of the incident indicated there were broken clouds at 1,100 ft. They probably could not see the Southwest but were listenting to the radio and being that they didnt hear Southwest being given a takeoff clearance, would explain why they would confirm with tower whether they are cleared to land and not the case of them looking at Southwest and confirming landing clearance.
"It's like you took a pimp suit and wrapped an airplane in it!" This will stick with me for quite a while! I flew in and out of Lindbergh for decades while living there (that name is retired, it is now San Diego International Airport). The nasty steep approach that must be taken is always a consideration to many and it is very noticeable with the passengers. They get a lot of traffic for a one runway facility. It is no excuse for how ATC handled this, but I cannot imagine how they handle the traffic with just the one runway.
The FAA's asleep at the switch, I think. They're trying to cram too much crap into that 5 pound bag that is San Diego International Airport. It's like they're begging for a good wreck there. I know pilots and controllers strive to be on their game... but that being said... The safety margins are just too thin for my liking. The approach is sketchy, with a huge life safety penalty if something goes awry, and you've got an airport that's trying to do handle more traffic than they comfortably can. NO THANKS. I'd just book my flight into John Wayne/Orange County and drive the rest of the way, if I had business in San Diego.
Other than Nepal, one of the most famous 'approaches' was Hong Kong's Kai Tak, buildings galore and a Dogleg, and with a 747, a 'treat' to watch. San Diego also gives you a free airborne tour of the Aviation Museum on approach, a real birds eye view of the exhibits, drone style :-)
This last week i flew from TUL to ORD to MIA then MIA to IAH to TUL and spent all my time at the airports using what you explain to analyze what was going on around me. Thank you for making it so much easier to understand the goings on at airports. It really helps with my flight anxiety.
I'm thinking that when Southwest asked for the reason for them clearing the runway is that they wanted to see if ATC would take blame for forgetting about them. They knew the reason.
Once the Citation was sent around and turned out of the departure path, SWA naturally expected to be cleared for takeoff. They questioned the "taxi off the runway" instruction because they didn't realize how close the next arrival was.
not sure why it's confusing that the citation asked for clarification if they were cleared to land. by that point they obviously saw the incoming incident and decided not to land, but if they got that close without clearance they'd be at fault. so to cover their ass, they double checked that they were cleared to land. the controller messed up by clearing them and creating this situation, and the audio is a record of what happened. The pilots know this and were confirming that they were cleared into an unsafe situation, rather than double checking they were cleared in order to land.
Im a retired space shuttle controller. I wanted to add something I think you glossed over. As PIC you have the authority to break any rule you deem necessary to ensure the safety of your mission.
I think the "reasoning?" call from the Southwest pilot at the end was much more an indication that he was pissed at the ATC messing up. And her tone of voice after his question indicated she also realised the same thing. Also I think the landing plane was seeking confirmation of clearance to land because he was deciding whether or not to do a go around, and probably would have done so had she not suddenly realised the situation and told him to.
I dont think 4HV would have landed, even if they got cleard for landing a 2nd time. It sound like a reminder to ATC that they might have done a mistake without calling them out for it.
If I had been the Southwest Pilot or the Citation Pilot..."Tower do you have paper and pen? Good...I have a number for you to write down." Wow! Absolutely crazy! Have a great week everyone!
I get that you're being a bit tongue in cheek, but in this case i would note the time this happened and call the tower after landing, ask to speak to the supervisor, and make sure they were aware of the incident.
Citation’s confirmation call was not asking to land over the 737, it was a call to the controller asking him to sort this mess out. Same thing happened to me once. On final a 727 was cleared onto the runway in front of me. I ask for confirmation to land, quicker than “hey, do you know there’s a plane in my flight path, what’s going on?” And smarter than an automatic go around. Controller asked me to side step to the parallel and I landed no muss no fuss.
I know I'm not an ATC in the real world but I'm a virtual ATC in the UK. The one thing I was taught is to prioritise. When I'm on a tower, the main thing is to ensure the runway is used safely and efficiently. If clear an aircraft to land on a 5 mile final, there's no way I'd line up an aircraft on the runway. In this scenario, if I wanted to get the south west out ahead of the cessna, I'd tell them to continue approach and check the South West is ready for departure. If they are, I'd clear the south West for immediate take off. As soon as the wheels are off the ground, I'd clear the cessna to land. If the South West wasn't ready, I'd ask them to report when ready for departure and clear the Cessna to land. I cannot understand why the controller speaks to a pilot number 4 for take off. From listening to ATC it seems US and UK/European control is different.
That back and forth "confirm ready for departure" "confirmed" "clear for takeoff" could be shortened to just "cleared for *immediate* takeoff". Either they accept it and go, or they reply "unable" and wait
I was at a controlled airport in Indiana and witnessed 2 planes play "Hopscotch". Plane 1 landed over lined up & waiting plane 2, then plane 2 took off & climbed over landed plane 1 prior to them exiting runway and entering taxiway. It took me a second before I thought wait, WHAT? Glad I was 3rd to depart.... Bad day for the controller, luckily good day for planes 1 & 2......
Traffic Control messed up... can't understand how they didn't see SW's colorful plane. I guess they're human too! 😮🤔🤣 Glad no one was hurt. george 😎🤿🦈🐙🇺🇲 TEXAS
I think you are a bit mean right now, mate. To me, the pilot asked the questions as a hidden warning to the flight controller (Hey, You have dropped the ball a bit, it's a plane on the runway - I giving you the opportunity to change our clearance so that it doesn't look like I pointed out your flaws.) Do you copy?!
Personally, I think the Citation pilot was trying to give the controller a heads up that she made a boo boo. Which she quickly realized. And the controller? New on the job? Who knows.
6:40 saying _cleared_ to land while nothing is cleared makes no sense either. I hate this about American atc. 4 arrivals an 3 departures ahead of you but you are _cleared_ to land. To put it in other words: while in europe you are are mentally expecting to go around unless you hear "cleared to land" in America you are expecting to land. Why not issue a cleared for take-off to number 4, while there's an additional 3 arrivals ahead. Just because they are cleared for take-off doesn't mean they'll actually be able to. It makes no sense!
which seems something that's regularly a point of contention in the wider community... every close call with a CJ4 it seems people are wondering whether it's too much of a handful (especially in IFR conditions, but ones like here as well)
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 there is nothing about the CJ4 that makes it any harder than the other 525s to fly SP, certainly not significantly harder than the CJ2 or CJ3.
If you see a plane on the runway go around! I don't need permission to land with a plane sitting on the runway as I'm going around period. To me it sounds like the citation was giving a hit to the controller. Southwest did nothing wrong, but the radio discussion did get heated after the incident.
Sometimes landing traffic for Chicago Midway flies over my house. I mentally refer to this as the Parade of Planes, but, since it’s predominantly Southwest planes, it shall henceforth be known as the Parade of Pimps.
If I’m on the southwest jet sitting on the runway.. if my pilots felt something unsafe I’d want them to be bossy as you say and get us clear of the situation.
Love your content, Kelsey. I’ve been in a situation where ATC has lined me up on a runway with inbound traffic and just sat us there. Like the Southwest pilots, I chimed in. Thankfully that controller realized what they did and got us moving.
When the private jet asked are we cleared to land that second time I think they where doing something similar to how computers will ask a second time if you want to delete something. Because of the double check I wonder if the private jet saw the Southwest jet and had some doubts about the situation.
It's something my flight instructor taught me about the difference in flying in Canada vs. the US. In Canada, if the pattern is particularly busy, you might not get clearance to land until you're basically "inside the fence" (fine for VFR traffic) because the controllers only authorize one clearance at a time - cleared to take off, cleared to land, etc. In the US, you can get clearances way back and they'd send several aircraft to take off in the meantime. Just like here you had two aircraft on final both cleared to land, then you send the Southwest to wait on the runway (most pilots would generally expect a expedited takeoff). I can't really fault the Citation for asking - it's less a "we intend to land - can we still land" and more of a "Did you forget about us?" message. After all, once cleared, there is no need for further communications until you touch down. So I see it more as a "Hey' we're stillhere, is our clearance still valid because the runway doesn't look ready"
It's easier when a controller has more than one runway. Especially, if they don't cross...we have more options...It looks like the controller forgot about Southwest. I guarantee she got distracted by something, and wasn't scanning the environment, and forgot about Southwest. She wasn't looking! The Citation was just prompting her in hopes she would realize what was happening. I don't believe he expected to land. We always have air carriers ask us if they're cleared to land after we clear them to land because we clear them 20 miles out, as soon as they call us. She might have been overwhelmed. She was obviously working tower, ground and flight data combined. Scanning the airfield/sky/radar is the number one means to prevent forgetting about aircraft. That's why it's so important and emphasized by the FAA. Your memory will fail you. Once Delta cleared the runway, she should have launched SWA. She wasn't scanning...
This scenario is similar to what happened to USAir 1493 at LAX in 1991 when the controller forgot that an aircraft was on the runway and cleared a Skywest Metroliner to land resulting in numerous fatalities when the commuter collided with the 737-300 awaiting takeoff.
That controller was promoted to a management position where she could do less harm to the flying public, thus reinforcing the FAA's reputation as the "f*** up, move up' agency.
As a Student Piot my instructor had me land and take off at KDFW twice for some advance training. It was a blast because i was flying a Diamond DA40 so I had a lot of things to prioritize. I got my license later in life and wish I had done it earlier and made a career out of it. Flying is so much fun and your office has the best views!
My son in law was an air traffic controller during operation desert storm. One day during the battle he called me from the jon to confess he had goofed up by assigning a fast mover (I don’t recall maybe an F-15] on a runway that was occupied by a helicopter. The F 15 was 20 miles out when he assigned the runway telling the pilot to let him know when he was 2 miles out. This completely forgetting the F-15 would cover that distance in about 40 seconds. Fortunately he had the plane go around before anything bad happened.
After watching your videos for a while now, my take is that the Citation was being polite by saying essentially "Are you *sure* we have a clearance to land?" (Did we hear you correctly before, because there's a plane sitting on our runway we expect to be clear now.) I don't think he was asking for clearance again as if he was going to land, but maybe he would have attempted the landing.
I always worry about things like this because the Daniel Oduber Quiros Airport in Liberia Costa Rica, place I fly in and out of, only has one runway and when things go haywire they so seriously haywire. Developed a sinkhole on the runway four or five years ago and it thew the place into chaos for several weeks.
We really shouldn't be doing LUAWs with less than 3 minute separations, and LUAW land overs should be illegal. If tower asks me to take the runway with that much separation it better be a cleared for takeoff, because there's very little reason to save 30 seconds by putting my back to a 70,000 pound tin can travelling 130+ knots
I fly a lot for work on the commercial airlines. I love seeing your content to get an idea of what's going on around me while I'm in that steel tube. 😊 While these kinds of videos are concerning, I have no worries about flying these days. Love hearing all the checks and balances that a lot of good people do when it comes getting everyone where they're going safely! 👍
I wish I was as confident in the safety of these operations. I’m not. Every person in the process needs to be paying attention or else the ending won’t be good. I don’t want to be one of the people sitting on that runway unaware that I’m a sitting duck.
In the UK you would never get landing clearance if there was an aircraft on the runway. They would say “one to depart expect late clearance” or something similar. Likewise the southwestern should have been asked if they were ready for immediate departure which would let the pilots know to not delay takeoff when they line up. It’s mind blowing that she cleared 2 aircraft to land one behind the other. If that’s standard American practice that’s scary!
I definitely felt the terror adrenaline sweats that the controller must’ve felt when she realized the predicament. I’m a retired railroad train director. I know that feeling of “did I just screw up?” I doubt any conscientious person hasn’t had that feeling. I was very fortunate that at least I could say “train 755, bring your train to a safe stop.” “Tower to plane 757”, bring your plane to a safe stop.” just doesn’t work. I’ve watched a remote TRACOM( ?) display of New York airspace. And I thought Jay Interlocking was complicated.
One possibility is that the citation pilots asked for the clearance a second time, not necessarily to land but in order to remind the controller that there was a plane on the runway. Kinda of like, “hey are you sure you want us to land?”
When you gave the hypothetical of should be able to stop (at 8:50), it brought back memories of flight training. Just because you should be able to stop in a given distance does not mean you will be able to stop in that distance. Brakes fail, throttles stick, etc. Never, ever, ever, use a runway if there is another aircraft on it.
Kelsey, great to see this new post. You are such a treasure! Just don't understand why your company hasn't promoted you to Captain long ago, AND named your their Director of Education for the flying public. Thanks so much for all you do ~ you are the best!
Who knows? Maybe he doesn’t want to be a captain. I was reading an article where the majors are having a problem finding captains because FO with seniority have it great. They have a set schedule, they make damn near the same amount as a new captain and they don’t have the responsibilities that captains do. Plus, they don’t go down to the bottom of the seniority list for captains with unpredictable scheduling. Just a thought. *I’m not speaking for Kelsey. But it’s interesting.
When I was doing my flight training (2007 - 2009), I had a similar situation. I was holding short, and I there was a "simulated emergency" comming in. The tower cleared me onto to the runway, and told them (a simulated emergency flight) to go around! I followed ATC blindly and entered the runway. Today, I would have replied: "Negative, simulated emergency on short final">
Good call. Plus I've heard stories of simulated emergencies turning into real emergencies, especially if the carburetor ices up. If their engine was losing power they'd not notice as it's already at hard idle, no throttle changes for the pilots to notice it not responding to.
"possible tower deviation, be ready to copy a phone number" really, the biggest error was telling southwest to line up and wait. tower should have either cleared them for takeoff, or told them to stop short. - and with the citation coming in after, I would have leaned towards stop short, because of wake turbulence. (but I don't know the parameters involved, there, so I could be wrong.) as or the second request for clearance from the citation, it sounded more to me like a "are you really telling me I can land over another plane?" call, than an "I see a problem, and I want to land anyway" call. and of course, the biggest thing. now I want to hear about the deer on the runway.
@@kenbrown2808 There i was, on short final, at night, broke out of the clouds at minimums, when during my flare i saw 4 deer about 500 ft in front of me.
Thanks for explaining that detail about not being allowed to land on a runway when it is occupied (even in the case of a vey long runway with a plane getting ready to exit at the end).
I believe there are exceptions to this, such as the mass-arrival procedure at Oshkosh. But that's a very unusual procedure, strictly VFR, and with aircraft needing only a small fraction of the runway to land. As much as a madhouse as Oshkosh is I'm surprised there's not more accidents - there's always a few every year but surprisingly few considering how chaotic it is.
@@quillmaurer6563An elite team of "all star" controllers is assembled to operate the world's busiest ATC tower at Oshkosh every year. During the training class the day before the event begins, they ceremoniously burn a copy of the rule book. [JK] 😁
As a UK PPL holder with a few hundred hours, I'm very inexperienced. However it will never fail to astound me how US ATC will issue a landing clearance and then clear someone else to take-off / line up and wait etc. Landing clearance should protect the runway for the cleared aircraft, or issue a 'land after' clearance in limited circumstances
Honest question why would someone ever have a plane line up and wait when there's only 1 single runway? I'd imagine it'd be hold short of runway or just line up and you're cleared for take off.
This is common standard operating procedure at San Diego throughout the day. San Diego is the busiest single-runway airport in USA and second-busiest in the world (London-Gatwick). San Diego does line up and wait procedure to increase capacity. Without this procedure, San Diego could not handle its volume. Typically in a day, there might be one or two go arounds because the spacing got too tight. This situation was clearly because ATC got side-tracked by a non-priority task.
@@avjayk Thanks for that. As a Brit, all I was thinking was, "this wouldn't have happened at Gatwick." C'mon Kelsey, this being the second busiest single runway airport in the world would be useful to know. What the Citation pilot was really doing was asking "why isn't the SouthWest taking off?"
@@badgermoon9229 Seriously? Why put the plane on the runway to wait for a touchdown not happen yet instead of letting it take off before the landing plane actually arrives at the beginning of the same runway?
"confirm clear to land?" or similar is just a polite way to say "should I go around controller / you f'd up?" or he's being snarky and doesn't want to go around
Sounded to me like the CJ was trying to give the controller a subtle nudge to wake her up to the fact that she was indeed behind the power curve and had to get her priorities straight.
Oh let’s go!! I’ve been watching you for a few years now and this is I think, the first time you’ve talked about Lindbergh field! I’m only a minute in, but just living here knowing how bad it is with the mountains, I’m surprised you don’t have more stories here!
I was an Uber driver between retirement and Social Security. I picked up a pilot and we started discussing the parking garage, and how it grew an extra floor during construction. He said when he was flying learjets for the Coast Guard station San Diego, the garage wasn't a concern. When he went commercial, flying L1011s that garage got a lot taller. He said all he could do was set up the landing, and hope for the best. Read some San Diego history. " The mountains are tall, and the emperor is far away ". An interesting history, with more than a little corruption.
I'm an SEL pilot, and I interpret that call "confirming I am still cleared to land" as a polite suggestion to the controller I see a problem. If she had replied "yes" then I would have stated there was an airliner on the threshold. I'm assuming they were still a ways back and not on short final - otherwise, I would have simply declared a go around. No way would I have considered landing.
My only question; why did SWA have to vacate the runway if the citation was on a GA? Why not clear them for takeoff after the citation flew the missed approach??
Great content. You usually show what happens when pilots mess up eg: call this number …. What about the ATC operators? Who do they have to call?? 25 yr WN Ground Ops retired. Thanks for the channel.
There is a "possible pilot deviation" equivalent for a controller. When the pilot says "Mark the tape" or "Pull the tape" that usually means the controller is about to find out.
GOST BUSTERS! (There is something stange going on in the neighborhood). ...but my guess is that a more real answer would be that they file an incidence report, and perhaps contact the airlines to get in contact with the pilots in order to figure out what really went on.
Wow.... this must have been the biggest (safety affecting without casualties) fuck up by a controller I have seen so far.... Clearing two airplanes to land on the same runway while both are still in the air is bad enough, but lining up another on that runway for departure is really sth else. All the pilots involved in this scenario were very gentle on the radio, but I'd bet at least 2 crews were cursing when the transmitter was off.
Aw Kelsey :( Lots of feedback today, mostly about the Citation pilot's rhetorical radio call, but I have another correction for you. If another airplane is at the far end of a 14,000 foot runway, it's not an automatic go-around. The ATC Procedures Manual has rules for "Same Runway Separation" where they can give landing clearances for occupied runways. Single engine airplanes require 3000 feet separation, twin engine requires 4500 feet, and anything over 12,500 lbs needs 6000 feet. These are minimums and the controller must still exercise judgement to only give safe clearances. Ask a controller sometime how many Cessna 172's can legally occupy a 14,000 foot runway? The answer is 6, although that would never happen. However at Oshkosh the controllers are constantly landing 3 airplanes at a time on an 8000 foot runway.
Aviation safety too often relies upon the situational awareness of some aviation professionals to make up for the lack of situational awareness of others. I hope these close calls provide an adequate wake up call to the industry. Reducing redundancy reduces safety margins--and that applies to the personnel in aviation, not just the technology. Hire the people. Train the people. Offer to pay the people what they're worth, they'll line up around the block to apply for those ATC jobs.
Citations can be flown single pilot if it's non-commercial operations (IE the aircraft owner flying it). I am actually subscribed to a RUclips channel that is exactly this - a rich guy flying his citation around the country. I could easily see a general aviation pilot making this radio call, especially if they are unfamiliar with the airport. "There's no way the tower just - forgot - about that southwest plane sitting there, but they cleared me - so do they actually expect me to land over it? Or did they really make a big mistake? Maybe they have special rules here...". When in doubt, call the tower.
Kelsey
As a retired controller, and also someone who is intimately aware of KSAN airport I wanted to add some insight.
First of all I will agree that the controller messed up on her priority of duties, and that was the primary cause here. Here are some mitigating issues particular to SD.
There is a very large 6 story parking garage just over 700 ft from the arrival end of the runway, it sits about half way up a hill from the runway and is a primary reason for the displace threshold. Prior to its construction the available landing length was about 500ft longer. The biggest issue is the garage blocks the view of runway end for some distance. If this occurred in the afternoon or evening the sun would be right down the runway making it even harder to see someone taxiing into position. It is likely possible that while entering the runway a pilot might not see someone on a 5 mile final as well for similar reasons. The lower to the ground either pilot sits the harder it is to see.
I can see a scenario where the landing aircraft doesn’t see the departing one until inside of a mile. And as you will admit, the initial reaction by the pilot might be “did we miss something” prompting the question.
The question by SWA about the reason probably had more to do with his thinking “okay you messed that one up, he’s going to be out of the way, why can’t I go.
For those of you who write the comments about “here’s a number for you to copy”. I assure you this controller will be getting the ATC equivalent of that call.
Who put 10 pence in you. Pipe down son nobody cares about your story
It’s simply insane that the office building was allowed to be built in the first place. How the hell did this happen? Sounds like some serious corruption was involved.
Thanks for adding that valuable context. Kelsey should have looked into this, not just post an "I dunno what happened here" video. Makes more sense now.
The garage don't block the view of the runway from the control tower since it is behind the runway from the controllers point of view.
@@richardcoughlin8931 yeah pretty much. It was a city councilman who pushed the parking garage through for campaign contributions. The FAA has no input on these issues. The only response they could give would be to displace the threshold even more or remove all instrument approaches to that runway.
I was a bit surprised by this clip. I think the Citation crew knew full well they couldn't land. They were maybe trying to get the ATC to acknowledge their error without coming across as obnoxious. If ATC had have replied "you are still cleared to land" I believe the Citations crew would have just gone around anyway
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. It didn't really give a "hey, we're still cleared to land? Cool, lets send it" type of vibe. It defintely felt like they were getting ready for a go-around and just wanted the controller to observe and action the mistake, before taking matters into their own hands. Hypothetically another thing to consider is that with such a long extended threshold, and if the Citation crew were unfamiliar, its very possible that they were thinking maybe some provision at that particular port permitted an aircraft to land with an aircraft lined up that far back down the threshold - although if that were the case it should be in the arrival briefing and the crew should have known beforehand.
I think the Citations pilot was making a point as well, lol Like, if you in the tower and just turned around to look at them, they were probably having heart attack.
As a dyslexic pilot I think he did the right thing he drew attention to it and if he had to use that wording phrasing or hinting, it worked that's all it's important. We certainly can come across as literal and that can be exciting in aviation but we do have an excellent sense of self-preservation. Single engine land 30 years, 2700 hours, 500 of which is upside down.
That is my opinion too, it is my belief Citation were doing a soft challenge knowing they had an out of the go around, as you say they were looking for an acknowledgement of error without being obnoxious. Same with Southwest when they said "reasoning".
100% agree. The title of this video is misleading as the CJ4 pilot didn't ask to break a rule.
Is it possible that the "verify clear to land" call was intended as a polite way of telling the controller they messed up and that they had no intention to land even if the answer was yes?
And a polite way of telling the ATC to "Look out your damn window!" If it's a clear day, the controller should be able to see the plane sitting at the end of the runway.
Yea 100%. That’s how it works typically lol.
I thought the same thing.
To me it's obvious that the Citation pilot was simply prompting the controller, in a polite way, to deal with the situation.
I'm going to add something to this, the citation pilot was probably perfecting the record because all of the traffic control audio is recorded. I bet he had no intention of landing he just wanted the controller to tell him to go around so he could say to the controller "possible controller deviation, let me know when you're ready to copy a number". When asked about the reason for the go around, the pilot can say I was told to by the controller because they put us in a situation that shouldn't have happened. In that way maybe the controller will get more training on prioritizing.
"It's like you took a pimp suit and wrapped an airplane in it," is perhaps the most S-tier description of our livery I've ever heard. Thank you, Kelsey, for making my day.
Yeah the Citation was taking the tactful route…. He was saying that he knew the SWA was still on the runway and asking what she wanted to do about it. They most likely weren’t planning on landing. The bigger story is the controller forgetting that she had the SWA in position and starting doing other less essential things.
And SW sitting there NOT saying anything.
That may be true only the citation pilot knows for sure but if he knew he wasn’t going to land he should’ve simply announced “going missed” or “traffic on runway going around”, this would’ve saved valuable time, would have “politely” (if that was a concern) told controller she screwed up and had everyone aware of the problem and plan earlier, time delay here was unnecessary and could be critical. If your going around announce it asap don’t ask “are we still cleared to land” , makes no sense.
@@marlinweekley51 I'm not an aviation expert, but it sounds like you're working hard to find fault with the Citation pilot, when all the blame lies with the ATC. The pilot was given clearance to land, he later gave the ATC a second chance to realize her error, and you're griping about what the _pilot_ should've done???
@@marlinweekley51 there was a blocked transmission there 3:50
@@iclicklike3397it sounded like the amended clearance she was giving to that #4 aircraft. The citation was trying to squeeze in.
Perhaps this is just my desire to think the best of people, but I interpret the Citation's "Please confirm" call as a subtle way of saying "Uhhh - lady, there's a problem here, WTF?" Which if true, worked. We will obviously never know but I choose to believe that if the tower had said "go ahead and land" the Citation would have called the go-around on their own.
Don't underestimate the "evidence gathering": this all goes on "the tape". That pilot may have already known what was going to happen and was making sure that *who* messed up was clearly identified for when the FAA goes around and has a chat to everybody involved.
@@michaelhoffmann2891 Ah, yes, the all important CYA memo. As a former government employee, I should have thought of that.
@@davydatwood3158 Precisely! Always remember: the person who remains calm when all else are panicking is the one who knows whom to blame! 😈
It is to be hoped for. Planes have landed on planes following an ATC command to, "Position and hold." I witnessed a female ATC instruct a 172S to take off at the same time as she cleared a GV-5 to land.
The GV-5 PIC told her, "You just cleared a 172 to take off and me to land at the same time. You need to get your act together."
She responded, " GV-5, go around."
,
GV-5, "Your screwup is going to cost me $300.00 in fuel.
ATC, "I can give you a number to call if you want to file a complaint."
GV-5, "Never mind, going around."
ATC screws up enough to have caused incidents. Both pilots need to be alert for and compensate for that.
Maybe "Confirming clearance to land" was just nicer than, "Hey dingbats! There's a big ole jet on my landing strip!"
Kelsey,
I can see the Citation pilot asking to verify they are still cleared to land. I think it was a non-invasive way to point out to the controller there was a plane on the runway. Had the controller reaffirmed the landing clearance, the Citation pilot could have come back with, “You have an airplane sitting on the runway. We’re going missed.”
The Citation pilot’s request could be similar to when you are flying off your assigned heading and the controller says, “Kelsey74, verify you’re flying heading 340.” You turn to 340 because you were on a 360 heading and tell the controller you’re sorry and on 340 now. Just my two cents.
I am a retired FAA controller. A single runway and crossing runways operations increase the opportunities for errors. The safest runway operations are parallel runways for just arrivals and just departures.
London has many runways. 2 (parallel) at Heathrow, 1 at Gatwick (ok, physically 2, but only 1 is ever in use at a time), 1 at Luton, 1 at Stansted, 1 at City.
i.e. other than Heathrow, they're all single runway airports. Personally I'd be more concerned about operating an airport with runways going in different directions!
Is the Citation pilot really intending to land or, seeing the Southwest, just asking about the clearance as a passive way to get the tower to notice something isn't right?
The Citation never had any intention of landing. He was in go around mode before he even keyed the mike.
Definitely.
Instead of saying "OK, you told Southwest to line up and then left him there, I'm going around, you stupid bitch", he chose to gently prod the tower person to realize what's going on and resolve it sort of gracefully on her own. He even asked her to spell it out.
They will have to land there in a moment again, dealing with the same person, so proably wanted to play it gently and not make an instant enemy of her.
This is what it looks like to me.
@@68MalKontent Right, though he could have said something like "Going around, traffic on the runway."
@@68MalKontent Well that was 2 different extremes. You made your first comment very toxic to inflate your 2nd option to make yourself seem smarter then you actually are lol. if you're going to make an example, at least make it realistic - like why would he call her a b*itch? or flip out on her lol. That's a good way to get a write up and risk losing your license regardless of the situation that is unprofessional- using your example you just said it was acceptable to completely flip out and dehumanize someone for making a mistake. think before you comment lol. he could have just said "traffic on runway, are you sure? what's going on with the traffic. Would have did the same thing and called them out for making a mistake that could have ended badly
No, they were giving the controller a reminder.
Well that was interesting. That Controller needs a phone number to call. LOL Glad no one got hurt.
If I remember correctly, the Air Canada flight that nearly landed on the taxiway with several airliners on it also asked several times to verify cleared to land, because he was seeing something and wasn't sure. Then someone spoke up, Air Canada went around and didn't create one of the largest disasters in aviation history.
Basically, asking the tower to verify you're cleared to land is saying, "something smells fishy around here, please verify it's clear on your end".
9:40 I don't believe the Cessna was "asking for clearance." I believe he was alerting the controller to the fact that she seemed to have forgotten ... That she had an airliner already sitting on his runway.
Every morning when I'm driving to work and pass by the airport, I'm going to see those Southwest planes and think "pimp suit," and snicker to myself. 😂
Southwest flies over my house a lot, and same.
@@amykathleen2 One of Atlanta departures flies over my house; I see plane, plane, Southwest, plane...
@@TonyP9279 Chicago Midway arrival for me, so it’s more like Southwest, Southwest, plane, Southwest… or now, pimp suit, pimp suit, plane, pimp suit.
I feel like the citation pilot asking if there were still cleared to land was a way of calling the controller an idiot, like 'you cleared me to land and then put someone on the runway in front of me?'
is that a normal thing to do in america, clearing someone to land then letting someone line up in front? Im from the UK and that seems quite a weird and dangerous thing to do
@@samiturk5975 I don't know, but SFO is famous for doing it and having multiple go-arounds as a result. I don't think it's supposed to happen, but controllers aren't held to the same standard as pilots.
"Tower, Citation, When you are ready we have a number for you when you are ready to copy..." - little jet probably
Kelsey throwing shade at SWA "looks like a 73 in a pimp suit" LMAO!
Kelsey: I’m a retired military controller who’s worked both single runway and multiple runway operations. I found the single runway operation to be harder. But I was taught to NEVER give a landing clearance when I had an aircraft in position and hold. I was taught to tell the inbound aircraft to “continue” until I sorted out the aircraft on the runway.
I get the impression that controllers for whatever reason are being pushed to experiment with such sequencing in order to see how close they can get aircraft (in sequence it is thought, but also to disaster in reality), rather like the entire populace has been and is being used in great big 'vaccination' experimentation.
USA does the weird Clearing to land on occupied runways as "anticipating it will be clear". I believe nowhere else on earth do it.
That's how the rest of the world still handles landing clearances. In the U.S., the FAA decided that landing clearances can be given on the assumption that it will work out.
That's always been the rule in Canada. "You're number one, traffic on threshold."
It's allowed with certain safety equipment, otherwise you can't LUAW with somebody cleared to land (or the option generally), and you can't clear to land with somebody LUAW. You CAN send somebody directly, like "Traffic 5 mile final is a Citation, runway 27, cleared for takeoff" is legal all day long.
Regarding that citation requesting confirmation. Clearly, the controller forgot about them. If they are going to go around, it's not a bad idea to let the controllers know that they are about to be low and over the runway and not clear Southwest for takeoff at the same time.
As someone that fully trained over 25 years ago as a Canadian ATC but never did it live, I've been confused if something has changed. An airplane only got clearance to land if they now "owned" the runway. Multiple planes would never got clearance to land, and no plane would be told to enter the runway after someone had clearance to land. The same applied to takeoff clearance. Basically, only one plane could have takeoff/landing clearance for a runway. Other aircraft would be told "expect clearance".
I even experienced this when we were taken up in TC100, the Transport Canada plane that was (is?) used to calibrate all landing systems in Canada. Back then a Twin Otter was used, and YVR's northern parallel runway 08/26 had yet to be built. After a tour of the area, when we returned to YVR we were told there'd be a 20 minute hold until we could land. The controller, though, quickly recognized the abilities of the plane and the skills of the pilots and came back to ask if we could land on runway 31 and hold short of the main runway. When our pilot said we could, we were cleared to land and the plane on final for runway 26 (now 26L) and were told of the traffic to our right which was heavy a few miles out. The heavy was given the winds, told of of us as traffic, and was told to expect clearance. When we landed and came to stop in under 1000', our pilot quickly radioed that we were stopped. Only then was the heavy that was about to land cleared for the landing. As we started a 180 turn on the runway to taxi back the opposite way, the slowing heavy roared past us.
I know it's possible that Canada does things a bit different, but since most things are the same world wide I'm curious if this is just a difference or is instead something that has changed since then.
What u describe is the standard all over the world. Except the US.
I so love ready your post Kelsey, as my Father bought himself a small piper in his later years, as he had been in the military as a pilot .... He would tell me all these stories and my old DOD Boss was a retired Marine Col., Korean War Pilot, even wounded and my last DOD job was at an airbase working for the Army. I retired here in Australia as a teacher and met many US ex-servicemen who like me were recruited to work for different companies like Qantas, and Hawker de Havilland Aerospace and after Ronnie Reagan broke the controller's union, several got jobs here (including free health care and Medicine Price Caps). The US VA told me last month that there are still over 30,000 Veterans working here, plus over 300,000 American citizens living here. Your post bring back some good times I had... thanks so much.
Sounds to me like the Citation pilot was incredulous upon seeing the SWA jet, and he was trying to ask "are you serious?", but in a more professional manner.
IMO, it doesn't sound like he was determined to follow through with a landing.
Kelsey, your style and production quality are really ramping up! Just wanted to let you know it is noticed and appreciated. Thanks for all you do!
He has been this good for years nothing has changed. Stop licking arse looking for likes
*Ramping* buhdumhiss 🥁
Kelsey is the best huh? He gets us all thinking on our own. That is so important. Dan Gryder, if you have watched any of his videos, pointed out the possible need for a seperate clearance delivery controller. Generally SAN isn't that busy, but can be.
Clearly that confirmation of clearance was three pilots way of redirecting the controller to the issue that was building.
That type of query occurred well beyond where one of the two crews should have used plain, clear language to sort this out. "Position and hold" and "Lineup and wait" should trigger an internal mental clock in every crew's minds, whether they are approaching to land or especially if they're in position.
I was an air traffic controller and the citation’s inquiry was more of a polite reminder to the controller. This was a total screw up on the controller’s part. You once mentioned that an agency examiner would not compromise safety in any way shape or form to meet hiring expectations, it is unfortunate that the same is not practiced by the government. Individual capability must be the sole reason to certify or not certify.
My bet is they double checked the landing clearance to focus the controller's attention on the dangerous situation she set up. I suspect if landing clearance had been restated, they would have immediately announced a go around.
Lindburg also has a big hill on approach you have to skim over. The citation might not see the departing plane as clearly as at other airports. Just speculating. He also tried earlier to verify but was stepped on.
Many years ago, I went to Las Vegas to work trade shows in the days when I was in the tech industry. One flight in, the pilot did two go-arounds. After the first one, he told us ATC had a plane just about to take off as we were very close to landing. We climbed back up into the pattern, came in a second time, and ATC did the same thing again. Third time, there was nobody on the runway. The pilot explained that while the planes on the runway were starting to roll, if they had to abort takeoff for any reason, our plane would be at risk of hitting them. On the way off the plane, most everyone stopped to thank the pilot for erring on the side of caution. As it happens, we were about 30 minutes early when first approaching, and ultimately landed at the time we were supposed to arrive.
Getting a landing clearance while the runway is still occupied or you are cleared to land as number 2, 3, 4… is something I only know from the US. In Europe and all other countries I’ve been flown you generally won‘t get a landing clearance when the runway was not clear of other traffic (PANS ATM 7.10.1, 7.10.2). The only deviation to this would be „reduced runway separation minima“ which would in this case have required - amongst other prerequisites - that the SWA was already airborne and has passed a point of at least 2400m from the landing threshold (PANS ATM 7.11.7)
This is some really unbelievable decision making.
almost as bad as Kelsey choosing a title for this video.
However, the metar at the time of the incident indicated there were broken clouds at 1,100 ft. They probably could not see the Southwest but were listenting to the radio and being that they didnt hear Southwest being given a takeoff clearance, would explain why they would confirm with tower whether they are cleared to land and not the case of them looking at Southwest and confirming landing clearance.
Controller erred 4 times causing two go-arounds. Everyone else did their job. The Citation was going around before he even keyed the mike.
Is this the Bingo Phrase?
When Kelsey says this, we take a shot... We will be wasted by the end of the video 😂
Can i sleep now 21 hour
A plane wrapped in a pimp suit 😂😂😂😂😂. Another great video with a sprinkle of fun. Thanks
"It's like you took a pimp suit and wrapped an airplane in it!" This will stick with me for quite a while!
I flew in and out of Lindbergh for decades while living there (that name is retired, it is now San Diego International Airport). The nasty steep approach that must be taken is always a consideration to many and it is very noticeable with the passengers. They get a lot of traffic for a one runway facility. It is no excuse for how ATC handled this, but I cannot imagine how they handle the traffic with just the one runway.
Yeah, that line nearly had me spitting out my tea...lol!!
I wonder what his opinion is on the Spirit livery... @@gailpeterson3747
@@gailpeterson3747 Ditto! I will never look at a Southwest plane again without hearing that line!!
Thanks, Kelcey!
The FAA's asleep at the switch, I think. They're trying to cram too much crap into that 5 pound bag that is San Diego International Airport. It's like they're begging for a good wreck there.
I know pilots and controllers strive to be on their game... but that being said...
The safety margins are just too thin for my liking.
The approach is sketchy, with a huge life safety penalty if something goes awry, and you've got an airport that's trying to do handle more traffic than they comfortably can. NO THANKS.
I'd just book my flight into John Wayne/Orange County and drive the rest of the way, if I had business in San Diego.
Other than Nepal, one of the most famous 'approaches' was Hong Kong's Kai Tak, buildings galore and a Dogleg, and with a 747, a 'treat' to watch. San Diego also gives you a free airborne tour of the Aviation Museum on approach, a real birds eye view of the exhibits, drone style :-)
This last week i flew from TUL to ORD to MIA then MIA to IAH to TUL and spent all my time at the airports using what you explain to analyze what was going on around me. Thank you for making it so much easier to understand the goings on at airports. It really helps with my flight anxiety.
I miss your intros..."I'm a 747 pilot, this channel 74 Gear is all about aviation...lets get into it..."
I'm thinking that when Southwest asked for the reason for them clearing the runway is that they wanted to see if ATC would take blame for forgetting about them. They knew the reason.
I’d certainly ask why she didn’t just launch us. Holding us on the runway then requesting taxi clear?
Once the Citation was sent around and turned out of the departure path, SWA naturally expected to be cleared for takeoff. They questioned the "taxi off the runway" instruction because they didn't realize how close the next arrival was.
pimp suit and wrapped a plane in it !!!!!!!! priceless
not sure why it's confusing that the citation asked for clarification if they were cleared to land. by that point they obviously saw the incoming incident and decided not to land, but if they got that close without clearance they'd be at fault. so to cover their ass, they double checked that they were cleared to land. the controller messed up by clearing them and creating this situation, and the audio is a record of what happened. The pilots know this and were confirming that they were cleared into an unsafe situation, rather than double checking they were cleared in order to land.
Im a retired space shuttle controller. I wanted to add something I think you glossed over. As PIC you have the authority to break any rule you deem necessary to ensure the safety of your mission.
I think the "reasoning?" call from the Southwest pilot at the end was much more an indication that he was pissed at the ATC messing up. And her tone of voice after his question indicated she also realised the same thing. Also I think the landing plane was seeking confirmation of clearance to land because he was deciding whether or not to do a go around, and probably would have done so had she not suddenly realised the situation and told him to.
I dont think 4HV would have landed, even if they got cleard for landing a 2nd time.
It sound like a reminder to ATC that they might have done a mistake without calling them out for it.
I think you are right ! That is what I usually do .....instead of schooling the controller.
If I had been the Southwest Pilot or the Citation Pilot..."Tower do you have paper and pen? Good...I have a number for you to write down." Wow! Absolutely crazy! Have a great week everyone!
I get that you're being a bit tongue in cheek, but in this case i would note the time this happened and call the tower after landing, ask to speak to the supervisor, and make sure they were aware of the incident.
😂😂
@@toddsmith8608 agreed for sure!
"Possible controller deviation, we have a number for you to call, advise when ready to copy"
Citation’s confirmation call was not asking to land over the 737, it was a call to the controller asking him to sort this mess out. Same thing happened to me once. On final a 727 was cleared onto the runway in front of me. I ask for confirmation to land, quicker than “hey, do you know there’s a plane in my flight path, what’s going on?” And smarter than an automatic go around. Controller asked me to side step to the parallel and I landed no muss no fuss.
I know I'm not an ATC in the real world but I'm a virtual ATC in the UK. The one thing I was taught is to prioritise. When I'm on a tower, the main thing is to ensure the runway is used safely and efficiently.
If clear an aircraft to land on a 5 mile final, there's no way I'd line up an aircraft on the runway. In this scenario, if I wanted to get the south west out ahead of the cessna, I'd tell them to continue approach and check the South West is ready for departure. If they are, I'd clear the south West for immediate take off. As soon as the wheels are off the ground, I'd clear the cessna to land.
If the South West wasn't ready, I'd ask them to report when ready for departure and clear the Cessna to land. I cannot understand why the controller speaks to a pilot number 4 for take off.
From listening to ATC it seems US and UK/European control is different.
That back and forth "confirm ready for departure" "confirmed" "clear for takeoff" could be shortened to just "cleared for *immediate* takeoff". Either they accept it and go, or they reply "unable" and wait
I was at a controlled airport in Indiana and witnessed 2 planes play "Hopscotch". Plane 1 landed over lined up & waiting plane 2, then plane 2 took off & climbed over landed plane 1 prior to them exiting runway and entering taxiway. It took me a second before I thought wait, WHAT? Glad I was 3rd to depart.... Bad day for the controller, luckily good day for planes 1 & 2......
Yikes! That's day 1 of training at the Academy. Don't play hopscotch with airplanes.
Wow. Which Indiana airport?
Traffic Control messed up... can't understand how they didn't see SW's colorful plane.
I guess they're human too!
😮🤔🤣
Glad no one was hurt.
george
😎🤿🦈🐙🇺🇲
TEXAS
Kelsey! Stop it! You made coffee come out my nose holes when you described the Southwest livery as a pimp suit wrapped around an airplane. 🤠😎
I think you are a bit mean right now, mate.
To me, the pilot asked the questions as a hidden warning to the flight controller (Hey, You have dropped the ball a bit, it's a plane on the runway - I giving you the opportunity to change our clearance so that it doesn't look like I pointed out your flaws.) Do you copy?!
Personally, I think the Citation pilot was trying to give the controller a heads up that she made a boo boo. Which she quickly realized.
And the controller? New on the job? Who knows.
6:40 saying _cleared_ to land while nothing is cleared makes no sense either. I hate this about American atc. 4 arrivals an 3 departures ahead of you but you are _cleared_ to land.
To put it in other words: while in europe you are are mentally expecting to go around unless you hear "cleared to land" in America you are expecting to land.
Why not issue a cleared for take-off to number 4, while there's an additional 3 arrivals ahead. Just because they are cleared for take-off doesn't mean they'll actually be able to. It makes no sense!
Hi Kelsey, I’m SP typed in the CE525. The CJ4 is a single-pilot certified jet. I would say about half are operated that way and half with a crew.
which seems something that's regularly a point of contention in the wider community...
every close call with a CJ4 it seems people are wondering whether it's too much of a handful (especially in IFR conditions, but ones like here as well)
Production team must've gotten confused though but N564VH is a 560XL, still even as single pilot you'd think he would've gone around sooner.
@@Mr_Plop1 the 560xl is definitely a crew airplane.
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 there is nothing about the CJ4 that makes it any harder than the other 525s to fly SP, certainly not significantly harder than the CJ2 or CJ3.
If you see a plane on the runway go around! I don't need permission to land with a plane sitting on the runway as I'm going around period. To me it sounds like the citation was giving a hit to the controller. Southwest did nothing wrong, but the radio discussion did get heated after the incident.
Sometimes landing traffic for Chicago Midway flies over my house. I mentally refer to this as the Parade of Planes, but, since it’s predominantly Southwest planes, it shall henceforth be known as the Parade of Pimps.
Kelsey,
Yeah, like a lot of people, I think that was the Citation's polite way of saying WTF tower?
If I’m on the southwest jet sitting on the runway.. if my pilots felt something unsafe I’d want them to be bossy as you say and get us clear of the situation.
Love your content, Kelsey. I’ve been in a situation where ATC has lined me up on a runway with inbound traffic and just sat us there. Like the Southwest pilots, I chimed in. Thankfully that controller realized what they did and got us moving.
When the private jet asked are we cleared to land that second time I think they where doing something similar to how computers will ask a second time if you want to delete something. Because of the double check I wonder if the private jet saw the Southwest jet and had some doubts about the situation.
"It's like you took a pimp suit and wrapped an airplane in it." LMAO
It's something my flight instructor taught me about the difference in flying in Canada vs. the US. In Canada, if the pattern is particularly busy, you might not get clearance to land until you're basically "inside the fence" (fine for VFR traffic) because the controllers only authorize one clearance at a time - cleared to take off, cleared to land, etc. In the US, you can get clearances way back and they'd send several aircraft to take off in the meantime. Just like here you had two aircraft on final both cleared to land, then you send the Southwest to wait on the runway (most pilots would generally expect a expedited takeoff). I can't really fault the Citation for asking - it's less a "we intend to land - can we still land" and more of a "Did you forget about us?" message. After all, once cleared, there is no need for further communications until you touch down. So I see it more as a "Hey' we're stillhere, is our clearance still valid because the runway doesn't look ready"
"It's like you took a pimp suit and wrapped a plane in it."
Best description of Southwest's livery on the internet.
Very clear explanation without which I would be very confused just listening to all the speed talking. Thank you.
It's easier when a controller has more than one runway. Especially, if they don't cross...we have more options...It looks like the controller forgot about Southwest. I guarantee she got distracted by something, and wasn't scanning the environment, and forgot about Southwest. She wasn't looking! The Citation was just prompting her in hopes she would realize what was happening. I don't believe he expected to land. We always have air carriers ask us if they're cleared to land after we clear them to land because we clear them 20 miles out, as soon as they call us. She might have been overwhelmed. She was obviously working tower, ground and flight data combined. Scanning the airfield/sky/radar is the number one means to prevent forgetting about aircraft. That's why it's so important and emphasized by the FAA. Your memory will fail you. Once Delta cleared the runway, she should have launched SWA. She wasn't scanning...
This scenario is similar to what happened to USAir 1493 at LAX in 1991 when the controller forgot that an aircraft was on the runway and cleared a Skywest Metroliner to land resulting in numerous fatalities when the commuter collided with the 737-300 awaiting takeoff.
That controller was promoted to a management position where she could do less harm to the flying public, thus reinforcing the FAA's reputation as the "f*** up, move up' agency.
As a Student Piot my instructor had me land and take off at KDFW twice for some advance training. It was a blast because i was flying a Diamond DA40 so I had a lot of things to prioritize. I got my license later in life and wish I had done it earlier and made a career out of it. Flying is so much fun and your office has the best views!
My son in law was an air traffic controller during operation desert storm. One day during the battle he called me from the jon to confess he had goofed up by assigning a fast mover (I don’t recall maybe an F-15] on a runway that was occupied by a helicopter. The F 15 was 20 miles out when he assigned the runway telling the pilot to let him know when he was 2 miles out. This completely forgetting the F-15 would cover that distance in about 40 seconds. Fortunately he had the plane go around before anything bad happened.
I was there, at the time I thought we were the good guys, sadly I now realise we were not
I'll take things that didn't happen for $500
After watching your videos for a while now, my take is that the Citation was being polite by saying essentially "Are you *sure* we have a clearance to land?" (Did we hear you correctly before, because there's a plane sitting on our runway we expect to be clear now.) I don't think he was asking for clearance again as if he was going to land, but maybe he would have attempted the landing.
I always worry about things like this because the Daniel Oduber Quiros Airport in Liberia Costa Rica, place I fly in and out of, only has one runway and when things go haywire they so seriously haywire. Developed a sinkhole on the runway four or five years ago and it thew the place into chaos for several weeks.
We really shouldn't be doing LUAWs with less than 3 minute separations, and LUAW land overs should be illegal. If tower asks me to take the runway with that much separation it better be a cleared for takeoff, because there's very little reason to save 30 seconds by putting my back to a 70,000 pound tin can travelling 130+ knots
Good insight into this potentially serious incident like you do always.
😊😊😊 Just found your station is terrific thank you
I fly a lot for work on the commercial airlines. I love seeing your content to get an idea of what's going on around me while I'm in that steel tube. 😊 While these kinds of videos are concerning, I have no worries about flying these days. Love hearing all the checks and balances that a lot of good people do when it comes getting everyone where they're going safely! 👍
I wish I was as confident in the safety of these operations. I’m not. Every person in the process needs to be paying attention or else the ending won’t be good. I don’t want to be one of the people sitting on that runway unaware that I’m a sitting duck.
In the UK you would never get landing clearance if there was an aircraft on the runway. They would say “one to depart expect late clearance” or something similar. Likewise the southwestern should have been asked if they were ready for immediate departure which would let the pilots know to not delay takeoff when they line up.
It’s mind blowing that she cleared 2 aircraft to land one behind the other. If that’s standard American practice that’s scary!
I definitely felt the terror adrenaline sweats that the controller must’ve felt when she realized the predicament. I’m a retired railroad train director. I know that feeling of “did I just screw up?” I doubt any conscientious person hasn’t had that feeling. I was very fortunate that at least I could say “train 755, bring your train to a safe stop.” “Tower to plane 757”, bring your plane to a safe stop.” just doesn’t work.
I’ve watched a remote TRACOM( ?) display of New York airspace. And I thought Jay Interlocking was complicated.
That controller should have gotten a suspension for that.
One possibility is that the citation pilots asked for the clearance a second time, not necessarily to land but in order to remind the controller that there was a plane on the runway. Kinda of like, “hey are you sure you want us to land?”
When you gave the hypothetical of should be able to stop (at 8:50), it brought back memories of flight training. Just because you should be able to stop in a given distance does not mean you will be able to stop in that distance. Brakes fail, throttles stick, etc. Never, ever, ever, use a runway if there is another aircraft on it.
Kelsey, great to see this new post. You are such a treasure!
Just don't understand why your company hasn't promoted you to Captain long ago, AND named your their Director of Education for the flying public.
Thanks so much for all you do ~ you are the best!
Promotion for him will be next year. Four big ones baby!
Who knows? Maybe he doesn’t want to be a captain. I was reading an article where the majors are having a problem finding captains because FO with seniority have it great. They have a set schedule, they make damn near the same amount as a new captain and they don’t have the responsibilities that captains do. Plus, they don’t go down to the bottom of the seniority list for captains with unpredictable scheduling. Just a thought. *I’m not speaking for Kelsey. But it’s interesting.
he’s a captain now :)
@@v4603 yes, isn't it wonderful?
Happy New Year!
I honestly suspect that the Citation was already planning a go around but wanted atc to realize what they were doing and correct it.
I'll agree with that!
When I was doing my flight training (2007 - 2009), I had a similar situation. I was holding short, and I there was a "simulated emergency" comming in. The tower cleared me onto to the runway, and told them (a simulated emergency flight) to go around! I followed ATC blindly and entered the runway. Today, I would have replied: "Negative, simulated emergency on short final">
Good call. Plus I've heard stories of simulated emergencies turning into real emergencies, especially if the carburetor ices up. If their engine was losing power they'd not notice as it's already at hard idle, no throttle changes for the pilots to notice it not responding to.
I live in San Diego county, i was hoping you would cover this one. Thank you!
"possible tower deviation, be ready to copy a phone number"
really, the biggest error was telling southwest to line up and wait. tower should have either cleared them for takeoff, or told them to stop short. - and with the citation coming in after, I would have leaned towards stop short, because of wake turbulence. (but I don't know the parameters involved, there, so I could be wrong.)
as or the second request for clearance from the citation, it sounded more to me like a "are you really telling me I can land over another plane?" call, than an "I see a problem, and I want to land anyway" call.
and of course, the biggest thing. now I want to hear about the deer on the runway.
Wildlife on the runway isnt all that uncommon, esp at smaller airports.
@@toddsmith8608 of course, but it sure sounds like there was a story, there.
@@kenbrown2808 There i was, on short final, at night, broke out of the clouds at minimums, when during my flare i saw 4 deer about 500 ft in front of me.
Thanks for explaining that detail about not being allowed to land on a runway when it is occupied (even in the case of a vey long runway with a plane getting ready to exit at the end).
I believe there are exceptions to this, such as the mass-arrival procedure at Oshkosh. But that's a very unusual procedure, strictly VFR, and with aircraft needing only a small fraction of the runway to land. As much as a madhouse as Oshkosh is I'm surprised there's not more accidents - there's always a few every year but surprisingly few considering how chaotic it is.
@@quillmaurer6563An elite team of "all star" controllers is assembled to operate the world's busiest ATC tower at Oshkosh every year. During the training class the day before the event begins, they ceremoniously burn a copy of the rule book. [JK] 😁
As a UK PPL holder with a few hundred hours, I'm very inexperienced. However it will never fail to astound me how US ATC will issue a landing clearance and then clear someone else to take-off / line up and wait etc. Landing clearance should protect the runway for the cleared aircraft, or issue a 'land after' clearance in limited circumstances
The pilots asking for confirmation on the landing clearance, i think it was their way of politely letting tower know she f-ed up.
This is why I absolutely hate when tower controllers clear people to land on a runway that isn't clean.
Honest question why would someone ever have a plane line up and wait when there's only 1 single runway? I'd imagine it'd be hold short of runway or just line up and you're cleared for take off.
I'm not a pilot and can only guess, but maybe it would be to wait for wake turbulence to dissipate? Or maybe for a landed plane to exit the runway?
This is common standard operating procedure at San Diego throughout the day. San Diego is the busiest single-runway airport in USA and second-busiest in the world (London-Gatwick). San Diego does line up and wait procedure to increase capacity. Without this procedure, San Diego could not handle its volume. Typically in a day, there might be one or two go arounds because the spacing got too tight. This situation was clearly because ATC got side-tracked by a non-priority task.
@@avjayk Thanks for that. As a Brit, all I was thinking was, "this wouldn't have happened at Gatwick."
C'mon Kelsey, this being the second busiest single runway airport in the world would be useful to know.
What the Citation pilot was really doing was asking "why isn't the SouthWest taking off?"
@@badgermoon9229 Seriously? Why put the plane on the runway to wait for a touchdown not happen yet instead of letting it take off before the landing plane actually arrives at the beginning of the same runway?
@@sonickunckleThe “line up and wait” plane is normally cleared for takeoff before the landing plane lands.
"confirm clear to land?" or similar is just a polite way to say "should I go around controller / you f'd up?"
or he's being snarky and doesn't want to go around
The controller was at fault.
Sounded to me like the CJ was trying to give the controller a subtle nudge to wake her up to the fact that she was indeed behind the power curve and had to get her priorities straight.
Kelsey yesterday was the fifty-fifth anniversary of the 747!
Oh let’s go!! I’ve been watching you for a few years now and this is I think, the first time you’ve talked about Lindbergh field!
I’m only a minute in, but just living here knowing how bad it is with the mountains, I’m surprised you don’t have more stories here!
I was an Uber driver between retirement and Social Security. I picked up a pilot and we started discussing the parking garage, and how it grew an extra floor during construction. He said when he was flying learjets for the Coast Guard station San Diego, the garage wasn't a concern. When he went commercial, flying L1011s that garage got a lot taller. He said all he could do was set up the landing, and hope for the best. Read some San Diego history.
" The mountains are tall, and the emperor is far away ".
An interesting history, with more than a little corruption.
yeh mate i dont think they get into the AOC vs Gutfeld chronicles up there
I'm an SEL pilot, and I interpret that call "confirming I am still cleared to land" as a polite suggestion to the controller I see a problem. If she had replied "yes" then I would have stated there was an airliner on the threshold. I'm assuming they were still a ways back and not on short final - otherwise, I would have simply declared a go around. No way would I have considered landing.
My only question; why did SWA have to vacate the runway if the citation was on a GA? Why not clear them for takeoff after the citation flew the missed approach??
Alaska on a 2mile final …
@@herrpausr7008 and already cleared to land.
5:32 “deer on the runway” 🦌. We need the video on that!! 😄
Yeah, but it has happened to me before.
Great content. You usually show what happens when pilots mess up eg: call this number …. What about the ATC operators? Who do they have to call?? 25 yr WN Ground Ops retired. Thanks for the channel.
There is a "possible pilot deviation" equivalent for a controller. When the pilot says "Mark the tape" or "Pull the tape" that usually means the controller is about to find out.
If QA procedures are followed, the controller will be having an uncomfortable conversation with 1 or more of her superiors.
GOST BUSTERS! (There is something stange going on in the neighborhood). ...but my guess is that a more real answer would be that they file an incidence report, and perhaps contact the airlines to get in contact with the pilots in order to figure out what really went on.
Wow.... this must have been the biggest (safety affecting without casualties) fuck up by a controller I have seen so far....
Clearing two airplanes to land on the same runway while both are still in the air is bad enough, but lining up another on that runway for departure is really sth else.
All the pilots involved in this scenario were very gentle on the radio, but I'd bet at least 2 crews were cursing when the transmitter was off.
Aw Kelsey :( Lots of feedback today, mostly about the Citation pilot's rhetorical radio call, but I have another correction for you.
If another airplane is at the far end of a 14,000 foot runway, it's not an automatic go-around. The ATC Procedures Manual has rules for "Same Runway Separation" where they can give landing clearances for occupied runways. Single engine airplanes require 3000 feet separation, twin engine requires 4500 feet, and anything over 12,500 lbs needs 6000 feet. These are minimums and the controller must still exercise judgement to only give safe clearances. Ask a controller sometime how many Cessna 172's can legally occupy a 14,000 foot runway? The answer is 6, although that would never happen. However at Oshkosh the controllers are constantly landing 3 airplanes at a time on an 8000 foot runway.
Aviation safety too often relies upon the situational awareness of some aviation professionals to make up for the lack of situational awareness of others.
I hope these close calls provide an adequate wake up call to the industry. Reducing redundancy reduces safety margins--and that applies to the personnel in aviation, not just the technology.
Hire the people. Train the people. Offer to pay the people what they're worth, they'll line up around the block to apply for those ATC jobs.
That's scary!!! I just landed there in July!! Makes me a bit nervous about the San Diego California airport!!! She needs a retraining period!!
You'll be fine
Come on man leave her alone. She was probably playing candy crush and didn't want to deal with these whiny pilots and their bullshit.
Citations can be flown single pilot if it's non-commercial operations (IE the aircraft owner flying it). I am actually subscribed to a RUclips channel that is exactly this - a rich guy flying his citation around the country. I could easily see a general aviation pilot making this radio call, especially if they are unfamiliar with the airport. "There's no way the tower just - forgot - about that southwest plane sitting there, but they cleared me - so do they actually expect me to land over it? Or did they really make a big mistake? Maybe they have special rules here...". When in doubt, call the tower.