Planes DANGEROUSLY CLOSE on Converging Runways at Philadelphia!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASA...
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Flying Eyes 10% OFF: flyingeyesopti...
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
Please, give a big LIKE to support and for more videos like this!! :)
CRDA (Converging Runway Display Aid).
Real radar tool used by controllers that I have developed for our software for future similar incidents.
CRDA is a very useful tool to safely and effectively merge approaching traffic onto converging runways. CRDA creates a ghost target (yellow asterisk) which represents a simulated airplane that would land on a runway (35 in this case) respecting the minimum separation with traffic approaching the other runway (27R in this case). If the real traffic is far ahead or behind the ghost target, the separation at the time both airplanes reach the runway may be lost with the resulting conflict alert. Should a conflict occur, the traffic approaching the slave runway (35) would be the one conducting the missed approach, and not the one approaching the leader runway (27R).
That's the explanation why Tower was giving PDT5901 s-turns, so that they would lose some time in order for the ghost target to get closer, thus gaining some separation behind FFT1384.
Be advised this radar scope is a simulation developed by VASAviation and NOT THE REAL RADAR SCREEN. Some of the information displayed (altitude, speed or position) may not be exact though it has been created using ADS-B data.
I am impress with your visualization tool. It's nice to see how it looks to the controller.
Wow, that's some really nice work and great attention to detail! As a pilot, I really enjoy listening to your channel and I appreciate all of the work you put in to make it as useful and accurate to real life as possible.
Nice. Something similar exists in shipping. VTS (ATC for ships) uses this to have a ship wait to cross a main shipping channel (leader runway) when theres traffic or to expedite if there is space/time. Data like position speed and heading comes from the AIS systems.
*for future similar incidents. Yeah.
@@braincraven thank you very much. Real controllers from all across the country collaborate with me to improve all details on the radar animation. It really looks very realistic and we are super proud of it.
ATC has Piedmont and Frontier heading for the same piece of pavement. Frontier declares going around and ATC immediately tells Piedmont to go around, so now they’re headed for the same piece of sky. Crazy.
Just my thought
So ATC saw the potential conflict, and wanted to control which of the two aircraft would go around, then when the "wrong" aircraft decided to go around, he was stuck. Seems really bad all around.
Seemed to me like the controller was lured into expectation bias on sending piedmont around. Watching this clip I was drawn into the same idea since frontier was slightly ahead of piedmont on the spacing. Full disclosure I’m not a controller
Yup, crazy
I appreciate ATC trying to make it work, but an early go-around decision or instruction would have helped the situation immensely. Piedmont tried hard to comply, but at some point, someone has to say enough is enough. Also, if Frontier had used their full callsign and spoken slowly and clearly when announcing their go-around, tower might not have responded by sending Piedmont around. Tower may have thought that was Piedmont announcing a go-around.
When ATC starts talking like an auctioneer, you know that airport is overloaded
28L going once, 28L going twice, sold! The runway's all yours, United!
I would love for an actual auctioneer to make a spoof of this video.😅
Bro u read my mind...i was about to start putting some $ bills on the table.😂
Controllers generally have a cadence on the radio. It helps
Well, it's consistent with destroying the country
Also, this controller was WAY overloaded for the 27s to begin with, but adding intersecting traffic for 35 to shoot the gap?! AND THEN this guy is also handling ground traffic! 🤯
He made a poor decision, but damn - severely overloaded.
He is not handling Ground traffic, he is just telling ARRIVALS the taxi route cause it's all straight ahead. There's a Ground frequency.
He’s not handling the ground traffic. He’s just working to hand them off to PHL ground. Watch ADSB exchange or FlightRadar and you’ll see that the 27’s are overloaded all day almost every day
@@VASAviationtrue, but it takes away mental capacity in a situation where he needs full focus on the gaps… 😅 would be better to ship them off to the GND when vacated instead of giving them a quick taxi routing. (I’m an ATCO myself)
Anyways, it’s impressive that this is their normal working method. It seems crazy to me and incidents like this one seem unavoidable to me as soon as one of the factors (speed, Wx, pilots etc) deviates from the “norm”…
His decision to land Piedmont on 35 increased his workload and stress level simultaneously
@@DLRPyro1 he didn't decide to put them on 35, that is standard op for arrival banks at phl
_".... everybody is cleared to land..... just be prepared to go around..."_
THIS is the best LOL on the board.
I will never ever understand that policy…
Exactly, why do you give a clearance if you are going to give it to all aircrafts at all times regardless of the situation?
As a retired controller with 30 years experience I. Chicago I can safely say this is insanely stupid. From the moment I saw the controllers intentions I knew it would not work. Hitting the gap on take offs and landings are one thing, but there is nothing I would consider safe about this. The controller left himself with no outs. Add to that the fact he was working combined positions this was a clear recipe for disaster. If this procedure is SOP for them then a midair is inevitable
I appreciate a controller’s input.
As a pilot and sim instructor, I thought it looked incredibly complex.
@@JHollidayBas absolutely none of the above, I thought it was incredibly stupid and dangerous. I would have initiated the go around as soon as the controller said I would be passing behind someone on the crossing runway. No, sir. Not happening.
When you start telling airliners to do S turns for spacing...unable and then the decision is made for the controller one of ems going around.
As a retired ATC equipment design engineer, I concur.
or a Tenerife.
Wow! I’ve been in a very similar situation at PHL just like this one. I was flying a Citation V, and Delta was approaching in an MD90. Spacing wasn’t good, tower called for Delta to go around, they didn’t respond. After two more attempts to get Delta to respond, I was then instructed to go around. At this time Delta finally responded and went around too. Next thing I see is a Delta MD90 coming at me, I leveled my plane at 400 ft and overflew the terminal.
After it was all over, ATC thanked me for paying attention.
Ugh.
@@gojibean3498 "Thanks for saving your own life bro" smh
This is SOP here in PHL. They run it tight and often the spacing doesn’t work. One thing you can do as a pilot, is look at your TCAS and find the crossing traffic’s altitude. If you’re within 300ft of their altitude (assuming both aircraft are on a 3° glidepath), someone is going around. Adjust your speed until there is a difference of at least 300ft and you’re safe.
Fucking wild
Seriously? This is a recipe for mid air collision
S turns, speed changes, converging traffic on short final. Yeah this ought to work.
Thats Philly for ya
It is insane that this is allowed. Everything involved in this scenario needs fixed - better traffic flow, clearances, runway configuration etc.
It certainly does, you can't just cut into safety margins like this. Things working out safely 99.999% of the time isn't good enough when almost 300,000 aircraft are handled per year and planes need to land every 30 seconds at peak times. But how do you fix it? You aren't allowed to reduce the amount of traffic or build more runways. Also, you have a budget.
Also insane that aircraft are 'cleared to land' when there are other aircraft ahead of them. In any sane ATC system, the instruction is 'Continue' so that they know they can keep coming for now but a landing clearance is not assured until the runway is, you know, clear.
@@BenLovejoy 👏👏👏
@@BenLovejoy that would be extremely inefficient and potentially dangerous. Setting the sequence early and getting those clearances done early frees up a lot of air on the radio. If every controller had to wait to clear an aircraft to land until the aircraft in front of them exited the runway there would be way more frequency congestion. This would result in confusion as everyone would be stepping on each other trying to get that last second landing clearance.
@@zone5photoYT Not at all: It happens absolutely everywhere other than the US, AFAIK
Note to self....if offered a flight that connects in Philly, just say no....if that is Standard Operating Procedure there, that seems like an accident waiting to happen?
They’re usually much better than this. Especially with the CDRP
Happens everyday bro. 🤷🏻♂️
That usually means you’re on American. PHL is a fortress hub for American.
"I wanted you to land and the other guy was going to go around", just depending on who got there first? I imagine the controller standing there looking back and forth like a tennis match trying to gauge it. Madness.
The radar system would tell you who is going to pass ahead and behind
Sorry ATC, couldn’t read your mind! How about communicating next time! Oh, and Piedmont thanks you for creating a very unstable approach, which is also dangerous. Good thing both pilots saved the lives of everyone on board.
@@pauljones6321 He... literally said it out loud. ATC said on frequency that if spacing wasn't good, Piedmont would go around. And S-turns are not creating a "very unstable approach." They are a very common tool that professional pilots have no problem using for spacing reasons.
@@algernonftw42 Frontier fixed the spacing issue and the controller still gave Piedmont a go around, with a *_right_*_ turn_ no less. Of course, it never should have been an issue in the first place because crossing runways shouldn't be used simultaneously.
There is an overlap in that Venn diagram where both pilots are confused and everyone dies.
“Cleared to land, number four” just sounds wrong.
Yeah, that's not a thing in Canada at least. You're number 4 in the approach. You're cleared to land once you actually have an empty runway in front of you.
Feels like the controller was assuming / depending on Frontier not going around. Regardless of their decision to go around for this spacing, Frontier could very well have gone around for an unrelated reason, and the controller didn't seem to have space for that possibility.
I'm a passenger flying into PHL tomorrow. This gives me great comfort =|
In theory, it should. With this incident so fresh in the tower's heads, they should be more alert. 🤔
sucks to be you....if you survive the landing, you have to survive drug infested Philly...best of luck
Let's hope we don't find your flight on another youtube channel (if you know what I mean)
@@heyinwaythere’s drug abuse in every county in America. Thanks to big pharma ( like the Zackler family)
Good luck.
LOL. We literally do this every day at Teterboro :D. That was nothing.
This video reminded me of the Demolition Derby Figure Eight races.
Atc needs to write doen a number! In this event!
Remember the film, where the ATC asks the pilot in similar situation to - punch it!😅
The day it actually said on real air frequency is the doomsday
Yeah, but in that case, one was landing and the other that punched it was departing. Still, what can you say, too many liberties on a TV series.
@@markgr1nyer That line is from a movie called 2:22, not Pushing Tin.
What did they even think they were doing on this one? Absolutely crazy...
It worked with the Falcon and it works every other day
@@VASAviation”this is how we’ve always done it” - that’s not a good argument. Not every safety rule has to be written in blood, it is possible to preempt and prevent.
It seems every time someone from Europe, or somewhere else where having 4 aircraft all cleared to land on the same strip of land is viewed as insanity, raises concerns about how things are done in the US, they inevitably run into the “this is how it’s always been done and no-one’s died yet” argument. It just screams American Exceptionalism.
@@Strathclydegamer You forget the usual: "Our Airspace is too busy. We have to do it this way." excuse.
Perhaps then make the airpsace less busy and reduce slots by at least 15%? ;)
@@VASAviation you say it works every other day but you are one of the world's leading creators of near miss videos!
@@jonbaldwin talking about this one system, which created a near miss a few days ago. The rest of near misses are not related to converging runway approaches. Trafic jumping the hold short bar... that's not a system. That's a human factor thing.
Another one where I was praying for a pilot to tell the tower they have a number for him to call. Insanity.
We used to have professional ATC with their own union. They thought they had more power than they really did. But there is a reason why ATC resources are scarce and we as nation decided to take that course. Cheaper but less safe.
They're waiting for a disaster. Then they will fix sometthing
@@weaselworm8681 I am certain that it has absolutely nothing to do with the year over year increase in air traffic and movements since the mid 80s coupled with the failure of the FAA to modernize and upgrade equipment as quickly. But, I get it. Blame it all on Reagan.
@@weaselworm8681 Since when do government worker unions push for quality of service?
@@vinihfsx If I was Piedmont, I would have requested vectors for 27R instead of accepting 35. Looked way too dicey with that many aircraft inbound for 27R. But that is just me.
Used to land 35 all the time with Air Wisconsin. It is extremely difficult to pick up the 27 traffic visually as the city in the background camouflages them. If we had less than 300' of vertical separation between us and the other plane on TCAS we would just inform ATC we were doing S turns for separation. PHL controllers do a wonderful job but you also have to be proactive in the flight deck and no what is and isn't going to work.
Is that why they're doing this? I'm trying to figure out why they would have any traffic landing on the intersecting runway rather than just sequence them in for 27R. If it was to get a couple more planes to land every hour, well, if (when) something goes wrong like this, now you're getting fewer planes on the ground and putting lives at risk on top of it.
@@jonathankleinow2073 Just remember this thinking when you get delayed without weather or mechanical issues.
Totally normal operation. Sometimes it just doesn't work out. We used to land 26 as well, but that went away per company or ATC, don't remember who. DCA also crams you in- we always would brief the circle to land 33 when on visual to 1 as it was pretty common to be changed right before the bridge.
Excellent video. This is really insane.... it's not a matter of "if", it's "when" 😮
For some reason, i think of the old arcade game Frogger.
Reminds me of the movie "2:22" (2017) , where the ATC prevented a collision in a situation that looked completely improbable at the time. Well, not so much any more...
Our airspace and airports are saturated. ATC relies on pilot cooperation and precision flying to make it work. Occasional go-arounds are the result. Otherwise everyone will be sitting on gate holds for hours at a time. I understand these realities because I started flying 707s sixty years ago, and stopped flying private jets only six months ago. I sure am glad to be finally retired!
Glad you made such a long career safely. I’m sure your experience will be missed.
Go-arounds are fine, but this controller made safe go-arounds impossible. There was no plan-B.
I flew for Piedmont for some time. Both dash and 145. We used to use the tcas back than to estimate spacing. If traffic had more than 300 feet altitude separation on the crossing runway it work out well when landing 35 vs 27r. If you're altitude and your traffic altitude we similar, you were arriving at the pavement at the same time.
I was a wimp. If it was looking close at 500 feet.. south side of the river we were going around.
Glad everyone was safe and hopefully we learn from the incident.
The existence of the situation is 100% on people other than the pilots (primarily ATC but unquestionably those runways were being sweated to their limits). But I feel the lack of warning of the go-around call was a rare case of Aviate, Navigate, Communicate being applied correctly but inaccurately. A nudge to ATC that they weren't comfortable prior to the go-around would likely have resulted in the other plane being sent around.
This somehow remind me Figure8 racing. I dont think that its safe to practice that with airplanes o.O
Exactly! 😁
I am a Philly based pilot and the amount of times this has happened to me or in front of me is a high amount. Philly controllers like to keep it tight.
Traffic overload is really getting out of hand. It's only a matter of time until we get the big one that RUclips videos in ten years will claim "changed aviation forever"
"I wanted you to land and the other guy was going to go around..." good plan
I’m retired controller and this “betting the come” as we used to call it, we most definitely how not to use positive separation. The CRDA tool is great, but this controller sure wasn’t using it. Scary
that's what you call a DAT, Dead ass Tie.
According to the ATSB data they were within 75 feet in altitude when Piedmont was just beyond the end of the runway. At that point the 2 planes were around 1700 feet (in distance) from each other. It was around then that Piedmont started to go around and increased altitude, with a slight right. But it seems Piedmont almost flew right over Frontier probably within 100 feet in altitude. Importing the KML data into Google Earth makes this look insane. Controller should have called the go around for Piedmont much sooner.
2 intersecting landing runways is bad enough without trying to play how close can we get them......damn If you are calling out turns like that to keep separation right thats going to fail eventually.
We're gonna file that mess under " that ain't gonna work today"
Seriously though, that was too close for comfort
People are assuming this type of thing is happening more often, not sure that is true. What is true is we have the data available to track, the ATC recordings and people like @VASAviation who take the time to put together these attractive videos which illustrate what is happening. Large airports have been using crosswind runways for a very very long time. New airports generally are being built with parallel runways. Seems safety is part of the reason, but the driver is getting the planes in and out quicker is easier with the parallel runways and planes can handle the crosswinds better than they use to. 10 years ago the only people that would have known about this event were the controllers involved, the pilots on the frequency and maybe the passengers.
So, it's all Victor@vasAviation's fault? I'd prefer to think that only awareness can lead to improvements.
@@jimk5145 Why in the world would you think I was assigning blame to someone? I am stating an opinion about the comments here and on other videos that claim these events are happening more often. Your White knighting is misplaced here.
Nothing to see here. Standard day in Philly. Frontier dorked it up not knowing how traffic works in Philly.
Was Tower also giving taxi instructions to ground traffic?
I feel that's just begging for trouble. Running two (three?) converging active runways is already a huge workload.
ATC staff are really getting squeezed.
Man, I wish I coulda gotten an ATC job outta school but the FAA hiring freeze in the 90's kept me out and now I'm too old. I always feared those scenarios when I was in school, just too much on your plate. As a private pilot, I got boxed into a bad spot by the controller during simultaneous ops on intersecting runways. I recognized the potential conflict and was ready to act if needed and it was needed. Controllers can get themselves cornered. Sometimes, I'm glad I didn't get a job.
Two airliners are going to collide on or near the ground at speed this year, the way we are heading. Let’s hope it’s not like Tenerife.
“If it’s not gonna work, go around…” what a stupid phrase. This whole procedure has nothing to to with good air traffic control. If your work depends on fihtailing on short final you did something wrong before!
Controller fails with lack of standard phraseology and failure to notify both aircraft of his split-second intentions.
FAA is apparently asleep and inept. NTSB should investigate before the next one.
You can’t shoot the gap with two arriving flights. If one is taking off and one is landing then yes. But this is just crazy. American ATC begs for disaster, also illustrated by clearing four aircraft to land at once. In the UK, one aircraft is cleared to land at a time, the others are told, continue approach, runway occupied
Only in the U.S. would you have traffic landing perpendicular to each other to compensate for an overloaded airport. It's a wonder there's no loss of life on a regular basis...
Very impressive. But at what point is there too many too soon? Seems like an insolvable problem with so much pressure to get them all on the ground on time and on target.
Seems stressful having 2 crossing runways with landing traffic like that
Good situational awareness from Piedmont to not turn right directly into oncoming traffic, assuming they maintained visual separation with Frontier. If I were the pilots, I’d be asking tower to write down a number…
So, I have a question for any controllers here. What are the negative outcomes from not trying to do this kind of sequencing? Do controllers face disciplinary action for opting to create more spacing between arrivals? Are there fines involved from making aircraft late? Do air carriers complain about that, and does it carry weight against the controller? Is it just a function of how over saturated the system is that trying to create more space just clogs everything up worse?
None. If they hold aircraft to go to the same runway they get blowback from management.
The airport has an arrival rate - determined first theoretically and then operationally - based on both the configuration and the weather. You have to be able to keep operating near that rate. If the final controller can't or won't do that, they'll back up the feeder, and then the center.
Initially, nothing would happen except maybe a conversation with the operations supervisor. If you kept it up, it would result in some retraining or possibly decertification eventually.
The job of controllers at least at busy airports has always been to push as much metal as possible, and that fact means that they can't all be winners. Final sent PDT to tower out of position, and then tower tried really hard to save it. Personally I think he probably should have given up a mile or so earlier but I don't work at Philly. Either way, the reason is obvious: Every approach that ends in a go around is another three to five miles you're eating up on final, and it's another 90 seconds of spacing you'll never get back.
Bottom line: The pressure is always, always on to run them tight, both as a matter of not screwing over the controller feeding you, and as an official matter of performance.
I heard the Controller is hung like a Dimmer switch… that was unacceptable s turns and should have told Frontier if it gets cloae piedmont will go around.
As soon as there were doubts about spacing tower should have just called a piedmont go around. Philly working with small margins for error.
Frontier cant completely rely on the other parties executing a go around, luckily it was visual and planes can maintain separation that way as well.
If that was the case no one would ever land.
@@DeltaEntropynot every airport is landing planes on intersecting runways so tight that a go around for two planes puts them into the same piece of sky.
There was just too much traffic to try to interleave like that. The controller can never rely on the aircraft landing, the flight crew _always_ has the option to go around if stable approach criteria are violated. The controller was relying on assumptions he had no business to make. Another ATC-induced loss of separation at a US airport 🤨
I feel sorry for the ATC having to work under that load. Its ridiculous
"I wanted you to land and the other guy was going to go around". damn I didn't realize ATC was in the cockpit making the final decisions
American 857 had a front row seat to that clusterbleep
IN the USA there has been 20 of these near misses caused by ATC this year alone. Its just a matter of time before there is a disaster. Next week or 12 months the clock is ticking and the FAA is to blame.
I still do not understand this practice of issuing landing clearances to aircraft miles out without having any way of knowing if the runway will be clear & safe.
Kind of insane to try intersecting runway arrivals in a Class B airport. Kudos to the tower controller for trying to make it work, but I don't understand how TRACON thought this would be ok.
Need to be extremely precise in time and speeds for it to work
@@VASAviation You also need to keep some "fudge factor" in there in case that extremely precise timing doesn't quite happen the way you were expecting it to in your mind.
There are probably 50 examples of this happening every day at PHL.
If you thought parallel approaches (The kind where planes are close, but not close enough they force the planes to sync up for the landing, and dedicate a controller and additional radio frequency to the task) was sketch, you'll love this!
When he told piedmont to turn right on the go-around, I screamed turn right into what, the rest of the traffic!?!?
That controller neds a vacation.
standard corporate Americana sacrificing safety and lives, for the sake of increased profits for the airport - this makes 0 sense to even a lay person
I dont like this dual approach layout. The sooner the new airport is built the safer everyone will be.
What new airport
@@oelschlegel The megahub in NJ that will replace PHL EWR LGA and JFK. Connected with the new high speed along the NE corridor. 10 runways. Will make DEN and ORD look a bit third world.
@@davidwebb4904ehm, is that close to becoming a reality, or just someone’s wet dream?
@@davidwebb4904 I remember flying into Denver a couple of months after it opened. The UAL pilot mentioned something along the lines of "Us pilots want to thank the people of Denver for building this airport. We love all of the space and long runways making flying a lot easier and safer for us."
@@davidwebb4904 Anything is possible when you just make shit up, eh?
Who thought this is a workable system?
maybe those who do not die in a fiery wreck? It really is amazing how many passengers get through the system alive before a few hundred die here and there. Great system if you don't worry about those who occasional deaths.
It works most of the time
@@VASAviation I like the caveat "most of the time".
Famous last words.
@@VASAviationand how many people will die the few times it doesn't work?
@@MikeDCWeld probably none because thank to past disasters we have more and more systems behind. We have eyes, we have TCAS and Tower has a collision alert. The converging approach system didn't work this time (probably because the Approach controller set them too tight or piltos flew speeds not expected) but the system in whole did work. Aviation works, that's a fact. Many near misses, many almosts, but not a collision. It will happen at some point - hope not - but that's inevitable. But I think the ratio is favorable for the safety.
There are what, six different planes cleared to land at the same time, on two intersecting runways. US ATC needs to stop this advanced landing clearance.
Why on earth is the controller attempting to land people on crossing runways like this? Put Piedmont into the conga line with everyone else. If they have to taxi longer on the ground, so be it. Are we prioritizing safety over profits, or profits over safety?
Both. This system works every other day when this configuration is in force
@@VASAviation Well, on a technical level, it worked this time, too. There was no crash. Planes managed to avoid each other and everyone landed uneventfully (even if a bit late). But how much extra fuel did those two planes burn by going around, and how much fuel might have been saved by the shorter taxi? More importantly, will the system work next time? Any system that demands precise timing between two planes on an intersecting course is, at some point, going to fail.
@@oldguydoesstuff120 The system did work next time, you can see the Falcon landing on 35. And the next time, you can see it too. And the next time as well, also displayed. I guess the fuel burnt during these 2 go arounds is even less than the fuel burnt if all the arrivals for 35 would have had to fly the pattern for 27R, get in the conga line, and create a nice line of arrivals for 27R.
That was never going to work. Plan continuation bias from ATC for sure. Also - the separation needs to work even if both aircraft go around.
WAIT.....Frontier said they were going around.....and then Tower told Piedmont to also go-around. YIKES ! Why not just let Frontier go around and let Piedmont land since Frontier called it first ???
Tic Toc Murica...Your Tenerife is not far away.
Jeez… ground, tower, intersecting landing, this amount of traffic… time for a second Controller- or a holding…
Apart from all this: is this „make s turns“ on short final a normal thing?? Never heard it anywhere and never saw it in Europe…
2:35 This is where the controller should have just told 5901 to go around. Once the controller observed the potential that "it's gonna be tight" then one of the planes has to go around.
Towerconveyed their plan effectively to piedmont that they would be the ones to go around, be he probably should have also told frontier of the plan as well. Either way, you cant just anticipate every plane to land 100% of the time. Going around is always an option and this was just way too tight of a squeeze play to begin with. Yikes.
In most airports in europe as far as I know, if such chlose situations on crossing runways would be even used, the plane landing first (here frontier) could get the normal landing clearance but Piedmont would only receive information about the other trafic and be told to continue the approach and expect a late clearance. This would probably also have given the pilots of both planes more situational awareness and the frontier more confidence that the runway would be clear as they were the only ones cleared to land on it.
I don't understand why not get the Piedmont into the flow versus an intersecting landing?
seems like they were getting all the GA aircraft to land on one runway, and all the commercial jets on the other
Piedmont operates turboprop planes. In Philly they use RWY 35, since it is a smaller meter runway, that is perfect for turboprops, and they have different wake turbulence allowances than bigger type planes that were landing on RWY 27.
You land more planes in less time. Easy.
@@Christopher-cr4qk Piedmont uses E145, not turboprops
@@VASAviation ah really? i thought they use the dash 8.. or did at least thank you for the correction.
The real question is why is this person doing both local and ground at the same time? Dangerously high workload.
He is NOT working Ground
@@VASAviation Wasn't he instructing AA to go to the ramp at 1:48, Bluestreak at 2:25, there were no runway crossing clearances involved, it could've been delegated to another controller.
@@Mr_Plop1 Tower instructing planes to the gate is very, very common since it's a right away taxi. Ground controller is busy with all other traffic taxiing to depart, tugs, vehicles...
just say you don't know what you're talking about
@@icufly enlighten us Michael Whitaker.
Happening more and more ofthen. Scary
This just seems crazy to me. Seems like the controller is relying on the Frontier plane to continue his approach no matter what. I’m admittedly clueless, but shouldn’t he have always the option to go around without that creating a conflict?
wtf this ATC is like "i'm going to churn out my own swiss cheese!!"
23-year Class B tower snd approach controller here -
They do this operatiom all day everyday and one got away from him a little. You can tell relative motion (not a collision course) from looking out of the window in the tower, and that information is not available.in this video, nor is the controller's experience from doing this operation successfully probably thousands of times. Trust me, it ALWAYS looks worse on radar than in person, He may have pushed an unworkable situation a bit or maybe not, but that's the stuff we deal with all day.
Of course the comments are full of sensationalism and know-it-alls.
Give us a big raise, more than one day off per week, keep.paying your taxes, and in no way do my opinions reflect the opinions of the FAA.
When they say fly runway heading on a go around do they mean runway track or do they fly runway heading and get blown off the track by the wind?
Having to interleave landing on crossing runways like that has to induce some amazing migraines in the controllers.
I had video of this but lost it on transfer. Dang. Actually found it
They were both at the same altitude the whole time, it was never gonna work…
@3:35 "I wanted you to land and the other guy was going to go around" Good thing everyone is confused as to intent with seconds to react. Roll the dice on another day and everyone dies.
3:43 is this the right caption? I think it is AAL747 calling instead of FFT1384.
Would ATC understand if someone shipped a box of Crunch chocolate bars to them as a gift?
That was close but I can't really see how it could be better except PDT5901slowing down dramatically
What happens if both aircraft decide to do a missed approach?
Pilots have all noticed a marked degradation in ATC services over just the past five years. There is such a controller shortage and some of the new hires just don't have the aptitude for the job. Not everyone can do every thing no matter how good the training.
Not a pilot so from that perspective, why won't 26 work for small planes? Seems it's offset enough from 27R.....
looking at the airport diagram, any missed approaches On 26 would occur directly over the terminals. I couldn't imagine the FAA would approve that especially with how short rwy 26 is.
Too staggered, so missed approach issues and doesn’t really offer a capacity advantage.
I don’t think Frontier was very helpful here. They were the ones with priority and the Piedmont wasn’t. Sometimes being a little jumpy can be just as dangerous.
OTOH, the pilots get the last say. OTO, their last say almost flew them into the plane that was the one expecting to go around.
"Piedmont, taxi to the gate - caution wake turbulence when crossing 27..."
so why did frontier go around?
Dangerous tempo here, ridiculous
What did the controller think was gonna do? The PIC has the responsibility for his plane and passengers, he’s not gonna commit to something like this based on a “trust me bro“. The controller might have wanted the other plane to go around and had a plan in his head but that would’ve required the Frontier pilot to give up control over the situation and rely on ATC and the other plane to do the right thing. Respect to the Frontier crew for realizing they weren’t comfort with that and making their decision, exactly the mindset I‘d want my pilots to have as a passenger.
There are more reasons for a go around other then the word of ATC. Pretty bad work by the controller here. What is the equivalent of "Getthereitis" for ATC? He had a fixed plan in his head and was way too unflexible in this situation.
Thats very dangerous, the pilots are very preoccupied during the descent, what if both planes had to go around?
They both DID go around
They both DID go around
That was never going to work. If its down to ten knots at a mile final i dont understand what the expectation was.
How about building a parallel runway like LAX, JFK, ATL, IAH, and landing more planes that way. This can only lead to a tragedy in today's overcrowded skies and understaffed towers.
Holy shit, we look off from PHL on June 20 in the eveming. Fcuking shit
At the rate of these ATC failures, they're going to start knocking planes together and it isn't going to be pretty. Someone needs to start getting a handle on this situation.