Airplanes Collided MIDAIR while in cruise flight . Cessna Skywagon and Cessna Skylark. REAL ATC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 авг 2022
- 13 JUN 2018
A Cessna 207 registration N91038 and a Cessna 175 registration N9423B, collided midair while in cruise flight in day visual meteorological conditions. Both airplanes were operating under visual flight rules, and neither airplane was in communication with an air traffic control facility.
The Cessna 175 pilot stated that he was making position reports
during cruise flight about 1,000ft above mean sea level when he established contact with the pilot of another airplane, which was
passing in the opposite direction. As he watched that airplane pass well below him, he noticed the shadow of a second airplane
converging with the shadow of his airplane from the opposite
direction. He looked forward and saw the spinner of the converging airplane in his windscreen and immediately pulled aft on the control
yoke; the airplanes subsequently collided.
The Cessna 207 descended uncontrolled into the river.
Although damaged, the Cessna 175 continued to fly, and the pilot
proceeded to an airport and landed safely.
If you enjoyed please support channel by subscribing and hitting the notification bell to get notified on new uploads.
Source of communications: www.liveatc.net (usage permission)
#REALATC #ATC #ATCCOMUNICATIONS #midair #planecrash #skywagon #skylark #cessna207 #cessna175
![[REAL ATC] Cessna C172 makes EMERGENCY LANDING ON ROADWAY!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9yxZQtv8-Hg/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] Cessna C172 makes EMERGENCY LANDING ON ROADWAY!](/img/tr.png)
RIP to James Poelman. He was actually buried in the cockpit of his dream plane, a Piper Cherokee. Fitting send off.
Just reading this alone put tears in my eyes.
😢😢
Sucks he never got to fly that plane.
So the other pilot died in the plane that went down? Or this pilot?
The 207 was on VFR flight following until leaving Anchorage terminal airspace, when he cancelled flight following and checked in on a company frequency according to his company procedures. We may never know if he ever switched to the CTAF after that. Radio communications are never mandatory in Class G airspace. But the collision occurred right over the obvious geographic landmark where the FAA decided (four years before this incident) pilots should switch from one CTAF frequency to another, so it's possible that by the time the 175 had switched to the frequency for east of the inlet, the 207 had already switched to the frequency for west of the inlet, and they'd have never been able to hear each other. It's kind of similar to the 1956 Grand Canyon disaster, with two aircraft colliding over a prominent landmark while talking on different frequencies in Class G airspace.
Seems like there should be flight level staggering for that route.
I hate to hear about this. I don't know the airspace, but if they are so close to Class C airspace, its possible both airplanes were equipped with ADSB-OUT. I know it isn't a perfect system, but neither is the visual scan. ADSB on foreflight or newer GPSs can really provide you with some great traffic information and awareness. Not every airplane is transmitting ADSB info, but it doesn't hurt as long as the pilot knows and understands the limitations. If these airplanes had each other's ADSB info on a moving map display, would this accident have occurred?
I was thinking the same thing. Looks like when there are two high-wing planes, the one above should have been able to see the lower one [he said he saw a shadow], but the lower one would have had obstructed view, due to his high-wing.
@@TheGospelQuartetParadise Negative! The 207 was slightly below the 175, so effectively hidden under it's nose. The 207 pilot actually had more of a chance spotting the other aircraft, since the wing is behind the windscreen, unless the other plane was directly coming out of the sun.
This close to Anchorage I'd expect class G to end at 700ft
Not that it would make any difference for you statement
Better ADS-B implementation might have helped
All of these negative comments. Fact remains the pilot landed safely and remained relatively calm. He is flying a plane which is severely damaged, with a missing gear and a damaged gear, along with the shock of the accident itself and knowing the other guy probably didn’t make it. He made the right decision as he saw fit and it worked.
I like how at no point did he even remotely consider uttering the word "mayday". He'd literally die before he'd suffer that shame.
..while the OTHER pilot..DIED though.
@@jasoncarswell7458 ..he ABSOLUTELY would’ve been expected to, but CHOSE (for some reason) not to.
I‘m not a real pilot, but aren’t you supposed to fly on odd altitude numbers while going east and on even ones while going west? That’s at least what I recall from the VFR rules.
Edit: Never mind. I meant § 91.159 of the Visual Flying Rules, but it only applies above 3.000ft.
I'm enjoying all of the Flight Sim Rocket Aces bleating that there should have been a Mayday call.
That would, of course, added a sense of urgency that saying he had had a mid-air and was missing part of his airplane doesn't. After all, if you don't use the magic word, how is ATC going to know that this is different from all of the other mid-air collision calls they get on any given day?
Dude, that is what we are taught when we get our license. Get off your fucking high horse. The emergency should have been called.
Yeah these people are obsessed with mayday and pan pan calls. Its exceedingly obvious that everybody involved knew it was an emergency...
Because it is specific Federally-legislated verbiage that ATC is required to listen for and instantly respond to. If you don't declare, they can't do certain things. Declaring opens many doors that help keep you alive.
But no, by all means, be a big balls about it. Lawn dart that baby and never utter a word of complaint, like Chuck Yeager would have done. The other middle aged stockbrokers will respect your corpse more at the airport bar.
@@jasoncarswell7458 Please tell us what they can't do if you don't say the magic spell.
@@jasoncarswell7458 Ok GA Jason, how about this for some logic - they did in fact do everything they could to help the pilot, so please tell us more about what other "certain things" they should have done in addition to letting him go direct to whatever field he wanted and prepping emergency services...
Several comments about this guy choosing dirt over hard surface. You know nothing about the pilot and his experience. He felt safer using the dirt runway at the airport he knew. That's all that matters. [For all you know he never landed on a hard surface.] The plane was upright and sounds like he is safe. With a plane with missing and damaged landing gear. He(for himself) 100% made the right call.
I Agree with the pilots decision. Pavement is made for jets not light aircraft. Gravel and grass is what most airplanes before the late 60s were made for. Soft surfaces are much more forgiving
@@shadowsrwolf
You can dig in on grass or dirt, hard surface lets you slide with less friction and is more forgiving
@@DropdudeJohn ahh so you must be a 10k hour CFII then? I would totally want to slide longer and faster on a hard surface that is more prone to causing sparks and more damage to the airframe. I would never want to crash land on a soft surface that would dissipate any excess momentum and wick away any spilled fuels. Even on a good day I would rather land on grass and gravel over pavement with most pre 1970s aircraft and especially with a conventual gear aircraft. Pavement is not some special safe thing and is much less forgiving than a gravel or grass strip.
@@shadowsrwolf
No just somebody who flew Cubs and Pawnees for many years as a day job out of grass strips, fields and so on and understands that a hard smooth surface is far less likely to have a damaged aircraft dig in on then grass or dirt strips that can be penetrated easily, its pretty much standard procedure to take a hard runway for damaged aircraft or undercarriage up landing.
You don't even need to fly aeroplanes to figure that out and my experience levels are in the thousands of hours with 15000 take offs and landing under my belt.
I have to be honest and say you are fool, if you land on a soft surface and dig in it could rupture your fuel tank or a fuel line and then you have that fire you didn't want, land on a hard surface with a longer slide and less deceleration (force on the structure of the aeroplane) it might spark a bit but there is far less chance of structural damage and a fuel leak.
If the fuel should leak then a fire will start either on a hard or soft surface and the source of that fire would be your aeroplane which is where the fire would be plus the ground around your aeroplane as fresh fuel is poured on to it , so minimising the risk of a sudden stop by minimising the risk of digging in by using a firm hard surface with low friction over a high friction surface with the inherent risk of a sudden stop and the damage to the airframe which might include that fuel tank or fuel line would be my priority.
@@shadowsrwolf
And a ten thousand hour CFII would have to do a hell of a lot more flying to catch up with me as all of mine was actually flying the aeroplane and not watching somebody else
At about 2:20 ATC asks the pilot if would prefer the local Lake Hood airport or Anchorage. Pilot stated the local one and that is what ATC agreed. ATC didn't try to force or bully the pilot into going to Anchorage, but only suggested it and then asked the pilot which he wanted.
Even better, he picked up on the pilots slight apprehension when he agreed to land at Anchorage. It was subtle but you could tell the pilot wanted something else when he heard that airport name.
Part of my thinks that it was due to emergency service availability, the plane was stable enough to allow time to get everyone in place
Cus its so quiet up tbere. He ob about landing on sand. No stress . It helps no one
@@Noone-jn3jp Eh, lake Hood and Anchorage are practically the same facility - the Anchorage fire station is 1.2 miles and 1 gate from the Lake Hood runway and more than 2 miles from the far end of one of Anchorage's runways. Realistically, deployment time isn't going to be much different.
I never heard him call an emergency. But if he had, he could have told them where he was going to land. They will comply, though you might have to answer questions later about it. Unless I forgot my flight training.
What a tragedy. Thanks for making this video.
Tragic, but this is a huge reason to always request flight following
this is Class G airspace in Alaska. ATC is typically not available in Class G. As I understand it, the 207 actually was on FF, but radar service was terminated as they left the Anchorage class C (about where the smaller river empties into the sound in this depiction). I would be more interested to know the status of ADS-B equipment here, it shouldn't be completely relied upon but it is a real lifesaver sometimes.
@@jeffc7589 Traffic advisories are on a workload basis but if they are on flight following then safety alerts are mandatory regardless if they are VFR or IFR.
@@gregmanning8967 I agree regarding ADSB. ForeFlight - don’t leave home without it
@@gregmanning8967 yeah 207s aren't cheap planes and seems like a lot of air to air crashes in Alaska seems like you want proper equipment to notify you of close traffic
Excellent job flying cripple. Kept his cool as well.
Having had a few close calls in the air already... this is my biggest fear when flying. That I will miss something and kill someone
Everyone making comments.
Presuming that you had listened and noticed everything that is missing from the conversation.
There was mention PIC tried to get hold of ATC , thus he was in contact with another controller.
No details of the Incident , of where it happened or where the plane went done revealed.
OBVIOUSLY the message is not complete,
this whole video is 6 min long, and everything that happened took place in that time,
incl Accident and traveling , circling and landing.
To circle the field will take that long. Rest assured,
Missing bits and pieces, was most probably mentioned in real time , just omitted for the video sake.
N23B did a great job of staying calm and continuing to fly. But any students out there, there's no need to say "copies" or "copies... thanks" or after every call, or "that's" before "affirmative". Notice that N6FM just says "6FM" to confirm that he's (presumably) heard and understood the most recent comms to him from Tower, though really he should confirm "clear to land".
Also student pilots, a lot of people get lax about comms when there's no ATC around. One time I was flying to a little untowered airport - complete radio silence, you would have thought no one was flying but me. So I says "Rockwall traffic, student pilot 815DH, 10 miles west at 2,500, Rockwall". All of a sudden one after another 5 or 6 other pilots in the area piped up with their various positions and intentions. So that just told me that everybody was used to flying without communicating most of the time. No bueno! Keep communicating!
By the look of the photo, it was an Really good landing!
Why is the East/West on the compass backwards??
That flight path gets bananas on a sunny day.
What happened to the other plane?
The pilot was extremely calm and clearly stated his intentions, but in high stress situations, additional variables can be the final straw. If the controller wanted to give the pilot options, he should have made certain to communicate them as such.
The pilot didn’t declare an emergency, but he did state that his aircraft had been involved in a collision and he wanted to land at PALH. The controller could have suggested Anchorage and explained it was for emergency services etc, but should not have made it seem like an instruction from atc that created further stress to the pilot. Luckily the controller picked up on the hesitation in the pilots voice and asked a follow up.
Next, I understand they wanted to get a look at the missing landing gear with a fly over, but again, the pilot stated he had been involved in a mid air, so the goal should have been to get on the ground asap. If the gear was torn off, the wing strut could have also been damaged and ready to let go; adding power to climb would not be recommended.
This pilot may be a novice because he didn’t declare an emergency or request the bigger/better airport. I’m not belittling his skills, rather explaining that the controller needs to pick up on this and handle the situation accordingly.
We can’t all be the best, but listen to the controller that talked to Sully on the Hudson “landing” and the way he offered suggestions to the crew.
Assume worst case scenario until proven otherwise.
I'm a controller and don't understand how they can run an airport that close to another, but they've worked it out somehow. Alaska and Guam are kind of our weird children.
I'm sure it works much like my local area where we have KGSP, KGMU, and KGYH all in about 10 or so square mile area. Basically 2 class D airports under a class C ring.
@@michaelpegram3683 hello fellow south carolinian
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Lake Hood is just operated as a second tower at Anchorage. The physical Anchorage tower definitely has a better view of the seaplane base than *any* building on Lake Hood. Logically they'd be the same airport, except nobody wants to deal with the administrative nightmare of hundreds of GA flights per day with passengers and tours and firearms passing through the gates at an international airport, and those pilots don't want to pay the landing fees for the shiny facilities they don't use anyway.
Just wait until you hear about New York! Or SoCal! Hawthorne is just off of LAX. I think SoCal probably wins for the most congested airspace and highest density of airports, but I may be wrong.
As for Alaska, keep in mind that Anchorage ain't JFK or LAX. Yes, it's a big international airport, but they don't have **that** many arrivals and departures. It works for them.
@@michaelpegram3683 I can one up that:
2 class Ds within 7 nm and both under class B, with one bordering a class C.
This incident occurred in June 2018 (per posting party). Would have been nice it title read: "2018 Midair collision...".
Wondering about that, myself. What became of the second plane that ended up in the water?
I'm assuming they dead
@@karmakazi219 Probably so.
Another comment, at the same time as yours, says James Poelman was burried in the cockpit of a Piper Cherokee.
@@cageordie Right. I saw that. I guess he was flying the plane that went into the water.
@@cageordie What makes you think that about this accident? Neither aircraft was a Piper. One was a Cessna 175, and the other was a Cessna 207. When they collided, they did not produce a Piper Cherokee.
That was scary just hearing,
Neither pilot seemed like they were doing a very good job of communicating before the incident.
That’s a frequency switch location (opposite frequencies for opposite directions of travel), so it’s possible they were talking, just couldn’t hear each other
@@cpy I wish there was some kind of TCAS system for GA planes and it was required.
@@Boodieman72 I fly with ADSB up but let’s be honest, there are lots of planes still without it. That already tells you exactly where planes are. Doesn’t matter though. Hell, I’ve landed at airports where since (technically) radio comms aren’t required, crazy pilots don’t do it. Insanity. Problem is the people, not the tech.
@@cpy FAA should mandate it.
@@Boodieman72 no and fuck no. Not until government agency's stop using it as a enforcement tool and not the safety tool it should be.
This is why you need an ADS-B transponder. Why is not that required in the states?
I'm sure if stuff like this keeps happening it will become mandatory in all aircraft in all airspaces
So. Uncontrolled sounds like it was fatal? Or did I miss that update? Tough day but solid landing considering the conditions.
Fatal but if he adds that the vid gets de-monetized...
@@danielleclare2938 thank you for that clarification. Sad news for sure.
@@danielleclare2938 you can only threaten Republicans
@@flyingby4072 😔😔😢
So what abt the plane that crashed?
RIP
Uncontrolled it crashed pilot did not survive
Did the pilot in the Cessna 207 survive?
No. 1 Fatal.
Uncontrolled decent basically lawndart
Geez all of a sudden EVERYONE is a controller and knows exactly how to handle that situation... A bunch of negative Nancy's while all I heard was a bunch of human beings in the plane and the tower trying to help one another and doing the best they could. Sad to hear about the death but happy the other one survived.
What do you expect from You-Tube comment section?
I mean, really.
Is this recent? You'd think that by ADS-B now being mandatory in the US for all general aviation aircraft, mid-air collisions would be extremely infrequent 🤷♂️
It happened in 2018 as described.
Student pilot here. I would make both ADS-B in and ADS-B out mandatory on every single airplane including the experimental, old timers, agricultural or on anything called airplane that will be taking off, flying and landing. I would also impose huge fines for anyone found to be in violation. It is like driving on a highway at 75mph at night without any lights or flashers.
ADS-B is not mandatory for all general aviation aircraft. Today is 8-5-2022.
@@positiverateofclimb694 what a GREAT attitude! Fly long and far!
@@positiverateofclimb694 heck I have ADS -B on my drone. I can’t receive but it transmits
Well, you can definitely hear the guilt from his voice alone.
You spelled adrenaline* wrong
Did they died’d
*died’ed
They got a degree posthumously? Wow go flying get rekt secure financial future nice
The pilot who went down did unfortunately. Did not stand much change when his plane was rendered inoperable and he plummeted straight into a body of water from 1000 feet
@@staticbuilds7613 Would it id hurted.
@@ugiswrong Idk, never tried it myself to find out
i guess the odd/even plus 500 feet rule doesnt apply in alaska ?
That’s what I was wondering. How the heck are they at the same altitude flying opposite directions if they were at cruise?
It is only advice, I never once saw anyone taking heed of it in many decades of G.A. flying.
They were only at 1000', rule applies above 3000'
Strange that nobody actually declared an emergency, or asked the number of souls on board or fuel remaining, or what the pilot's intentions were, or anything about the actual state of the aircraft. I would have thought the emergency services would have liked to know at least how many people they were trying to rescue and how big a potential fireball they were facing.
Did it make a big difference? No.
@@RLTtizME LUCKILY. But standard operating procedure is standard for a very good reason.
@@DGARedRaven LIKELY......come on now....stop lecturing.
Things happened fast. I’ve seen a lot of emergencies where controllers avoid overwhelming an obviously busy pilot with questions until the pilot is able to shift his focus. That said, I agree. Almost seems like they had purposely avoided declaring the emergency for one reason or another.
@@youdoyouplayer8529 I don't think that was the case at all. Pure projection.
"Have a good day." Oops.
This is a timely video
I am like number 841
ATC doesn’t get it
14 CFR § 91.159
0 degrees through 179 degrees is odd altitude +/- 500ft, 180-359 is even altitude =/- 500ft.
Only applies for 3000ft and above, collided aircraft were around 1000ft
@@kehreazerith3016 Thank you for pointing that out. Attention to detail; I should have read that better. Here's a more appropriate FAR/AIM citing.
14 CFR 91.113
States, when two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land, or to overtake that aircraft.
What is up with ATC. The guy wants to go to one airport and they decide to send him to another without consulting. Then they let him go to his originally requested airstrip but ask him to fly around in circles while not sure if the plane will fall apart. How about asking what the pilot needs and get him down as soon as possible. How will ATC feel if the plane falls apart while circling.
The emergency equipment wasn't there. I'm assuming thats the push to orbit instead of landing. You're right though, should have asked what he wanted with an update included on the fire response.
ATC was doing their job. They were trying to get him into the big airport where emergency equipment is less than 90 seconds away in any major airport. That's pretty natural for any emergency where you want to go to the biggest airport with the most equipment and longest runway. It's a natural response but he preferred to go the smaller airport with I'm assuming dirt runway because he thought it would be safer than a hard surface which I tend to disagree with because a bent wheel will have more grab in the dirt than a hard surface so he could flip. Now obviously the final decision is up to the pilot that's why they asked him which airport he preferred and then he gave them a reasonable response and they did everything they could to accommodate his decision. As Adam stated the circling was required for the emergency equipment to get there for his landing but he could have landed at any time if he needed to and he didn't need ATC permission because it was an emergency. The ATC will always give you instructions to ensure your safety but they are not in the plane with you so it is always the pilot that makes the final decision for the safety of his plane and his life. I hope that helps.
I believe I can hear supervisors in the background giving instructions so they probably have a relatively new controller here getting experience.
@@DHStormrage But they didn't tell him that. None of the emergency communications here were professional. Not the pilot and not the ATC.
Emergency equipment services wasn't there.
Just another day in Alaska....
I'm surprised. ATC did not ask for souls on board or remaining fuel, and the pilot never declared a mayday.
What happened to the Cessna 270 (or 207, etc, I forget which)?
Maybe because when you use some common sense everybody knows that it is an emergency...
@@drumsoccer100
When you make assumptions, you open the pathway to error. In a delicate matter such as flying an aeroplane in a difficult situation, such errors can be fatal.
Your smug stupidity and lazy carelessness makes me pray that you're not a pilot, or if you are, that you never pilot an aircraft anywhere near me, my family, or my friends. 🙏
Why is it no pilot calls the emergency. The initial contact should have been "I have been an emergency, I have been in a midair collision".
Well first of all what you just said is not even proper english. Second, there is such a thing as not needing to state the obvious. Go back to your sim.
Why is the pilot allowing A.T.C. to control the situation? He's in charge and should be calling all the shots.
The ATC sounded like he wanted to make sure Emergency equipment was there so that when he landed they could take care of possible fire/injuries. When the pilot said he had more problems he asked if he wanted to lad then. I have been in an aircraft where the gear would not come down. I would rather wait for the Emergency vehicles. Fortunately we blew the gear down :)
PALH ATC is irritating. 😠
Pilots can always say no to ATC.
I’m a controller and i think this guy did a good enough job, but not exactly a great one. You can hear the supervisor in the background feeding him what to say. I agree though, if a pilot says anything that would make me think they’re an emergency and follows it with “I’m gonna do ___” then my next move is absolutely to oblige that and make sure it’s available
ATC is there to help and is working to understand the pilots goals and how to best achieve them. The moment the pilot declared intentions, the ATC made it work.
Alaska... where more people screwup than any other state. grrz.
I mean Alaska has 16 times more pilots and 6 times more aircraft than every other state combined.
Lake Hood atc not the brightest it seems.
Aircraft involved in a midair collision told to climb and conduct orbits after the PIC stated he was missing parts of his airplane. 🙄
The priority is to get it on the ground 🤔
ATC was likely trying to stall to ensure emergency services were on site when the plane landed.
@@aleksbiteman5324 the pilot was able to control it to get to the airport so the controller treated it like a possible unsafe gear situation. He was trying to be helpful and have the pilot do a low pass to check the condition of the gear. Pilot just wanted to land and assess the situation on on the ground.
The priority is safety not get it on the ground. If the pilot isn't able to or feels like he wants to do something other than instructed they can.
Cedar key - you’re jumping to conclusions. ATC was trying to ensure fire/rescue personnel were on scene before he attempted to land. If the pilot was unable to orbit or chose not to they would certainly let him land. But last thing they want is the plane to cartwheel and not have rescue on scene for it. You also need to realize that at the same time, ATC is also having to make notifications and answer radios/phones. It gets crazy how much we need to do before this a/c lands. This would not be on this audio unless they added it. Your statement that they aren’t too bright just shows that you don’t know what ATC has to do in the middle of these emergencies.
Who told you there is any reason to rush into a crash landing? That's not true at all.
What the hell is wrong with this controller?
4:13 What is the point of a visual inspection?
Is this not a land as soon as possible emergency?
He knows the gear is missing, and a visual inspection is not going to solve that.
The firetruck wasn't at the airport yet.
@Grace Jackson already had visual inspection from the "good samaritan" chase planes.
The damage was known.
ATC could have thought ‘am I making things better or worse?’.
How about if there is damage to the other 75% of the airplane that the pilot can't see? Damage to the horizontal stabilizer would be reason to touch down a higher speed. If the aircraft is controllable, there is no reason not to have a look. Notice as soon as the pilot expressed concern about controlling the plane ATC said forget about it.
Is it just me or is anyone else annoyed by the aircraft shadows on this channel? It takes away a lot of the realism for me. Side note: aircraft shadows, irl, do not get bigger as the aircraft ascends.
I know the shadows are unreal but they do convey a sense of altitude which is useful. I'm not looking for Google Maps, I want something that helps me visualise what's going on.
@@bobjohnbowles I agree. It's a flat 2D image so there's no sense of altitude. The shadows, while inaccurate, do solve that problem. i think they serve their purpose
I would have landed in the water.
You don't drown in dirt if it's a hard landing
Here we go again with everyone being obsessed with mayday and pan pan calls. Common sense can still exist in society, you don't always need to state the obvious.
You give ATC too much credit. I investigated a crash where a pilot reported receiving an ELT. The controller did nothing with the information. The next day they found out and went looking. The people survived the impact but died of exposure overnight. The FAA is so f-ing behind in training and short staffed they rush people thru. Not like it used to be.
And American pilot seem scared to declare an emergency. So maybe they are poorly trained also.
@@toddw6716 Or because we have enough common sense to know when everyone gets the message without having to state the obvious...
@@drumsoccer100 if that was the case we wouldn’t have had this midair. Too many jackasses flying with lots of money and no sense.
@@toddw6716 Have you proven that the mid air was actually due to a pilot error? If someone was at a wrong VFR altitude then sure. If not, then explain how someone is a jackass for not noticing another plane. If you fly at all, you should know how difficult that can be.
palh tower are dreadful!
Ok, number 1 N23B needed to declare a emergency. Number 2 it’s what the pilot wants to do! It’s not ATC problem you tell them what your going to do and that’s it. As for landing on dirt I would have opted for a hard surface. Oh PILOT AND ATC to avoid any confusion.
RIGHT! But you need to say the words. MAYDAY tells everyone who hears that you are in immediate danger of becoming dead. It also allows you to do as you please, even if that is landing at a closed or military airfield. They can't arrest you if you are dead, and they will be only too pleased to extiinguish the fire if you do crash there. It's good practice and nobody wants you dead anyway. Correct emergency procedure seems not to be taught in the US. Americans are too cool to tell everyone they are about to die unless they get lucky, or skillful. Quite often you see some civil aircraft lose an engine, or have a control system issue, on the radio they say "No, we are fine, no emergency". Then they run the checklist and get to the line that says "Set transponder to 7700" because the aircraft manufacturer knows they are at serious risk, and the ATC was asking because even "not a pilot" in the control tower knows they have a good chance of landing in a smoking crater.
“It’s what the pilot wants to do!” Well sure if the pilot wants to be trapped and die in the burning wreckage of his plane while waiting 5-6 minutes for rescue to get there, that is his choice. While the decision is the pilots, ATC does provide alternate, and often better options.
@@andrewtaylor940 I worked with these people for 30 years. Some of them don’t have a clue. If your not prepared and think ATC is going to bail you out. Well I got some land for sale in Louisiana
Why did he need to declare an emergency? What extra help would he have gotten? How was it not obvious enough that he was in an emergency? Use some common sense.
@@toddw6716 Bail you out? No. But ATC often will be aware of options and situations you might not be. This is a perfect example. The pilot wanted a small airfield that had no on site fire rescue. ATC suggested an alternate that had better facilities. When the pilot expressed his desire for the more familiar field ATC got things moving to insure that help was where it needed to be, while giving him the option to stay airborne a little longer until they could arrive. I don’t know what your beef is with ATC, and frankly I don’t care. The assumption that every weekend warrior GA pilot knows better than the people paid and trained to manage the skies as a full time job is absurd. Honestly the pilot in this case made an understandable but stupid decision to go to the smaller airfield, and he got lucky thanks to the Herculean efforts of those on the ground. Yes he knew that airfield better and had a damaged plane. So had fewer variables in lining up for it. But he was flying into someplace with no help on the ground.
This is an old incident.
Probably why it has that date from 2018 at the top, genius.
@@slhs1992 omg thank you for point that out to me I didn’t know!! Oh wait I already point it out troll.
@@uprrslo He's not trolling you just don't need to point it out really... it's not hard to read the description.
@@uprrslo it's already there so there was zero reason for you to point it out idiot
@@keithhaire8935 yeah sounded like it to me with his reply. I saw no description I was looking at the posting time.
Man oh man, why are pilots so literally effing TERRIFIED to say "mayday"? Is it a genitalia length thing? A Chuck Yeager emulation thing?
"I hit a guy, he crashed, I'm missing one landing gear, but I'm gonna land it anyway, whatever, here I am". What a stud.... like they'd rather die than admit they're scared.