A lot of comments here say it was clearly ‘right side’, but to me it sounds like the transmission was stepped on in that exact moment. Skip to 3:05 in the video and listen without reading the transcript. It's a lot less clear that it appears when reading. Add into this how clear that radio signal is onboard the aircraft and it is far more understandable that this was the reason they heard ‘left’.
Good catch! Yep, no doubt whatsoever on that. That key mic could have created an absolute disaster. The controller was pushing tin for sure. Talk about a stressful job!
I disagree, I heard right but I also have 32+ years of listening to aviation radio traffic and they way he spoke was more drawn out than ‘left’…. I think that the AA ‘heard’ left because that would have been the turnout for the circle back to get back in line. The controller saying right was just so the takeoff acft could make their normal departure/left turn out. I agree that it could be easily misinterpreted but the pilot should have read back the clearance vs the nonchalant “on the go”. Both at fault but the controller will be found in the wrong because there was no reason to cut it that close with that much going on…even though it is a busy airport. The Sun Country taxi caused just enough of a delay to play into that, which the controller should have recognized and help the takeoff until the landing acft was clear. Moving at 130+ knots on approach vs going fm 0 to 120 knots is much easier to manage. Controller fault.
@@talonpilot I never suggested the lack of read back was not a fault within this as well. Just that it sounds like someone keyed the mic at that moment and what we are hearing is slightly clearer that how it generally is whilst flying. I also agree that clearing another flight for takeoff in that moment was foolish and dangerous. It was clear the Sun County flight's egress was slower than the ATC had anticipated and he was trying to play catch up. One thing I've always wondered is what potential there is to improve the radio systems in order to negate some of the issues that come with calls stepping on one another resulting in blocked transmissions. Obviously, it would be of little additional use were two calls to come in clearly at once, which then led me to wondering about a hold system that could store the second message coming in ready to be played back as soon as aircraft 1 has been dealt with, but then I could see issues with such messages stacking up and becoming overwhelming. Is there a better way anyone knows of that isn't being used or hasn't been tried?
@TheGreyAreaBetween the problem is already solved with digital radio like TETRA used by emergency services around the world. After you press the transmit button the radio will reserve the frequency and then give an indication that you may start speaking. If the channel is busy you will not be able to speak. When you release the button you will hear the other transmission. The digital radio also has 100% perfect sound and longer range. It is very slow to introduce changes in the aviation world so no bets on when there will be an adoption.
@@mrfrenzy. It was interesting to see that Airbus tested AI communication with ATC today in case of pilot incapacitation. Would TETRA work at a busy airport do you think?
@homagetogorto Is telling someone to "lighten up" indicative that they've been offended in any way? I'm having a hard time connecting those dots. And it IS 2023, and people have never appeared to be more shitty to each other than ever before! America average a mass shooting like every other day while in other countries that would make their country come to a screeching halt and recalibrate. America is truly a broken place. Hope this doesn't offend anyone, it just makes me sad tbh.
If you listen carefully, it sounds like another aircraft keyed up briefly when the controller said the word "right". Keep in mind, these transmissions can sound WAY different in the pilots' and controllers' ears than they do to us here on youtube (an important note to all you "keyboard warriors" out there). The American never readback right side. I am not a tower controller, but I don't think that would fall under a required readback, so if it was that important to the controller, he should have made absolutely sure to get a solid readback on that control instruction. Nothing will happen to either party, just a controller cutting it too close and not communicating effectively enough, and pilot who were doing there best but could have done a better job assuring they had the correct instructions. Happens daily in the NAS.
Not sure it was blocked considering he replied with "you said left." Either way tho that was a silly line up. If Sun country could exit A3 there couldn't have been that much of a back log. My guess is after hearing the flow of Sun country, Delta probably also had a time about to expire and the controller pushed it for him. Shot in the dark, but that's my best guess.
@@clovis86 I don't disagree there. I don't know the standard miss instructions here, nor care to look it up, but I'm willing to guess it's runway heading. The pilot probably just flew the published missed based on his information. Even a 20 degrees right continue climb to altitude would have been more then enough.
When the controller issued the go-around he already realized that he had lost approved separation. At that point he’s trying to avoid a collision. He just didn’t want the AA flying down the runway with the delta climbing into AA. So he said “right side” but the AA never read back the clearance so it’s actually a moot point. He assumed the pilot was just right of the runway so he turned the delta left. Unknown what the controllers vantage point was or the radar resolution available.
A go-around is an approved form of separation tho, especially with an offset instruction like he issued. Granted, the pilot(s) didn’t offset to the right side and it threw the local controller off enough to issue an unhelpful turn, but he never lost separation until the departure end with the turn debacle. He made mention of the ILS critical area which implicates weather was well below the point of using tower applied visual separation with both of their turns on the go.
Usually Tower controllers don't have radar. They separate aircrafts just by looking outside , through the windows. Radar screen, if available is used for a reference, not as a separation method.
@@abelperez5495 most FAA towers these days have radar displays, a good amount of them have certified displays and can apply radar approach services from them as well. There aren’t many towers anymore without radar displays.
@@whatilearnttoday5295 with the high number of flights in/out that airports have to cope with there is a lot of pressure on ATC to do exactly what was done on this video. Normally the spacing is such that they can have an aircraft depart in between two landing planes. Obviously this time with having to wait for the taxing aircraft to exit the runway it used up more of the available time than the controller realised or the roll out took a bit longer or the inbound aircraft was just that bit faster. Probably a case of all three factors.
What was the urgency to get that Delta flight cleared for takeoff? Should have been hold short, American lands, then cleared for takeoff. Ridiculous amount of risk accepted to have them follow sun country and line up.
Exactly. The landing planes were separated to allow 1 plane between them, not 2. Trying to squeeze both in the interval without adjusting that interval was a very dangerous stunt.
@@lynndale4718 This Local controller pushed it so hard that HE had to call the go-around. This incident is 100% the Local controller's fault. He's playing with hundreds of people's lives just to meet some arbitrary metric regarding number of arrivals and departures per day. If the airport needs that many arrivals/departures, here's an idea! Open the other parallel runway and use one for departures and the other for arrivals.
I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that the AA pilot thought he heard "left" because someone momentarily stepped on the controller while saying "right." I also have a hunch that, had the AA read back the entire go-around instruction, the controller would have caught the directional mistake and avoided the near collision. I'm open to receiving constructive thoughts.
Yeah, "American 2406 on the go" wasn't useful. The pilot knew why he had to do a go-around, he knew or should have known why he was told which side of the runway to turn towards. Omitting the direction in his read-back was dumb. Of course, the controller should have caught the omission, too. Everybody suddenly had a big workload, and that's when mistakes happen.
My heart stopped just looking at this animation and how close they were. Can't imagine being one of the pilots or a passenger looking out to see another plane right there!
Wow, we're seeing so many of these near-accidents because of controllers trying to sequence flights too tightly. I wonder if pilots need to be more aware and ready to reject takeoff or landing clearances. Both the Delta and American pilots knew what was going on. The Delta was told the AA was 5 miles out when they were cleared to line up and wait. That means DL had only around 1.5-2 minutes to get out of the way of the landing AA - and it was still pulling into position at that point. (I hope I have my math right.) That sounds crazy to me.
That was for his release, which is kind of like a window to have them airborne which is for en route spacing and sequencing if they’re going some place very busy.
He had a slot time to takeoff (maybe it changed to a later time while he was taxiing) slots are given to ensure the air traffic load does not exceed the limit of a sector or the destination airport
As others have mentioned, it sounds to me like the controllers "right" of the runway got a mic keyed at the moment the controller said it. I think this is a classic case of needing to slow down. I know that job is stressful and demanding. Yes, it was a close call for sure. Hopefully lessons were learned.
He clearly said "right side" but then said runway xx "left" so probably the AA pilot just picked up left or under stress thought the last word for direction
The pilot should have called the instructions back as he heard them. He only said "on the go." Had he called back "left side 3-0 left, American xxxx", the controller could have spotted his error and corrected him.
It's only clear for us because we had a transcript. Give another listen and you hear that only the "t" at the end of 'right' (and, coincidentally, 'left' as well) is audible with the rest being stepped on by another mic.
Lol tell that to controllers at ORD or ATL. You realize there’s places that HAVE to make squeeze plays work or there are delays? Some airports have an arrival/departure capacity like a river flow and they can’t afford/don’t have time to be having unexploited gaps on final. It’s no different in the radar.
@@utvwerxoffroadfabdesign4172 - I agree they have to be done... BUT, to do it safely and consistently, people really have to be on their A game. If you can't get rolling w/out delay, then you shouldn't accept a lineup & wait clearance where the twr & context makes it clear another a/c is on close final.
@@utvwerxoffroadfabdesign4172 If delays are the result of operating safely, then that is the real time and the "delay" isn't a thing. If safety results in delays then your original schedule was over-capacity and negligent.
I think the AA pilot on the radio needs to slow down on the PTT button. I’m pretty sure he was so quick that he was the one who stepped on the controller before he was finished. He did it twice, once during the go-around instruction and then when the controller asked about the right side. He needs to give a few more milliseconds there to make sure the controller’s finished.
Ok I understand that in Europe we are way more conservative on separation, the place where I work requires the departing plane to roll before the approach is at 4nm from the threshold. Anyhow putting an extra plane on the runway ( The one that had to vacate because he was too early) was definitely a bad idea
On the other hand, you guys give conditional clearances (behind landing traffic, line up rwyXX behind landing traffic) which feels not so conservative if you ask me. Although ICAO allows it, it's a big no no in our procedures over here.
@@simboodamn I don’t see anything wrong with conditional clearances. Just requires crews to look out and to have some more situational awareness. On the other hand I don’t get the idea of issuing multiple landing clearances at a time while there are still aircraft departing/crossing the runway (example SFO). Doesn’t that make the landing clearance quite worthless and more like a „runway assignment but we‘ll see“.
@@sahilkulen you give conditional line up clearance before the aircraft has actually past the threshold. In multiple landing clearances, you can ask the aircraft to pull up before it reaches a certain point if the runway is not clear. It gives the controller more time to do other task. I believe the intent of the conditional clearances is the same, but it feels more risky from my point of view, that's all.
I had watched another breakdown video where there was a keyed mic "beep" during the right/left call from ATC. Is that what the AA crew would have heard?
Because the pilot wasn’t doing anything else at that moment. …… go around set thrust flaps eight positive rate gear up speed mode heading mode climb thrust flaps up after takeoff checklist.
No. Many reasons, but above all the variety of speeds. A Q400 can slow to 120 knots comfortably. A heavy would never. Can't have a spacing time as it would just cause more delays not being able to use space in front of slow traffic
@@thomasafb Interesting. In Canada the departure must be wheels up prior to the arrival crossing the threshold of the same runway is the only separation standard for the runway. Traffic is on the roll clear to land is perfectly acceptable, if it works. Which is such an odd thing. ICAO can govern, but the FAA and Nav Canada have final say on their respective rules. I assume the USA is actually more similar to this standard, but I have no idea.
American pilot should be required to read back the instructions in addition to go around. If he read it back incorrectly, controller would have known to turn Delta right after takeoff
not practical--pilots are task-saturated for many seconds after a go-around ATC painted everything into a corner and this is the kind of thing that happens when they do that
@@herestoyoudoc agree to disagree, I don't think "on the go, right side" is significantly more detrimental to addressing that task saturation than "on the go"
@@TheYosh7 there's some doubt as to whether he heard the word "right" cleanly--they flew left side from stress-induced confirmation bias hopefully they pulled the box on the AA plane; if it turns out that "right" was stepped on the controller's got no way out of this one
I understand the practical need for anticipated separation, but i feel like this whole thing couldve been avoided if atc gave American a heading during the go around instead of telling him to pass on the right over parallel runways. Is there a reason this cannot be done?
It's probably down to the current procedures at this airport, but I suspect they will be overhauled when the FAA investigation is done so that this can't happen again.
Usual TCAS job is to issue a climb order to one plane and a descent order to the other. You can't issue a descent order to a plane that is already very close to the ground. So TCAS is automatically deactivated when close to the ground.
Tower pushing two AC in the gap is pretty bold. The Delta, if truly situationally aware, would have declined. @1:43 Line up with traffic 5 out and a taxing airliner ahead....No thanks! Speaking of SA, regardless of any blocked comms, the American would've realized the departing traffic climbing into them. Evasive action?
Someone stepped on the word "right" but at the same time, the American Airlines pilot did not read back the complete instruction. This was probably mostly on the controller, trying to get too much done and too short of a period of time
2:51 "cleared to land three zero left, traffic is rolling now" ATC knew exactly what he was doing. Thought the landing jet was further out than it was. Then, for some unknown reason, tried to blame it on the pilot even though the whole thing was being taped. So now there is error and malicious effort to shift known blame.
Sounds like low vis at MSP. ATC had no business moving SY down the runway and moving DL into position with AA on a 2-mile final. TCAS has no RA at that altitude. Everyone involved very lucky that didn't turn out worse.
Once more, we have a local controller trying to hard too push his departures. I don't know if its an ego thing or what, but there is no excuse for these controller-induced conflicts. Yes, the American pilot didn't parallel the runway on the right side as instructed but the controller should have never turned Delta out until he was sure visual separation existed between the two aircraft. Not the way we used to do things.
Controllers use anticipated separation often, and call off landings when they get too tight but they definitely need to give better missed approach instructions, heading & altitude. This pass left/pass right nonsense over parallel runways is just confusion waiting to happen.
or just use 2 freq's One for ATC transmit and receive on the aircraft 1 for Aircraft to Transmit and everybody else to receive That way the Tower will never be stepped on. But it means double radios.. additional cost For airlines I don't see the issue really but smaller aircraft cannot bear that cost. Considering the bigger issues for airliners, the higher fatalities if it goes wrong, It could be implemented for big commercial airports. Smaller planes are rare at such airports and they will have to work on the single ATC freq, which would rarely result on them stepping on anybody
@@stijnvandamme76 That would be a good start as there is enough room in the frequency spectrum. Radios would not have to be larger. It would be a simply matter of some additional circuitry and software.
They had an assigned departure time ("flow time") and weren't allowed to depart before then. The flow times for individual aircraft are assigned by the FAA It's an attempt to control arrivals by scheduling departures based on all the factors they know at the time. It's better to hold them on the ground for 15 minutes before they depart than have them circle their destination upon arrival.
@@hark31 That's a good question, but I have no answer. It could be that the calculations are already taking the possibility of slower than normal flight speeds into consideration and still wanted/needed the Sun Country not to depart yet. Or perhaps the calculations prioritize allowing the flight, once in the air, to fly at its optimal cruise speed to maximize efficiency. Hopefully someone who knows will chime in. To further that goal, let me say something so wrong that someone will feel the need to correct it. :)
@@hark31 It makes no sense unless you understand that "Flow time" has nothing to do with getting passengers to their destinations and everything to do with the deep state using the FAA and the complicit airlines to disperse chemicals into the atmosphere at the correct times and places necessary to keep the sheeple drugged at the optimal levels.
Im still not sure how 2406 got so close vertically when they had a good 100knt and 500ft head start on Delta. Wish this feed had vertical numbers to see how long it took American to start climbing after the go around call.
I find it really interesting that tower turned Delta into the AA jet on the go. Why didn't verify AA's position before he told Delta turn left 260? AA for some reason didn't offset right as instructed. But this wasn't a big problem until tower turned Delta into AA.
@@MyGoogleTH-cam That would have increased the collision risk. The departing aircraft should have kept straight ahead for a couple of miles to get flaps 0, wheels up, and out of the way asap. Tight turning circles also cause bank stalls
Tower controller did not have visual of either aircraft due to poor weather/visibility conditions. Earlier in the video he references ILS critical area which is a clue that he has no visual reference of the runway itself. Another clue is when he asked Delta if he was behind Sun Country which also indicates he lacked visibility of the runway. He issued a clear instruction for American to side step the runway to the right to avoid conflict which American failed to do. Whether his transmission was blocked or American wasn’t paying attention is topic for another discussion. In the end, luck saved the day.
@@hayden4516 Some people have mentioned it, sounds like the 'turn right' order was stepped on. AA might not have heard it and having another aircraft already lifting off right below you is probably a rather stressful. I recall from one of the Mayday episodes modern aircraft have a collision avoidance system and pilots are supposed to follow that systems instructions over instructions given by aircraft controllers. One aircraft followed the Collision Avoidance Systems orders and the other followed the controllers orders leading to a midair collision. The system may have been telling AA to go left to avoid collision, in which case Deltas would have been telling them to go right, which explains why if the call was stepped on that AA might have heard left.
You have two fast moving objects separated by the length of 3 football fields vertically passing your position and you think you'll have the perfect ability to tell whether one of them is right or left of the other?
The more experienced i get the more i realize we need to remake aviation radio comms. Jets are still using 1930s-1940s technology basically designed for aircraft who would rip their wings off at 140 knots.
Already done. AI is going to replace the entire system. All the planes will be autonomous, controlled by a computer. They will communicate with each other over a network. Standard routes will be defined and programmed, traffic patterns around airports, taxiways, etc. It's all done.
@@taekwondotime nobody is getting on an airplane without a pilot. Spacecraft have been capable of fully autonomous flight since the 1950s. Think of all the times everything went wrong and was saved by a clever astronaut. Pilots are here to stay. That germanwings plane a few years ago didn’t even attempt to avoid that mountain. It did exactly what the autopilot told it to, all the way to the scene of the crash.
There will still be pilots on board to intervene in case of an error, and to handle takeoffs and landings for quite some time, but all the routing stuff will be automated. All the "A to B" stuff in between will be done by computer. Pilots won't be taking heading or altitude changes over the radio any more. @@thevictoryoverhimself7298
I think the controller is the one who's in the jackpot here--especially if they pull the recorder on the AA plane and it turns out the "right side" instruction was stepped on. Full read-back of a go-around instruction is not required and impractical in any case, because surprise go-arounds are prone to task-saturation and expecting perfect comms is ludicrous. Trying to squeeze the Delta in before AA was the critical mistake here--everything went downhill after that. Certainly could've been avoided if Delta pilot was like "unable" but frankly the controller is the one who painted everyone into the corner. Yet, ultimately, it's not even the controller's fault; parts of our infrastructure are buckling under sudden demand and I hope instead the FAA addresses the institutional shortcomings instead. But that's probably too much to hope for; it's very much more likely either the controller of AA pilot is going to get scapegoated.
Having worked with both systems in fringe conditions, The digital is even more prone to dropping a word or two here and there, where in the same circumstance, ,analog signal might have static and be weak, but still readable. Stepping on each other may mean that nothing comes through at all, and the speaker does not realize it did not go through. Trunking system may help, but comes with its own problems. A central Virginia agency was having its transmissions from the portable radios diverted to coastal Virginia agency under certain atmosperic conditions, where the radio in the field had a stronger signal from the distant network, that from its own network, with mountains between the radio and its home network. Was at the meeting with Motorola where this was identified. All radio technologies are sketchy and imperfect, at times, as they rely on the FM principle.........F'ing Magic.
Just as he said "right side" the communication was not clear, I can see how the pilot could've interpreted it as "left side". However, the pilot did not reply "left or right" and could've been more proactive and double check if it was left or right.
Because of the go around right as they approached the runway, I bet the pilots were busy aviating at that moment and the amount of attention available for communication was reduced to minimum.
No, radio's handled by the second pilot, not the pilot flying, for exactly this reason. It does add a 2-second delay in response time, although hopefully the PIC is listening in. They're moving from a nice widely-spaced route to controlled anarchy on the ground, and it's not helped by traffic load. A key element of CRM is the need to say "No" and make it stick, despite the airlines pushing to get you to the end of that flight ASAP.
@@themightyangustma2753 Not necessarily, light aircraft do them continuously. The issue here was having two aircraft on the go simultaneously, a lesson learned in Tenerife. The resulting loss of situational awareness can overwhelm a single pilot, and the words NO and TOGA cannot be repeated often enough. It's simply an extension of the Precautionary Principle, if you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Recognise when organised chaos is turning into actual chaos, and don't add it it. Divert if necessary, and get the bosses to ream the GC out in the washup. An aircraft in the air should always, therefore, have priority over one on the ground. They were lucky in this bugger's muddle. And yes, I have operated a miniature air fleet, shipping European diplomats to conferences. The funniest was briefing my neighbour, an ATC at ZAV, on an incoming Luftwaffe airbus. EC handed it over, and AC were so used to LH they automatically accepted it. Then did a double-take, "LW, who's the agents?" Voice from the far side of the tower, "That's Rahere's, LH handling." Chief controller: "I'm not giving the f'ing Luftwaffe clearance. Give that bugger his own airline code."
I think the AA pilot on the radio has a hair-trigger finger on that PTT button. He was so quick that he stepped on the controller before he was finished. He actually did it twice, once on the go-around and then again when the controller asked him about the right-side.
Why can't Sun Country 261 cross the runway at A1 to W1 and turn around at W2? That would keep the runway unoccupied as much as possible, or would this position still interfere with the ILS too much?
The ILS Critial Area (glide slope antenna) is just beyond W3 and covers W2 and W1. When ceiling and visibility is below 800/2, it's a prohibited area for aircraft when traffic is on the approach inside the marker. Visibility was 1 1/2 miles when this happened.
@@billnelson3732 wait, wait, wait...he did this in lowered visibility conditions? I mean not full LVP, but still not exactly good. Look, I have some experience in the tower, not much, about a year work with an instructor during my training (failed unfortunately, hence the little experience) and I thought doing this was a bit sketchy in CAVOK, but in a situation where the controller cannot see the arriving aircraft and the arrival cannot clearly see the departure it's not sketchy, it's spectacularly irresponsible and stupid, and is definitely something that would get the shift supervisor to take your ass off the frequency immediately even if it didn't result in an air miss, and would get your license temporarily pulled. At least here in Serbia or pretty much anywhere that's working under Eurocontrol regulations. Like reports would be filed, you would have to go through a few hours of simulator with and instructor and pass an assessment in live traffic in order to get it back. Oh and they would slap you with a 10-30% salary penalty as well depending on the severity of the situation.
@@andrewlorenzo6611 Yeah, I am aware of this, I had one two when I worked, but if you want to push something on a knife edge the way he was trying to it's always preferable to be able to actually see the planes, and even more importantly for the pilot to be able to see the departure which is still on the runway, doing something like this, this close, in lowered visibility is stupid as hell, radar or not. You're just putting both pilots in danger, and they don't have the adequate situational awareness to avoid it.
as a kid in the 50ties and your dad is ww2 pilot seemed like this was the normal back in the day--only time in my life i heard my dad cuss when a plane came on us over LA harbor and dad jammed the stick forward in our piper 140 as plane came up behind and to his left--as i look up it seemed to be only 20ft and loud as heck
thanks for sharing. The topic of kids view of WWII pilot dads is one not explored much. Must have been very exciting hanging out with him whilst he was in his element.
@@johnthompson5741 A controller can issue a divergent heading to increase lateral separation.Knowing that the departure will be executing a left turn, a heading to the right, for the aircraft on the go around may have been reasonable.
@@morganghetti There is designated airspace that is provided for the control tower. CZ, Usually a 5nm radius around the airport, up to 3000 ft. with extensions to include the final approaches. The controller knows who is in it. Though it is usual, or standard, to send the go round aircraft, on a runway heading, issuing a heading and turn to avoid a collision is a choice, and often used.
Read back issue is only a consequence. The root cause is the ATC trying to squeeze 2 planes (1 taxiing, 1 departing) in the landing planes separation that he initially designed for only one. But since the SCX that was supposed to use that departure slot had an issue he tried a risky stunt to still have a plane departing on that slot.
I tend to follow on flightradar24 when wife is flying. So imagine what was going through my head when she was to take off from Washington International last year, so I see the plane lining up with the runway, speed goes up, then it decelerates and exits the runway. She was told later on that some VVVVVIP missed the flight and they had to go back to the gate to pick the person.
Wow, typically someone with that many "V's" in front of their "IP" isn't gonna fly on a commercial flight. When cost doesn't matter, it's easier to have a private/charter flight.
@@Spaniard022 You gotta be extremely important for a pilot to reject takeoff. Costs a minor fortune to do the brake and wheel inspections and delay a flight for the mechanical if they made it to the 80kt cross-check. I am not that important, they'd book me on the next flight that's convenient for them.
@@kdawson020279 Well, that was the explanation given. No idea who the person was. As my wife was in the back of the plane, she could not see. Anyway, it was scarier for me than for her :)
What should be alarming is the ATC mistakes we keep seeing week after week. How did the controller not see the conflict that was about to happen. That's the controllers job.
@@whatilearnttoday5295, it's definitely just a matter of time. There are many new Captain's at the majors with minimal experience. Not like the old days...
If a controller wants something he needs to be very specific. “Right side” to one pilot might mean a slight right, while another might turn 30 degrees to the right. A heading to AA would’ve helped to avoid this.
Closed loop communication would have helped here. ATC "2406 go around right side 30L" AA "2406 going around, right side, 30L" This casual "on the go" business is getting out of hand and needs to be addressed.
He was already rolling.. You cannot land if there is a plane lined up on the runway, right where your landing plane would touch down, much land when there is a plane rolling on the runway, if it has any issue and aborts. the landing plane will hit it as well
The 1163 took off because the controller told 1163 to take off. It’s that simple. The controller could have easily had 1163 hold short of 30L, have 2406 land, then have 1163 take off after 2406 taxis off the runway. The controller did not do so probably due to pressure from management. The FAA is really begging for an accident with permitting clearing take off and landing when the runway or airspace isn’t clear.
I don't get it... circle back for later flow time? is that to do with planned landing slot at the destination or what? Why not just take off, and fly a bit slower or circle in pattern at destination? idling on the taxiway costs fuel just the same. Seems so pointless?
They don't have unlimited fuel. Long delays holding at destinations can easily lead to diversions, which are bad for everyone. If it is a significant delay, they can shut down engines while waiting on a taxiway. Even if they keep them running, sitting on the ground they burn fuel at a much lower rate vs. in the air. Also, congested airspace leads to overworked ATC and traffic hazards.
Why is everyone discussing if left or right was called by atc? Isn't either side fine, just as long as you do not go around right above the runway and the plane taking off?
Def not ATC, nor familiar with their radios. However, as a 911 dispatcher for 10yrs, we had "console priority". Meaning if we were stepped on while transmitting, we could still hear the units in the field, in our ears. While we were talking. Pub safety may certainly be diff, but if one unit is talking, and another attempts to talk, by keying up their radio, the 2nd unit would get a beep on their radio, showing that the channel was being talked on by another unit. Would be curious to see if they have the same. Idk tho 😢 but prob sounds unlikely, based on the missed transmissions and being stepped on.
Nope. It all just runs over itself. There are several incidents where an aircraft radio gets stuck transmitting and ATC is just doing its best to get everyone to circle until the plane unsticks it so everyone else can talk. There's even a squawk code for "radio's broke, yo." ... 7600.
Aircraft and ground stations are all on one simplex frequency. If someone is transmitting, there is absolutely no way they can hear at the same time or even know if another station is transmitting. Console priority is something that can only happen in a duplex repeater type system with mountain top stations and large filter equipment.
To add to what @EdowythIndowyl said, it's pretty easy for one municipality to upgrade their radios to units that do that kind of OOB signalling and multiplexing, because they control all the radios. Airplanes can go almost literally _anywhere,_ so designing an upgraded aviation radio would require the cooperation of every single government in the entire world. Hence, airplanes still use the same AM technology used in kid's walkie-talkies in the 1960's. I mean, we _finally_ got an upgraded transponder system within the last five years, and _that_ had to be compatible with both the previous generation of transponders, _and_ the transponder system that came before that, because there are still some places in the world that still use the old Mode A system.
The controller had them on runway 30-Left, and there was a "heterodyne" (two people transmitting on the same frequency) at the critical moment when the plane was told to go on the right side. Shame on the American pilot for not reading back or asking the tower to repeat.
3:27 AAL2406 Turn left 260 3:29 reads back 260 AAL2406 3:39 AAL2406 turn left 280 3:41 reads back 280 AAL2406 Why the F is AAL2406 NOT TURNING? at 3:50 DAL1163 is told to turn left 260 and INSTANTLY turns.
2:43 you can hear the pressure on the pilot by how he slurs the words, as he tries to speak a bit faster. You don't notice this yourself by doing this, your brain tricks you and fills in what you've left out. It's clear he knew that this was risky and he didn't had much time to waste here to make it work.
"On the Go" is incorrect phraseology, and should NEVER be used 1) by pilots, 2) by air traffic controllers, 3) by people issuing instructional or informational materials (including accident or close-call videos), 4) by people commenting on such videos. If you pause to consider how many accidents and near accidents have listed as contributing factors incorrect or ambiguous communications, it might not sound quite as snazzy. If you stop to consider a Chinese or Indian pilot who has worked hard to learn everything there is to learn about flying, who has worked even harder to learn all of the English language requirements, and who has struggled to master the dialects (s)he will encounter in different English-speaking regions, it is clearly unnecessary and unsafe to throw in slick cowboy lingo, even if "on the go" is easier to mumble with an unfiltered Camel hanging out your lips and a lassoo in your left hand. Americans have been guilty of these transgressions and had to be called to order many times (remember, "Position and Hold"?), and it needs to stop. I understand that the transmission may have been stepped on, but I also find it not a coincidence that the pilot focusing on sounding cool also failed to execute the go-around as instructed.
A few points came out of this for me. Firstly, I'm wondering why the atc created such a tight situation in the first place. Second, we don't know the approach speed of American. If it wasn't down to safe minimum then the atc should have instructed that. And thirdly, the crew of SCX261 should have had a 'picture' of what was happening and taxied immediately at their best rate instead of having to be instructed to do so. For me, 261 was the culprit here.
Look I've spent almost two years training to become a tower ATC, of that a full year in the tower in live traffic (I failed unfortunately, but it was more of a quick thinking and adapting and confidence issue rather then knowledge) and I can confidently tell you that he failed to do all but a one single damn thing to make sure this actually succeeds. Which means he failed at literally the number one thing they teach you in ATC, that you need make sure to do absolutely everything in your power to accomplish what you are planning and prepare everyone involved as best as possible when you're going for a tight gap like here. Here's a list of all of the things that he should have done to increase his chances of making this work: 1)Tell AA2406 to reduce to minimum app speed (or as much as possible to still keep separation from succeeding arriving traffic); 2) When instructing the SCX261 to enter the runway and vacate at A3 also tell them to be expedite in that instruction, not after 30 seconds or whatever it was in real time; 3) Third was the only thing he actually did which was tell the DAL1163 to line up and be ready, and to start to roll with no delay; 4) and fourth and final thing, probably the most important one was to not fucking do it in 1 and 1/2 miles fucking visibility when he cannot visually separate the arrival and the departure and the arrival cannot see the departing either, so the situational awareness of both pilots is rather lacking for a tight squeeze like that. He fucked up, big time, and in Europe he would get his license suspended and would need to pass an evaluation with an assessor in live traffic, and maybe even a few hours of simulator after that.
@@axel995r Kmowledge, is what gives you confidence and the ability to think rapidly @nd come up with a solution. You gave it your best, kudos to you, but this career is not for everyone.
@@rubenvillanueva8635 yeah, it is, but skill plays a part to for sure, you can have all the theory in the world at the tip of your fingers, but just like a lot of complex skills not everyone can turn that theory into practice, I unfortunately couldn't. Though a shitty instructor at the beginning of my work at the tower didn't help my skill and confidence at all, but that's another story lol.
My view is that SCX was not stupid and was already taxiing as fast as possible. But the ATC was so focused on his terribly stupid plan of squeezing both planes in the slot that he issued extra orders to speed up in the hope that this would magically create the extra room that never existed. He did the same when clearing Delta to depart by insisting on the speed. As if he ever saw a plane departing without applying full thrust. Those expedite orders were most likely the panicking ATC trying to convince himself his decision was right.
@@christianbarnay2499 Well not necessarily, the SCX might have been taxiing along the runway at regular speed, as he had no instruction to expedite, so why would he waste extra fuel, inconvenience his passengers and possibly break company taxi speed restrictions when the controller did not tell him immediately to expedite, trust me, I've had it happen, if you don't tell them to speed it up, they often will not, and for the departing he also did the right thing (one of the rare ones in this situation) by telling him to do an immediate departure, because that means no stopping at line up, just taxi onto the runway and start rolling immediately, which is not the standard procedure for departures. But still his judgment of the situation was woefully poor, and arrogant if he thought that he could squeeze this through...oh and he could have also prepared the arriving by telling them departing still on the runway in case of a missed approach go right of rwy whatever it was, give him a clear instruction in advance and he'll follow it.
Right/left side is not standard. Go around a should include a heading if it’s needed for separation. If the CIG is low (which given that they were using the ILS Critical Area, it likely was) then there’s no visual on the runway or obstacles.
In a situation like this, when the a/c are virtually pancaked, regardless of whether the “right” was blocked or not, the tower controller should verify that the pilot understood the instruction. All American had read back was “on the go” with no direction of turn. It falls on the tower to get that kinda crucial info. Regardless, he had plenty of paperwork to fill after this.
Go around. Right side of runway or left side is just calm controller speak for Oh F, I messed up, More often than not the pilots see what's going on and will talk between them as in "this wont work" Right side , left side was from the military days. Example: AAL 123 GO around right side of runway. traffic on the roll.. LOL HA HA you just lost 3 months of your life. Do THAT in 0/0 weather you lost a year.
@@wildgurgs3614 And probably the pilot has read the map of the airport and knows the control tower is right in the middle between runways 30R and 30L, which means the the tower is on the right side of the runway 30L. I don't think a pilot with a sane mind would take the risk to hit the tower during a go around procedure.
Right side, left side of the runway for the go-around - it should never have got to that situation jeez. How about this, at an airport with parallel runways such as this the default should be one runway for landing aircraft and the other for departures, thoughts?
I think the default would last about 10 minutes until there was a situation where you needed to use both runways for landings and departures simply due to how many aircraft are coming and going and the fact that arrivals and departures are not balanced. I spent a whole 2 minutes trying to find data on the number of arrivals and departures at MSP throughout the day without success.
The controller should never have ordered Delta 1163 to enter the runway. The initial schedule was Delta 9975 landing, SCX departing, American landing, Delta 1163 departing. SCX had to go back, but due to some restrictions the only way back was to taxi on the active runway. The sane decision was Delta 9975 landing, SCX taxiing, American landing, Delta 1163 departing, SCX coming back later. But controller wouldn't accept a departing slot not being actually used for departing, so he attempted to squeeze both taxiing and departing in a single slot. And strangely that resulted in a complete mess.
AAL2406 Go around / Turn to Right 340 / expedite. That would deconflict within 2 seconds But for the life of me, why didn't AAL2406 turn left when he got the call at at 3:27 AND read it back??
Simpler fix: ATC not trying to squeeze 2 planes in 1 slot. The separation between both landing planes was calculated to allow one plane departing, not one taxiing on the runway and another departing. Ordering both planes to push max speed won't magically save the dumb dangerous situation he created.
A lot of comments here say it was clearly ‘right side’, but to me it sounds like the transmission was stepped on in that exact moment. Skip to 3:05 in the video and listen without reading the transcript. It's a lot less clear that it appears when reading. Add into this how clear that radio signal is onboard the aircraft and it is far more understandable that this was the reason they heard ‘left’.
Good catch! Yep, no doubt whatsoever on that. That key mic could have created an absolute disaster. The controller was pushing tin for sure. Talk about a stressful job!
I disagree, I heard right but I also have 32+ years of listening to aviation radio traffic and they way he spoke was more drawn out than ‘left’…. I think that the AA ‘heard’ left because that would have been the turnout for the circle back to get back in line. The controller saying right was just so the takeoff acft could make their normal departure/left turn out. I agree that it could be easily misinterpreted but the pilot should have read back the clearance vs the nonchalant “on the go”. Both at fault but the controller will be found in the wrong because there was no reason to cut it that close with that much going on…even though it is a busy airport. The Sun Country taxi caused just enough of a delay to play into that, which the controller should have recognized and help the takeoff until the landing acft was clear. Moving at 130+ knots on approach vs going fm 0 to 120 knots is much easier to manage. Controller fault.
@@talonpilot I never suggested the lack of read back was not a fault within this as well. Just that it sounds like someone keyed the mic at that moment and what we are hearing is slightly clearer that how it generally is whilst flying. I also agree that clearing another flight for takeoff in that moment was foolish and dangerous. It was clear the Sun County flight's egress was slower than the ATC had anticipated and he was trying to play catch up.
One thing I've always wondered is what potential there is to improve the radio systems in order to negate some of the issues that come with calls stepping on one another resulting in blocked transmissions. Obviously, it would be of little additional use were two calls to come in clearly at once, which then led me to wondering about a hold system that could store the second message coming in ready to be played back as soon as aircraft 1 has been dealt with, but then I could see issues with such messages stacking up and becoming overwhelming. Is there a better way anyone knows of that isn't being used or hasn't been tried?
@TheGreyAreaBetween the problem is already solved with digital radio like TETRA used by emergency services around the world. After you press the transmit button the radio will reserve the frequency and then give an indication that you may start speaking. If the channel is busy you will not be able to speak. When you release the button you will hear the other transmission. The digital radio also has 100% perfect sound and longer range.
It is very slow to introduce changes in the aviation world so no bets on when there will be an adoption.
@@mrfrenzy. It was interesting to see that Airbus tested AI communication with ATC today in case of pilot incapacitation. Would TETRA work at a busy airport do you think?
Me: "How did the animator confuse left and right!?" ... "Oh."
Lighten up
@@Caninedriver I know it's 2023, but how on earth did my comment offend you?
@@homagetogortoI think it was your tone or lack of emoji use
@@homagetogorto Inanity is irritating homofarto.
@homagetogorto
Is telling someone to "lighten up" indicative that they've been offended in any way? I'm having a hard time connecting those dots. And it IS 2023, and people have never appeared to be more shitty to each other than ever before! America average a mass shooting like every other day while in other countries that would make their country come to a screeching halt and recalibrate. America is truly a broken place. Hope this doesn't offend anyone, it just makes me sad tbh.
If you listen carefully, it sounds like another aircraft keyed up briefly when the controller said the word "right". Keep in mind, these transmissions can sound WAY different in the pilots' and controllers' ears than they do to us here on youtube (an important note to all you "keyboard warriors" out there). The American never readback right side. I am not a tower controller, but I don't think that would fall under a required readback, so if it was that important to the controller, he should have made absolutely sure to get a solid readback on that control instruction. Nothing will happen to either party, just a controller cutting it too close and not communicating effectively enough, and pilot who were doing there best but could have done a better job assuring they had the correct instructions. Happens daily in the NAS.
Not sure it was blocked considering he replied with "you said left." Either way tho that was a silly line up. If Sun country could exit A3 there couldn't have been that much of a back log. My guess is after hearing the flow of Sun country, Delta probably also had a time about to expire and the controller pushed it for him. Shot in the dark, but that's my best guess.
"right side" is also a pretty vague instruction. He should have assigned him a specific heading and altitude immediately.
@@BretBarron-cy5suI suspect the "you said left" was referring to runway 30L, especially if the "right side" for the go-around wasn't heard.
@@clovis86 I don't disagree there. I don't know the standard miss instructions here, nor care to look it up, but I'm willing to guess it's runway heading. The pilot probably just flew the published missed based on his information. Even a 20 degrees right continue climb to altitude would have been more then enough.
@@knagl Very good point actually. I think that does make the most sense.
Someone stepped on the ATCs mic when he said go around 'right side' Made a big difference.
The issue seems to be landing and takeoff on same runway - in Europe we are used to one runway for takeoff and one for landing
When you let things get so close that a left vs. right matters, maybe give it a little more space/time. The schedule be damned.
I really hope both the ATC and CEO go to prison when this invariably comes unstuck in a big way. Only a matter of time.
"Maybe"? ATC should never cleared DAL to takeoff.
When the controller issued the go-around he already realized that he had lost approved separation. At that point he’s trying to avoid a collision. He just didn’t want the AA flying down the runway with the delta climbing into AA. So he said “right side” but the AA never read back the clearance so it’s actually a moot point. He assumed the pilot was just right of the runway so he turned the delta left. Unknown what the controllers vantage point was or the radar resolution available.
A go-around is an approved form of separation tho, especially with an offset instruction like he issued.
Granted, the pilot(s) didn’t offset to the right side and it threw the local controller off enough to issue an unhelpful turn, but he never lost separation until the departure end with the turn debacle. He made mention of the ILS critical area which implicates weather was well below the point of using tower applied visual separation with both of their turns on the go.
Usually Tower controllers don't have radar. They separate aircrafts just by looking outside , through the windows. Radar screen, if available is used for a reference, not as a separation method.
How's this for a solution? Don't put 2 planes on the same runway at the same time?
@@abelperez5495 most FAA towers these days have radar displays, a good amount of them have certified displays and can apply radar approach services from them as well. There aren’t many towers anymore without radar displays.
@@whatilearnttoday5295 with the high number of flights in/out that airports have to cope with there is a lot of pressure on ATC to do exactly what was done on this video. Normally the spacing is such that they can have an aircraft depart in between two landing planes. Obviously this time with having to wait for the taxing aircraft to exit the runway it used up more of the available time than the controller realised or the roll out took a bit longer or the inbound aircraft was just that bit faster. Probably a case of all three factors.
What was the urgency to get that Delta flight cleared for takeoff? Should have been hold short, American lands, then cleared for takeoff. Ridiculous amount of risk accepted to have them follow sun country and line up.
Exactly. The landing planes were separated to allow 1 plane between them, not 2. Trying to squeeze both in the interval without adjusting that interval was a very dangerous stunt.
Looks like "Pushing Tin" wasn't such a fictional movie after all.
You've never worked in a tower. Squeeze plays like that all the time. If you don't push it everybody will still be at the hold short line.
@@lynndale4718 This Local controller pushed it so hard that HE had to call the go-around. This incident is 100% the Local controller's fault. He's playing with hundreds of people's lives just to meet some arbitrary metric regarding number of arrivals and departures per day. If the airport needs that many arrivals/departures, here's an idea! Open the other parallel runway and use one for departures and the other for arrivals.
I'm no expert, but I get the feeling that the AA pilot thought he heard "left" because someone momentarily stepped on the controller while saying "right."
I also have a hunch that, had the AA read back the entire go-around instruction, the controller would have caught the directional mistake and avoided the near collision. I'm open to receiving constructive thoughts.
Indeed.
Nope, you're correct. That's why I read back everything when it comes to critical phases of flight
a go-around in this situation is instant task-saturation for the pilots, you can't expect comms to go smoothly for a while after that
Yeah, "American 2406 on the go" wasn't useful. The pilot knew why he had to do a go-around, he knew or should have known why he was told which side of the runway to turn towards. Omitting the direction in his read-back was dumb. Of course, the controller should have caught the omission, too. Everybody suddenly had a big workload, and that's when mistakes happen.
My heart stopped just looking at this animation and how close they were. Can't imagine being one of the pilots or a passenger looking out to see another plane right there!
Not even close. Click bait garbage video
Don’t they have proximity alerts? I wonder if the bells were ringing warning them of the aircraft
The pilots may have seen it but the passengers didn't. The controller mentioned the ILS critical areas which means that the weather was bad.
@@knndyskful Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). I'm not sure if that would be active so close to the ground though.
@@knndyskful TCAS does not operate that close to the ground. It has a minimum altitude when ascending and a different minimum when decending.
Wow, we're seeing so many of these near-accidents because of controllers trying to sequence flights too tightly. I wonder if pilots need to be more aware and ready to reject takeoff or landing clearances. Both the Delta and American pilots knew what was going on. The Delta was told the AA was 5 miles out when they were cleared to line up and wait. That means DL had only around 1.5-2 minutes to get out of the way of the landing AA - and it was still pulling into position at that point. (I hope I have my math right.) That sounds crazy to me.
On a side note: can someone tell me why the Sun Country flight was ordered to get out of line and go to the back of the line? Genuinely curious.
He had to wait for IFR release. Wherever he was going didn't have an open slot for his arrival if he departed then.
That was for his release, which is kind of like a window to have them airborne which is for en route spacing and sequencing if they’re going some place very busy.
He had a slot time to takeoff (maybe it changed to a later time while he was taxiing) slots are given to ensure the air traffic load does not exceed the limit of a sector or the destination airport
The American pilot didn't call back the instructions. Had he called them back as he heard or perceived them, the controller could have corrected him.
As others have mentioned, it sounds to me like the controllers "right" of the runway got a mic keyed at the moment the controller said it.
I think this is a classic case of needing to slow down. I know that job is stressful and demanding. Yes, it was a close call for sure. Hopefully lessons were learned.
I heard about this and thought it was just some news hype on a go around but this shows how close it was.
He clearly said "right side" but then said runway xx "left" so probably the AA pilot just picked up left or under stress thought the last word for direction
The pilot should have called the instructions back as he heard them. He only said "on the go." Had he called back "left side 3-0 left, American xxxx", the controller could have spotted his error and corrected him.
It's only clear for us because we had a transcript. Give another listen and you hear that only the "t" at the end of 'right' (and, coincidentally, 'left' as well) is audible with the rest being stepped on by another mic.
pilots and controllers have to watch these 2 mi final "squeeze plays"... one of these days, there's doing to be a real accident
Lol tell that to controllers at ORD or ATL. You realize there’s places that HAVE to make squeeze plays work or there are delays? Some airports have an arrival/departure capacity like a river flow and they can’t afford/don’t have time to be having unexploited gaps on final. It’s no different in the radar.
@@utvwerxoffroadfabdesign4172 - I agree they have to be done... BUT, to do it safely and consistently, people really have to be on their A game. If you can't get rolling w/out delay, then you shouldn't accept a lineup & wait clearance where the twr & context makes it clear another a/c is on close final.
@@utvwerxoffroadfabdesign4172ORD and ATL very rarely depart and arrive on the same runways. Very few squeeze plays like this at those airports.
Very soon we are going to see a mass casualty event which hopefully ends this practice while hopefully resulting in a C-Level serving time in prison.
@@utvwerxoffroadfabdesign4172 If delays are the result of operating safely, then that is the real time and the "delay" isn't a thing. If safety results in delays then your original schedule was over-capacity and negligent.
From “History of the World part I”: “Don’t you know your left flank from your right flank??? Sorry sir, I flunked flank”
I think the AA pilot on the radio needs to slow down on the PTT button. I’m pretty sure he was so quick that he was the one who stepped on the controller before he was finished. He did it twice, once during the go-around instruction and then when the controller asked about the right side. He needs to give a few more milliseconds there to make sure the controller’s finished.
Everyone just needs to slow the fuck down. Corporate deserves to be in prison.
Ok I understand that in Europe we are way more conservative on separation, the place where I work requires the departing plane to roll before the approach is at 4nm from the threshold. Anyhow putting an extra plane on the runway ( The one that had to vacate because he was too early) was definitely a bad idea
On the other hand, you guys give conditional clearances (behind landing traffic, line up rwyXX behind landing traffic) which feels not so conservative if you ask me. Although ICAO allows it, it's a big no no in our procedures over here.
@@simboodamn well I have worked as a tower controller since 1990 and I have to say I never had a problem with conditional clearances 🙂
@@simboodamn I don’t see anything wrong with conditional clearances. Just requires crews to look out and to have some more situational awareness.
On the other hand I don’t get the idea of issuing multiple landing clearances at a time while there are still aircraft departing/crossing the runway (example SFO). Doesn’t that make the landing clearance quite worthless and more like a „runway assignment but we‘ll see“.
@@simboodamnand you give landing clearances before the runway is actually clear 🤷
@@sahilkulen you give conditional line up clearance before the aircraft has actually past the threshold. In multiple landing clearances, you can ask the aircraft to pull up before it reaches a certain point if the runway is not clear. It gives the controller more time to do other task. I believe the intent of the conditional clearances is the same, but it feels more risky from my point of view, that's all.
I had watched another breakdown video where there was a keyed mic "beep" during the right/left call from ATC. Is that what the AA crew would have heard?
He responded on the go.. should've readback right side for clarity.
Yep - especially because it sounds like someone stepped on things maybe
Because the pilot wasn’t doing anything else at that moment. …… go around set thrust flaps eight positive rate gear up speed mode heading mode climb thrust flaps up after takeoff checklist.
Is there a standard minimum approach distance for a controller to give takeoff clearance to a plane in front of a landing aircraft?
No. Many reasons, but above all the variety of speeds. A Q400 can slow to 120 knots comfortably. A heavy would never. Can't have a spacing time as it would just cause more delays not being able to use space in front of slow traffic
2 NM before runway you must be cleared to land
also, it's a US thing. ICAO forbids landing clearances when the runway is not clear but controllers in the US don't care
@@XD-ql2kr Is that an American thing? Also is it just for IFR?
@@thomasafb Interesting. In Canada the departure must be wheels up prior to the arrival crossing the threshold of the same runway is the only separation standard for the runway. Traffic is on the roll clear to land is perfectly acceptable, if it works. Which is such an odd thing. ICAO can govern, but the FAA and Nav Canada have final say on their respective rules. I assume the USA is actually more similar to this standard, but I have no idea.
American pilot should be required to read back the instructions in addition to go around. If he read it back incorrectly, controller would have known to turn Delta right after takeoff
not practical--pilots are task-saturated for many seconds after a go-around
ATC painted everything into a corner and this is the kind of thing that happens when they do that
@@herestoyoudoc agree to disagree, I don't think "on the go, right side" is significantly more detrimental to addressing that task saturation than "on the go"
@@TheYosh7 there's some doubt as to whether he heard the word "right" cleanly--they flew left side from stress-induced confirmation bias
hopefully they pulled the box on the AA plane; if it turns out that "right" was stepped on the controller's got no way out of this one
RIGHT side 30 LEFT in an high energy situation. I mean what could possibly go wrong...?
Yes.
I understand the practical need for anticipated separation, but i feel like this whole thing couldve been avoided if atc gave American a heading during the go around instead of telling him to pass on the right over parallel runways. Is there a reason this cannot be done?
It's probably down to the current procedures at this airport, but I suspect they will be overhauled when the FAA investigation is done so that this can't happen again.
Easier and faster to say "left" or "right" and keep the A/C parallel than to calculate an optimal heading number
Did TCAS kick in? Wish we could hear the cockpit side.
probably not, too close to ground
TCAS doesnt work under 1000 ft AGL as it would be a nuisance every takeoff.
Usual TCAS job is to issue a climb order to one plane and a descent order to the other. You can't issue a descent order to a plane that is already very close to the ground. So TCAS is automatically deactivated when close to the ground.
*RIMCAS
Tower pushing two AC in the gap is pretty bold. The Delta, if truly situationally aware, would have declined. @1:43 Line up with traffic 5 out and a taxing airliner ahead....No thanks! Speaking of SA, regardless of any blocked comms, the American would've realized the departing traffic climbing into them. Evasive action?
Absolutely. We've been asked to do dumb things like this and declined.
Probably trying to make a flow time about to expire. Same reason as why Sun Country did a lap
My guess is Delta were SA and knew American would likely need to go around. Tower cleared them so why not get off the ground a few minutes earlier.
That was indeed a very close call. If it is ongoing this way it is unfortunately a disaster waiting to happen.
Someone stepped on the word "right" but at the same time, the American Airlines pilot did not read back the complete instruction. This was probably mostly on the controller, trying to get too much done and too short of a period of time
2:51 "cleared to land three zero left, traffic is rolling now" ATC knew exactly what he was doing. Thought the landing jet was further out than it was. Then, for some unknown reason, tried to blame it on the pilot even though the whole thing was being taped. So now there is error and malicious effort to shift known blame.
I mean what´s the hurry of the Controller in this case..?
you are telling me ints 2024 and radio calls still get stepped on?? Like wasn't Tenerife enough reason to invent ways to counteract that?
Oh great! Now a close call at my home airport!
You can actually hear the radio cut out when he says right side, i wonder if the reception by the pilots was the same.
Sounds like low vis at MSP. ATC had no business moving SY down the runway and moving DL into position with AA on a 2-mile final. TCAS has no RA at that altitude. Everyone involved very lucky that didn't turn out worse.
Once more, we have a local controller trying to hard too push his departures. I don't know if its an ego thing or what, but there is no excuse for these controller-induced conflicts. Yes, the American pilot didn't parallel the runway on the right side as instructed but the controller should have never turned Delta out until he was sure visual separation existed between the two aircraft.
Not the way we used to do things.
Kind of like that move pushing tin with Billy Bob Thornton.
because this is what we are taught to do in school, in the 7110 it states that safety is #1 priority but in school it's about "squeeze plays"
@@KristineeeCA I couldn’t do that job for 1 minute without something horrible happening!😂
Controllers use anticipated separation often, and call off landings when they get too tight but they definitely need to give better missed approach instructions, heading & altitude. This pass left/pass right nonsense over parallel runways is just confusion waiting to happen.
@@TheAlaska07 I had to watch it 5x before I could even understand what happened 😅
Aviation authorities worldwide have to figure out how to implement hybrid comms, AM on ground and up to 10,000, FM higher
or just use 2 freq's One for ATC transmit and receive on the aircraft
1 for Aircraft to Transmit and everybody else to receive
That way the Tower will never be stepped on.
But it means double radios.. additional cost
For airlines I don't see the issue really but smaller aircraft cannot bear that cost.
Considering the bigger issues for airliners, the higher fatalities if it goes wrong, It could be implemented for big commercial airports.
Smaller planes are rare at such airports and they will have to work on the single ATC freq, which would rarely result on them stepping on anybody
@@stijnvandamme76 That would be a good start as there is enough room in the frequency spectrum. Radios would not have to be larger. It would be a simply matter of some additional circuitry and software.
Can someone explain why Sun Country had to go “back in line”?
They had an assigned departure time ("flow time") and weren't allowed to depart before then. The flow times for individual aircraft are assigned by the FAA It's an attempt to control arrivals by scheduling departures based on all the factors they know at the time. It's better to hold them on the ground for 15 minutes before they depart than have them circle their destination upon arrival.
@@unnamed_channel can't they just makeup for this by managing airspeed to the destination instead of doing a dance on the ground?
@@hark31 Uses more fuel and controller resources to have them wait in the air as opposed to the ground.
@@hark31 That's a good question, but I have no answer. It could be that the calculations are already taking the possibility of slower than normal flight speeds into consideration and still wanted/needed the Sun Country not to depart yet. Or perhaps the calculations prioritize allowing the flight, once in the air, to fly at its optimal cruise speed to maximize efficiency. Hopefully someone who knows will chime in. To further that goal, let me say something so wrong that someone will feel the need to correct it. :)
@@hark31 It makes no sense unless you understand that "Flow time" has nothing to do with getting passengers to their destinations and everything to do with the deep state using the FAA and the complicit airlines to disperse chemicals into the atmosphere at the correct times and places necessary to keep the sheeple drugged at the optimal levels.
If within 200’ vertical there should have been a TCAS RA.
Im still not sure how 2406 got so close vertically when they had a good 100knt and 500ft head start on Delta. Wish this feed had vertical numbers to see how long it took American to start climbing after the go around call.
I find it really interesting that tower turned Delta into the AA jet on the go.
Why didn't verify AA's position before he told Delta turn left 260?
AA for some reason didn't offset right as instructed. But this wasn't a big problem until tower turned Delta into AA.
A much better way of telling AA what to do would have been....
Go around - offset runway to the right.
@@MyGoogleTH-cam That would have increased the collision risk. The departing aircraft should have kept straight ahead for a couple of miles to get flaps 0, wheels up, and out of the way asap. Tight turning circles also cause bank stalls
Tower controller did not have visual of either aircraft due to poor weather/visibility conditions.
Earlier in the video he references ILS critical area which is a clue that he has no visual reference of the runway itself. Another clue is when he asked Delta if he was behind Sun Country which also indicates he lacked visibility of the runway.
He issued a clear instruction for American to side step the runway to the right to avoid conflict which American failed to do. Whether his transmission was blocked or American wasn’t paying attention is topic for another discussion. In the end, luck saved the day.
@@hayden4516 Some people have mentioned it, sounds like the 'turn right' order was stepped on. AA might not have heard it and having another aircraft already lifting off right below you is probably a rather stressful.
I recall from one of the Mayday episodes modern aircraft have a collision avoidance system and pilots are supposed to follow that systems instructions over instructions given by aircraft controllers. One aircraft followed the Collision Avoidance Systems orders and the other followed the controllers orders leading to a midair collision.
The system may have been telling AA to go left to avoid collision, in which case Deltas would have been telling them to go right, which explains why if the call was stepped on that AA might have heard left.
You have two fast moving objects separated by the length of 3 football fields vertically passing your position and you think you'll have the perfect ability to tell whether one of them is right or left of the other?
The more experienced i get the more i realize we need to remake aviation radio comms. Jets are still using 1930s-1940s technology basically designed for aircraft who would rip their wings off at 140 knots.
Already done. AI is going to replace the entire system. All the planes will be autonomous, controlled by a computer. They will communicate with each other over a network. Standard routes will be defined and programmed, traffic patterns around airports, taxiways, etc. It's all done.
@@taekwondotime nobody is getting on an airplane without a pilot. Spacecraft have been capable of fully autonomous flight since the 1950s. Think of all the times everything went wrong and was saved by a clever astronaut.
Pilots are here to stay.
That germanwings plane a few years ago didn’t even attempt to avoid that mountain. It did exactly what the autopilot told it to, all the way to the scene of the crash.
There will still be pilots on board to intervene in case of an error, and to handle takeoffs and landings for quite some time, but all the routing stuff will be automated. All the "A to B" stuff in between will be done by computer. Pilots won't be taking heading or altitude changes over the radio any more. @@thevictoryoverhimself7298
@@thevictoryoverhimself7298while you are correct it is the case that autopilot did what it was told by a human to do...
I think the controller is the one who's in the jackpot here--especially if they pull the recorder on the AA plane and it turns out the "right side" instruction was stepped on.
Full read-back of a go-around instruction is not required and impractical in any case, because surprise go-arounds are prone to task-saturation and expecting perfect comms is ludicrous.
Trying to squeeze the Delta in before AA was the critical mistake here--everything went downhill after that. Certainly could've been avoided if Delta pilot was like "unable" but frankly the controller is the one who painted everyone into the corner.
Yet, ultimately, it's not even the controller's fault; parts of our infrastructure are buckling under sudden demand and I hope instead the FAA addresses the institutional shortcomings instead. But that's probably too much to hope for; it's very much more likely either the controller of AA pilot is going to get scapegoated.
We should be switching to digital radios in ATC controlled airspace.
Having worked with both systems in fringe conditions, The digital is even more prone to dropping a word or two here and there, where in the same circumstance, ,analog signal might have static and be weak, but still readable. Stepping on each other may mean that nothing comes through at all, and the speaker does not realize it did not go through. Trunking system may help, but comes with its own problems. A central Virginia agency was having its transmissions from the portable radios diverted to coastal Virginia agency under certain atmosperic conditions, where the radio in the field had a stronger signal from the distant network, that from its own network, with mountains between the radio and its home network. Was at the meeting with Motorola where this was identified. All radio technologies are sketchy and imperfect, at times, as they rely on the FM principle.........F'ing Magic.
100% no, I'd prefer to hear a crackly "something" than a digital "nothing"
Who is going to prison when this cramming of planes onto runways results in a mass casualty? The ATC or the CEO?
No one. No one went to prison when Trump & other politicians sold stocks before announcing covid
Just as he said "right side" the communication was not clear, I can see how the pilot could've interpreted it as "left side". However, the pilot did not reply "left or right" and could've been more proactive and double check if it was left or right.
Because of the go around right as they approached the runway, I bet the pilots were busy aviating at that moment and the amount of attention available for communication was reduced to minimum.
No, radio's handled by the second pilot, not the pilot flying, for exactly this reason. It does add a 2-second delay in response time, although hopefully the PIC is listening in. They're moving from a nice widely-spaced route to controlled anarchy on the ground, and it's not helped by traffic load. A key element of CRM is the need to say "No" and make it stick, despite the airlines pushing to get you to the end of that flight ASAP.
@@JelMainGo arounds almost become a two pilot procedure in my mind. Both pilots are focused on making sure the aircraft is climbing and is stable.
@@themightyangustma2753 Not necessarily, light aircraft do them continuously. The issue here was having two aircraft on the go simultaneously, a lesson learned in Tenerife. The resulting loss of situational awareness can overwhelm a single pilot, and the words NO and TOGA cannot be repeated often enough. It's simply an extension of the Precautionary Principle, if you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Recognise when organised chaos is turning into actual chaos, and don't add it it. Divert if necessary, and get the bosses to ream the GC out in the washup.
An aircraft in the air should always, therefore, have priority over one on the ground. They were lucky in this bugger's muddle.
And yes, I have operated a miniature air fleet, shipping European diplomats to conferences. The funniest was briefing my neighbour, an ATC at ZAV, on an incoming Luftwaffe airbus. EC handed it over, and AC were so used to LH they automatically accepted it. Then did a double-take, "LW, who's the agents?" Voice from the far side of the tower, "That's Rahere's, LH handling." Chief controller: "I'm not giving the f'ing Luftwaffe clearance. Give that bugger his own airline code."
I think the AA pilot on the radio has a hair-trigger finger on that PTT button. He was so quick that he stepped on the controller before he was finished. He actually did it twice, once on the go-around and then again when the controller asked him about the right-side.
@@nocalsteve That's as bad as keeping your finger on the trigger on patrol! Two very bad habits you learn to avoid very quickly.
Why can't Sun Country 261 cross the runway at A1 to W1 and turn around at W2? That would keep the runway unoccupied as much as possible, or would this position still interfere with the ILS too much?
The ILS Critial Area (glide slope antenna) is just beyond W3 and covers W2 and W1. When ceiling and visibility is below 800/2, it's a prohibited area for aircraft when traffic is on the approach inside the marker. Visibility was 1 1/2 miles when this happened.
@@billnelson3732 wait, wait, wait...he did this in lowered visibility conditions? I mean not full LVP, but still not exactly good. Look, I have some experience in the tower, not much, about a year work with an instructor during my training (failed unfortunately, hence the little experience) and I thought doing this was a bit sketchy in CAVOK, but in a situation where the controller cannot see the arriving aircraft and the arrival cannot clearly see the departure it's not sketchy, it's spectacularly irresponsible and stupid, and is definitely something that would get the shift supervisor to take your ass off the frequency immediately even if it didn't result in an air miss, and would get your license temporarily pulled. At least here in Serbia or pretty much anywhere that's working under Eurocontrol regulations. Like reports would be filed, you would have to go through a few hours of simulator with and instructor and pass an assessment in live traffic in order to get it back. Oh and they would slap you with a 10-30% salary penalty as well depending on the severity of the situation.
@@axel995r I think that was the longest "sentence" I have ever read. lol
@@axel995r the controller has a radar(CTRD) in his tower cab, he could see that arrival all day long
@@andrewlorenzo6611 Yeah, I am aware of this, I had one two when I worked, but if you want to push something on a knife edge the way he was trying to it's always preferable to be able to actually see the planes, and even more importantly for the pilot to be able to see the departure which is still on the runway, doing something like this, this close, in lowered visibility is stupid as hell, radar or not. You're just putting both pilots in danger, and they don't have the adequate situational awareness to avoid it.
How come radio communication clarify between aircraft suck so bad in this era of supposed technological advancement?
as a kid in the 50ties and your dad is ww2 pilot seemed like this was the normal back in the day--only time in my life i heard my dad cuss when a plane came on us over LA harbor and dad jammed the stick forward in our piper 140 as plane came up behind and to his left--as i look up it seemed to be only 20ft and loud as heck
thanks for sharing. The topic of kids view of WWII pilot dads is one not explored much. Must have been very exciting hanging out with him whilst he was in his element.
oh man got stepped on at the wrong time
is 'right side' standard language? wouldn't a heading be more useful?
No because you still want him flying runway heading. Usually they’ll say to offset to the right
I'm curious what the standard phraseology is for this.
@@johnthompson5741 A controller can issue a divergent heading to increase lateral separation.Knowing that the departure will be executing a left turn, a heading to the right, for the aircraft on the go around may have been reasonable.
@@rubenvillanueva8635there could have been traffic that way. "Go around right side" is standard operations.
@@morganghetti There is designated airspace that is provided for the control tower. CZ, Usually a 5nm radius around the airport, up to 3000 ft. with extensions to include the final approaches. The controller knows who is in it. Though it is usual, or standard, to send the go round aircraft, on a runway heading, issuing a heading and turn to avoid a collision is a choice, and often used.
Readbacks needed in this case... other traffic keyed up at the "right" was said.
Read back issue is only a consequence. The root cause is the ATC trying to squeeze 2 planes (1 taxiing, 1 departing) in the landing planes separation that he initially designed for only one. But since the SCX that was supposed to use that departure slot had an issue he tried a risky stunt to still have a plane departing on that slot.
Operating a civilian airport as if it were an aircraft carrier at war. Novel.
Um, no?
It’s crazy eh? Would it have made a big difference to keep Delta at the hold until American was down and clear?
US controllers are almost begging for a disaster to happen with their short separation rules
US C-Level executives don't care if there is a disaster, so long as insurance covers it.
The ADS-B from this is terrifying. My wife recently flew home from a trip, and I've been nervous about the number of close calls at busy airports.
I tend to follow on flightradar24 when wife is flying. So imagine what was going through my head when she was to take off from Washington International last year, so I see the plane lining up with the runway, speed goes up, then it decelerates and exits the runway. She was told later on that some VVVVVIP missed the flight and they had to go back to the gate to pick the person.
Wow, typically someone with that many "V's" in front of their "IP" isn't gonna fly on a commercial flight. When cost doesn't matter, it's easier to have a private/charter flight.
@@Spaniard022 You gotta be extremely important for a pilot to reject takeoff. Costs a minor fortune to do the brake and wheel inspections and delay a flight for the mechanical if they made it to the 80kt cross-check. I am not that important, they'd book me on the next flight that's convenient for them.
@@kdawson020279 Well, that was the explanation given. No idea who the person was. As my wife was in the back of the plane, she could not see. Anyway, it was scarier for me than for her :)
more diversity in ATC will fix things
Note to all pilots: "on the go" is *not* the correct readback here.
What should be alarming is the ATC mistakes we keep seeing week after week. How did the controller not see the conflict that was about to happen. That's the controllers job.
The ATCs are being pressured by corporate. Only a matter of time before their criminality result in a major incident.
@@whatilearnttoday5295, it's definitely just a matter of time. There are many new Captain's at the majors with minimal experience. Not like the old days...
Some serious pucker factor on that one.
This is why you don't rush things when stakes are high.
If a controller wants something he needs to be very specific. “Right side” to one pilot might mean a slight right, while another might turn 30 degrees to the right. A heading to AA would’ve helped to avoid this.
JFC - that was a close one….
That shoulda been a Pilot Deviation. I heard 'right side' clearly.
Closed loop communication would have helped here.
ATC "2406 go around right side 30L"
AA "2406 going around, right side, 30L"
This casual "on the go" business is getting out of hand and needs to be addressed.
Why did 1163 takeoff? Couldn’t tower just reject takeoff of 1163 and make 2406 go around?
He was already rolling..
You cannot land if there is a plane lined up on the runway, right where your landing plane would touch down,
much land when there is a plane rolling on the runway, if it has any issue and aborts. the landing plane will hit it as well
The 1163 took off because the controller told 1163 to take off. It’s that simple. The controller could have easily had 1163 hold short of 30L, have 2406 land, then have 1163 take off after 2406 taxis off the runway. The controller did not do so probably due to pressure from management. The FAA is really begging for an accident with permitting clearing take off and landing when the runway or airspace isn’t clear.
I don't get it... circle back for later flow time?
is that to do with planned landing slot at the destination or what?
Why not just take off, and fly a bit slower or circle in pattern at destination?
idling on the taxiway costs fuel just the same.
Seems so pointless?
They don't have unlimited fuel. Long delays holding at destinations can easily lead to diversions, which are bad for everyone. If it is a significant delay, they can shut down engines while waiting on a taxiway. Even if they keep them running, sitting on the ground they burn fuel at a much lower rate vs. in the air. Also, congested airspace leads to overworked ATC and traffic hazards.
Why is everyone discussing if left or right was called by atc? Isn't either side fine, just as long as you do not go around right above the runway and the plane taking off?
Either side is fine (assuming we are only concerned about separating these 2 aircraft)... until the departing plane turns off of runway heading.
Why wasn't he given a number to call?
Because “go around right side” isn’t a real instruction for IFR aircraft
Def not ATC, nor familiar with their radios.
However, as a 911 dispatcher for 10yrs, we had "console priority". Meaning if we were stepped on while transmitting, we could still hear the units in the field, in our ears. While we were talking.
Pub safety may certainly be diff, but if one unit is talking, and another attempts to talk, by keying up their radio, the 2nd unit would get a beep on their radio, showing that the channel was being talked on by another unit.
Would be curious to see if they have the same. Idk tho 😢 but prob sounds unlikely, based on the missed transmissions and being stepped on.
Nope. It all just runs over itself. There are several incidents where an aircraft radio gets stuck transmitting and ATC is just doing its best to get everyone to circle until the plane unsticks it so everyone else can talk. There's even a squawk code for "radio's broke, yo." ... 7600.
@@EdowythIndowyl right on! I appreciate it!
Aircraft and ground stations are all on one simplex frequency. If someone is transmitting, there is absolutely no way they can hear at the same time or even know if another station is transmitting. Console priority is something that can only happen in a duplex repeater type system with mountain top stations and large filter equipment.
As a pilot, I can confirm this. And this gap has always astounded me.
To add to what @EdowythIndowyl said, it's pretty easy for one municipality to upgrade their radios to units that do that kind of OOB signalling and multiplexing, because they control all the radios. Airplanes can go almost literally _anywhere,_ so designing an upgraded aviation radio would require the cooperation of every single government in the entire world. Hence, airplanes still use the same AM technology used in kid's walkie-talkies in the 1960's.
I mean, we _finally_ got an upgraded transponder system within the last five years, and _that_ had to be compatible with both the previous generation of transponders, _and_ the transponder system that came before that, because there are still some places in the world that still use the old Mode A system.
The controller had them on runway 30-Left, and there was a "heterodyne" (two people transmitting on the same frequency) at the critical moment when the plane was told to go on the right side. Shame on the American pilot for not reading back or asking the tower to repeat.
3:27 AAL2406 Turn left 260
3:29 reads back 260 AAL2406
3:39 AAL2406 turn left 280
3:41 reads back 280 AAL2406
Why the F is AAL2406 NOT TURNING?
at 3:50 DAL1163 is told to turn left 260
and INSTANTLY turns.
2:43 you can hear the pressure on the pilot by how he slurs the words, as he tries to speak a bit faster. You don't notice this yourself by doing this, your brain tricks you and fills in what you've left out.
It's clear he knew that this was risky and he didn't had much time to waste here to make it work.
"On the Go" is incorrect phraseology, and should NEVER be used 1) by pilots, 2) by air traffic controllers, 3) by people issuing instructional or informational materials (including accident or close-call videos), 4) by people commenting on such videos. If you pause to consider how many accidents and near accidents have listed as contributing factors incorrect or ambiguous communications, it might not sound quite as snazzy. If you stop to consider a Chinese or Indian pilot who has worked hard to learn everything there is to learn about flying, who has worked even harder to learn all of the English language requirements, and who has struggled to master the dialects (s)he will encounter in different English-speaking regions, it is clearly unnecessary and unsafe to throw in slick cowboy lingo, even if "on the go" is easier to mumble with an unfiltered Camel hanging out your lips and a lassoo in your left hand. Americans have been guilty of these transgressions and had to be called to order many times (remember, "Position and Hold"?), and it needs to stop.
I understand that the transmission may have been stepped on, but I also find it not a coincidence that the pilot focusing on sounding cool also failed to execute the go-around as instructed.
2:51 "American 2406, cleared to land runway 30L. Traffic is rolling now. Wind is 040 at 7."
Right Side doesn't mean anything - it's not ICAO phraseology - totally gash - shoud have given him a heading to fly
TWR was very "optimistic" but AA 2406 made a big mistake by not complying with TWR's order to turn to the right...
"right" got stepped on, and AA had too much going on in the cockpit to read back the misheard "left". Was flying offset parallel to the RWY either way
Reposting now...
The problem was that ATC was stamped on during the instruction,then continued with 30 "left" which is where the confusion was.
A few points came out of this for me.
Firstly, I'm wondering why the atc created such a tight situation in the first place.
Second, we don't know the approach speed of American. If it wasn't down to safe minimum then the atc should have instructed that.
And thirdly, the crew of SCX261 should have had a 'picture' of what was happening and taxied immediately at their best rate instead of having to be instructed to do so.
For me, 261 was the culprit here.
Look I've spent almost two years training to become a tower ATC, of that a full year in the tower in live traffic (I failed unfortunately, but it was more of a quick thinking and adapting and confidence issue rather then knowledge) and I can confidently tell you that he failed to do all but a one single damn thing to make sure this actually succeeds. Which means he failed at literally the number one thing they teach you in ATC, that you need make sure to do absolutely everything in your power to accomplish what you are planning and prepare everyone involved as best as possible when you're going for a tight gap like here. Here's a list of all of the things that he should have done to increase his chances of making this work: 1)Tell AA2406 to reduce to minimum app speed (or as much as possible to still keep separation from succeeding arriving traffic); 2) When instructing the SCX261 to enter the runway and vacate at A3 also tell them to be expedite in that instruction, not after 30 seconds or whatever it was in real time; 3) Third was the only thing he actually did which was tell the DAL1163 to line up and be ready, and to start to roll with no delay; 4) and fourth and final thing, probably the most important one was to not fucking do it in 1 and 1/2 miles fucking visibility when he cannot visually separate the arrival and the departure and the arrival cannot see the departing either, so the situational awareness of both pilots is rather lacking for a tight squeeze like that. He fucked up, big time, and in Europe he would get his license suspended and would need to pass an evaluation with an assessor in live traffic, and maybe even a few hours of simulator after that.
@@axel995r Kmowledge, is what gives you confidence and the ability to think rapidly @nd come up with a solution. You gave it your best, kudos to you, but this career is not for everyone.
@@rubenvillanueva8635 yeah, it is, but skill plays a part to for sure, you can have all the theory in the world at the tip of your fingers, but just like a lot of complex skills not everyone can turn that theory into practice, I unfortunately couldn't. Though a shitty instructor at the beginning of my work at the tower didn't help my skill and confidence at all, but that's another story lol.
My view is that SCX was not stupid and was already taxiing as fast as possible. But the ATC was so focused on his terribly stupid plan of squeezing both planes in the slot that he issued extra orders to speed up in the hope that this would magically create the extra room that never existed. He did the same when clearing Delta to depart by insisting on the speed. As if he ever saw a plane departing without applying full thrust. Those expedite orders were most likely the panicking ATC trying to convince himself his decision was right.
@@christianbarnay2499 Well not necessarily, the SCX might have been taxiing along the runway at regular speed, as he had no instruction to expedite, so why would he waste extra fuel, inconvenience his passengers and possibly break company taxi speed restrictions when the controller did not tell him immediately to expedite, trust me, I've had it happen, if you don't tell them to speed it up, they often will not, and for the departing he also did the right thing (one of the rare ones in this situation) by telling him to do an immediate departure, because that means no stopping at line up, just taxi onto the runway and start rolling immediately, which is not the standard procedure for departures. But still his judgment of the situation was woefully poor, and arrogant if he thought that he could squeeze this through...oh and he could have also prepared the arriving by telling them departing still on the runway in case of a missed approach go right of rwy whatever it was, give him a clear instruction in advance and he'll follow it.
The American Airlines should have repeated left side, going around, that way, the controller would have seen American had heard the wrong thing.
Right/left side is not standard. Go around a should include a heading if it’s needed for separation. If the CIG is low (which given that they were using the ILS Critical Area, it likely was) then there’s no visual on the runway or obstacles.
Again soon or later a crash will happen. Just matter of time.
Nice animation and tower told AA to go on the right side!!!
Woops
YIPES
ATC could’ve done better…. End of.
Pilot could have gone around on the side he was instructed. End of.
In a situation like this, when the a/c are virtually pancaked, regardless of whether the “right” was blocked or not, the tower controller should verify that the pilot understood the instruction. All American had read back was “on the go” with no direction of turn. It falls on the tower to get that kinda crucial info. Regardless, he had plenty of paperwork to fill after this.
WHAT THE F... HECK is going on....
Research that and get back to us.
"On the right side" is NOT a valid clearance.
POOR JUDGEMENT OF THE TOWER CONTROLLER, WHO ARE WE HIRING AND WHERE IS THE QUALITY OF TRAINING, SCARY...
Should’ve held sun country and had delta depart A2
Lesson learned. Next time just give a heading for the go around that close
These near misses are getting ridiculous.
Go around. Right side of runway or left side is just calm controller speak for Oh F, I messed up, More often than not the pilots see what's going on and will talk between them as in "this wont work" Right side , left side was from the military days. Example: AAL 123 GO around right side of runway. traffic on the roll.. LOL HA HA you just lost 3 months of your life. Do THAT in 0/0 weather you lost a year.
ATC is just getting worse, as training standards fall.
Yup, that's why we haven't had an airliner crash since 2009.
@Jim Miller sure, but runway incursions are up by over 70% since that time. Explain that?
@@TXCHRISZ06 source pleaseeee
What does "right side" actually mean? Over the grass? Over the edge of the pavement? Right half of the runway? That was a truly stupid instruction.
Probably "Offset to the right enough that your left wingtip is not over the runway", but I'm not a pilot or ATC
@@wildgurgs3614 "Probably" is the word for it. There is nothing in the FAR's or AIM that covers this.
@@wildgurgs3614 And probably the pilot has read the map of the airport and knows the control tower is right in the middle between runways 30R and 30L, which means the the tower is on the right side of the runway 30L.
I don't think a pilot with a sane mind would take the risk to hit the tower during a go around procedure.
Right side, left side of the runway for the go-around - it should never have got to that situation jeez.
How about this, at an airport with parallel runways such as this the default should be one runway for landing aircraft and the other for departures, thoughts?
ATC knows what they are doing and you don’t. That’s my thought.
I think the default would last about 10 minutes until there was a situation where you needed to use both runways for landings and departures simply due to how many aircraft are coming and going and the fact that arrivals and departures are not balanced. I spent a whole 2 minutes trying to find data on the number of arrivals and departures at MSP throughout the day without success.
Oh damn! I bet no one has ever thought about that!
The controller should have told the Delta flight to abort takeoff.
The controller should never have ordered Delta 1163 to enter the runway.
The initial schedule was Delta 9975 landing, SCX departing, American landing, Delta 1163 departing.
SCX had to go back, but due to some restrictions the only way back was to taxi on the active runway.
The sane decision was Delta 9975 landing, SCX taxiing, American landing, Delta 1163 departing, SCX coming back later.
But controller wouldn't accept a departing slot not being actually used for departing, so he attempted to squeeze both taxiing and departing in a single slot. And strangely that resulted in a complete mess.
Here is a thought...please give us time to read the description .....never enough time in any of your videos...and I can read quickly.
You can pause it to read and then unpause when you're done.
@@carolynjane4 yep...had to do that every time....but this is not Evelyn Woods Reading Dynamics!
Simple fix: assign a heading.
Root cause analysis on this one is gonna be neat.
AAL2406 Go around / Turn to Right 340 / expedite.
That would deconflict within 2 seconds
But for the life of me, why didn't AAL2406 turn left when he got the call at at 3:27 AND read it back??
Simpler fix: ATC not trying to squeeze 2 planes in 1 slot.
The separation between both landing planes was calculated to allow one plane departing, not one taxiing on the runway and another departing. Ordering both planes to push max speed won't magically save the dumb dangerous situation he created.
I cut down 2 giant pecan trees this morning.
Controller should be fired.