NASTY ARGUMENT IN BUSY NEW YORK | "FAA has joined the chat"
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASA...
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
Please, give a big LIKE to support and for more videos like this!! :)
Are you serious? Then accidents happen...
Notice two completely different types of pilots here.
I'm not so sure that the pilot was in the wrong at all? It's not rare for pilots to have more up to date info (relayed to them from people on the ground, like in this case as he said he got straight from the airport's tower) than the central controllers sitting who knows where. Or they're just very experienced and can have a correct assessment. Looks like that was the case in this instance, as they were delayed and then we heard that someone landed before them while they were delayed.
It seems to be a case of the controller not even knowing exactly why.
The other pilot was given what the first pilot was denied, it seems like they're the same type of pilot but one of the controllers wasn't playing ball.
Pilot was not in the wrong here. There is nothing wrong with shooting approach to minimums, and going around if approach lights are not in sight. It's possible to catch approach lights even if the wx is reporting below minimums.
100% controller issue. If there is a safety in question, it rests with the controller causing delays. Reported and actual weather are two different things. This Pilot clearly knows this and wants to make that attempt as he should. A common misconception on this Chanel is the controller-pilot relationship. Controllers directions are neither law or absolute. Final decisions always rest with the Captain and that includes acceptance or denial of controller directions/guidance.
@@waynetokarz174 Pilots are required either to follow ATC instructions, request alternate instructions, or declare an emergency if the safety of the flight is in question. In this case, while Part 91 allows the pilot to attempt an approach even when weather is reported below minimums, it does not follow that ATC is required to give any approach clearance the pilot may request regardless of the overall situation (traffic/weather/workload/etc.), which we are unable to determine from the information we have in this video.
Bro the 'FAA has joined the chat' line absolutely destroyed me lmao
It was probably from a ppl who doesn't understand IFR regs.
@@karmathebrit7856 not in a Falcon
@@kenclark9888 the guy who said it wasn’t ID’d in a falcon. Lol was a random pilot on freq I think?
How can something so overused and stupid absolutely destroy you ?
@@dingodango1 😐
Wonder if he is related to "Clear me through the Bravo then!"
There’s no problem with shooting an approach when the weather is below minimums as a part 91 aircraft. Busting them to land is a different story. I’ve shot many an approach when the weather is below minimums before… sometimes you might get lucky and see the airport, other times you don’t and just go missed.
“No one clears you to Morristown but me!” 🤣
@@kyleweisel sure. But is it ok to enter airspace you have been explicitly told you can't enter? That's what we are talking about here. Whether the ATC should have taken more time to explain to an impatient pilot is a whole other conversation.
@@jahbern of course not… where did I ever suggest that it was?
@@kyleweisel in the case we are talking about right now, he wasn't being allowed to shoot the approach, so clearly there WAS a problem with the pilot making the attempt. There's more to consider than whether it's technically possible for a pilot to attempt an approach. It's both/and - what's technically allowed and what's allowed by ATC.
But perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. That's definitely possible. No one is arguing that the regulations allow it. So I'm not sure who you were responding to.
I once heard the response from ATC as...
You can do it now, or you can do it safely, but you can't do both.
Pilot was completely satisfied with the response and his response was.
Roger thanks, we will keep that in mind (may not be verbatim)
I just loved the way it toned the situation down almost immediately.
The guy who whispered FAA has joined the chat had me loled
I absolutely CACKLED.
ROFL
::| get that guy #511 1:50 if you're on #ifr wytf can't U hold 2:26 guffaw !
i would of asked for a "expect further/leave hold clearance" in 5-15 minutes....planning to shoot approach if weather improves..then i would stop transmitting and squawk "no radio 7500"....and land all by my self...lol......BTW not sure whats the deal, the part 91 Falcon does not require mins to shoot approach, just descend below mins..,...Airlines part -121 are not allowed to even try the approach. Dude tells him the airport is closed but a arrow just landed? what am i missing here?
You heard of Sky King. now prepare for Sky Karen.
don't disgrace sky king like that
😂
Who the hell is Sky king?
@@squares4u look up horizon air q400 incident
"FAA has joined the chat" 😂😂 I see a man of wisdom
it should be reported because a pilot no caring about weather below minimums should not be in a cockpit
You can still fly an approach even if the weather is below minimums. He might have been able to see the approach lights which allows him to go below minimums
@@FeNite8 - Might...???...you do understand "might" actually adds a potential go-around situation/element to a complex area that includes MMU, CDW, and N07 which at the time HAD IFR in play... so it's basically one in, one out. CDW traffic is very pertinent to the MMU operation. TEB also goes through it, as well as EWR RWY 11 traffic. Now that you took time to accept/understand the "bigger picture" do you still think ATC made the wrong call given the area and conditions...(?)...
Had a similar one. Runway condition was reported to be really poor, most planes decided to divert or hold and wait for improvement (happening only in 30 mins due lack for ground workers). So the runway is not closed, but any time soon they will start chemically treating it. Some pilot refuses to go into holding, starts arguing that he doesnt care what is the runway condition, requests to continue approach. In the end he lands, the runway condition is better than reported, every other holding aircraft also wants to land and as soon as they start leaving holding, the ground workers decided to close the runway for 20 minutes for treatment. Complete chaos ensues. It opened in 10 min however, when most of the other aircraft diverted.
Yes. When you are IFR, Approach does decide when you can shoot the approach. I’ve held until this be had to divert many times.
Approach decides when you do the approaches based on workload, traffic management and other things, but they don’t decide you can’t do the approach simply because the weather is below minimums. The pilot in this case is right that under Part 91 even if the weather was reported 0 ceiling 0 vis he can still legally decide to execute the approach to minimums if he’d like.
I think this is more of a case of miscommunication. Sounds like the Tracon was busy based on the first reason and then the controller tried to come up with a second execute while the airspace was still busy.
You’re wrong dude.
@@usaswimmer1020 And if the weather is below minimums, they are most likely diverting aircraft from every airport nearby to a different airport. This controller was only the messenger and the airport being below minimums (and most likely many airports nearby) was probably creating task saturation.
So, in this case under part 91, the pilot was wrong. I’ve held because the airport is below minimums. Because if one airport is below minimums most likely many airports nearby are as well. So the airspace is busy with reroutes and diverts. He was never told he couldn’t shoot the approach later. He was only saying, “well another guy just shot the approach, why can’t I.” As if he’s the only airplane in the area.
By the way, I’ve been a Captain at a major airline in the US since 1994.
@@josephdale69 They may no longer be issuing IFR clearances to aircraft attempting to pick them up on the ground, but it’s not up to them to make the decision to divert aircraft for pilots already in the air. That decision rests solely with the PIC. Now that doesn’t mean you won’t receive hold instructions for busy airspace until it becomes a need to divert for fuel, but again the decision to divert and where to divert lands again with the PIC and solely on the PIC. Even on 9/11 the entire NAS was closed the FAA users the terms “Airborne aircraft are encouraged to land shortly,” not Land and the nearest suitable now.
As I said before in the situation it sounds like he was holding because the sector was obviously busy, but decided to question the controller when he said he was holding because the “airport is below minimums” which is fair because it’s perfectly legal and the pilots choice to shoot an approach to minimums under Part 91. Source: Current CFII.
@@usaswimmer1020 I think we both agree that the airspace was busy and that is why he was holding. The air traffic controller speaking on this recording isn’t the one making the decision. He is only telling the pilot what he is being told. I agree with you on almost everything. I do believe that the controller said the airport was below minimums (thus a busy sector with diverts, etc). Not that he was unable to shoot the approach. It just wasn’t his turn yet in sequence.
But yes, the controller should have been more specific in his instructions and the pilot should have had a more respectful approach to the controller. Sometimes that attitude alone will put you in a holding pattern.
Clarification for some, Part 91 operations can execute approaches regardless of the weather at destination. 121/135 operations some company policies are to hold until weather is at minimum or higher. When the field is IFR, only one aircraft at a time can execute the approach when the field is IFR, this is because visual separation can not be maintained by the second aircraft initiating the approach. Due to line of sight radios and other frequencies, ATC can be talking to other aircraft but you may not hear it or be aware of what other traffic is in the area. TL;DR Don't be a dick when flying.
A part 91 flight can try the approach in any weather. Approach and tower tend to forget that and will be recalcitrant as we heard here. But there is a way to remind them and get clearance that is less abrasive then the pilots demonstrate here as well.
@navion1946 - Well said... especially the last part!!
If this flight was conducted under part 135, it would most likely be illegal to initiate the approach if the weather was below minimums. Under part 91, try it all you want. I've never heard of ATC denying an approach attempt because weather was below mins, so I understand why the pilot was flustered, but he could have handled himself better. We all have bad days.
And ultimately if you are under IFR it’s the controllers airspace and they can choose to clear you or not clear you. Can raise any complaints with the controllers sup or at the FSDO
@@RainbowManification if the sole reason for denial is because the airport is below minimums the controller was wrong. If the delay is traffic congestion that's a whole different story. There's nothing in the .65 that says you will deny clearance for an approach based on published minimums. (I'm ATC) controller probably should have articulated better....and the pilot was a cocky asshole.
@@clintford5315 The issue is when weather is below minimums capacity often goes down. Talking a random pilot through the full airspace factors on air while trying to manage a busy IFR day would be the height of insanity. If pilot is concerned ATC is not managing airspace properly wait till on the ground and for a quiet day and you can complain to all sorts of folks. Frankly, the pilot sounded like an idiot. What's the excuse etc etc. If every pilot engaged in this much back and forth with ATC in congested airspace there would be problems.
@@randominternet5586he’s holding on the arrival. So release him he shoots the approach goes missed and hold on the Missed.
"I don't care what the weather is." That was disturbing to me but I'm not a pilot.
You are right to be disturbed
It's not (necessarily) as bad as it sounds. The instruments would have taken him safely close to the runway, what he wanted to do was try the approach and see if he could get the runway in sight before minimums -- if not, he would have ostensibly done a go-around. Visibility can change real fast so it's not unheard of to just give it a go and see if you can make it work... the problem here was, it all means increased workload for the controllers, and here the next sector just chose not to allow any more planes in before they could sort out what they were already handling.
Trying the approach is not necessarily a bad idea, even if he's likely to end up going around. Definitely a gamble, but it can and does work out sometimes.
@@wloffblizz Totally understandable that the pilot would've wanted to see for himself, especially since sometimes the pilots are really experienced with the airport and local weather, and can even have far better info relayed to them from the ground/company (and the controller usually is sitting somewhere totally different). And going down there to see is understandably often a preferred choice too, rather try than unnecessarily hold.
Part 91 (private pilots) are legally allowed to attempt an approach even below mins. Part 121/135 are not (commercial) are not.
So, it looks like all you need is just a little more patience, and then the minimums might just improve enough to get you sequenced in. The pilot may not care about the weather, but the controller has to. They also have rules on what they can or cannot do. How can the pilot not understand that?
Old man yells at clouds
#GrandpaSimpson #TheSimpsons
"Since when does he get to decide?" -- "Since you are IFR, Sir." *ThugLife*
I bet this same pilot argues with red lights at intersections too.
Yes it is "legal" to initiate an instrument approach at an airport with weather reported below minimums (assuming the flight is under part 91). I am not aware of the law that says ATC must clear you for every approach you ask for. ATCs primary responsibility is maintaining separation of IFR traffic. The controller could have more clearly explained the issue to the Falcon pilot, but if you dont treat me with courtesy and respect I am not sure why you would expect it in return.
He was pretty courteous. ATC doesn’t have time for pilots being divas.
This reminds me of the time I worked for Kalitta Air or Evergreen cant remember at the HUF back in the 90"s. It was extremely foggy to the point you couldn't see the top of the tower and just above the ramp lights. All the aircraft were holding in a pattern. Supervisor said one is going to try and land ( shoot the approach). So we sat there looking towards the runway. If i remember correctly it was a DC-10 and we could hear the engine's whining. Looked left and then we seen the lights. You could hear the RPM's rising and he was directly over the ramp. Extremely close to the tower. It was a wild experience to have a aircraft that large and that low fly right overhead where they shouldn't have been. Bet the controller and pilot were shitting their pants. I know us ground crew were.
"I don't care if the weather is below minimums, I want to go there NOW" sounds like the perfect recipe for an accident.
Accidents are for things that can't be prevented. This idiot is a crash waiting to happen.
It really isn't, though. It's Part 91 flying. There is nothing wrong with shooting an approach to "take a peek." Reported weather and flight visibility are often quite different things. It is entirely the responsibility of the pilot to execute a missed approach if he reaches the minimums and doesn't have the approach lights/runway environment in sight, but that is something we're all trained on, and not remotely dangerous.
His insistance on trying the approach is fully his prerogative, and the given ATC explanations were inadequate, nor were they ATC's call to make. If there was conflicting traffic going into another nearby airport (which I believe was the case, and a perfectly valid reason, btw), that needs to be communicated.
Sounds like a petulant child.
Stupid,can't control his temper
If 5EX is Part 91, traffic permitting, he's correct. If the pilot talked to the tower, and determined that minimums existed to allow him to begin the approach, then they can't just hold him because it is "at minimums". Perhaps they were trying to get a departure(s) out of Caldwell or protecting for an approach there, but that's quite different then because the ceiling was low.
As a controller, it really isn't my business to determine if a particular aircraft can *legally* start an approach based on the weather minimums. I won't clear someone into convective activity (I've had a pilot try before!) but the ceiling/visibility is on them.
Bingo. It's amazing how many people forget their Part 91 regs. Plus, flying a missed approach, if you get to minimums and don't see what you need to land is not exactly an emergency procedure, just requires basic airmanship and knowledge.
“Traffic permitting” is the key here
I look up to professionals. They leave with an everlasting impression.
Thanks!
For all the people talking about the approach being below minimums. N315EX is a 2001 Falcon 50EX and is most likely equipped with an EVS (enhanced vision system). In 2007 the FAA ruled that an EVS may be used for Cat I and nonprecision approaches to descend to 100 feet above the airport touchdown zone elevation regardless of reported flight visibility if by using the EVS they can identify the runway environment at published minimums. The GPS Z 23 has LPV DA published at 200 feet AGL.
To quote AIN's article on the ruling:
"The rule says that if the pilot can see the runway environment at published minimums by using the infrared EVS image, the approach can be continued to a height of 100 feet, after which “natural vision” must be used for landing. Pilots can rely on EVS during Cat I ILS approaches, as well as straight-in nonprecision approaches, by determining their “enhanced flight visibility,” a new term defined by the FAA as the average forward horizontal distance from the cockpit “at which prominent topographical objects may be clearly distinguished and identified” using the EVS. The FAA also said the rules apply to Cat II and III ILS approaches, but only by specific prior approval."
With advanced equipment often found on late(er) model aircraft an approach down to or even below published minima has been determined safe by the FAA and may be used by flight crew.
Yeah guys.. what he said
@@53C52 The Max-Vis EVS-1000 is the standard that was originally used in the 2000/900/900EX and the STC was also approved for the 50 and 50EX, though only about halfway through the EX production run. Several Falcon 50's with proper avionics (I think the Proline 21?) were retrofit with them at the Little Rock center post-2003.
This pilot is a real piece of work. I hope the FAA did have an interaction with him. Hopefully he changes his bad attitude.
"Since when does he get to decide?"
"Since you're IFR, sir"
*cue emotional damage*
Looks like someone didn’t learn from Northwest Orient airlines flight 705
the "Okay, and?" is so chuckfull of attitude, I love it. I want it as my ring tone
I'd been airline captain for about 30 yrs, and I can say with no doubt that the vision that the pilots have in the final approach path is quite different from the guys inside the control tower. Despite their statements and all electronic advances, pilots should be allowed to try the approach procedure, respecting the minimus depicted in the approaches procedures charts because the atmosphere is so dynamic that the conditions varies in each every second. Yeah, I agree that the pilot of N315EX was very disrespectful, but he should be allowed to try the procedure. It is not dangerous to do such things cause the minimus are stablished for safety reasons, and at the of the day, pilots can decide not to land even in Cavok conditions. Good flights and be safe.
ATC apparently thinks you can't shoot the approach if you don't have mins. Comes from working too many air carriers and very little GA.
Give this guy an alley to meet in to discuss it.
Just by the pilots arrogance I can almost for certain say that he is a New Jersey residence lol possibly even Morristown, which is around the area I grew up in. God, I do not miss New Jersey in the least 😂😭
What is this with this pilot? What was he expecting?
Pilot: "I wanna land!"
Tower: "Negative, runway is closed for weather."
Pilot "I don't care! I wanna land now!!!!"
Tower: "FAA regulations, based on decades of research on weather-related accidents, science, mathematical engineering, and literally millions of flight hours, says that it's not safe for you to land... but I'll just let them know that it's okay because you didn't feel like going to a different airport."
I agree with the pilot. The weather is reported incorrectly all the time. The equipment may be wrong or the observation. Part 91 can shoot an approach no matter what the weather is. Either burn the fuel in hold or do 1 good approach then go somewhere else…unless storms obviously.
Yea its unfortunate - the pilot was correct in that he can ATTEMPT approaches all day long. The ATC should have given him the chance - but sounds like there were other aircraft on frequency as well, holding for the same.
The radio is no place to argue or object. You have an issue, get a number & discuss it in the ground 👍
There is a right balance of assertiveness. Being too much submissive has lead to accidents. Arguing to a certain extend when some instruction is deemed incorrect is not improper.
@@vihai definitely 👍🏻
This pilot could have fixed this by not being a jerk. Controllers (most facilities) deal with Part 121 and 135 traffic a lot more than Part 91 and they are used to aircraft needing minimum weather conditions to START the approach; not just for landing. There is nothing that the controller has to tell them if you are a charter or a private Part 91 flight. I have had this happen more than once and when they delayed me for weather, I responded "N123JJ is a part 91 flight and we do not require minimums to start the approach." And not with a smart-ass tone! I have never been denied after that. Assuming the controller is 100% responsible for remembering 100% of the information 100% of the time is foolish at best. Unless you're one of those pilots who thinks you're perfect. Being a jerk on the radio rarely ends up working out in your favor.
yessss, i’ve been looking for a comment on this video from someone who gets the point. lol “they are used to aircraft needing minimum weather to *start* the approach,” this is so true. do we as viewers know that this flight was operated under §91? people seem to assume that it was when it could have been a §135 flight. it could also have been a sequencing issue for air traffic control.
With our current entitlement culture, no surprise this is happening in the air now. VASAviation has chronicled many a Karen/Darren who managed to become a pilot.
That pilot wanted to do his own research.
Approach minimums is based solely on visibility and not ceiling criteria. Furthermore, per FAR Part 91.175(C)(2) states "The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; " Only an aircraft in flight can determine what "flight visibility" is, not a controller where RVR is not reporting. Additionally, there's a big difference between a Falcon Jet than a small Aerostar flying the approach. Comment made by NY Center about weather "decreasing rapidly" as well has no bearing on the situation. Frustrating that the purpose of ATC is the separation of traffic, not the decision making of flight crews in making an approach.
From what I can hear, the copilot is the impacient one. You can notice the different accent when the Falcon starts treating the ATC properly.
They should have had a number for him to call.
NY vernacular often sounds rude, short and brass. This is normal conversation in New York…
What an arrogant SOB, the driver of 5EX - I guess he had too little 5EX lately .
Anyone else reminded of Louis CK's "The time I thought I was going to die" joke?
"Tower, we'd REALLY like clearance to land..."
"Uh, that's a *negative*, 288"
That’s what low visibility means!
I wonder if “5EX” was an intentional part of the tail number lol
I'm Falcon sure it was.
This isn't in New York. Morristown and Caldwell is in New Jersey.
MMU and CDW’s airspace are controlled by ZNY (New York Center) and N90 (New York Approach), both of which are located in NY, that’s what they’re referencing.
Dan Gryder almost joined the chat!😆
It is so bush league to argue with ATC like this, especially in a busy environment.
One sided ego battle.
ATC had no choice so he had no ego involved. Pilot took offense to a person following procedure.
I wish people followed procedure in damn near every profession. Our world would run better. Rules/procedures are usually for a reason.
The one exception I can think of is when Walmart started to put up ropes that formed single file lines during the pandemic. Same concept as getting a bunch of baseballs and putting them through a pitching machine. If all the baseballs are clean, everything is fine. If you rub hot sauce on one of those balls before you put it in the pitching machine, every ball you put in after is going to get some hot sauce on it. If they allowed people to enter wherever they wanted at random, it's the equivalent of using multiple pitching machines. (More or less).
Sometimes rules/regs don't make sense, but in the aerospace industry, they have about 100 years of failure to secure those rules.
ALL ENTITLED AND PUSHY TIL AN ACCIDENT HAPPENS. IF YOU WANT TO BE TECHNICAL, PILOTS HAVE THE LAST SAY WITH REGARDS TO THEIR PLANE BUT NOT THE AIRPORT.
Surely pilots shouldn't be allowed to be throbbers of the very highest order?
I’d never pick a fight with ATC like that but especially not with New York center…
Any pilot that says "I don't care what the weather is", and ignores reports that the weather is below minimums, is not a pilot that I want taking me anywhere.
Not sure how this works in states, but we have approach ban in Canada. If the wx is too bad, you can't shoot the approach with few exceptions.
Jeez! He didn't say he wanted to speak to a manager, or even ask for 'corporate' phone #.
FAA has joined the chat... I lost it.
I'll say I don't think anyone was entirely in the right or in the wrong here. What we initially have is a pilot looking for information. And given the information he's provided, I totally understand his frustration. If he's operating under Part 91, he can legally shoot an approach to 0/0 if he wants. He won't get in, but he's allowed to try. He was given almost no pertinent information, and the information he was given was directly challenging that. It is *not* ATC's job to tell a pilot whether they can or cannot accept an approach. It *is* ATC's job to separate traffic, and that was the direction N90's comments should've tacked.
That said, I also believe ATC had valid reasons for not approving it, especially given the complex airspace/close proximity of other airports that have conflicting IFR procedures. If N90 had communicated that, I'd be surprised if there was further dialogue. In the amount of time ATC spent going back and forth, he could've initially said "due to their proximity, [insert airports here] are treated as one for IFR arrival/departure purposes. We can't approve a Morristown arrival right now because there is traffic inbound Caldwell." Instead he chose to say something that is demonstrably false and not his call to make.
I'm unmoved by any of the extracurriculars here (the FAA comment was as stupid as it was wrong). This was a frustrated pilot not being helped. We (pilots and ATC) are a team, and when there is a communication breakdown, things like this happen.
"I don't care what the weather is I'd like to shoot the approach"
You probably should if the weather is below minimums...
Another example of an annoying air traffic controller.
He has the attitude of an EX
Who else thought the call sign said SEX at first read?
Hmmm. I did my ATP checkride at Morristown a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…
Pilot is actually correct here. The PIC determines if weather is above minimums when attempting to land in IFR. Weather reports such as ATIS and PIREPS are useful information that we can use to make our decision, but at the end of the day you're allowed to shoot the approach regardless of these reports and make the decision when you reach approach minimums. Personally I can't blame the falcon pilot for getting a bit upset that ATC would not allow him to even attempt the approach.
14 CFR 91.175
If they were a part 91 operation they could shoot the approach regardless of the weather correct? But not if they were 135 or 121? It's been a little since I've dove I to the specifics of IFR legalities. Either way I know ATC has final say in IFR
This captain is the type of guy to get a lot of passengers killed due to “proving he can land in foggy weather.” I don’t care how long I had to wait, I want them to be safe, not reckless to show off I’m front of the flight attendants…
It's up to the pilot to decide to go missed if the approach visibility is too low. It is entirely safe to fly the approach to minimums under IMC with the proper training that every pilot receives when getting their instrument rating. ATC's job in this case is to advise, not to decide.
You can approach in any weather, but you can’t proceed past 1000ft unless the conditions meet the minimums for that approach. The tone and persistence of this particular pilot is more of a concern.
What an unsafe pilot..
“I don’t care what the weather is” absolute sigma
N315EX Registration:
2001 DASSAULT AVIATION MYSTERE-FALCON 50
Fixed wing multi engine
(22 seats / 3 engines)
Owner: TVPX AIRCRAFT SOLUTIONS INC TRUSTEE
NORTH SALT LAKE , UT, US
Company should reprimand its pilot. Wouldn't want to fly with them with such cowboy pilots.
And this is how accidents happen, pilot needs to chill tf out
I learned to fly at Caldwell. Fun seeing this.
Do you guys in the states not have an ‘approach ban’
The 'FAA has joined the chat made me laugh so hard that I spilled my coffee inside my keyboard. (This took me 5 mins to write because of the intermittent dead keys :) )
I knew where this was going when I heard "I thought we were first but ok."
If it’s a 91 operator can they attempt to shoot the approach below minimums, sorry for the ignorant question.
I want a coke.
We’re sold out.
But i still want a coke.
Oh, wait. We have coke now.
I KNEW IT!
'Last report was exactly at minimums' - would a pilot who landed ever report that they landed with weather below minimums?
I hate Falcons, it's like driving a car with no power steering. Their so yesterday compared with today's bad boys of the air.
Only thing that would have made this better is to hear someone come back "alt + F4"
5EX is my new call sign 😂
NYC is always...busy...and like that.
good thing the ATC keeps it cool or this may be in air crash investigation episodes.
The pilot is in the right. It is up to him if he wants to land there. ATC should be fired.
You're wrong
Give him vectors to fly out to the atlantic and run out of fuel.
"I don't care what the weather is I still want to shoot the approach". What every passenger would love to hear from the person responsible for their life 😔
Tbh, if I was a passenger I would like them to shoot an approach even when the last reported weather conditions are below minimums as long as they had enough fuel for a missed approach and to divert another field.
An approach doesn't mean a landing. It means flying to the minimums to have a look. Weather is fluid and constantly moving and changing.
He is right in caring of the REPORTED weather. He may very well shoot the approach and go missed if the approach lights are not visible at minimums. It's the proper procedure.
Classic case of get-there-itis.
I think 5EX needs to learn a little patience. I flew in NY airspace for years and found the controllers to be very cooperative within the limitations of traffic and their workload. Be polite, act like you know what you’re doing and they’ll work with you. Be an a** and they can make your life difficult. NY is probably the most congested airspace in the US, especially in bad weather.
1:16 "FAA has joined the chat"
Pilot should be reprimanded. Their attitude towards the weather and atc is dangerous
In my headcanon, that was airforceproud95.
So you’re saying they don’t have the “approach ban” rule in the US?
I hope my pilots don't have attitudes like these
he just disable the weather 😅
they pilot was talking to an FAA controller the entire time. when did they ever leave the chat lol so stupid
I'm not a pilot, but am a professional. Which this pilot is not: Starting out by whining like a three year old that the Controller let another plane cut in front of you? I know this is not O'Hare or JFK, but it is north Jersey with maybe a few other planes in the general vicinity. Based on the discussion, it sounds like the pilot should have dispensed with the cracks and simply asked if the airport is closed. If it's not, he can reasonably state: "Respectfully, if the airport is open, it's my right to request approach instructions." The only excuse I can see for his behavior is if they're just arriving cross-country and he's beyond exhaustion.
Landing an arrow is priority 1
finally approaching to an airfield almost or just bellow the minima and nothing about QNH readback.....despite the advices they expedite to their grave.....
I love your videos. Can you do a accident that happened today in Brasil, a famous singer died. Her plane crashed
Dear entitled pilot. Unless you are fuel critical or declaring an emergency, ground absolutely decides if you get to land or not.