@@mattwebb02 Remember, these recordings are not from either tower or cockpit, but from private scanners picking up the radio chatter. The direct communications are way more clear then this noisy stuff. Although a skilled listener can probably still understand what is going on here :P
SIA634: Mayday mayday mayday... We lost both engines and rudder, fire in the cabin. ATC: Expect the ILS... SIA634: We're dead bro.. ATC: Expect the ILS..
Pilot is not angry, he is annoyed by the extremely poor english of the Japanese ATC. I'd get really frustrated too. Hope they sign this guy up for a couple of English classes.
Kaipeternicolas pilot was lying to atc about fuel. Or fucked up calculating fuel. He should have enough fuel to divert to the alternate and land with 45 mins remaining. If he needed desperately to land, he could have declared an emergency
I do not agree. Pilot asked 3 times for estimated approach time and ATC did not answer. Their English was appalling. Maybe the pilot was upset because he had a fuel issue caused by the go around? If he was 3 miles final there is no reason why ATC could not give a late clearance. The pilots seemed very professional to me in contrast with ATC.
quenchize uhh pilot had a fucking attitude, and used shitty unprofessional language. What the hell is a fuel problem? 1 hour left? 30 mins left? Fuel leak? Contamination? He either lied cuz his impatient ass didn’t want a delay or he totally fucked up fuel calculations. Both which are safety hazards. And you’re telling me ATC was less professional?
X-Plane Aviation Pilot stated that he had 10 minutes until he was finished with his main fuel and would be on reserves. I don't know what their airline policy is but it's clear that the airline doesn't want the plane running on reserve fuel for whatever reason, so he requested priority clearance. Other than taking a couple minutes to specify "fuel problem", the pilot didn't do anything wrong.
The pilot asked twice "what is the expected approach TIME". ATC misunderstood that as approach TYPE. Very easy to confuse the two, even for a native English speaker. Instead, the phrase "what is our expected LANDING time" would have been more appropriate. When "going off script" in a foreign ATC environment, it pays to have a think before you key the mic.
SIA 634: What time can I expect the approach? ATC: Expect the ILS SIA 634: Yes the ILS, but at what time? ATC: Expect the ILS SIA 634: Yes, I get it the ILS, but when? ATC: Expect the ILS SIA 634: I'm low on and fuel and I need to land right effing now! ATC: Expect the ILS
As a Japanese who spent several months seeking a job for this area too, I can confirm that the ability to speak English is NOT in consideration (there are several types of the English test they use for evaluating candidates and some of them only value writing and listening, not speaking) when hiring Pilots or ATC so I'm not surprised by this ATC is too, but the stupidity of the hiring staff is to blame on this occasion
@@tech99070 English proficiency in Japan is amongst the worst in the world, and certainly within Asia. Even the average peasant from a third world Asian country has a better grasp of English than your average university educated Japanese citizen. I've met two native Japanese English teachers in Japan. One is a friend of my wife and is pretty much too shy to use English around me, except for the occasional word to help me translate something. The other was really enthusiastic and tried to have a conversation with me but I genuinely couldn't understand him, and I typically don't struggle with "Katakana English", or accents in general. Even amongst the younger generations it's poor. I strongly get the impression that this ATC just didn't understand what was being said and was winging it. Using fixed phrases he should have nailed the pronunciation of by now as part of his job, especially at an international airport. It's not like ATC needs to be that dynamic in what it says. It's all about standard phrases and clear enunciation.
@@harveysmith100 Yea I have to admit, this is awful. I feel for the singapore pilots, the frustration of not actually being able to get through to the people who are meant to help them. Its a nightmare
THIS is why it is VITAL that all international pilots AND ATC have a professional grasp of English to understand more than just aviation terminology. Thankfully, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has put requirements for pilots and ATC to meet certain levels. If they cannot maintain at least a level 4 grasp of English, they can NOT fly international flights.
Big problem is that the people rating their english are locals of the same country. And somehow, a level 6 in Tokyo is probably not the same as a level 6 in England
In Japan, I can only speak for both JAL and ANA and their subsidiaries, when I say that Level 6 is native level, tested almost completely by native speakers. All of the ICAO regulations were put into the "evaluation package" to figure out what is level 4, 5 and 6 by native speakers from the US and Australia. Now, China was, at one time, completely different. The pilots were all given Level 6 automatically. Thankfully, that was caught, but what the resulting penalties were with China by the ICAO, I do not know.
"a professional grasp of English to understand more than just aviation terminology." - agreed. But, most of the Japanese ATCs are not in the level. But, they operate within the ICAO phrase book only. If you fly with UA flights in Asia, have a listen to the ATC channel.
T Ita - ALL of the Japanese ATC's I passed did qualify under Level 4 qualifications, which meant they have to retest every two years. It was far more than just "aviation terminology". I have also listened to Chinese ATC, and THEY have been found to be horrid. Most of those who were tested were tested by company examiners who were told to pass everyone at level 6 regardless of their abilities - for both pilots and ATC.
The language that aviation is spoken/written in is and always has been English. In India all AtC and pilots speak English, same in every country that most North American English speaking people wouldn't understand without it.
Remember people: 1) dead air has been edited out of the tape 2) he's flying around at 250 kts @ 4,000 ft msl.. He's covering a lot of territory in 30-45 seconds
I can completely feel the anger of the pilot - letting them go around at that distance and altitude was (probably) completely unnecessary* and inefficient traffic management, but starting an argument on frequency is highly unprofessional. Just file a report after landing where you can voice your objections to how the situation was handled. And I heard worse English on frequency, but I had the feeling that the ATC was so procedure-bound that he couldn't quite react properly to the SIA's request. Yes, fuel problem wasn't the best phrase to use there, but everyone knows the word "fuel" and "problem" - used together in one sentence is pretty clear what's going on. When he then told SIA to maintain the heading due to traffic, I facepalmed hard. Anyways - I think both parties here have some homework to do. But the most important part - nobody got hurt. That's enough for me. *On the other hand - better safe than sorry for causing an aircraft collison on the runway because you valued effiency higher than safety. Maybe the controller had little experience yet at a big airport and was overly cautious.
What kind of fuel problem? Fuel temperature too high/too low? Fuel pump inoperative? Fuel filter problem? If you are LOW ON FUEL there's MAYDAY FUEL or MINIMUM FUEL. Anything other than this is not standard phraseolog, specially when you are flying where English is not the first language spoken.
Traffic only cleared the runway after the go around plane was over the runway. What’s the point of have visualisation and audio if you don’t listen. Also, the pilot had the reason communicated 3 times before he asked so clearly he wasn’t listening to ATC. Pilots need to be able to multitask obviously he can’t.
Completely unnecessary go around? There was traffic on the runway. You can't assume that traffic will be off the runway in time for the landing. What if the plane on the runway loses engine power, what if the brakes malfunction slowing/stopping the plane, what if the plane misjudges a turn, and it's tire sinks into the ground causing the plane to get stuck? You can't assume that none of these things will happen because they all can happen. The go around, as a result, was necessary.
Kenneth Liou it wasn’t really good but aviation terminology was good enough. The Singapore 634 should had used the proper aviation phrase “pan pan pan minimum fuel”
I served in a combat + search and rescue unit in a language that I didn't learn until my 20's, so I'm a non-native speaker with a bit of a goofy accent. From that experience I have a ton of empathy and understanding for non-native speakers, especially those in high stress jobs. As much as I respect people doing their best to communicate there is a point that it simply becomes too dangerous to do certain high-stakes jobs and this recording is a perfect example of that. Not only were there multiple people talking loudly in the background during the transmissions, but the ATC's English is completely unintelligible. I would hate to be piloting a plane in those circumstances, it's too risky. I thought that the pilot handled it relatively ok and he wasn't even speaking in an angry tone, atc kept asking him to repeat because he didn't understand and the pilot simply repeated in a clearer, more intense way. Even with the subtitles available I still really struggled to understand what ATC said. If this was at the gun range or something dangerous like that I'd refuse to load my weapon until any communication issues were delt with.
@@hotrodray6802 those specific voices had to do with picking up static from another frequency because this receiver is far away/not very good. The pilot and ATC would not have heard it we only hear it
agentorange153 I found it perfectly intelligible - and remember, they are all qualified to work ATC, so clearly they meet the required standard. I guess it means you shouldn't be a pilot until you improve your comprehension skills.
Merely being allowed to work ATC is NOT by itself proof that they meet required standards (how many unqualified employees have YOU seen in all walks of life?!), and this is NOT intelligible English!
SIA634 is a B-777 from the radar tag. Most airliners come down final with about a ground speed of about 120 knots or so and on a 3 degree descent path. This gives about a 600 foot per minute descent rate required. I have a Boeing 777 type rating btw. ANA111 and SIA634 were doing about 111 knots ground speed inside of 5 nm. Air carriers and the governing bodies set rules for when you have to configured, on speed and stable on final. An unstable approach can often times be a key cause of a landing problem. 1000 feet above field elevation IFR (weather poor) configured, stable on speed with the power up is about the norm. Here we find the two aircraft are about 4 nautical miles apart (nm) and are doing about 2 nm per minute. ANA111 lands and on a 3 mile final SIA634 is sent around at about 1000 feet above the field and 90 seconds before touch down approximately. ANA111 is clearing when SIA634 is at 2nm final and 600 feet above the field or 60 seconds before landing. It should be noted the usual go around point on a category 1 ILS (instrument landing system approach) is 200 feet agl (above ground level). It appears the controller was a new guy in training. Most controllers would just tell the landing aircraft to expediate clearing the runway, traffic short final and tell the traffic on final to slow to approach speed. The captain of the plane on approach would say to his/her first officer that he had someone still on the runway, and they would both mentally get ready for a go around. The ATC facility may have had a very conservative 1000 ft go around rule if traffic was still on the runway. If this were chicago ohare KORD the controller would just tell ANA to expediate his ass off the highspeed taxiway and tell SIA to keep coming and he would call the go if necessary and he would do it with absolutely not missing a beat. If this was KORD or New York ATC and there was a go they would just say sorry for the go around, we will bring you right around in a tight box pattern and fit you right in and they would ask how are you doing on fuel..... The controller was doing the best he could and I don't think I could learn Japanese and be a controller, he will get better at english.... the SIA pilot is running out of fuel and ideas, I have been there many times and he is not angry but assertive... he needs to be very assertive because he is burning fuel fast and the controllers need to understand a problem has developed. Asking why he was sent around is necessary because it may affect his next attempted landing. For example the runway may be temporarily closed due to a problem. Stuff breaks, people make mistakes, as a pilot you learn to gracefully recover from problems.....
Thank you for this insight. That makes far more sense than any of the other explanations here. Now the pilot and his communications make total sense. Basically, he was saying “I didn’t see a problem with me coming to land, what was the issue so I can figure out what to do next with the limited fuel I have.”
"Go around, traffic still on the runway" "What was the reason for the go around" "Traffic still on the runway" "What was the reason for the go around" At this point i would answer back "Your goldfish memory"
As I understand it the alternate airport was one hour away. He only had about 90 minutes of fuel left , so if he got put in a holding pattern for more than 20 minutes he would be trapped at that airport. So he really really really needed to know how long the runway was going to be blocked, and the ATC wouldn't tell him. If a plane slid off the runway and was stuck in the mud ....he needed to divert to his alternate airport immediately. If a plow broke down and was being towed off the runway, he could wait. All he needed was a straight answer and he couldn't get one .
I'm not a pilot so I'd defer to the opinion of a real pilot, but I didn't see anything wrong with the pilot's reactions. They have a certain expectation of what is normal, and if something is not normal they'll want to know why. As to the fuel problem he wasn't at the point of declaring an emergency, he just wanted to let ATC know he was close. He tried to communicate this fact to ATC and they didn't seem to understand him. His tone did get sharper, but he was at all times composed and followed protocol in reading back ATC instructions.
Greg Stark He was for the most part in the right, but his attitude and vaguely referencing a fuel problem to expedite his approach was a bit unprofessional in my opinion. I’ve seen much more calm and polite pilots in much worse situations.
Sam Stanfield I agree, Sam. He did state that he would have to divert, no fuel shortage problem there. He was intimidating the controller so as to receive priority sequencing. There is no such thing as a fuel problem. You either have minimum fuel. Where you can make an approach and execute a go around, Now, you enter Emergency fuel status, get priority and vectored for a landing. I would have asked the pilot to confirm declaring emergency fuel, I am sure he would not. After landing his fuel would have been checked, and he would have a bit of explaining to do. Departure controller was caught out. He did not have the reason for the go around, that should have been passed to him by tower as soon as transfer of control was made. Cathay, was at 10 nm on final, can not see why he became concerned by Sia go around. To end this, the departure controller should have told SIA to call when on the ground, no need to be having a pissing contest, when you are vectoring aircraft around.
Greg Stark but he didn't just ask. He started bitching and second guessing their call. It's not his damn place to judge ground ops. Could have been all sorts of reasons why the aircraft was still on the runway and how long it would take to vacate. But he got pissy after finding out the "what", but without finding out the"why".
The aircraft on the runway cleared the runway while he was still 2 miles out and still on Tower frequency. He heard and saw this. So I'd say upon finding out that ANA111 was the reason hew as told to go around, he was pretty fully informed about the why and had every reason to be annoyed.
I thought there were only two calls for fuel issues: "minimum fuel" meaning I have enough fuel to continue the flight in normal sequence without undue delay, but it's not an emergency, or "emergency fuel" meaning I need priority to land. "I have a fuel problem" is a term without definition. From the transcript, to 634 it apparently means "If I don't land in 10 minutes, I'll have to go someplace else." Was he thinking of weather and divert fuel? Probably, but I don't know.
Yeah and he stated he had 10min endurance plus diversion fuel and final reserve? That’s not exactly a fuel problem. Granted I’d expect ATC to give me an expected approach time in this situation…. But nor am I diverting from a multi-runway airport that is open when I’m just being given a couple of vectors for sequencing.
@@iainmillar1532 he was still being vectored in the opposite direction from the airport. After mentioning he had fuel problem many times, he was still given vector 050 which is still on a path away from the airport
@@AnjektusStudio If it was an emergency, then he needed to declare an emergency. As OP said, he could have said he was at minimum fuel, or that he was at emergency fuel. Saying he had a "fuel problem" doesn't mean anything to ATC. You will not get priority if you say that - means nothing to us.
Lol this brings me back. I was struck by lightning 150 miles off J-Land and had fire indications, burned up a flight control computer and the air data computer, all that fun stuff. Rolled up Tokyo Control, dropped the E-word, requested a block altitude for a controllability check and direct RJTA...man that language barrier was tough to work through. Ended up telling them to clear my path, got close enough to call Yokota Approach (American controllers) to get everything sorted out.
I've been screwed by ATC before. Final approach, suddenly "the airport is closed for snow removal" with barely any snow on the runway - had us hold at the freaking MIDDLE MARKER, like 1 mile from the airport in VMC with the airport (obviously) in sight. 30 minutes of holding. One of the controllers was also a pilot and also flew for our charter outfit part-time, suspected it may have been a personal issue between him and the captain of the flight (I was flying SIC). The plows weren't even ready to scrape the runway, no reason we could not have safely landed, previous PIREPS from the flights in front of us reported good braking action and they had just landed 1 minute before us. Almost did the same thing, we were already getting close to reserve fuel and nearly ate into our reserves due to excessive holding for nonsense.
I tried watching the 2nd half without watching so I didnt have subtitles. I had a hard time flowing along and gotta say kodos for the pilot and controller for their jobs. Thanks for the video AND subtittles
The go around will have required more fuel to burn for possibly 20 minutes more. He was 3 miles inbound, ANA was already exiting active RWY. As the pilot said, there's a lot of time. P.S.: ATC should have told him the reason. He should also have vectored the Singaporean properly so that there will be enough time and distance between SIA and ANA, that way no go around would even be necessary. In conclusion, ATC was super shit.
@Oh_ My_gawd I didn't say he was right to say that he had a fuel problem. But rather, I was saying that ATC should have planned vectored SIA a bit more properly to create more distance between traffic in front. You should know though that go arounds burn more fuel, not to mention the delays that it bring...
@Oh_ My_gawd And we wouldn't really know if he lied about it. The fuel problem he may have been referring to is most likely the amount he has left before running on reserves (which is very dangerous actually), or the amount he has left before the fuel he has on board wouldn't allow him to reach alternate airport... I'm a student pilot, heard a couple of ATCs and thank god their english is a whole lot better and clearer.
RJTT/Haneda has some odd peculiarities about its approaches, I was flying inbound to 16L via the SANDY IAF off the XACL (Oshima L) STAR and for one the altitude constraints bring you way down for extended transition at something like FL130 (I don’t have the chart in front of me at the moment) starting something like 40nm out and the GS intercept for the 16L ILS starts at 4000’ AGL, very high and far for a GS coupling which is typically around 1500’ - 2000’ft AGL depending on the GS angle and other factors, but as I recall it was a normal 3.0 deg GS just extremely extended. It felt more like an RNAV from an extended fix
Yeah, ive flown in and out of both haneda and narita multiple times and you can see especially at night the amount of congestion in the sky with two major airports of that size that close to eachother.
I lied once to Philly Approach about 20 years ago about fuel. I was flying a small turbo and they kept me in the hold pattern. I had to go to the bathroom so bad and I was annoyed. The company I was flying for was upset, because I took on fuel there in Philly for a 45 minute flight home.
well it happen to me and at my flight school a few time, when we have issus with the controller we dont take up radio time and quesiton or argue with another or the same controller. We make a report when we get on the ground via phone or online. The same thing apply to the controller, they can make a report about flight, the pilot etc
It was snowing heavily on that day in Tokyo which is quite rare so maybe that's why the traffic remaining on the runway was slow and the controller gave such an early go around order.
That doesn't matter - the You Tube commenters with PhDs in the area and tens of thousands of hours of experience as BOTH international pilots AND ATC have already reached a flawless verdict, which by no means can be questioned.
Pilot was super patient with the ATC. ATC did not understand the pilot and is a safety hazard to aviation. Fuel problems would should have the ATC prioritising the flight over over flights but SIA was told to maintain heading, which is a facepalm
The pilot was asking the approach controller the reason for go around that was issued by the tower controller. Then complained to approach what was a tower controller decision. The pilot then was upset that he was instructed to go around at such a high altitude and 3 miles out. The weather played a part in this but controllers can be flexible too. Sidestep to parallel runway, reduce speed on final...traffic still on runway. Overall, the captain didn't want to line up in sequence again after go around but opted for priority landing. Landing at Narita in Japan only has single runway. On Cathay we had to divert to Tokyo International and land. Wait for runway to open at Narita and fly back to Narita our final stop
From what I understand, a sidestep maneuver is rarely used outside of U.S airspace so that probably wasn't even a consideration for the controller. Would have solved a lot of headache for both parties, though.
“We have fuel problems, Singapore634.” - “Singapore634, do you declare an emergency?” “Negative, Singapore634.” - “Continue on previous assigned heading.”
Bingo fuel is a situation to avoid. Legally and safety wise. Get down or divert. The first responsibility is to FLY THE PLANE. More than once in 50 years I've said....MAKE A HOLE.
they told like 3 times the same sentence, namely which runway he was supposed to land, but the crew wanted to know something else considering aproach vectors, they simnply didnt answer that specific question multiple times
It wasn't a satisfactory answer, he could have seen the traffic and wanted to know if there was more they could tell him (eg Traffic crossing he couldn't see etc), he knew the timing with the ANA would have been sufficient to land with a late clearance.
@@karlosbricks2413 Once he's done the go around, there's no urgency to find out _why_ . He can ask for a reason when he's on the ground, and lodge a written complaint _later_ , rather than introduce a distraction and tying up the frequency of a busy airport.
He said initially that there was traffic still on the runway. No need to continually ask 'why'. Just tell the guy that you're low on fuel initially. This is all on the pilot.
I totally agree with the pilots, they had plenty of space and considering the traffic up there they should try to get as much planes on the ground as possible. A divertion might seem like nothing if you look at a radar but in reality its a painful operation for the crew, the passengers and the airline to get everything coordinated. I totally understand the frustration and Im happy it worked out in the end.
Well! This comme t are 2 year late. But I had to ent Becouse you are so silly. If there are traffic on the runway then the play has to go around. That knows even a 6 moths baby
I have always had so much respect for traffic controllers. They do NOT have an easy job and one slight screw up can mean the difference between life and death. I honestly don't think I could do it. Being on the other end is no problem for me but I couldn't handle the stress these controllers deal with every shift. That looked like a hard airport and airspace to work on top of it.
I believe there was a failure of communication between different languages. Though Japan controller was speaking English, they have a harder time comprehending the language. But the tower controller could have expedited traffic off the runway to allow Singapore to land with proper safety protocol which we call anticipated separation as controllers.
Everyone: it's difficult to understand his English and he should improve his speaking/listening skills more. Japanese(me): he is terrible, sorry for SIA pilot...
Not Japanese (me): Japanese and American English both have an unfortunate bad habit in practice, that of adapting foreign words to the sounds common in our language. "Carry-oh-key" is an abominable pronunciation of karaoke (for non-Japanese, it should be "kah-rah-okay"). But for one example, "air-oo" is an abominable pronunciation of "yell". And both languages seem to be blind to the problems it causes with understanding each other. I see it all the time with American English, but I've also been amused by things like the live-action movie _Detroit Metal City_ ...at one point, they praise Negishi's supposedly-superior pronunciation of "F--k". To be fair, it *was* a really good imitation, but they were saying it was better than the (perfect) pronunciation of a native speaker (Gene Simmons of KISS, playing Jack IL Dark.) Or the time a Japanese reviewer complained about an American band's "bad" English pronunciation, because it didn't match the (inaccurate) sounds the reviewer had learned in school.
I listened twice to catch the statement about traffic on the runway. Am I correct that the plane ahead of 634 wasn’t just landing and taxiing, but was stopped on the runway? After the go around call, the pilot on the runway said he could now proceed and vacate 34R. Three miles is a lot closer when a plane is stopped on the runway and won’t be moving right away.
a true story is, one of my friends, who is a commercial pilot was on duty for a flight to Tokyo, but he got grounded for a week because of wrong altitude. I don't even know how that happened since the ATC HAS to correct the pilot if the readback is wrong. They do need to improve English. So are some of ATCs in China. I felt bad when I hear some weird english transmission from my home countries' ATC.
The decisions I make at my job are much less serious than ATC make and I would be brought in for questioning if I was half as thick as the ATC was. Asking the captain to confirm fuel emergency after he's already repeated it 3 to 4 times is ridiculous.
He should have declared a pan-pan instead of demanding stuff from the controller, I dont think thats how it works. Then again, the controller seemed kinda oblivious.. Interesting situation
X-Plane Aviation pretty sure the pilot was clear enough to be understood for what he was asking but he had to repeat it multiple times. Pilot knew what he wanted but ATC was incompetent. Although I agree the Singaporean pilot could've been more patient.
In Malaysia we used to have this term called Pan Fuel callout that is non standard and does not require any reporting. It was widely used by AirAsia and its subsidiaries as a way to get priority landing clearance by alerting atc that they will be using reserve fuel if they were asked to hold on peak traffic hours. Needless to say it caused a lot of havoc in Kuala Lumpur atc sequencing that this term got banned by the local aviation authority DCA 3 years ago. It was found that many of these airline that always report pan fuel, have very conservative fuel contingency planning that do not account for long holdings during peak hours. In a way this reduces fuel costs for the airlines operation as they would always arrive as per schedule and no holdings required. Damn glad this thing no longer exists its a nuisance for other airlines that have to wait in line just because there's always some operators that tend to carry less fuel. For now any fuel related matters will be called Fuel Emergency and mayday callout for any priority clearance and a report has to be filled as usual.
I would have thought ATC in Tokyo would have better english skills! But Singapore saying they have a "fuel problem" seems very unprofessional and incredibly un specific. What is the controller supposed to do with that info? If you cannot expect any further delay you call "minimum fuel". If you expect to land with less than the reserve you call a Mayday!
CapGyris He said that after 10minutes he will have to divert. It isn’t reason to declare an emergency. CapGyris let’s read about term „diversion fuel”.
CapGyris You did not, but suggested that it was bad decision to say only „fuel problem”. What is in your opinion correct phraseology in this situation?
Well. He doesn't have a fuel problem. In my opinion a "fuel problem" would mean a potential contamination of his fuel, which is a much worse scenario. If he believes, that he needs to inform atc that they need some kind of priority to land, the correct phraseology would be "request radar vectors for ils 31, minimum fuel". Calling minimum fuel doesn't give you priority, but informs atc that you cannot accept any further delays (holdings etc.) Without knowing the details of the weather, the guy could also choose to commit to Tokyo and thereby use part of his diversion fuel, if he knew that landing was assured! Furthermore, a alternate is not legally required if an aiport has two separate runways, and two independent approach systems. As these guys only had 10 min. left in the tanks, this would indicate the weather wasn't bad and therefor i don't see any reason to become stressed about endurance. However! I can understand why they would be annoyed with the situation and how frustration can lead to statements like the one they made. If you read between the lines they are basically saying to the controller that what you did was unnecessary and know you are gonna have to deal with us first!
It's a wonder there aren't crashes all the time. I couldn't hear or understand a word of what the ATC was saying. Half the time it sounded like there were three of them talking into the mic at once.
As a professional pilot, do what you have been told to do, and keep communiactions at the minimum. Declare minimum fuel or fuel emergency as appropriate, or shut up and proceed as cleared. You are not the only one in their airspace. "Fuel problems" is non-standard communication, the pilots should get familiar with standard radio phraseology instead of complaining about ATC.
Agreed as a unprofessional and occasional passenger. I'm curious about his fuel issue. If he had a fuel issue, why did he delay in mentioning that. I would have lead with that.
My Name is Gladiator There seems to be 'face saving' issues with Asian pilots, as near as I can tell. They don't want to declare emergency... but ATC doesn't get the polite hints.
I think that using standard terms would have helped. Declaring "minimum fuel" is expected when you can't accept any delays and clearly communicates issue to the controller.
I say that about turbulence. I wish pilots stopped trying to avoid it as much as they do now - 90s was way more fun in that regard. Now it hardly ever happens, and when you get "turbulence" it's not even enough to spill your cup of water - yet the flight crew are acting like it's a massive huge thing... :(
I can understand the frustration of the pilots, but "we have fuel problem" is not standard phraseology, and the controller doesn't know what to do with that. I also found it funny how he demanded the reason for the go-around from the approach controller like that poor guy had seen what was going on on the runway.
Once a China Eastern (or Southern, I forgot the exact one) pilot declared a fake fuel emergency for priority landing. He was then fired. The SIA one is not far from having the same fate.
he was asking for a reason for goaround on a different freq, that's departure he's talkin to. Im pretty sure they have other stuff to do rather than looking up the reasons. and it's not like that would change anything lol.
It could change a lot; plenty of things can cause a go-around, and some of those may result in the runway being unusable for longer than his available fuel.
@@athr_blu The reason is irrelevant while still flying. After the pilot landed he could inquire, log a complaint, etc. But that was completely unnecessary radio chatter.
Pilots: don't get angry when they ask you the reason for the go around! 🤣 And for SIA634, that was not the way to say it, obviously. Always keep communications "clean".
As frustrating as it was listening to that controller, I have to add my two cents as a pilot who's flown in and out of HND a dozen times what the hell was the PIC thinking coming in with minimum flight plan fuel? Having only 10 minutes of endurance fuel during the first go around just shows how piss poor the fuel planning was, and it certainly appears to be a trend with Singapore Airlines given their recent stunt outlined by the reports published for SQ319. Hopefully the CAAS has given SQ a hefty fine/slap on the wrist and SQ flight crew are now better educated on fuel planning/policy.
Good, & very accurate correction, thanks. If only all pilots & controllers were so exact in there use of the proper terminology a lot less problems would take place. Also correct about the exact extent of jurisdiction & report vrs investigation. The human nature of communications sometimes gets in the way.
The pilot says, "After 10 minutes, we will have to divert." This means he has; 1. Ten minutes fuel 2. Diversion fuel (In this case, probably Narita which is approx. 40 min.) 3. Final reserve fuel required by law = 30 min.) Total 80 minutes of fuel. This is NOT an emergency by any means. He has no right to ask for a short cut vector.
He never said emergency at any point in time - he said they had about 10 minutes worth of fuel before they hit the level at which they have to make a decision of either land now or divert.
Flew to Haneda the other day ILS RW22 on the NOTAMS the runway was closed, approach told us “THAT” is the runway we are landing on, as for ATC here…. I will be diplomatic and say lots and lots of additional training is needed for these guys….
That Singapore crew have really bad attitude. Nothing to gain by whining on freq. Do your job, file a complaint after the flight, let airline know what happened and they will sort it out financially.
amazing how poor the audio quality is nowadays considering we have 192khz audio today which could easily get broadcasted, i get that there is a lot of background noise in flying airplanes but the humming and buzzing is amazing
The pilot tells the controller but he has 10 minutes of fuel before he has to divert at 12:28. He lands at 12:54. 26 minutes after having 10 minutes left. He lands 26 minutes later and doesn't mention the fuel problem again. What we have here is a complaining pilot. I think the controllers acted professionally. The bit where the pilot argues over the airwaves about the go around was needless did nothing but clutter the radio. He was wasting time talking about something that wasn't his call to make. The controller had to make a judgment call with him only 3 miles out and at that point, the runway wasn't clear. The go-around was ordered at 12:21 and the reason was clearly stated at the time it was given. If the pilot wanted to know anything more about that he should have made a phone call once he was on the ground.
CPA flight was inquiring (initially). Assuming that GA was initiated, there is a plenty of workload and concentration. Hence the SIA crew did not have to pick it up.
Dm if they have the separation. Air traffic controllers have the say so if they think it’s unsafe tuff shit.... you don’t do what they say bye bye license
It's definitely not that simple. The PIC is the final and sole authority to the safe operation of the aircraft. A pilot is free to respond to virtually any ATC instruction with the word "unable". In this case, the pilot did comply with ATC's instructions, but he was not wrong to question them.
It will depend on the situation. I can think of Many scenarios where a Pilot will not follow ATC instructions. In the end both parties will file reports and the final outcome will be determined by the governing authority. In America for eg: FAA and in UK and British colonies it is the equivalent called CAD (civil aviation department). ATC prime job is to assist pilots but they are humans too and prone to fatigue and human errors. In the end the safety of an aircraft lies with the Capt who must bear the legal responsibility and make decisions accordingly. So landing on a runway with a aircraft would ( royalty fuck him up ) .... also the copilot too or continuing approach when told to go around..... soo you must refuse if there a valid reason like Tcas sayings Adjusts vertical speed... or GPWS warring etc etc
This is poor planning on the towers part. Secondly the pilot should not have to repeat instructions and requests multiple times. The controller needs to work on his English. Lastly you should not be at 10 minutes endurance when reaching your final destination. He should have had enough to make the go around and then divert if necessary with fuel still remaining after the diversion.
427SuperSnake1 You hit the nail on the head!, I believe this pilot knew that he miscalculated his fuel, and was thinking of the paperwork and repercussions from his company and aviation authorities.
it was maybe an excuse but, we don't know if the airplane did an holding before the go around approach (avianca52), also the english level was horrid, it was frustrating hearing him speaking
I agree entirely up until your assumptions on fuel. He had enough for a go-around then diversion, but was still being vectored on a go-away - read the plot and listen to the headings! And we have no idea if he'd also been burning more fuel than expected because of unforecast adverse winds, holds, or being given altitudes that were inefficient. Any of those can cause fuel to be less than abundant at the destination, and we have no way to know what the reason for his fuel state was (although it wasn't all that unusual). Departure need to learn to differentiate between an actual departure and a go-around, which should be turned around and handed back to approach without delay. Once that situation finally penetrated his skull, he did so, and approach didn't have any difficulty in sequencing SIA back into the arrivals stream. Finally, if tower cannot handle the rate of arrivals being sequenced by ATC he should be posted to somewhere with lower traffic. He could and should have cancelled the landing clearance (or not issued it in the first place) and advised the pilot to expect a late landing clearance, if necessary asking the preceding traffic to expedite vacation of the runway due to following traffic.
Phil Lee doesn’t matter. You should be able to make your destination try 1 to 2 approaches. Then reach your alternate airport with an additional 45 minutes flying time after landing at the alternate. So what does it matter about being vectored? It’s normal to be vectored during the missed approach.
427SuperSnake1 It is not normal to be vectored in the opposite direction to the airport after a go-around, which departure seem to be unable to handle. It is especially not normal to encounter two incompetent controllers at a major international airport, one who can't handle the rate of traffic being sequenced by approach, and another who continues to issue headings in the opposite direction to the one they say they are vectoring you for.
Yeah.. Thank Goodness I always fly into KIX. It pays to live in the south. If I fly around other areas, I fly into smaller regionals rather than HND International plus it saved train time.
![[REAL ATC] FULL LOSS OF POWER at Miami International #KMIA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fvD1-SBq0hg/mqdefault.jpg)
Legend has it he is still requesting vectors for camel
they vectored him to Saudi Arabia, lots of camels there
xd plese stop
next destination is dubai it seems
LOL!
Camel Toe?
Thank god for subtitles
I would rather thank the editor ;)
Amen to that.
I think the controller and pilot would have found subtitles handy too. 👍
@@mattwebb02 Remember, these recordings are not from either tower or cockpit, but from private scanners picking up the radio chatter. The direct communications are way more clear then this noisy stuff. Although a skilled listener can probably still understand what is going on here :P
@@SeedlingNL really?! I thought this is like an archive for ATC comms
SIA634: Mayday mayday mayday... We lost both engines and rudder, fire in the cabin.
ATC: Expect the ILS...
SIA634: We're dead bro..
ATC: Expect the ILS..
Sigapooo six sei fo, comfrim u in emergacy😂
@@cgjason7168sigh asics twee faux, emergency confirn, Cletelan, aisle S twee faux white.
@@douggale5962 hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
@ES - 07RC 755165 Walnut Grove PS negative errmmmm instructions unclear hand got stuck in toaster uh
Singapore 4634
Gawdammih I say yoo wan whi ri o fry ri? No camel, wonton soup
Pilot is not angry, he is annoyed by the extremely poor english of the Japanese ATC. I'd get really frustrated too. Hope they sign this guy up for a couple of English classes.
Kaipeternicolas pilot was lying to atc about fuel. Or fucked up calculating fuel. He should have enough fuel to divert to the alternate and land with 45 mins remaining. If he needed desperately to land, he could have declared an emergency
He was not lying. He clearly said he has 10 minutes for loiter and then has to divert.
I would demote him to a baggage handler
But then again, no- as he'd probably lose your baggage!
+maria fincham wrote:
> I would demote him to a baggage handler
That could have its own risks; cf. Richard Russell.
I do not agree. Pilot asked 3 times for estimated approach time and ATC did not answer. Their English was appalling. Maybe the pilot was upset because he had a fuel issue caused by the go around? If he was 3 miles final there is no reason why ATC could not give a late clearance. The pilots seemed very professional to me in contrast with ATC.
quenchize uhh pilot had a fucking attitude, and used shitty unprofessional language. What the hell is a fuel problem? 1 hour left? 30 mins left? Fuel leak? Contamination? He either lied cuz his impatient ass didn’t want a delay or he totally fucked up fuel calculations. Both which are safety hazards. And you’re telling me ATC was less professional?
Depends where his alternate is
X-Plane Aviation Pilot stated that he had 10 minutes until he was finished with his main fuel and would be on reserves. I don't know what their airline policy is but it's clear that the airline doesn't want the plane running on reserve fuel for whatever reason, so he requested priority clearance. Other than taking a couple minutes to specify "fuel problem", the pilot didn't do anything wrong.
The pilot asked twice "what is the expected approach TIME". ATC misunderstood that as approach TYPE. Very easy to confuse the two, even for a native English speaker. Instead, the phrase "what is our expected LANDING time" would have been more appropriate. When "going off script" in a foreign ATC environment, it pays to have a think before you key the mic.
Pilot has not done anything wrong. He has been professional and stated very clearly his situation.
that ATC pissed me of, imagine pilots
*off
@@Mikerulez101 ov
Especially pilots with 10 or so minutes of fuel left onboard. Lol.
SIA 634: What time can I expect the approach?
ATC: Expect the ILS
SIA 634: Yes the ILS, but at what time?
ATC: Expect the ILS
SIA 634: Yes, I get it the ILS, but when?
ATC: Expect the ILS
SIA 634: I'm low on and fuel and I need to land right effing now!
ATC: Expect the ILS
SIA 634: (repeats like 10 times he has fuel problem)
ATC: Confirm you have fuel problem?
@Oh_ My_gawd clearly? He said 10 minutes or they would have to divert, not that he had 10 minutes total.
@Oh_ My_gawd all I said was that it wasn't clear that he was lying, if he was at all.
lol .>falling from sky now sir! Permission to crash? ~ATC...copy ' 2 mcflurry's 1 lrg fries over
ILS
Sounded like Singapore 634 wanted to Climb thru the Radio and Choke that ATC...
😁😁
err, no it didn't!
As a Japanese who spent several months seeking a job for this area too, I can confirm that the ability to speak English is NOT in consideration (there are several types of the English test they use for evaluating candidates and some of them only value writing and listening, not speaking) when hiring Pilots or ATC so I'm not surprised by this
ATC is too, but the stupidity of the hiring staff is to blame on this occasion
2:25 I think he says: "Say again, slowly"
Frank Larsson definitely
The way ATC was able to introduce nonexistent syllables into english words he must say every day as part of his job was really amazing
@@tech99070 English proficiency in Japan is amongst the worst in the world, and certainly within Asia. Even the average peasant from a third world Asian country has a better grasp of English than your average university educated Japanese citizen. I've met two native Japanese English teachers in Japan. One is a friend of my wife and is pretty much too shy to use English around me, except for the occasional word to help me translate something. The other was really enthusiastic and tried to have a conversation with me but I genuinely couldn't understand him, and I typically don't struggle with "Katakana English", or accents in general. Even amongst the younger generations it's poor.
I strongly get the impression that this ATC just didn't understand what was being said and was winging it. Using fixed phrases he should have nailed the pronunciation of by now as part of his job, especially at an international airport. It's not like ATC needs to be that dynamic in what it says. It's all about standard phrases and clear enunciation.
Actually, he said "Say again, srowry".
Dude you must have the greatest hearing on planet earth to decipher what those controllers and pilots were saying.
The Singapore pilot has great English and atc poor. Pretty easy to understand what they're saying
After hours and hours of listening to it, you know roughly what is going to be said before it comes at you.
@@harveysmith100 Yea I have to admit, this is awful. I feel for the singapore pilots, the frustration of not actually being able to get through to the people who are meant to help them. Its a nightmare
I must say tho, those Japanese ATC are still easier to understand than US ATC. Try decipher what those ppl at New York JFK say, it's a nightmare
Trump was at the atc that day
THIS is why it is VITAL that all international pilots AND ATC have a professional grasp of English to understand more than just aviation terminology. Thankfully, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has put requirements for pilots and ATC to meet certain levels. If they cannot maintain at least a level 4 grasp of English, they can NOT fly international flights.
Big problem is that the people rating their english are locals of the same country. And somehow, a level 6 in Tokyo is probably not the same as a level 6 in England
In Japan, I can only speak for both JAL and ANA and their subsidiaries, when I say that Level 6 is native level, tested almost completely by native speakers. All of the ICAO regulations were put into the "evaluation package" to figure out what is level 4, 5 and 6 by native speakers from the US and Australia. Now, China was, at one time, completely different. The pilots were all given Level 6 automatically. Thankfully, that was caught, but what the resulting penalties were with China by the ICAO, I do not know.
"a professional grasp of English to understand more than just aviation terminology." - agreed. But, most of the Japanese ATCs are not in the level. But, they operate within the ICAO phrase book only. If you fly with UA flights in Asia, have a listen to the ATC channel.
T Ita - ALL of the Japanese ATC's I passed did qualify under Level 4 qualifications, which meant they have to retest every two years. It was far more than just "aviation terminology". I have also listened to Chinese ATC, and THEY have been found to be horrid. Most of those who were tested were tested by company examiners who were told to pass everyone at level 6 regardless of their abilities - for both pilots and ATC.
The language that aviation is spoken/written in is and always has been English. In India all AtC and pilots speak English, same in every country that most North American English speaking people wouldn't understand without it.
Remember people:
1) dead air has been edited out of the tape
2) he's flying around at 250 kts @ 4,000 ft msl..
He's covering a lot of territory in 30-45 seconds
Last, but definitely not at least: He is requesting immediate vectors for camel.
I can completely feel the anger of the pilot - letting them go around at that distance and altitude was (probably) completely unnecessary* and inefficient traffic management, but starting an argument on frequency is highly unprofessional. Just file a report after landing where you can voice your objections to how the situation was handled. And I heard worse English on frequency, but I had the feeling that the ATC was so procedure-bound that he couldn't quite react properly to the SIA's request. Yes, fuel problem wasn't the best phrase to use there, but everyone knows the word "fuel" and "problem" - used together in one sentence is pretty clear what's going on. When he then told SIA to maintain the heading due to traffic, I facepalmed hard.
Anyways - I think both parties here have some homework to do. But the most important part - nobody got hurt. That's enough for me.
*On the other hand - better safe than sorry for causing an aircraft collison on the runway because you valued effiency higher than safety. Maybe the controller had little experience yet at a big airport and was overly cautious.
What kind of fuel problem? Fuel temperature too high/too low? Fuel pump inoperative? Fuel filter problem?
If you are LOW ON FUEL there's MAYDAY FUEL or MINIMUM FUEL. Anything other than this is not standard phraseolog, specially when you are flying where English is not the first language spoken.
if he has a real fuel problem he has to call pan pan or mayday. not jibber jabber all the way to camel
Traffic only cleared the runway after the go around plane was over the runway. What’s the point of have visualisation and audio if you don’t listen. Also, the pilot had the reason communicated 3 times before he asked so clearly he wasn’t listening to ATC. Pilots need to be able to multitask obviously he can’t.
Completely unnecessary go around? There was traffic on the runway. You can't assume that traffic will be off the runway in time for the landing. What if the plane on the runway loses engine power, what if the brakes malfunction slowing/stopping the plane, what if the plane misjudges a turn, and it's tire sinks into the ground causing the plane to get stuck?
You can't assume that none of these things will happen because they all can happen. The go around, as a result, was necessary.
@@etherealessence Obviously it was a risk the OP was willing to take! 🤡
Talking to the ATC was like talking to a GPS
No, some GPSs can actually understand what you're saying these days.
_Recalculating._
Good analogy. 👍👍👍
Oo
Me: ''Ah shit the road is closed to the left, well I suppose I will go straight''
GPS: ''Try to turn around.''
Me: ''Oh hell no Tokyo Dep''
i think the ATC's English isnt really good here
Kenneth Liou it wasn’t really good but aviation terminology was good enough. The Singapore 634 should had used the proper aviation phrase “pan pan pan minimum fuel”
Japanese have one of the worst accent. In fact, they used those to test foriegn student's English
for FAA his english is perfect end of story
i bet his English is better than your Japanese
Clearly a language issue.
I served in a combat + search and rescue unit in a language that I didn't learn until my 20's, so I'm a non-native speaker with a bit of a goofy accent. From that experience I have a ton of empathy and understanding for non-native speakers, especially those in high stress jobs. As much as I respect people doing their best to communicate there is a point that it simply becomes too dangerous to do certain high-stakes jobs and this recording is a perfect example of that. Not only were there multiple people talking loudly in the background during the transmissions, but the ATC's English is completely unintelligible. I would hate to be piloting a plane in those circumstances, it's too risky.
I thought that the pilot handled it relatively ok and he wasn't even speaking in an angry tone, atc kept asking him to repeat because he didn't understand and the pilot simply repeated in a clearer, more intense way.
Even with the subtitles available I still really struggled to understand what ATC said. If this was at the gun range or something dangerous like that I'd refuse to load my weapon until any communication issues were delt with.
Those other voices were multiple people keying the mic at the same time. Talk over!!
@@hotrodray6802 those specific voices had to do with picking up static from another frequency because this receiver is far away/not very good. The pilot and ATC would not have heard it we only hear it
Flying a plane is not dangerous enough?
I'm surprised that pilot didn't just fly his plane into the ATC center out of spite.
If you have to repeat everything of course you would get annoyed. How that mans ATC baffles me as he can barely speak legible English
Chatta290 You need wider experience of English then.
+Chatta290
"speak intelligible English"
+iatsd What we're hearing in this tape is NOT intelligible English by ANY stretch!
agentorange153 I found it perfectly intelligible - and remember, they are all qualified to work ATC, so clearly they meet the required standard. I guess it means you shouldn't be a pilot until you improve your comprehension skills.
Merely being allowed to work ATC is NOT by itself proof that they meet required standards (how many unqualified employees have YOU seen in all walks of life?!), and this is NOT intelligible English!
SIA634 is a B-777 from the radar tag. Most airliners come down final with about a ground speed of about 120 knots or so and on a 3 degree descent path. This gives about a 600 foot per minute descent rate required. I have a Boeing 777 type rating btw. ANA111 and SIA634 were doing about 111 knots ground speed inside of 5 nm. Air carriers and the governing bodies set rules for when you have to configured, on speed and stable on final. An unstable approach can often times be a key cause of a landing problem. 1000 feet above field elevation IFR (weather poor) configured, stable on speed with the power up is about the norm. Here we find the two aircraft are about 4 nautical miles apart (nm) and are doing about 2 nm per minute. ANA111 lands and on a 3 mile final SIA634 is sent around at about 1000 feet above the field and 90 seconds before touch down approximately. ANA111 is clearing when SIA634 is at 2nm final and 600 feet above the field or 60 seconds before landing. It should be noted the usual go around point on a category 1 ILS (instrument landing system approach) is 200 feet agl (above ground level). It appears the controller was a new guy in training. Most controllers would just tell the landing aircraft to expediate clearing the runway, traffic short final and tell the traffic on final to slow to approach speed. The captain of the plane on approach would say to his/her first officer that he had someone still on the runway, and they would both mentally get ready for a go around. The ATC facility may have had a very conservative 1000 ft go around rule if traffic was still on the runway. If this were chicago ohare KORD the controller would just tell ANA to expediate his ass off the highspeed taxiway and tell SIA to keep coming and he would call the go if necessary and he would do it with absolutely not missing a beat. If this was KORD or New York ATC and there was a go they would just say sorry for the go around, we will bring you right around in a tight box pattern and fit you right in and they would ask how are you doing on fuel..... The controller was doing the best he could and I don't think I could learn Japanese and be a controller, he will get better at english.... the SIA pilot is running out of fuel and ideas, I have been there many times and he is not angry but assertive... he needs to be very assertive because he is burning fuel fast and the controllers need to understand a problem has developed. Asking why he was sent around is necessary because it may affect his next attempted landing. For example the runway may be temporarily closed due to a problem. Stuff breaks, people make mistakes, as a pilot you learn to gracefully recover from problems.....
Thank you for this insight. That makes far more sense than any of the other explanations here. Now the pilot and his communications make total sense. Basically, he was saying “I didn’t see a problem with me coming to land, what was the issue so I can figure out what to do next with the limited fuel I have.”
Thanks for the explanation!
"Go around, traffic still on the runway"
"What was the reason for the go around"
"Traffic still on the runway"
"What was the reason for the go around"
At this point i would answer back "Your goldfish memory"
XD
it sounds like it was hard to hear the first time the reason was given. very noisy frequency
I understood it to mean “specifically, who was at fault?”
ATC: I'm sorry, my responses are limited.
"I robot"
"You have to ask the right question."
As I understand it the alternate airport was one hour away.
He only had about 90 minutes of fuel left , so if he got put in a holding pattern for more than 20 minutes he would be trapped at that airport.
So he really really really needed to know how long the runway was going to be blocked, and the ATC wouldn't tell him.
If a plane slid off the runway and was stuck in the mud ....he needed to divert to his alternate airport immediately.
If a plow broke down and was being towed off the runway, he could wait.
All he needed was a straight answer and he couldn't get one .
ATC has Engrish problem
2Phast4Rocket So do you
IKR lmao 😂
You too tho
Even not Engrish - Angrish! (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
I "aigri" 😂😂
I'm not a pilot so I'd defer to the opinion of a real pilot, but I didn't see anything wrong with the pilot's reactions. They have a certain expectation of what is normal, and if something is not normal they'll want to know why. As to the fuel problem he wasn't at the point of declaring an emergency, he just wanted to let ATC know he was close. He tried to communicate this fact to ATC and they didn't seem to understand him. His tone did get sharper, but he was at all times composed and followed protocol in reading back ATC instructions.
Greg Stark He was for the most part in the right, but his attitude and vaguely referencing a fuel problem to expedite his approach was a bit unprofessional in my opinion. I’ve seen much more calm and polite pilots in much worse situations.
Sam Stanfield I agree, Sam. He did state that he would have to divert, no fuel shortage problem there. He was intimidating the controller so as to receive priority sequencing. There is no such thing as a fuel problem. You either have minimum fuel. Where you can make an approach and execute a go around, Now, you enter Emergency fuel status, get priority and vectored for a landing. I would have asked the pilot to confirm declaring emergency fuel, I am sure he would not. After landing his fuel would have been checked, and he would have a bit of explaining to do. Departure controller was caught out. He did not have the reason for the go around, that should have been passed to him by tower as soon as transfer of control was made. Cathay, was at 10 nm on final, can not see why he became concerned by Sia go around. To end this, the departure controller should have told SIA to call when on the ground, no need to be having a pissing contest, when you are vectoring aircraft around.
Greg Stark but he didn't just ask. He started bitching and second guessing their call. It's not his damn place to judge ground ops. Could have been all sorts of reasons why the aircraft was still on the runway and how long it would take to vacate. But he got pissy after finding out the "what", but without finding out the"why".
There are minimum feul requirements. Either he miscalculated and should be suspended, or lied and should be suspended.
The aircraft on the runway cleared the runway while he was still 2 miles out and still on Tower frequency. He heard and saw this. So I'd say upon finding out that ANA111 was the reason hew as told to go around, he was pretty fully informed about the why and had every reason to be annoyed.
I thought there were only two calls for fuel issues: "minimum fuel" meaning I have enough fuel to continue the flight in normal sequence without undue delay, but it's not an emergency, or "emergency fuel" meaning I need priority to land. "I have a fuel problem" is a term without definition. From the transcript, to 634 it apparently means "If I don't land in 10 minutes, I'll have to go someplace else." Was he thinking of weather and divert fuel? Probably, but I don't know.
Yeah and he stated he had 10min endurance plus diversion fuel and final reserve? That’s not exactly a fuel problem. Granted I’d expect ATC to give me an expected approach time in this situation…. But nor am I diverting from a multi-runway airport that is open when I’m just being given a couple of vectors for sequencing.
@@iainmillar1532 he was still being vectored in the opposite direction from the airport. After mentioning he had fuel problem many times, he was still given vector 050 which is still on a path away from the airport
@@iainmillar1532 what the pilots did is follow policies if they play fast and lose with fuel accidents are bound to happen.
@@thesaint5991 Well! If his fuel was getting near 0. Then it is an emergency fuel request. So the pilot was irritated and whanted to get down fast
@@AnjektusStudio If it was an emergency, then he needed to declare an emergency. As OP said, he could have said he was at minimum fuel, or that he was at emergency fuel. Saying he had a "fuel problem" doesn't mean anything to ATC. You will not get priority if you say that - means nothing to us.
I can hear the man's frustration through his Singapore accent 😥 being a Singaporean myself
Lol this brings me back. I was struck by lightning 150 miles off J-Land and had fire indications, burned up a flight control computer and the air data computer, all that fun stuff. Rolled up Tokyo Control, dropped the E-word, requested a block altitude for a controllability check and direct RJTA...man that language barrier was tough to work through. Ended up telling them to clear my path, got close enough to call Yokota Approach (American controllers) to get everything sorted out.
Did you use standard phrasing?
@@nikotakai8796 did u get ils approach?😂
@@TangoDelta8111 wat?
Cripes! The speed of their jabbering communications, it’s a wonder they could even understand each other
2:26 "say again, slowly"
"I need vectors now, I have a fuel problem"
"Are you declaring an emergency?"
"Umm, no, I hate paperwork"
I am not an aviation expert but I think all these guys do an amazing job under such stressful situations.
The pilot tried to be calm and polite as possible
Appreaciate that
hmm... shouldn't they use PAN PAN for low fuel???
"Fuel problem"... Okay. Should have declared an Emergency!
There was no emergency. He would've needed to divert to another airport in a few minutes time.
@@Groink1 So then divert? What was he getting so irritated for?
I've been screwed by ATC before. Final approach, suddenly "the airport is closed for snow removal" with barely any snow on the runway - had us hold at the freaking MIDDLE MARKER, like 1 mile from the airport in VMC with the airport (obviously) in sight. 30 minutes of holding. One of the controllers was also a pilot and also flew for our charter outfit part-time, suspected it may have been a personal issue between him and the captain of the flight (I was flying SIC). The plows weren't even ready to scrape the runway, no reason we could not have safely landed, previous PIREPS from the flights in front of us reported good braking action and they had just landed 1 minute before us. Almost did the same thing, we were already getting close to reserve fuel and nearly ate into our reserves due to excessive holding for nonsense.
I tried watching the 2nd half without watching so I didnt have subtitles. I had a hard time flowing along and gotta say kodos for the pilot and controller for their jobs. Thanks for the video AND subtittles
It was very stupid from the pilot to argue about that going around; he couldn't know what was going on on the runaway.
The go around will have required more fuel to burn for possibly 20 minutes more. He was 3 miles inbound, ANA was already exiting active RWY. As the pilot said, there's a lot of time.
P.S.: ATC should have told him the reason. He should also have vectored the Singaporean properly so that there will be enough time and distance between SIA and ANA, that way no go around would even be necessary.
In conclusion, ATC was super shit.
@Oh_ My_gawd I didn't say he was right to say that he had a fuel problem. But rather, I was saying that ATC should have planned vectored SIA a bit more properly to create more distance between traffic in front.
You should know though that go arounds burn more fuel, not to mention the delays that it bring...
@Oh_ My_gawd And we wouldn't really know if he lied about it. The fuel problem he may have been referring to is most likely the amount he has left before running on reserves (which is very dangerous actually), or the amount he has left before the fuel he has on board wouldn't allow him to reach alternate airport...
I'm a student pilot, heard a couple of ATCs and thank god their english is a whole lot better and clearer.
RJTT/Haneda has some odd peculiarities about its approaches, I was flying inbound to 16L via the SANDY IAF off the XACL (Oshima L) STAR and for one the altitude constraints bring you way down for extended transition at something like FL130 (I don’t have the chart in front of me at the moment) starting something like 40nm out and the GS intercept for the 16L ILS starts at 4000’ AGL, very high and far for a GS coupling which is typically around 1500’ - 2000’ft AGL depending on the GS angle and other factors, but as I recall it was a normal 3.0 deg GS just extremely extended. It felt more like an RNAV from an extended fix
Yeah, ive flown in and out of both haneda and narita multiple times and you can see especially at night the amount of congestion in the sky with two major airports of that size that close to eachother.
I lied once to Philly Approach about 20 years ago about fuel. I was flying a small turbo and they kept me in the hold pattern. I had to go to the bathroom so bad and I was annoyed. The company I was flying for was upset, because I took on fuel there in Philly for a 45 minute flight home.
Can you declare a bathroom emergency?
Mate, that mumbling is actually a safety hazard. And the pilot was actually nice to them. hahaha
well it happen to me and at my flight school a few time, when we have issus with the controller we dont take up radio time and quesiton or argue with another or the same controller. We make a report when we get on the ground via phone or online. The same thing apply to the controller, they can make a report about flight, the pilot etc
It was snowing heavily on that day in Tokyo which is quite rare so maybe that's why the traffic remaining on the runway was slow and the controller gave such an early go around order.
That doesn't matter - the You Tube commenters with PhDs in the area and tens of thousands of hours of experience as BOTH international pilots AND ATC have already reached a flawless verdict, which by no means can be questioned.
Great safety clip! RJTT now has Tower/TCA and Ground on separate feeds on LiveATC. This should make listening a little easier. Keep up the great work!
Thanks you for your great work over Tokyo :)
sounds like an airforceproud video lol
Lmao 😂
Nah there was no hot air balloon
@@schmilew1230 or AF1
ATC sounds like the Air China guy landing at SeaTac
Having flown over 4 years in Japan, I can tell you ATC in Japan is total crap. No surprises here...that and Singapore's incorrect phraseology...
Bruh the controller did not understand the first 3 requests. Singapore pilot was not angry, just trying to land his plane safely
and not having to divert which is a pain in the ass for everyone the crew, the passengers and the airline involved...
Pilot was super patient with the ATC. ATC did not understand the pilot and is a safety hazard to aviation. Fuel problems would should have the ATC prioritising the flight over over flights but SIA was told to maintain heading, which is a facepalm
The pilot was asking the approach controller the reason for go around that was issued by the tower controller. Then complained to approach what was a tower controller decision.
The pilot then was upset that he was instructed to go around at such a high altitude and 3 miles out. The weather played a part in this but controllers can be flexible too. Sidestep to parallel runway, reduce speed on final...traffic still on runway.
Overall, the captain didn't want to line up in sequence again after go around but opted for priority landing.
Landing at Narita in Japan only has single runway. On Cathay we had to divert to Tokyo International and land. Wait for runway to open at Narita and fly back to Narita our final stop
From what I understand, a sidestep maneuver is rarely used outside of U.S airspace so that probably wasn't even a consideration for the controller. Would have solved a lot of headache for both parties, though.
“We have fuel problems, Singapore634.”
- “Singapore634, do you declare an emergency?”
“Negative, Singapore634.”
- “Continue on previous assigned heading.”
For real! That’s how it should have been.
10 minutes from diversion is a big difference to 10 minutes from out ouf fuel. Just saying
The only people saying "10 minutes from out of fuel" are in the comments.
Just saying (because i want to sound like a brainless twat as well)
Bingo fuel is a situation to avoid. Legally and safety wise. Get down or divert. The first responsibility is to FLY THE PLANE.
More than once in 50 years I've said....MAKE A HOLE.
Pilot thinking ahead and trying to head off a potential emergency in the making.
He kept asking why he had to go around and they had already told them...
they told like 3 times the same sentence, namely which runway he was supposed to land, but the crew wanted to know something else considering aproach vectors, they simnply didnt answer that specific question multiple times
It wasn't a satisfactory answer, he could have seen the traffic and wanted to know if there was more they could tell him (eg Traffic crossing he couldn't see etc), he knew the timing with the ANA would have been sufficient to land with a late clearance.
@@karlosbricks2413 How can you assume he could see the traffic on the rwy? we have no clue about the visibility.
@@karlosbricks2413 Once he's done the go around, there's no urgency to find out _why_ .
He can ask for a reason when he's on the ground, and lodge a written complaint _later_ , rather than introduce a distraction and tying up the frequency of a busy airport.
He said initially that there was traffic still on the runway. No need to continually ask 'why'. Just tell the guy that you're low on fuel initially. This is all on the pilot.
I totally agree with the pilots, they had plenty of space and considering the traffic up there they should try to get as much planes on the ground as possible. A divertion might seem like nothing if you look at a radar but in reality its a painful operation for the crew, the passengers and the airline to get everything coordinated.
I totally understand the frustration and Im happy it worked out in the end.
Well! This comme t are 2 year late. But I had to ent
Becouse you are so silly. If there are traffic on the runway then the play has to go around. That knows even a 6 moths baby
I have always had so much respect for traffic controllers. They do NOT have an easy job and one slight screw up can mean the difference between life and death. I honestly don't think I could do it. Being on the other end is no problem for me but I couldn't handle the stress these controllers deal with every shift. That looked like a hard airport and airspace to work on top of it.
I believe there was a failure of communication between different languages. Though Japan controller was speaking English, they have a harder time comprehending the language. But the tower controller could have expedited traffic off the runway to allow Singapore to land with proper safety protocol which we call anticipated separation as controllers.
"Confirm you have fuel problems." *Ouch*
Такое ощущение, что япошка вообще не понимает о чём просит его экипаж, хотя экипаж 100% говорит чётко и понятно.
Everyone: it's difficult to understand his English and he should improve his speaking/listening skills more.
Japanese(me): he is terrible, sorry for SIA pilot...
Not Japanese (me): Japanese and American English both have an unfortunate bad habit in practice, that of adapting foreign words to the sounds common in our language.
"Carry-oh-key" is an abominable pronunciation of karaoke (for non-Japanese, it should be "kah-rah-okay").
But for one example, "air-oo" is an abominable pronunciation of "yell".
And both languages seem to be blind to the problems it causes with understanding each other. I see it all the time with American English, but I've also been amused by things like the live-action movie _Detroit Metal City_ ...at one point, they praise Negishi's supposedly-superior pronunciation of "F--k". To be fair, it *was* a really good imitation, but they were saying it was better than the (perfect) pronunciation of a native speaker (Gene Simmons of KISS, playing Jack IL Dark.)
Or the time a Japanese reviewer complained about an American band's "bad" English pronunciation, because it didn't match the (inaccurate) sounds the reviewer had learned in school.
I listened twice to catch the statement about traffic on the runway. Am I correct that the plane ahead of 634 wasn’t just landing and taxiing, but was stopped on the runway? After the go around call, the pilot on the runway said he could now proceed and vacate 34R. Three miles is a lot closer when a plane is stopped on the runway and won’t be moving right away.
a true story is, one of my friends, who is a commercial pilot was on duty for a flight to Tokyo, but he got grounded for a week because of wrong altitude. I don't even know how that happened since the ATC HAS to correct the pilot if the readback is wrong. They do need to improve English. So are some of ATCs in China. I felt bad when I hear some weird english transmission from my home countries' ATC.
Oh GOD,I get frustrated while ordering take out food,that poor pilot was trying to land an airplane,ATC SHOULD SPEAK ENGLISH BETTER THAN THIS
Absolutely
I will say this with certainty:
The Tower was not pushing tin on this day
The decisions I make at my job are much less serious than ATC make and I would be brought in for questioning if I was half as thick as the ATC was. Asking the captain to confirm fuel emergency after he's already repeated it 3 to 4 times is ridiculous.
Isn't it important for ATC to be able to speak clear English? That should be a requirement for safety reasons.
He should have declared a pan-pan instead of demanding stuff from the controller, I dont think thats how it works. Then again, the controller seemed kinda oblivious.. Interesting situation
The controller was incompetent, & a fool. He didn't know his stuff.
elbuggo neither did the pilot
He was nowhere near declaring a PAN and he did everything correctly. ATC was not helping him, which is why he was getting annoyed.
X-Plane Aviation pretty sure the pilot was clear enough to be understood for what he was asking but he had to repeat it multiple times. Pilot knew what he wanted but ATC was incompetent. Although I agree the Singaporean pilot could've been more patient.
@@ChaosRambutan
When you're flying around at 250+ knots and this happens. 😱
Remember dead air time has been squeezed out of the audio tape.
Sounds like the pilot and the tower are having their "go arounds" !
How do you record these radio communications? Do you use Am/FM radio set?
I really love your videos, may I know how do you simulate the ATC radar at the background?
In Malaysia we used to have this term called Pan Fuel callout that is non standard and does not require any reporting. It was widely used by AirAsia and its subsidiaries as a way to get priority landing clearance by alerting atc that they will be using reserve fuel if they were asked to hold on peak traffic hours. Needless to say it caused a lot of havoc in Kuala Lumpur atc sequencing that this term got banned by the local aviation authority DCA 3 years ago. It was found that many of these airline that always report pan fuel, have very conservative fuel contingency planning that do not account for long holdings during peak hours. In a way this reduces fuel costs for the airlines operation as they would always arrive as per schedule and no holdings required. Damn glad this thing no longer exists its a nuisance for other airlines that have to wait in line just because there's always some operators that tend to carry less fuel. For now any fuel related matters will be called Fuel Emergency and mayday callout for any priority clearance and a report has to be filled as usual.
I would have thought ATC in Tokyo would have better english skills!
But Singapore saying they have a "fuel problem" seems very unprofessional and incredibly un specific. What is the controller supposed to do with that info?
If you cannot expect any further delay you call "minimum fuel". If you expect to land with less than the reserve you call a Mayday!
CapGyris He said that after 10minutes he will have to divert. It isn’t reason to declare an emergency. CapGyris let’s read about term „diversion fuel”.
Sorry come again? When did i write about diversion fuel?
CapGyris You did not, but suggested that it was bad decision to say only „fuel problem”. What is in your opinion correct phraseology in this situation?
Well. He doesn't have a fuel problem. In my opinion a "fuel problem" would mean a potential contamination of his fuel, which is a much worse scenario.
If he believes, that he needs to inform atc that they need some kind of priority to land, the correct phraseology would be "request radar vectors for ils 31, minimum fuel".
Calling minimum fuel doesn't give you priority, but informs atc that you cannot accept any further delays (holdings etc.)
Without knowing the details of the weather, the guy could also choose to commit to Tokyo and thereby use part of his diversion fuel, if he knew that landing was assured!
Furthermore, a alternate is not legally required if an aiport has two separate runways, and two independent approach systems. As these guys only had 10 min. left in the tanks, this would indicate the weather wasn't bad and therefor i don't see any reason to become stressed about endurance.
However! I can understand why they would be annoyed with the situation and how frustration can lead to statements like the one they made. If you read between the lines they are basically saying to the controller that what you did was unnecessary and know you are gonna have to deal with us first!
CapGyris I agree with you completely now.
Hi! Enjoying all of your videos. You’re doing a great job. Just had a question- What software do you use to simulate the radar? Is it ATCpro?
Hello! Negative, it is a software we have developed for VASAviation.
This level of incompetence is dangerous!
It's a wonder there aren't crashes all the time. I couldn't hear or understand a word of what the ATC was saying. Half the time it sounded like there were three of them talking into the mic at once.
As a professional pilot, do what you have been told to do, and keep communiactions at the minimum. Declare minimum fuel or fuel emergency as appropriate, or shut up and proceed as cleared. You are not the only one in their airspace. "Fuel problems" is non-standard communication, the pilots should get familiar with standard radio phraseology instead of complaining about ATC.
Agreed as a unprofessional and occasional passenger. I'm curious about his fuel issue. If he had a fuel issue, why did he delay in mentioning that. I would have lead with that.
My Name is Gladiator
There seems to be 'face saving' issues with Asian pilots, as near as I can tell. They don't want to declare emergency... but ATC doesn't get the polite hints.
@@hxhdfjifzirstc894 Nobody wants to declare an emergency. Too much paperwork.
@@MrRicardovicentin A crash is even more paperwork
@@channelglenn Only if you survive. Haha
I think that using standard terms would have helped. Declaring "minimum fuel" is expected when you can't accept any delays and clearly communicates issue to the controller.
Seems like ATC has to be told of fuel problems several times!
I love go arounds! Extra time in the plane and you get to hear the engines roar at full power once more :D
You betcha. At 5 gallons per second roaring around is fun 🙄🙄🙄
its fun until u do it for living over 20 years
They’re a fun experience!
I say that about turbulence. I wish pilots stopped trying to avoid it as much as they do now - 90s was way more fun in that regard. Now it hardly ever happens, and when you get "turbulence" it's not even enough to spill your cup of water - yet the flight crew are acting like it's a massive huge thing... :(
I can understand the frustration of the pilots, but "we have fuel problem" is not standard phraseology, and the controller doesn't know what to do with that. I also found it funny how he demanded the reason for the go-around from the approach controller like that poor guy had seen what was going on on the runway.
When a pilot with alzheimers meets an ATC that does not speak/understand english.
Once a China Eastern (or Southern, I forgot the exact one) pilot declared a fake fuel emergency for priority landing. He was then fired. The SIA one is not far from having the same fate.
he never said anything near to a fuel emergency. He simply stated he was close to his needing to go to an alternate as his fuel was getting low.
he was asking for a reason for goaround on a different freq, that's departure he's talkin to. Im pretty sure they have other stuff to do rather than looking up the reasons. and it's not like that would change anything lol.
Konstantin Hikaru if they have to 'look up' reasons then they are at fault for the go around instruction
It could change a lot; plenty of things can cause a go-around, and some of those may result in the runway being unusable for longer than his available fuel.
@@athr_blu The reason is irrelevant while still flying. After the pilot landed he could inquire, log a complaint, etc. But that was completely unnecessary radio chatter.
@@BrooksHagenow Please read Joe Bramblett's comment, he explained it 1 year ago. Or just continue to post uninformed ignorance.
Considering his fule status, if the runway were blocked for longer, he might have gone directly to his alternate.
Pilots: don't get angry when they ask you the reason for the go around! 🤣
And for SIA634, that was not the way to say it, obviously. Always keep communications "clean".
As frustrating as it was listening to that controller, I have to add my two cents as a pilot who's flown in and out of HND a dozen times what the hell was the PIC thinking coming in with minimum flight plan fuel? Having only 10 minutes of endurance fuel during the first go around just shows how piss poor the fuel planning was, and it certainly appears to be a trend with Singapore Airlines given their recent stunt outlined by the reports published for SQ319. Hopefully the CAAS has given SQ a hefty fine/slap on the wrist and SQ flight crew are now better educated on fuel planning/policy.
Good, & very accurate correction, thanks. If only all pilots & controllers were so exact in there use of the proper terminology a lot less problems would take place. Also correct about the exact extent of jurisdiction & report vrs investigation. The human nature of communications sometimes gets in the way.
The pilot says, "After 10 minutes, we will have to divert." This means he has; 1. Ten minutes fuel 2. Diversion fuel (In this case, probably Narita which is approx. 40 min.) 3. Final reserve fuel required by law = 30 min.) Total 80 minutes of fuel. This is NOT an emergency by any means. He has no right to ask for a short cut vector.
Did he really have the indicated fuel emergency or just pissed he had to go around?
He never said emergency at any point in time - he said they had about 10 minutes worth of fuel before they hit the level at which they have to make a decision of either land now or divert.
Flew to Haneda the other day ILS RW22 on the NOTAMS the runway was closed, approach told us “THAT” is the runway we are landing on, as for ATC here…. I will be diplomatic and say lots and lots of additional training is needed for these guys….
Yikes. This seemed dangerous on so many levels.
That Singapore crew have really bad attitude. Nothing to gain by whining on freq. Do your job, file a complaint after the flight, let airline know what happened and they will sort it out financially.
2:28 DEPATURE said: SIA634 say again slowly
All that circling at the end... wow.
amazing how poor the audio quality is nowadays considering we have 192khz audio today which could easily get broadcasted, i get that there is a lot of background noise in flying airplanes but the humming and buzzing is amazing
The pilot tells the controller but he has 10 minutes of fuel before he has to divert at 12:28. He lands at 12:54. 26 minutes after having 10 minutes left. He lands 26 minutes later and doesn't mention the fuel problem again. What we have here is a complaining pilot. I think the controllers acted professionally. The bit where the pilot argues over the airwaves about the go around was needless did nothing but clutter the radio. He was wasting time talking about something that wasn't his call to make. The controller had to make a judgment call with him only 3 miles out and at that point, the runway wasn't clear. The go-around was ordered at 12:21 and the reason was clearly stated at the time it was given. If the pilot wanted to know anything more about that he should have made a phone call once he was on the ground.
Weren’t they told 3-4 times it was due to someone still on the runway?
Adam yeah but they were in 3 miles final so there would have been enough space actually
CPA flight was inquiring (initially). Assuming that GA was initiated, there is a plenty of workload and concentration. Hence the SIA crew did not have to pick it up.
Dm if they have the separation. Air traffic controllers have the say so if they think it’s unsafe tuff shit.... you don’t do what they say bye bye license
It's definitely not that simple. The PIC is the final and sole authority to the safe operation of the aircraft. A pilot is free to respond to virtually any ATC instruction with the word "unable". In this case, the pilot did comply with ATC's instructions, but he was not wrong to question them.
It will depend on the situation. I can think of Many scenarios where a Pilot will not follow ATC instructions. In the end both parties will file reports and the final outcome will be determined by the governing authority. In America for eg: FAA and in UK and British colonies it is the equivalent called CAD (civil aviation department).
ATC prime job is to assist pilots but they are humans too and prone to fatigue and human errors. In the end the safety of an aircraft lies with the Capt who must bear the legal responsibility and make decisions accordingly.
So landing on a runway with a aircraft would ( royalty fuck him up ) .... also the copilot too or continuing approach when told to go around..... soo you must refuse if there a valid reason like Tcas sayings Adjusts vertical speed... or GPWS warring etc etc
How the hell do they get away with that level of English? Shocking ATC.
Another OVERSIGHT, If you are low on fuel YOU DECLARE AN EMERGENCY , What a dope.
Yeesh, people, watch the video.
He says he has another 10 minutes before he has to divert.
This is poor planning on the towers part. Secondly the pilot should not have to repeat instructions and requests multiple times. The controller needs to work on his English. Lastly you should not be at 10 minutes endurance when reaching your final destination. He should have had enough to make the go around and then divert if necessary with fuel still remaining after the diversion.
427SuperSnake1 You hit the nail on the head!, I believe this pilot knew that he miscalculated his fuel, and was thinking of the paperwork and repercussions from his company and aviation authorities.
it was maybe an excuse but, we don't know if the airplane did an holding before the go around approach (avianca52), also the english level was horrid, it was frustrating hearing him speaking
I agree entirely up until your assumptions on fuel.
He had enough for a go-around then diversion, but was still being vectored on a go-away - read the plot and listen to the headings!
And we have no idea if he'd also been burning more fuel than expected because of unforecast adverse winds, holds, or being given altitudes that were inefficient. Any of those can cause fuel to be less than abundant at the destination, and we have no way to know what the reason for his fuel state was (although it wasn't all that unusual). Departure need to learn to differentiate between an actual departure and a go-around, which should be turned around and handed back to approach without delay. Once that situation finally penetrated his skull, he did so, and approach didn't have any difficulty in sequencing SIA back into the arrivals stream.
Finally, if tower cannot handle the rate of arrivals being sequenced by ATC he should be posted to somewhere with lower traffic. He could and should have cancelled the landing clearance (or not issued it in the first place) and advised the pilot to expect a late landing clearance, if necessary asking the preceding traffic to expedite vacation of the runway due to following traffic.
Phil Lee doesn’t matter. You should be able to make your destination try 1 to 2 approaches. Then reach your alternate airport with an additional 45 minutes flying time after landing at the alternate. So what does it matter about being vectored? It’s normal to be vectored during the missed approach.
427SuperSnake1 It is not normal to be vectored in the opposite direction to the airport after a go-around, which departure seem to be unable to handle.
It is especially not normal to encounter two incompetent controllers at a major international airport, one who can't handle the rate of traffic being sequenced by approach, and another who continues to issue headings in the opposite direction to the one they say they are vectoring you for.
You need to review your min fuel and mayday fuel concepts there ... happy Captain
Typical arrogant Singaporean
Yeah.. Thank Goodness I always fly into KIX. It pays to live in the south. If I fly around other areas, I fly into smaller regionals rather than HND International plus it saved train time.
This is painful to listen to and thank God for subtitles !!!!