💯 I don’t understand why some pilots don’t speak up and let the controllers know they are in an emergency! These controllers must also realize when they must declare an emergency for these pilots.
As a controller at a airport close to MLB with similar traffic I can't believe how poorly that controller worked that cirrus in. This video puts very much of the focus on the pilots fault when 90% of the vault is on the controller. Never sequenced the cirrus until it was too late.
+Mr_ATC Just wondering if you ever wanted to learn to fly yourself. ATC needs more pilots working the control system, imo, If I had my way, all ATC personnel SHOULD be at the very minimum, at least Private pilot certified. I don't give a crap about privatization of atc, but I do think we need to have pilots, talking to pilots, in ATC.
Certainly it was poor ATC work. Still not responsible for the pilot cratering his plane into the ground. Nothing ATC says should cause you to immediately lose control of your plane.
I was at the airport holding short when this accident happened and witnessed the aftermath. The airport was a lot busier than represented in the video and the controller was overwhelmed. There is a lot of flight training that happens at this airport and mistakes happen frequently. The controller was hit hard by what happened and you can hear it in his voice. The other controller that was on duty took over both tower and ground. It was a very somber day after witnessing such a tragedy.
@ryan allemand -- They put a small vertical stabilizer to make it less demanding on crosswind landings.. But that, with a smaller rudder too, will make it harder to come out of spins..
The ATC did use a panicky voice when issuing his final instruction but that’s no reason for the pilot to enter what was almost an aerobatic procedure and also turn the wrong way. I am a pilot, I have left ATC waiting for 20 seconds once as I had to fly my plane as my first priority. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate is the correct sequence. I was at a critical stage of flight, and the call from ATC was a routine zone change, some pilots get hung up on the fact they must answer ATC immediately, this is NOT the case, also if it’s an emergency the ATC WILL state so and to follow said instructions but as long as you follow the instructions there is no need to overload yourself and rush a reply. The pilot of this Cirrus took his aircraft out of the envelope n that chute is NO GOOD below 500ft. The pilot in my view tried to cut what should of been a longer approach. Probably as stated due to being overfamiliar. No matter what anyone responds to if they do on this comment the one thing we will NEVER know is why the left turn and the the way he did it and why didn’t he turn right as instructed to do so. Shame no voice black boxes yet in GA as a simple recording device designed for GA can just be a simple thumb drive that is ruggedised n I can’t see it costing more than £100 ish to do. I always run GoPros so if anything happens I have it all on video and HD voice on any of the 3 I have running. Lastly yes the ATC did sound stern on his last instruction but I think that was more down to him thinking what the heck is this guy doing, i don’t think that ATC is to blame for this. It’s always a pilots responsibility to fly his aircraft as a first priority and he failed to do that.
That is why I admire ATC who remain calm and collective, even if things begin going wrong in the air. Simply just say "go around" or "maintain heading, climb to xxx". I do believe that if the controller would have said either of these, this accident would've been a lot less likely to happen.
Pretty much a given when flying in VMC conditions, only time ATC is truest responsible for aircraft separation is when handling IMC ops. This should’ve been drilled into the pilots mind long before receiving his student pilot permit let alone a PPL with 500 hrs and instrument rating.
This was at my home airport few years ago, and when I recently started flight training, this incident had always haunted me. The people who passed were good friends, and made a small mistake that cost them their lives. If feeling unsafe or unsure, you are in control, not the controller.
@@smaze1782 ATC made a mistake, but didn’t tell the pilot to get into an accelerated stall ya know. I 100% believe ATC was mostly to blame but he wasn’t the one flying. Pilot always has 100% authority of the aircraft
This crash is typical of what we see from Cirrus pilots. A parachute can’t make up for poor airmanship. Funny that he’s in a verticals dive at 350 feet agl and the reaction was to pull the chute. Cirrus pilots that continue to rely on parachutes to make up for sub par skill will continue to end up at the bottom of smoking holes. #DarwinAtWotk.
I normally watch Mayday, Air Crash Investigation and other shows mostly about large commercial airline accidents and the videos run about 50 minutes or more depending on the subject/poster. I was never that interested in watching any videos about smaller "putt-putt" planes as I call them. Especially when the videos were less than 30 minutes long. I would think to myself, "How could any accident be explained thoroughly and interestingly I'm that shirt of a time?" I saw on the menu here on YT one of your videos and told myself I will try it, but not to expect much or be fulfilled.... I am hooked! 😊 They are well put-together shows! They hold my attention/interest and I always feel at the end that I was just as satisfied and fulfilled as having watch a regular 50 minute plus Mayday or similar video. I can't get enough of your videos! Love them! ❤ Thank you! Awesome, well put-together videos!!!! POST MORE!!! 😊
As a new student attempting to get my pilot's license, I've got to say... these videos are invaluable. Obviously, they do not take the place of instructor training, but they are great examples of the types of situations that can occur at any moment during a flight... and a reminder that vigilance towards your craft's current situation, attitude and limitations needs to be on the pilot's mind at all times. They are also a strong reminder that aviation is not a profession amenable for those who prefer taking shortcuts. It's unknown why this pilot seemed to be in such a hurry to land (especially since he was perfectly happy landing on the runway farthest from the general aviation ramp). However, had he flown a proper downwind-to-base entry, the other traffic already on final to his assigned runway, probably would have become more obvious to him (or the tower probably would have notified him of it) and, if so, he'd probably still be alive today. Again though... a great lesson for why Air Traffic Control can seem so tedious... because it's there to make the most dangerous part of flying (takeoff and landing) as safe as possible.
I'm a private pilot. This is the second video I just watched where the last communication from ATC included the word "tight" in a panic stricken voice. Both cases resulted in Stall/Spin scenarios and tragedy. The other video was the young lady flying from Oklahoma to Texas (Houston, maybe? Don't remember now) with her husband and brother on board, also a Cirrus. Watch both videos. Very similar situations, identical results. Anyway, at such a critical time of flight where the margin of error is so minuscule for a pilot, any instructions from ATC (i.e. Tight, sharpen, shorten, etc) that would potentially REDUCE those already minuscule margins should be strictly forbidden. "If" a controller is to alter a pilots path, intentions or positioning, I would think "add power, continue north" or "stay straight and level for a new sequence" or "climb at current heading" or "runway clearance canceled, expedite climb on heading ***" would work just as well, maybe better. I don't mean to be a Monday morning quarterback for this case or the people involved. I'm just thinking that instructions given at these critical moments need to be instructions that favor the increased performance of the aircraft involved, never risking the potential for a decrease in the performance.
A more appropriate phraseology that I've heard out of our local controllers (who are pretty awesome) when they need someone already cleared to hurry the hell up is "N1234, proceed direct to the numbers, no delay, Learjet inbound IFR on five mile final". I've actually been in this position but my Cherokee is just too damned slow.....so right as I was finishing my turn to base, and the Lear turned out to be coming in REALLY hot, the controller simply told me to "turn runway heading immediately and go around sidestep right".
Yes, it's the first thing I thought of. Here's that video--painful to listen to: th-cam.com/video/mf3xhjXl454/w-d-xo.html And since I pulled that one up, this one also came up re. a Cirrus stall/spin: th-cam.com/video/7nm_hoHhbFo/w-d-xo.html . Makes me wonder: could there perhaps be a slight tendency for pilots of fast, maneuverable planes with a lot of hp to go into overconfidence concerning the possibility for error at low altitude? Meaning the guard gets let down just enough that a distraction can lead to quick, impulsive inputs? Just a thought.
@@jmiq I sometimes wonder if newer pilots believe ATC personnel are necessarily certified pilots themselves? The fact that this crash and the Hobby, TX crash had extremely similar pilot/ATC interactions has to be indicative of something other than a lack of pilot proficiency, especially considering both pilots' adequate familiarity with their aircraft. Both pilots appear to allow ATC to either lead or disrupt their intended approaches, attempting to follow confusing ATC instructions, & resulting in unusual & dangerous flight maneuvers. At some point it appears that both pilots had a greater fear of the "authority" of ATC to the point of not actually "flying" their aircraft. Do you suppose the Cirrus attracts or propagates pilots with less assertiveness than those of us who have flown more complicated, older GA aircraft? Although I don't know any Cirrus pilots personally, my son, also a pilot of his own 64 Mooney 20C, does. He says his impression of the Cirrus and its pilots is that they are more like "drivers of flying cars" rather than your standard "aviators". I see this a lot with modern automobiles which have so many "safety" features that the drivers have become relatively passive in operating their cars. Aviation has always, in my opinion, required a relatively assertive attitude on the part of the PIC, without the need to actually be aggressive. This is not such a common trait among automobile drivers, and is often discouraged nowadays as "aggressive driving". Is this trend creeping into GA along with a fear of ATC authority? Does the Cirrus attract less assertive "driver" types due to its presumed "safety and simplicity of operation"? The parallels between this and other Cirrus crashes lead me toward that very inclination. Would you agree or disagree?
I learned to fly in England, and this scenario has always worried me when flying in the US. When I learned to fly in the UK no more than one runway operation was permitted at a time. Put another way, when you received "cleared to land" no other aircraft would be cleared to land, depart or cross the runway till you were clear. If you were close behind another airplane, or landing behind an impending departure you might be told to "expect late landing clearance" but when "cleared to land" the runway was all yours. Here, the controller had cleared at least two airplanes to land without ensuring the relevant pilots knew the order. I don't understand the logic in clearing more than one airplane to land at a time because it sets up a default accident scenario. For example, if an aircraft is cleared to land while 5 mile final and there is a an aircraft ahead what happens if that airplane crashes on the runway or gets disabled. The second aircraft is entitled, indeed expected to land on top of him. Far better for the second airplane to inquire on short final about his clearance, or without a clearance just initiate a go around.
I hate to say this but it is best to learn by other peoples mistakes, especially if it is a fatal mistake, and if it's a fatal mistake the only good thing that can come from that is knowledge.RIP. if you are a young pilot that learned something from this, it might be one of the things that keeps you safe.
@@coolhari2000 - Sierra Romeo was not cleared for a base leg entry to the pattern. ATC expected him to call on downwind leg. ATC thought he was bit further away on and able to do a 270 to join the downwind leg and let the other Cirrus land first as he was clear to land too and was on a straight in. I dont think ATC caused this accident, it was Sierra Romeo cutting corners, getting in front of the other airplane and then stalled it when had to do a low turning go around that he fucked up..
@@che3se1495 - Yeah.. that might have prompted Sierra Romeo to enter the base leg instead of the downwind leg. But then he stalled the airplane. No Bueno for a pilot to do that under 2,000 feet. He panicked and stalled it.
As one who is smitten with all things aeronautic, even though I don't like to fly, I find TH-cam channels such as this one fascinating and the only ones where the postings below can be just as informative as the video itself. It's obvious that some serious and knowledgeable people watch and comment on these, even when they differ.
@@ianutube22 Yeah, the comments often include a healthy debate about what could be improved. That's the whole point of these videos. Improving the skills of pilots and ATC.
He turned left because ATC came back with "I needed you to extend your final" "Cut it in sharp now for 9" It's easy to imagine under stress interpreting that as an instruction to turn sharply and extend the final.
I’m a pre-student pilot following analyses like this to learn what I’m getting myself into. On the video I found it confusing, too, when the controller said to extend but then said cut tight for 9R. Said cut tight twice as a matter fact. I probably would have focused on the “cut... for 9R” portion. And tight might sound like right. So, even though 9L is active it would seem that continuing at a 90 degree angle to the traffic would get our subject out of the way fastest. It is interesting to read the comments from everyone because I initially bought the analysis and put a lot of responsibility on the pilot, but now I think the only thing he did wrong was to over maneuver his craft and maybe not do a visual check of the approach. And I don’t know protocol, but when someone in another comment said they would have landed anyway because tower had given clearance, that doesn’t make sense to me. I can see disobeying a course of flight before disobeying an aborted landing instruction. Both are dangerous but the runway is where everyone is flying to, whereas there is more room in the sky to seek safety. Seems pretty easy to make mistakes. I’ve taken to heart the recommendation of my instructor and of a commercial pilot friend... you need to be out there flying twice a week to learn and remain proficiency. Perishable skills. Another observation as an outsider, I think instructions are given way too fast, and it seems like an ego thing to be able to do it that fast or for overworked controllers trying to cram more work into less space. I often listen to the news and 1.5x or 2x speed, but I get a lot more out of it a 1x. Again, just an outsider’s perspective. Thank you all for the great comments.
@@markcoveryourassets I think your priority should be to stay alive and saying the only thing the pilot did wrong was to over maneuver the aircraft is saying the thing that killed the pilot was a small mistake when in fact that was the only mistake he made that killed himself. none of any of these mistakes or miscommunications killed the occupants of that aircraft, the only thing that killed them was spinning in from 500ft. and that the plane was not flying when it hit the ground, it was the responsibility of the pilot to keep the plane flying, he failed to do so and that is the lesson to be learned here! that is my interpretation of this disastrous event!
@Jesus Christ I accept your opinion but I believe loosing control of the A/C is going to lead to an unrecoverable stall close to ground which is an occurrence that not many pilots can recover from, what usually happens with stalls and spins on the circuit is that the A/C reaches A high speed before impact, pilots need to be aware that a spin stall situation on the circuit is certainly the worst possible situation and is not survivable.
Worked a class D tower for years with traffic like this. Absolutely the controller's fault. I don't care what anybody says. There are two ways to handle this... "N4SR extend downwind. Number 2 to follow traffic one mile final RWY 9R, I'll call your base." OR ..the way I would've done it.. "N4SR extend downwind number two to follow traffic one mile final RWY 9R, report traffic in sight." "in sight" "N4SR base to follow that traffic, RWY 9R cleared to land number 2" This was so piss poorly handled by this controller. This is basics in sequencing 101. I don't care if somebody is short final, I'm calling another a/c's sequence with that plane. It creates awareness for all involved, and allows pilots to make the best decisions possible about how to fly their pattern. I don't make absolute statements that often but "I assumed...." is a statement a controller should NEVER make.
While I agree that the controller has a share of the fault, pilots are the ones who are taught to trust, but verify. Had that been me, I would have aborted the approach and started climbing where I would turn final and told ATC, "Unable, going around 9R, 4 Sierra Romeo" I certainly wouldn't have made a seriously abrupt turn like that. That's just asking for trouble. I don't cut anything tight when I'm on base approach unless I've been told this from downwind. If I'm doing a regular approach and on short base and all of a sudden hear "Cut it in tight", I'm declaring missed approach and immediately climbing. Thank god for ADS-B though. I got myself a receiver and I was heading out to a Charlie airport and noticed this plane that had done a previous touch and go was heading directly towards me. ~5 miles away. I saw this and immediately turned 45 degrees to the right and figured the heading would be decent enough to avoid him. Got a call a couple minutes later that he was heading straight towards me. ADS-B also proved it to be right so then i got on the radio and told them I was making a 90 degree turn to the left . I did that to not only alert ATC what my intenions are but to ensure the plane infront of me wasn't about to do the same thing I was doing like he did previously. Told me to do it at my discretion. Luckily no one else in the area but yeah...pilots have to learn not to be afraid to take command in controlled airspace. Especially in my case when there's obviously the potential of a midair and ATC is basically turning into flight following at their own airspace.
As a pilot you have to be ready for everything. Including missed approaches. I've seen other accidents on the Cirrus I guess it's a bit of a hot plane. If you unload the flaps in a steep turn your stall speed increases thus the wing drop.
Nothing annoys me more than when someone says, in an emergency situation, "you should have ..." or, as in the is case "I needed you to...". FFS, just give a clear and concise instruction of what needs to be done, then have that conversation later.
Indeed. It's very clear what happened here - the pilot interpreted "I NEEDED you to extend" as "I NEED you to extend" and did exactly that - it's very difficult to hear the difference between the two without subtitles.
This. This is all safety communication, and that's about the now and the immediate future, and that is where ATC's and pilot's minds should be focussed. Debating what happened, even at best, does not contribute to this.
The terror in the controller's voice as the accident occurred petrifies me. This series and especially videos such as this humble me as a pilot to consider all circumstances and viewpoints unto which accidents occur. RIP to the pilots and passengers.
I'm not a pilot but I'd assume when a controller says "cleared to land" that the runway is mine. Clearly the controller should have articulated his expectation that 4SR follow the Cirrus already on final. What an unnecessary and avoidable accident. I hate that people have died but I appreciate these videos and the careful analysis given to what happened in each case. I've considered getting my PPL when cashflow will allow it and the lessons learned here will definitely be remembered if I pursue it.
Just two words missing are the key to this controller's failure. Runway 9R NUMBER TWO cleared to land. Yes, the pilot maneuvered incorrectly, but the conditions were created by the controller's complete failure to sequence and communicate appropriately. Two more words would have worked - "Go around." This video had me yelling at the screen in frustration. Truly tragic.
The way the ATC repeated "Tight!" twice in a panicky voice made the pilot react without thinking. ATC made it sound like a propeller from another plane was about to cut through the cockpit even though they still had a mile of clearance. However, the ATC sounded complacent, like he was really burned out with his job.
how many time have we heard "keep it tight" or similar, in stall/spin crashes? i dare say if a controller feels the need to utter that phrase he/she needs to instead say GO AROUND
I know of at least one other video from this channel with ATC asking the pilots to do a tight turn and resulting in a deadly crash. This controller was horrible.
“Cirrus 4SR, your #2, runway 9 right cleared to land, traffic is a cirrus on a 1 mile final.” Or “Cirrus 4SR, extend your downwind I’ll call your base, traffic is a cirrus on a 1 mile final”
The Pilot crashed the plane...no skilled pilot makes abrupt dangerous maneuvers cause of an ATC request. ATC was awful here but he didn’t crash the plane. The pilot did.
Years ago, in my youth I worked as a firefighter/paramedic in a county fire department with a small uncontrolled airport. I really wanted to get my pilots license. I spoke with the FBO about it and even started ground school with him. We had a plane crash about a mile from the runway. He and I discussed it at length about what caused it. That's when he advised me to look within myself and ask this question, " will I do it right every single time, go through all the check lists, never cut corners, never hot dog, know my limitations and never exceed them? " He was great, refunded me my money. I love aviation and I think these videos are incredibly valuable. I never became a pilot, I leave that to the men and women who can answer that question with a yes.
This whole thing could have likely been avoided with a simple "...number two following the [aircraft on final] in the landing [pre]clearance"... A true travesty.
That is exactly why I never understood the american habit of issuing landing clearances on runways that aren't free. In europe (and most of the world) you can't have two landing clearances active on any one runway at the same time. The preceeding aircraft has to vacate the runway before you can issue the next "cleared to land" command. Because "cleared to land" basically means "runway's all yours, buddy", it's just so dangerous to issue that with an addendum like "after that other plane, though"...
I've never heard them do it like the controller in this video did. Normally you'd hear "#2 cleared to land" or "cleared to land following the other cirrus" or "#2 cleared to land following the cirrus". Never heard a controller give an instruction like this without mentioning the other landing traffic ahead. The controller's sequencing didn't make sense either, maybe he had a bad understanding of where the traffic on the straight in really was. Normally in that situation you'd expect the accident aircraft cleared first OR the controller to have the accident aircraft extend downwind and land #2. I have seen things like this before, a lot of these small class D fields don't have radar and the controllers often will send the pilots to places/pattern entries that don't really make a lot of sense.
Contract twr with retired lazy controller just there to make a buc. I see them all go out the door, could care less by the end of their career and then get these contract twr jobs that are Cush so they can enjoy a huge retirement pension and work nearly part time for a large check. We have a retirement date for a reason that we cannot work past. These dudes are lazy and have poor phraseology. (FAA controller/Commercial Pilot)
No, pilot failed his #1 responsibility, fly the plane regardless of what is going. Clearly100% pilot screwup ending his life. The controllers are not fly the plane the pilots are. Again 100% pilot error....
I know that at my home airport it is indeed standard practice to clear multiple aircraft for landing in sequence on the same runway. But the simple call by ATC for "number 2 behind traffic on one mile final" could've prevented this whole accident. ridiculous.
You know what ultimately would've prevented this whole accident? The pilot controlling his plane no matter what ATC said to him. Clearance to land does not give you clearance to stop paying attention to what's going on around you.
@@MegaTechpc True, but human beings aren't perfect. The pilot is only one ling in the chain of events that led up to the accident. One could say that this accident wouldn't have happened had the controller issued a more precise instruction just as easily.
MegaTechpc To be honest if the controller didnt specify that i’m number 2 or theres a plane on final, i’ll assume i’m number 1 since im cleared to land. Even if you are looking out, it can be hard to detect other planes especially if youare configuring to land late downwind or base. If ATC says tight turn and I have no idea where the other plane is, hell yeah im gonna make that turn tight as possible. Cant just blame the pilot just because he is in control of the plane. It is the ATC’s job to maintain separation unless we have visually established the traffic in concern.
@@gnsgml11 But that's not what caused the accident. This was not a midair, or even a near miss from the look of it. "But for the controller's horrible communications," the plane would not have crashed. "But for his parents making a baby," the plane would not have crashed. It's part of the chain, but the pilot over-controlled his plane and spun it in the traffic pattern. Student pilots are taught not to do that in ground school. If you assumed you were #1 to land in this case, and you landed, there would have been no accident. (Traffic was still a mile out.) This was not a midair. This pilot died precisely because he didn't do what you suggest he should have done. Instead he pulled a crazy maneuver that was contrary to our most basic training as pilots. Unless there's been a change I don't know about, it's the VFR pilot's responsibility, not the controller's, to see and avoid traffic in the pattern. But again, that's irrelevant because this was not a midair.
We had a similar accident at KPNE years ago. Student pilot and CFI on board. Practicing touch and go. Right after touching and going up again the controller told the pilot: “when able turn right close traffic” apparently the student pilot assumed tower said “turn close traffic NOW” and he started turning abruptly to the right at very low altitude. Unfortunately the CFI was not in position to overtake control and the airplane crashed in a similar way as this one did. We have to learn from this and not let pressure like this overcome our normal sense. Practice listening to tower comunications. Most of the time you don’t have to act right now. Listen, think then act.
The irony here is if the two Cirruses had collided we'd all be 100% in agreement the tower was ultimately at fault. But because the pilot stuffed it, we're ultimately blaming the pilot. Somehow our blame changes by outcome, despite same faults leading to it.
Leggo My Ego, true. It seems many in the comments agree with you as well. It’s the videos narrator that places the majority of blame (unjustly many here contest) on the pilot.
@@instawarlock1155 no, you still have to maintain flying the plane withing known design parameters. Clearly this pilot did not fly the plane properly or manage the controllers request, another clear pilot requirement. All resulting in the loss of Control of the plane caused directly by the pilot... Clearly pilot error is loss of control and managing the controllers. All clearly pilots poor flying skills and poorly managing the flight skills, stupidity, arrogance, and over confidence with poor piloting skills killed this pilot. As another airline pilot witness called it a surprising hot dogging maneuver, the again pilot stupidity/ego/arrigance and total lack of responsibility.
High aspect ratio wing high speed stalls again. If you own a Cirrus, Lancair, Glassair you must be constantly vigilant to avoid any sudden pitch changes especially at any lower speeds. These wings, although great for high speed travel, are very susceptible to high speed stalls with a wicked roll to follow. After the stall it takes a lot more altitude to recover than a wing with lower aspect ratio. Caution in the pattern always. ALWAYS. Be patient. No good thing comes from hasty maneuvers.
The tower first said that he needed the plane to extend the downwind which would require the pilot to go left and continue the downwind. Then the tower said in a hurried voice to cut it in tight. Confusing. I think the pilot was locked on to the first statement and planed to go behind the plane on final.
There was no mention of ATC's use of the word "needed". Many ATC will profusely use the phrase "I need you to..." followed by their instruction. That is fairly normal. ATC here decided to focus on what the pilot had previously been instructed to do, then gave them a new instruction in the opposite direction saying "Cut it in close for". In this case the Pilot's left turn can be explained if the pilot interpreted "Needed" to be the word "Need". The choice of ATC to chide the pilot first before providing his subsequent instruction contributed to this accident in my opinion.
I was always told in my flight training: The ATC doesn't fly the plane. You do. That ATC may have big picture resolution, but they aren't aware of your payload and can't see your instruments. The way I look at it, its the controller's fault that the situation happened in the first place, but the actual accident is the pilot's fault for making a turn that put him into an unrecoverable position so close to the ground. However, the urgency in the controller's voice might have suggested to the pilot that a much more dangerous situation existed and that collision was imminent. As mentioned, lots of contributing issues. A real shame.
"Familiarity breeds contempt and that's a dangerous thing with airplanes." Crrraaaazzzzyy! Mad Heart to those who spread their wings in the first place. Ultimate teaching tool!
He was cleared to land... this falls on the controller for starting the accident , but the pilot in the end made the final mistake that could have avoided the crash... could have been avoided
I had two instances where I questioned a controller's communication. Once at Concord airport in California. The airport was very busy. It did not appear to me that the controller was providing proper separation between the airplanes in the pattern. I left the pattern and came back in 15 minutes. I later talephoned the tower, they said they do not provide separation, that is up to the pilot. It is very important to know what to expect and what you can not expect from a controller. I suspect there needs to be a lot more clarity on this in flight training. The second case was at Livermore airport. There were several airplanes in and around the pattern. The controller was careful to call out the location of airplanes approaching the airport and in the pattern. I remember the situation as 1 airplane on long final, how long was not clear. I was on downwind just past the approach end of the runway. The controller notified me I was cleared to land. Not cleared to land number 2, cleared to land. I was a bit new to flying and that indicated to me that I should land before the ariplane on long final. Given how precise the controller had been up to that point, the instructions seemed clear. That was a bad call from the controller. My flight path was much like this case, applying full throttle and turning left to continue downwind. This put me very close to right final. The controller then instructed me to turn back to base and land on the left runway instead of the right, crossing the right runway's final. The problem I see is that we are taught to follow the controller's instructions. At some point you do learn that you are pilot in command. You can question the controller's instructions if the situation is unsafe. Frankly, this does not excuse a controller from deviating away from a common set of instructions. Cleared for takeoff, hold short, line up and wait, clear to land, cleared to land - number 2. I have had cases where a controller has fit me in before an airplane on long final. Communication is very important, controllers are trained professionals and should conduct themselves accordingly, without ambiguity. In this video, the controller communicated instructions that were plainly incorrect. "Cleared to Land", "Cut in tight now, cut in tight for Nine Right". The pilot followed those instructions with the urgency conveyed by the controller, including making a sharp turn when told to do so. While there is clearly an attempt to say the pilot holds some of the responsibility in this case, I feel it was entirely on the controller. Bad instructions from the controller, bad follow through from the controller, bad end result. Just as the pilot needs to have a picture and plan, so must the controller. Given the controller has the veneer of authority, they must also be ready for the unexpected when failing to be exact.
The pilot might be ultimately responsible, but you won't convince me that ATC didn't contribute. The controller sounds very uncomfortable handling traffic.
In the early '70s there were two Cessna 210s with tail numbers that differed only in the last digit and identical liveries based at the Oakland (CA) airport. I once listened to tower trying to keep them clear in his mind as both were on approach at the time.
No but normally they will give you a number if you are not the first person to land. Also a lot time tower will tell what and where the traffic is IE TWR: 4SR traffic is a SR 22 on final, you are number 2 clear to land RWY 11L Or TWR: 4SR traffic is a SR 22 on 3 miles final for 11C, clear to land RWY 11L
That's what I thought too, I don't know how it's done in the US, but here in Iceland you do not get a landing clearance until you are "CLEAR" to land, meaning you are number 1 for the runway, the runway and approach is clear for other traffic. Clear to land means exactly that, you are cleared to land, and it's prohibited for ATC to clear two seperate aircrafts for landing simultaneously. If there is another aircraft on approach, you are number two after traffic on final, if there are two aircrafts on approach, you are number three after traffic on final / Downwind / Baseleg whatever it is and you DO NOT GET CLEARED TO LAND until you are number one for landing and other aircraft are clear off the runway I've had a very late landing clearance because of this, I was over the runway threshold some 50 feet above the runway, another aircraft was finishing vacating the runway, it wasn't until the aircraft was on the taxiway and off the runway that I got Cleared to Land. I'm sure I would've assumed, if I was that pilot, and ATC gave me a clearance to land, that I am number one for runway 9R. Since he never specified that another aircraft was on final for the runway I'm cleared to land on. The ATC also gives the pilot absolutely useless information, "I am very busy right now" and telling him what he 'thinks' what taxi clearance he's going to give him before he lands. If the pattern is full or the airport is busy, then make the traffic do an orbit over a specific point, and give the aircraft taxi clearance AFTER he's landed. This is pisspoor managing by ATC.
No. At LAX when you check in with Tower, they clear you to land shortly after. I've mentioned it to ATC when I was an FAA Accient Investigator and they blew me off.
Hey I have been flying since i was 22 and i am 58 Most instructors even now discourage going into class B airspace, because it is too busy..... If you are going to make long cross country trips you do not need to be afraid of that...... So to me one of the biggest issues in the industry of training is show and doing at least 3 long cross country at least 300 NM... Showing the new pilot what to expect and that it is not that hard... get them used and unafraid of busy airport traffic... Also how to get from Airport to restaurant... how to pick airports for fuel and food..... then the most important thing the weather changes and learn you can always wait for a clearing...
GBigs Angle this happens all the time, that's why there is standard traffic patterns and spacing. Being a pilot and airport worker it was in my opinion miscommunication chain of events that led to the accident.
This does not happen all the time. A clearance to land is absolute...it is not a suggestion. You may not approach to land without a clearance. ATC will queue planes, "you are second, cleared to land behind the Cirrus" but that was not done here. The controller simply gave them each a clearance to land and killed people.
GBigs Angle Exactly. "cleared to land #2 behind a cirrus on a 1 mile final. report aircraft in sight." heard it a million times. the controller fucked up, and the pilots didn't catch the mistake. It was a noob error to make on the pilots part, but not absurd
A lot of things could have been differently it's obvious why the video is called communication breakdown controller is confused who is talking to the pilot assumes the collision is about to happen below him so he cuts left he can't see directly below him low wing aircraft. The controller should have just told him to abort landing and proceed back into the pattern right or left whichever.
While the controller definitely contributed, I still have no idea why the pilot's response was to enter a maneuver like that. While ATC certainly made mistakes and added confusion to the situation, ATC did not make the pilot pull left so abruptly that he crashed.
When it is clearly the pilot at fault, everyone is even in their responses, that it was a tragic accident and a good learning experience. I think we should extend the same respect to the air traffic controller who obviously did this without malice and has to deal with the aftermath as well.
The sadistic controller has blood on his hands!!!! I was an instructor based at Melbourne, and was on the ground at the airport that day.... Spoke with the guy who said "Tower did you see that?" right after he landed. Never in a million years did I think the tower had not sequenced either of the two aircraft. This is the first time since that day I am seeing this and my blood is boiling. Why did the pilot have a panicked response?? Any pilot with experience on the low end could have such a panic given the controller's tone.... but this and one other controller at Melbourne were famous (no idea about now) back in the day all over Florida.... Experienced pilots used to avoid flying in because of the two controllers who got heir kicks by making life miserable for all including students... They would at times even mock in thinly veiled transmissions and often made the students feel like crap while pretending to be the best thing since sliced bread....we had a large number of foreign students which meant less than perfect English.... I have to say both the concerned controllers were usually (not always) correct, and good at managing the extraordinary amount of traffic that airport was often bombarded with .... but these two lived to make the lives of other miserable and were hated across the pilot spectrum and from what I had heard not very well liked even among their peers. I don't remember hearing about any repercussions in the aftermath of this accident and that is making me even more angry. From all counts the pilot was a very nice, humble and generous member of the society well liked by all.... RIP.... I had no idea the controller who knew better caused it by habit.... By the time this happened, this accident had been in the making for quite some time. Anyone investigating this could not possibly have missed the reputation these two controllers had. I know these videos tend to be not too harsh with individuals but by not presenting this recurring side of the controller's behavior , it keeps the viewers in the dark about things that should be foremost when discussing this accident.
rustyroo82 Did tower tell pilot to do a tail spin? Pilots shouldn’t be so ramified on the controls. Especially when turning left while adding power. That’s basic private pilot stuff.
tie oneon Yes. I wasn’t there but yes. In order to make an abrupt turn to left, a pilot needs to bank left while adding back (up) elevator and left rudder. If all of that is done too abruptly at too low of airspeed with heavy payload @ aft CG, and high power setting (high torque) then yes, the airplane will be on the verge of a stall immediately followed by a diving tailspin. And that’s not a good thing to do at low altitude. Professional (high time) pilots don’t “jerk” their planes around. It’s usually the newbies. Also, as a pilot, you don’t have to do EVERYTHING the controller tells you to do. You’re still the captain of your own ship. If you listen to the controller there around 6:50 he’s saying “cut it in tight now, cut it in tight!” Well, that’s not a good thing to tell a low time pilot in a high performance aircraft. Not saying it was the controller’s fault. The pilot is responsible for safety of the flight. End of story.
When you clear an aircraft to land you're allowing him to make whatever approach he'd like. Only clear an airplane to land when you don't need him to extend the downwind!
Absolutely. The pilot overreacted, and is of course directly responsible for the accident (#1 rule: fly the damned plane), but the controller didn't tell him to sequence behind the guy on final. It's debatable whether the crash pilot even knew there WAS someone on final until the controller flipped out on him. It's good to watch these things looking for "what would I do differently if I were in that situation." I think I'd have just turned right and landed as I planned, especially since the FBO was at the end of the runway. Just land long and get down there to the taxiway by the FBO. My logic would be "I was given clearance and there was nobody on the runway. I have no idea what the clown in the tower is blathering about, but by God I was given clearance, there's nobody on the runway, and I'm about 500 feet from turning short final, so that's what I'm doing." If the sequencing is screwed up, that's the controller's problem and the other pilot should see me on the runway and go around anyway.
Yeah. Taking initiative is the thing to do. Whether it's to land and force someone else to go around or to initiate a go around yourself, any decision is better than to follow blindly.
He is completely right. Once the controller gives "clear to land", the runway is promised only to him. Whether he will go on short final or extend downwind, that is up to the pilot, whatever the case nobody can land or takeoff from that promised runway until he lands. Once the pilot receives clearance to land he can turn off the radio for all he cares, and shouldn't worry about anything else.
It's very clear what happened here - the pilot interpreted "I NEEDED you to extend" as "I NEED you to extend" and did exactly that - it's very difficult to hear the difference between the two without subtitles. In the panic of the moment, induced by the controller's poor panic-stricken communication, he made too abrupt of a manoeuvre - something that anybody is susceptible to when they are in an aircraft as opposed to their armchair, and put the aircraft into a spin. Humility protects against humiliation, and this applies to the armchair critics blaming the pilot. Anyone could have sadly made this mistake. We do not know precisely what we are INCAPABLE of when put into a high stress situation. We are not the same person- our primal brain takes over.
My first instructor, Old Ray Jourdan used to tell me to get stable on downwind and ask the controller to always call my base (stay away from Class B in small GA craft unless you have important business there). ATC doesn't mind doing this. Seriously cuts down on confusion. I can take that decision out of my cockpit, and concentrate on PPT, and watching for traffic.
he cleared to land without mentioning the aircraft before him?, honestly I know I learned in KASH with some of the best controllers in the country but still I've never seen landing approval without a number unless you were number 1.
Just some thoughts on how safe it is to clear several aircraft for landing at the same time. Being new to flying in the US, I noticed that controllers can give a landing clearance quite early, even when the preceding traffic has not landed or cleared the RWY. In Europe, a GA aircraft would typically never get a landing clearance if they're not no. 1 in the pattern or if the RWY is still busy. Here, the pilot seems to have understood the landing clearance as if he could just “proceed for landing” and tbf, considering his position and that he ignored that he was in fact no. 2 for landing, I would've probably done the same ie. joining the base leg upon getting the landing clearance… Happy to have anyone’s insights on this. Thanks ASI for these thorough analyses!
At a local airport that I fly out of frequently, a usual pattern of conduct with the controllers is to issue the "cleared to land" when you are not #1 for landing. You'll be given instructions like ", number 2 following the Cessna on base, cleared to land". While this is technically correct, I would actually prefer that they say something like ", number 2 following the Cessna on base". Then at the appropriate time, when the leading aircraft has cleared the runway, be issued the "cleared to land" instruction. As I seem to remember when I was getting my private in the mid-80's, this latter protocol was the one that was followed. Anyone else have similar experiences?
I absolutely agree. In 500 landings in the UK I have only ever been cleared to land when I am #1. When there is traffic ahead I am given different instructions by ATC such as "[callsign]report on final" and if on final I am still not #1 I would expect "[callsign] Continue approach" until the runway is clear, and if I get too close without clearance either I or the controller will decide on a go-around. This case is tragic and I have to say I find US controllers using a much wider and therefore often more vague range of language that is used in the UK. In the UK we have a strictly defined set of phrases that can be used as set out in the Radiotelephony Manual and this leads to much less confusion. publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6973
+Howard Graff I think that is true in the whole of the EU. You won't get a cleared to land when you're not no 1. You seldom get a cleared to land before you report final.
CPL student pilot in New Zealand and never been cleared to land while Im number 2. Always instructed to follow then on final I’ll be given clearance to land
Totally awesome landing. No room for error landing on a carrier. I appreciate the skill of this pilot, his dedication and his ability to put his plane exactly where he wants it. Fabulous video!
Based on the controller's instruction, I think I would have also made a left turn. He said: "I need you to extend to FOLLOW the Cirrus out there on mile final." Since the pilot was about to cut in front of the other Cirrus, he made a quick left in an attempt to go outbound and allow the other plane to land first. The controller then gave what was, to me, a conflicting instruction to "cut it in tight now, cut it in tight for Nine Right" which I took to mean make a tight right turn and land immediately (in front of the other Cirrus). The crash was already in motion so that instruction was never followed. It seems in a matter of seconds the ATC changed his mind on which plane he wanted to land first. He was confused, the pilot was confused, and a tragedy unfolded.
Oh, man. I had some words about the ATC, but hearing him in the transmission when he was telling the other Cirrus to go around... that guy is going to beat himself up worse for the rest of his life than I ever could, and worse than he deserves.
I totally agree with Shane on this one, It's the controller's fault. You don't give CLEARED TO LAND to an aircraft on downwind and expect him to be aware of traffic on final for the same RWY or expect him extending the downwind for another mile before turning base, you mustn't expect anything. The poor guy made a mistake, fearfully reacting to avoid causing a midair collision with the other Cirrus of which he first heard a second ago, not being aware of the other being a mile away. CLEARED TO LAND means cleared to land for me, the RWY is yours for the time being, no matter if you're too long, too short, too high, too low, too fast or too slow, it's the pilots discretion from there on to make or break the landing or go around in the end. A simple " cleared to land, NUMBER 2 ", would save their lives. Andrej
One issue they don't seem to make much of in this analysis: both aircraft were Cirrus. There seems to be a critical moment where the pilot who eventually has the accident thinks ATC is referring to him on final (and that ATC is just mistaken about his position) when in fact the controller is pointing out to him a completely different Cirrus on final. ATC asks "Do you have the Cirrus there on mile final?" but the accident pilot just responds with "I'm on a real short base", in other words, just responds with where *he* is at, apparently just trying to correct ATC's "mistake" about his own position. These are critical seconds where the two aircraft are fast approaching each other. Then there seems to be an "oh crap!" moment where the accident pilot realizes there's *another* cirrus out there and overreacts.
I am a bit surprised that no one seems to have commented on the fact that this plane was only 31lbs under max gross, when he had been up and flying for a while. How heavy had he been before taking off? What does that say about his attitude towards safety?
Might be missing something but on specs for this plane it has a difference from empty to gross weight of 1331 lbs and holds 944 lbs of fuel and has 5 seats, 3 occupied at this time. Guessing this plane is routinely close to max weight for majority of people that use it.
@@420xanatos Most planes are often flown at or close to max weight AT TAKEOFF. Fuel weighs 6lb/gallon, and so you quickly shed weight and are landing well below that.
I'm not a pilot, so I'm happy to get some clarification or be corrected if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like the lack of standard phraseology is incredibly endemic in the US. These discussions between ATC and pilots sound more like an informal chat rather than clear and concise communication. That means there's just way too much ambiguity between discussion and directives, lack of standard phraseology can lead to misunderstanding, low signal to noise ratio means it's harder for other pilots to form a mental picture, and the informal attitude is incredibly likely to lead to complacency. Happy to be corrected, but it seems like US pilots have a serious case of wanting to sound like cool cowboys rather than being safe, efficient, clear and concise in their communications.
@@ggurks, that's the whole point. 1. ATC didn't want to send big planes to go around. 2. And that forced small plane to struggle. 3. And eventually pressure was built and plane crashed. 4. And one of the big planes was forced to go around despite ATC's desires. It could turn out much better if ATC just sent the first big plane for circle allowing small one to land without extra pressure ASAP.
I read quite a few comments, but didn't hear any mention of the pilot attempting to scan for other traffic. It is always the pilot's responsibility to look for other aircraft and listen for ATC talking to other aircraft when he was cleared to land. If, in fact, he cleared the other aircraft, did the pilot not hear that? There's enough fault to go around here to both, but the title should be, "first priority, fly the aircraft safely, miscommunication can happen. Controllers can make mistakes, so don't assume anything. I fly at a class delta airport and they always, always tell if you are not number 1. Nobody mentioned if that controller always uses that procedure of telling someone if they are not number 1. If he does, then he got confused and forgot he had 2 cirrus's cleared to land, so he made a mistake. I feel bad for the controller becasue he has to live with it. I feel bad for the pilot and passengers because they are no longer with us. Ultimately, we must remember as pilots it is our responsibility to fly the plane safely!
That’s a good point. The video is spot on. But it doesn’t paint the entire picture. (Otherwise would be way too long) The controller was flustered and actually cleared 1DA to land twice. (Forgot he had already cleared them to land once already) And twice while on final the CFI on board made two clear communications about being cleared to land on 9R.
"clear to land'" not "number two clear to land" he never even told him about the landing traffic. 110% the controllers fault. pilot could have made a right 360 instead though.
Clearly no, the pilot failed is #1 responsibility is flying the plane within safe known design parameters. This pilot caused and is responsible for this tragedy
@Jesus Christ do again you prove the pilot is at fault for failure to fly there plane safely. The controller is immaterial. Because yo r ego gets in the way of flying the plane based on your bull crap dues not matter "whiny controller" I would Never fly with you, you are dangeraouse, your poor attitude is what kills pilots. It's simple fly the plane, if you can't control your emotions and allow them the have you stop flying safely is your fault. Period.
No slick, 100% pilot incompetence. Your train of thought is dangeraouse and lethal, I would NEVER fly or drive with you. Youist be a democrat, common thing to blame others for what you caused. Blaming controllers for the pilots f#ck up and failure to act as pilot in command. Controller were trying to help a stupid pilot.
@@shishi7gb no a 360, a 360 is commonly used by controllers to create space, in the time it take to do a 360 the other airplane lands and clears, and because its a 360 it resets him up for landing. 360s are used a lot especially at smaller busy (usually busy from flight training) airports.
there was also TWO cirrus a/c attempting to land at the same time..the tower transmission just prior to the accident surprised the accident a/c. cut it in tight does not mean to stall/spin your a/c.
A lot of people seen to have a *fundamental misunderstanding of how the physics work.* In a car, there is hardly any lag between applying power, and getting results, and this is true for many of our daily situations. But in an aircraft, the power comes not from the engine, but from the airspeed. *Increasing power, by itself, does nothing.* You have to wait until the airspeed increases.
Primarily, the controller's unbeknownst lack of attention to the other cirrus on short final caused the other cirrus pilot to panic in an obviously fatal manner. Almost certainly, that entire spin and vertical dive was preventable. The urgency in the tower's voice was of great concern to the pilot, I'm absolutely sure, but that last maneuver was totally just a maneuver out of panic. Put's the plane in a steep 45 degree turn to the left, rolls inverted and enters a spiral dive into the ground. Panic can be especially deadly when in any vehicle that happens to be airborne. Close to the ground and panicking is a whole other story. I rest my consensus on the controller's lack of divided attention. If the controller had advised the other cirrus pilot of traffic on short final prior to this pilot recieving his clearance, this accident would be nonesistent in the NTSB's database. I agree with the scrutiny of the pilot's actions. He should have never made that extremely tight base to final entry without clearing with the tower on conflicting traffic prior to it. This entire situation was just doomed from the start...
Flying an SR-22 to me is like driving an Audi A6 - in addition to plenty of horsepower, you’ve got nice tech to help out: blind spot monitoring (ADS-B), collision avoidance (TAS), good visibility, and great sounding radios (Bose). And one might compare the airplane’s CAPS to vehicle skid control, but my point is I’m a little surprised that the video didn’t discuss situational awareness. The tech was there to help look and listen. I haven’t read the NTSB yet though so maybe I’m off base here.
I have no idea how this video pinned fault at the pilot. This makes me so mad. 1. When tower cleared him to land, (not cleared to land, number two, following another cirrus), he's cleared to land. 2. When tower realized he turned base early, instead of telling him to extend to follow the cirrus, issue a go around. He's in no position to turn from base back to downwind anyways. 3. Cut it in tight, cut it in tight for 9R. What does that even mean. Issue an clear instruction. 4. When you have a choice to issue a go around to an aircraft that is well establish on a final, and to an aircraft that is making a tight turn, the decision should be really clear.
Are you familiar with the term pilot in command , the pilot flies the aircraft. You can let ATC kill you , or you can fly your aircraft within limits. I agree the pilot should have gotten a sequence.
Justin Kiang He IS the one to blame. He flew the plane into the ground. He flew the plane beyond it's limits, pure and simple. ATC makes mistakes, it's your job as PIC to ALWAYS fly the plane within limits, regardless of even the most absurd ATC instructions.
Because as the old saying goes, there has never been a single reported case of an air traffic controller dying due to bad instructions. As p.i.c., you have the ultimate authority AND responsibility to fly the plane.
I have 2 questions. First off - what happened to that controller? Was he held responsible at all? Second - wtf does "cut it in tight" mean? Go left? Go right? Pull up? I feel like it has 0 instructional significance.
There are an awful lot of comments here that blame both ATC, and the pilot. As a pilot you should always be looking for other aircraft, especially in the terminal area which is where this incident occurred. The controller's failure to advise either one of the aircraft about the other's position, let alone presence, was certainly a contributing factor. But the bottom line is this...the tower controller didn't put the airplane in a stall/spin situation that resulted in it impacting the ground with enough energy to create a four foot crater...the pilot did. The pilot flies the airplane. Not the controller. Were both parties responsible for the confusion? Sure. But what people here don't seem to realize is that things like this happen EVERY DAY in aviation. The confusion between the aircraft and the controller is not what makes this case study unique. It's the pilots actions that make it unique. When confusion or hiccups arise, you work the problem. Ultimately, if the airplane ends up in a low level spin situation, there's nobody to blame but the pilot.
Great observation. I only have just over 100 hours of experience at the time of this writing. I personally am extremely vigilant of my surroundings, airspeed and coordinated turns when making turns to base and base to final turns. I took a stall-spin lesson in a Decathlon where we did low speed and accelerated stalls as well as a stall-spin. After just one lesson my instincts in stall recovery were much stronger. Stalls are quite benign if handled properly. I feel that the aviation community needs to put more emphasis on this sort of training since very little time is spent on it in basic PPL training. This is truly a tragedy that could have been easily avoided.
Great point, thanks! I suppose that the takeaway from this is to get proper stall training in the type of craft which you will be flying? I had no idea about the stall characteristics of the aircraft you mentioned above till now.
Are you really getting any benefit out of a 172 that is so forgiving then move up to higher performance aircraft later on down the road which aren't forgiving and docile they catch a 2000 hour pilot by surprise in the pattern as it suddenly enters a spin because all he remembers was the 172?
That's my view of it as well. As a pilot its ultimately your responsibility to control your aircraft. Nothing ATC says should put you into a panic maneuver as you should've been scanning your immediate airspace already. Clearly no plane was an imminent threat for collision.
I've flown N611DA and I've done many approaches to that airport KMLB.Scary how easy it is for some pilots to make a wrong move.This whole thing could've been avoided.
At 2:21 the controller does say that he has to extend to follow another plane (cesna). He does only repeat the extend later, not the plane or sequencing. Sloppy yes, but the pilot should have been aware that other traffic was approaching. The clear to land should not have been given without a sequence though.
No he told him that he was supposed to have extended to follow the cirrus despite not specifying this so he just came in on a tight right base and came in ahead of the traffic he was supposed to follow so then the tower told him to cut it in tight for 19 right at that point because he had overtaken the cirrus and the aircraft were now way to close.
Zelda fan i understand but the controller should have just told him what he wanted him to do, not what he should have done, confused the shit out of him
A lot of blame to lay at his feet, however, at the end of the day one needs to maintain control of their aircraft at all times. The whole accident is unfortunate.
these videos are so interesting, really puts things into perspective about how being lucky, unlucky, smart, stupid all form 1 of a trillion results.Applies to alot of things in life
I’m confused. I’d interpret the controler's directions “Cut it in tight, cut it in tight!” to mean to execute a tight turn into a very short final and landing on 9er right witout delay. But, I’ll admit, I’ve never heard “cut it in” used as a flight instruction. So, exactly what did the controller mean? I also wonder about the pilot’s decision to pull up the nose of the aircraft. Obviously, he was ‘getting out of dodge’ as quickly as possible. That means speed is essential. Why would he raise the nose when everyone knows that slows the airplane down? Very odd.
vegasgeorge You pull the nose up in a tight turn to maintain altitude, otherwise because the lift is now directed at right angles to the wing angle, the aircraft will descend.
Outstanding series I learn a great deal with each one. In this case the mistakes are clear, hard to understand direction from the controller and a very odd movement on the part of the pilot. I agree with the summation, it’s my job to pilot the aircraft operating it in a safe manner, in this case the sudden and abrupt left turn against ATC direction doesn’t make sense. The pilot must have pictured himself in a dangerous situation and the left turn was the best way to avoid the situation. RIP all concerned
I am trying to learn something. By the time 4SR was cleared, wasn't it perfectly fine to fly the short approach with the base leg that close to the runway considering he was approved to land long? He was cleared to land and without the mentioning of the traffic there was no real reason for him to fly downwind, base then final or do I get something wrong? In my opinion the controller should have said something like "cleared to land, number 2 behind Cirrus on final behind, report in sight". In that case it would have been clear to continue on a downlind leg to sequence behind the traffic. Thank you for your response!
No amount of urgency in a controller's voice should be misunderstood as "exceed the envelope of controlled flight." If there was a collision, yes, the controller would have some responsibility. The controller did not tell him to to attempt a 4g turn against traffic. He clearly told him to come in sharp over the numbers once it was clear he broke the pattern and clearly told him the traffic was still a mile out. He should have used more of his eyes and ears and less jerky jerky on the yoke.
One of my instructors always told me, “Never let someone going 0 mph tell you to do something you don’t feel comfortable with.”
Never let someone with more knowledge Kill you, including instructors?
this is good advice.
💯 I don’t understand why some pilots don’t speak up and let the controllers know they are in an emergency! These controllers must also realize when they must declare an emergency for these pilots.
As a controller at a airport close to MLB with similar traffic I can't believe how poorly that controller worked that cirrus in. This video puts very much of the focus on the pilots fault when 90% of the vault is on the controller. Never sequenced the cirrus until it was too late.
Mr_ATC. After watching many of these I have noticed ATC is never said to be at fault.
Couldn't agree more. The controller lost the eight ball, for sure!
+Mr_ATC Just wondering if you ever wanted to learn to fly yourself. ATC needs more pilots working the control system, imo, If I had my way, all ATC personnel SHOULD be at the very minimum, at least Private pilot certified. I don't give a crap about privatization of atc, but I do think we need to have pilots, talking to pilots, in ATC.
Certainly it was poor ATC work. Still not responsible for the pilot cratering his plane into the ground. Nothing ATC says should cause you to immediately lose control of your plane.
Well, the ATC did sound as though a collision was imminent.
I was at the airport holding short when this accident happened and witnessed the aftermath. The airport was a lot busier than represented in the video and the controller was overwhelmed. There is a lot of flight training that happens at this airport and mistakes happen frequently. The controller was hit hard by what happened and you can hear it in his voice. The other controller that was on duty took over both tower and ground. It was a very somber day after witnessing such a tragedy.
Also Delta with no radar, don't rely to heavily on controllers to keep you safe.
I can only imagine what it would have been like.
I’m sure it was a very somber day knowing that ATC actually caused that tragedy. The controller essentially killed that guy.
Every student pilot should be made to watch this
@@sarahalbers5555 and student ATC's too
Panic is contagious. ATC gave an panic instruction so the pilot made a panic response.
@Terry Melvin they are as safe as the wing load, G forces and the pilots understanding of these elements of flight.
@ryan allemand -- They put a small vertical stabilizer to make it less demanding on crosswind landings.. But that, with a smaller rudder too, will make it harder to come out of spins..
The ATC did use a panicky voice when issuing his final instruction but that’s no reason for the pilot to enter what was almost an aerobatic procedure and also turn the wrong way. I am a pilot, I have left ATC waiting for 20 seconds once as I had to fly my plane as my first priority. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate is the correct sequence. I was at a critical stage of flight, and the call from ATC was a routine zone change, some pilots get hung up on the fact they must answer ATC immediately, this is NOT the case, also if it’s an emergency the ATC WILL state so and to follow said instructions but as long as you follow the instructions there is no need to overload yourself and rush a reply. The pilot of this Cirrus took his aircraft out of the envelope n that chute is NO GOOD below 500ft. The pilot in my view tried to cut what should of been a longer approach. Probably as stated due to being overfamiliar. No matter what anyone responds to if they do on this comment the one thing we will NEVER know is why the left turn and the the way he did it and why didn’t he turn right as instructed to do so. Shame no voice black boxes yet in GA as a simple recording device designed for GA can just be a simple thumb drive that is ruggedised n I can’t see it costing more than £100 ish to do. I always run GoPros so if anything happens I have it all on video and HD voice on any of the 3 I have running. Lastly yes the ATC did sound stern on his last instruction but I think that was more down to him thinking what the heck is this guy doing, i don’t think that ATC is to blame for this. It’s always a pilots responsibility to fly his aircraft as a first priority and he failed to do that.
That is why I admire ATC who remain calm and collective, even if things begin going wrong in the air. Simply just say "go around" or "maintain heading, climb to xxx". I do believe that if the controller would have said either of these, this accident would've been a lot less likely to happen.
@Terry Melvin No offense however this is an ignorant comment.
this gentleman does amazing voiceover work. 1 of the best.
Indeed - I missed hearing his voice in the latest case study episode.
He recently retired. (2024)
"controllers don't really control aircraft - pilots do"
I won't ever forget that.
+cjm2005 that was the best part of the video hahah
It definitely was
very wise words, this pilot should have heard these words.
Pretty much a given when flying in VMC conditions, only time ATC is truest responsible for aircraft separation is when handling IMC ops. This should’ve been drilled into the pilots mind long before receiving his student pilot permit let alone a PPL with 500 hrs and instrument rating.
Air Traffic Controllers controls traffic by directions, not aircrafts.
This was at my home airport few years ago, and when I recently started flight training, this incident had always haunted me. The people who passed were good friends, and made a small mistake that cost them their lives. If feeling unsafe or unsure, you are in control, not the controller.
You’re saying the pilot made a mistake? He was cleared to land plain and simple. ATC 95% to blame.
@@smaze1782 ATC made a mistake, but didn’t tell the pilot to get into an accelerated stall ya know. I 100% believe ATC was mostly to blame but he wasn’t the one flying.
Pilot always has 100% authority of the aircraft
This crash is typical of what we see from Cirrus pilots. A parachute can’t make up for poor airmanship. Funny that he’s in a verticals dive at 350 feet agl and the reaction was to pull the chute. Cirrus pilots that continue to rely on parachutes to make up for sub par skill will continue to end up at the bottom of smoking holes. #DarwinAtWotk.
I normally watch Mayday, Air Crash Investigation and other shows mostly about large commercial airline accidents and the videos run about 50 minutes or more depending on the subject/poster.
I was never that interested in watching any videos about smaller "putt-putt" planes as I call them. Especially when the videos were less than 30 minutes long. I would think to myself, "How could any accident be explained thoroughly and interestingly I'm that shirt of a time?"
I saw on the menu here on YT one of your videos and told myself I will try it, but not to expect much or be fulfilled....
I am hooked! 😊 They are well put-together shows! They hold my attention/interest and I always feel at the end that I was just as satisfied and fulfilled as having watch a regular 50 minute plus Mayday or similar video. I can't get enough of your videos! Love them! ❤ Thank you! Awesome, well put-together videos!!!! POST MORE!!! 😊
As a new student attempting to get my pilot's license, I've got to say... these videos are invaluable. Obviously, they do not take the place of instructor training, but they are great examples of the types of situations that can occur at any moment during a flight... and a reminder that vigilance towards your craft's current situation, attitude and limitations needs to be on the pilot's mind at all times. They are also a strong reminder that aviation is not a profession amenable for those who prefer taking shortcuts. It's unknown why this pilot seemed to be in such a hurry to land (especially since he was perfectly happy landing on the runway farthest from the general aviation ramp). However, had he flown a proper downwind-to-base entry, the other traffic already on final to his assigned runway, probably would have become more obvious to him (or the tower probably would have notified him of it) and, if so, he'd probably still be alive today. Again though... a great lesson for why Air Traffic Control can seem so tedious... because it's there to make the most dangerous part of flying (takeoff and landing) as safe as possible.
German student pilot here. I really like your comment. Nothing to add.
I'm a private pilot. This is the second video I just watched where the last communication from ATC included the word "tight" in a panic stricken voice. Both cases resulted in Stall/Spin scenarios and tragedy. The other video was the young lady flying from Oklahoma to Texas (Houston, maybe? Don't remember now) with her husband and brother on board, also a Cirrus. Watch both videos. Very similar situations, identical results. Anyway, at such a critical time of flight where the margin of error is so minuscule for a pilot, any instructions from ATC (i.e. Tight, sharpen, shorten, etc) that would potentially REDUCE those already minuscule margins should be strictly forbidden. "If" a controller is to alter a pilots path, intentions or positioning, I would think "add power, continue north" or "stay straight and level for a new sequence" or "climb at current heading" or "runway clearance canceled, expedite climb on heading ***" would work just as well, maybe better. I don't mean to be a Monday morning quarterback for this case or the people involved. I'm just thinking that instructions given at these critical moments need to be instructions that favor the increased performance of the aircraft involved, never risking the potential for a decrease in the performance.
Well said. Thanks.
A more appropriate phraseology that I've heard out of our local controllers (who are pretty awesome) when they need someone already cleared to hurry the hell up is "N1234, proceed direct to the numbers, no delay, Learjet inbound IFR on five mile final". I've actually been in this position but my Cherokee is just too damned slow.....so right as I was finishing my turn to base, and the Lear turned out to be coming in REALLY hot, the controller simply told me to "turn runway heading immediately and go around sidestep right".
Yes, it's the first thing I thought of. Here's that video--painful to listen to: th-cam.com/video/mf3xhjXl454/w-d-xo.html
And since I pulled that one up, this one also came up re. a Cirrus stall/spin: th-cam.com/video/7nm_hoHhbFo/w-d-xo.html .
Makes me wonder: could there perhaps be a slight tendency for pilots of fast, maneuverable planes with a lot of hp to go into overconfidence concerning the possibility for error at low altitude? Meaning the guard gets let down just enough that a distraction can lead to quick, impulsive inputs? Just a thought.
@@jmiq I sometimes wonder if newer pilots believe ATC personnel are necessarily certified pilots themselves? The fact that this crash and the Hobby, TX crash had extremely similar pilot/ATC interactions has to be indicative of something other than a lack of pilot proficiency, especially considering both pilots' adequate familiarity with their aircraft. Both pilots appear to allow ATC to either lead or disrupt their intended approaches, attempting to follow confusing ATC instructions, & resulting in unusual & dangerous flight maneuvers. At some point it appears that both pilots had a greater fear of the "authority" of ATC to the point of not actually "flying" their aircraft. Do you suppose the Cirrus attracts or propagates pilots with less assertiveness than those of us who have flown more complicated, older GA aircraft? Although I don't know any Cirrus pilots personally, my son, also a pilot of his own 64 Mooney 20C, does. He says his impression of the Cirrus and its pilots is that they are more like "drivers of flying cars" rather than your standard "aviators".
I see this a lot with modern automobiles which have so many "safety" features that the drivers have become relatively passive in operating their cars. Aviation has always, in my opinion, required a relatively assertive attitude on the part of the PIC, without the need to actually be aggressive. This is not such a common trait among automobile drivers, and is often discouraged nowadays as "aggressive driving". Is this trend creeping into GA along with a fear of ATC authority? Does the Cirrus attract less assertive "driver" types due to its presumed "safety and simplicity of operation"? The parallels between this and other Cirrus crashes lead me toward that very inclination. Would you agree or disagree?
@@gravesclayton3604 Good questions.
I learned to fly in England, and this scenario has always worried me when flying in the US. When I learned to fly in the UK no more than one runway operation was permitted at a time. Put another way, when you received "cleared to land" no other aircraft would be cleared to land, depart or cross the runway till you were clear. If you were close behind another airplane, or landing behind an impending departure you might be told to "expect late landing clearance" but when "cleared to land" the runway was all yours. Here, the controller had cleared at least two airplanes to land without ensuring the relevant pilots knew the order. I don't understand the logic in clearing more than one airplane to land at a time because it sets up a default accident scenario. For example, if an aircraft is cleared to land while 5 mile final and there is a an aircraft ahead what happens if that airplane crashes on the runway or gets disabled. The second aircraft is entitled, indeed expected to land on top of him. Far better for the second airplane to inquire on short final about his clearance, or without a clearance just initiate a go around.
Your Accident Case Studies are all GREAT! Please do more! I'm learning a lot!
I hate to say this but it is best to learn by other peoples mistakes, especially if it is a fatal mistake, and if it's a fatal mistake the only good thing that can come from that is knowledge.RIP. if you are a young pilot that learned something from this, it might be one of the things that keeps you safe.
Based on what the controller said, and his tone, I think I would have considered it a "panic turn" as well, or at least that a collision was imminent.
Eric Taylor
I am with you, also wtf was extend but turn right to the runway all about
@@coolhari2000 - Sierra Romeo was not cleared for a base leg entry to the pattern. ATC expected him to call on downwind leg. ATC thought he was bit further away on and able to do a 270 to join the downwind leg and let the other Cirrus land first as he was clear to land too and was on a straight in. I dont think ATC caused this accident, it was Sierra Romeo cutting corners, getting in front of the other airplane and then stalled it when had to do a low turning go around that he fucked up..
@@feetgoaroundfullflapsC Shouldn't have just cleared him to land then.
@@che3se1495 - Yeah.. that might have prompted Sierra Romeo to enter the base leg instead of the downwind leg. But then he stalled the airplane. No Bueno for a pilot to do that under 2,000 feet. He panicked and stalled it.
@@feetgoaroundfullflapsC He panicked because of ATC sounding like a mid air collision was about to happen.
"Tower, did you see that?"
"I did.."
The tone of voice in this audio snippet is heartbreaking.
So sad, you can tell the controller is blaming himself
Tower could have also said that he is number 2 for landing
"could have"? It was absolutely mandatory in my opinion.
Yes! How are you gonna clear somebody to land following landing traffic and never tell em that?!?
He maybe also should advice 4SR to the traffic and get him to maintain visual seperation
@Jose Omar, Coulda, woulda, shoulda. It doesn’t matter. ATC doesn’t control the aircraft, the pilot does.
@@joeleeman9886 mandatory? Based upon what regulation?
As one who is smitten with all things aeronautic, even though I don't like to fly, I find TH-cam channels such as this one fascinating and the only ones where the postings below can be just as informative as the video itself. It's obvious that some serious and knowledgeable people watch and comment on these, even when they differ.
I happen to love aviation myself but I agree that the comments on some of these videos can be as interesting if not more than the video itself!
@@ianutube22 Yeah, the comments often include a healthy debate about what could be improved. That's the whole point of these videos. Improving the skills of pilots and ATC.
He turned left because ATC came back with "I needed you to extend your final" "Cut it in sharp now for 9" It's easy to imagine under stress interpreting that as an instruction to turn sharply and extend the final.
Entelin I interrupted it in real time as cut in tight to the runway and land. No idea why he would turn left?
I’m a pre-student pilot following analyses like this to learn what I’m getting myself into. On the video I found it confusing, too, when the controller said to extend but then said cut tight for 9R. Said cut tight twice as a matter fact. I probably would have focused on the “cut... for 9R” portion. And tight might sound like right. So, even though 9L is active it would seem that continuing at a 90 degree angle to the traffic would get our subject out of the way fastest. It is interesting to read the comments from everyone because I initially bought the analysis and put a lot of responsibility on the pilot, but now I think the only thing he did wrong was to over maneuver his craft and maybe not do a visual check of the approach. And I don’t know protocol, but when someone in another comment said they would have landed anyway because tower had given clearance, that doesn’t make sense to me. I can see disobeying a course of flight before disobeying an aborted landing instruction. Both are dangerous but the runway is where everyone is flying to, whereas there is more room in the sky to seek safety. Seems pretty easy to make mistakes. I’ve taken to heart the recommendation of my instructor and of a commercial pilot friend... you need to be out there flying twice a week to learn and remain proficiency. Perishable skills. Another observation as an outsider, I think instructions are given way too fast, and it seems like an ego thing to be able to do it that fast or for overworked controllers trying to cram more work into less space. I often listen to the news and 1.5x or 2x speed, but I get a lot more out of it a 1x. Again, just an outsider’s perspective. Thank you all for the great comments.
@@markcoveryourassets I think your priority should be to stay alive and saying the only thing the pilot did wrong was to over maneuver the aircraft is saying the thing that killed the pilot was a small mistake when in fact that was the only mistake he made that killed himself. none of any of these mistakes or miscommunications killed the occupants of that aircraft, the only thing that killed them was spinning in from 500ft. and that the plane was not flying when it hit the ground, it was the responsibility of the pilot to keep the plane flying, he failed to do so and that is the lesson to be learned here!
that is my interpretation of this disastrous event!
@Jesus Christ I accept your opinion but I believe loosing control of the A/C is going to lead to an unrecoverable stall close to ground which is an occurrence that not many pilots can recover from, what usually happens with stalls and spins on the circuit is that the A/C reaches A high speed before impact, pilots need to be aware that a spin stall situation on the circuit is certainly the worst possible situation and is not survivable.
@Jesus Christ Dude, I don’t even remember this video lol...
Worked a class D tower for years with traffic like this. Absolutely the controller's fault. I don't care what anybody says. There are two ways to handle this... "N4SR extend downwind. Number 2 to follow traffic one mile final RWY 9R, I'll call your base."
OR
..the way I would've done it..
"N4SR extend downwind number two to follow traffic one mile final RWY 9R, report traffic in sight."
"in sight"
"N4SR base to follow that traffic, RWY 9R cleared to land number 2"
This was so piss poorly handled by this controller. This is basics in sequencing 101. I don't care if somebody is short final, I'm calling another a/c's sequence with that plane. It creates awareness for all involved, and allows pilots to make the best decisions possible about how to fly their pattern. I don't make absolute statements that often but "I assumed...." is a statement a controller should NEVER make.
Yep. This is the controller's side of it. Link number one in the accident chain.
While I agree that the controller has a share of the fault, pilots are the ones who are taught to trust, but verify. Had that been me, I would have aborted the approach and started climbing where I would turn final and told ATC, "Unable, going around 9R, 4 Sierra Romeo" I certainly wouldn't have made a seriously abrupt turn like that. That's just asking for trouble.
I don't cut anything tight when I'm on base approach unless I've been told this from downwind. If I'm doing a regular approach and on short base and all of a sudden hear "Cut it in tight", I'm declaring missed approach and immediately climbing.
Thank god for ADS-B though. I got myself a receiver and I was heading out to a Charlie airport and noticed this plane that had done a previous touch and go was heading directly towards me. ~5 miles away. I saw this and immediately turned 45 degrees to the right and figured the heading would be decent enough to avoid him. Got a call a couple minutes later that he was heading straight towards me. ADS-B also proved it to be right so then i got on the radio and told them I was making a 90 degree turn to the left . I did that to not only alert ATC what my intenions are but to ensure the plane infront of me wasn't about to do the same thing I was doing like he did previously. Told me to do it at my discretion. Luckily no one else in the area but yeah...pilots have to learn not to be afraid to take command in controlled airspace. Especially in my case when there's obviously the potential of a midair and ATC is basically turning into flight following at their own airspace.
the pilot is the one flying the plane not the controller. the pilot is the one that flew into the ground so YOU ARE WRONG.
Oh wow. Maybe if we had more skateboard punks working class D towers then everything will be ok.
As a pilot you have to be ready for everything. Including missed approaches. I've seen other accidents on the Cirrus I guess it's a bit of a hot plane. If you unload the flaps in a steep turn your stall speed increases thus the wing drop.
Nothing annoys me more than when someone says, in an emergency situation, "you should have ..." or, as in the is case "I needed you to...". FFS, just give a clear and concise instruction of what needs to be done, then have that conversation later.
Indeed. It's very clear what happened here - the pilot interpreted "I NEEDED you to extend" as "I NEED you to extend" and did exactly that - it's very difficult to hear the difference between the two without subtitles.
This. This is all safety communication, and that's about the now and the immediate future, and that is where ATC's and pilot's minds should be focussed. Debating what happened, even at best, does not contribute to this.
The terror in the controller's voice as the accident occurred petrifies me. This series and especially videos such as this humble me as a pilot to consider all circumstances and viewpoints unto which accidents occur. RIP to the pilots and passengers.
"we answer to ourselves, and to the passengers who entrust their lives to us"
ill always remember that
This channel is amazing and have been so ahead of its time.
I'm not a pilot but I'd assume when a controller says "cleared to land" that the runway is mine. Clearly the controller should have articulated his expectation that 4SR follow the Cirrus already on final. What an unnecessary and avoidable accident.
I hate that people have died but I appreciate these videos and the careful analysis given to what happened in each case. I've considered getting my PPL when cashflow will allow it and the lessons learned here will definitely be remembered if I pursue it.
You’d be correct.
Just two words missing are the key to this controller's failure. Runway 9R NUMBER TWO cleared to land. Yes, the pilot maneuvered incorrectly, but the conditions were created by the controller's complete failure to sequence and communicate appropriately. Two more words would have worked - "Go around." This video had me yelling at the screen in frustration. Truly tragic.
The way the ATC repeated "Tight!" twice in a panicky voice made the pilot react without thinking. ATC made it sound like a propeller from another plane was about to cut through the cockpit even though they still had a mile of clearance. However, the ATC sounded complacent, like he was really burned out with his job.
how many time have we heard "keep it tight" or similar, in stall/spin crashes? i dare say if a controller feels the need to utter that phrase he/she needs to instead say GO AROUND
I know of at least one other video from this channel with ATC asking the pilots to do a tight turn and resulting in a deadly crash. This controller was horrible.
“Cirrus 4SR, your #2, runway 9 right cleared to land, traffic is a cirrus on a 1 mile final.”
Or
“Cirrus 4SR, extend your downwind I’ll call your base, traffic is a cirrus on a 1 mile final”
100%agree
"Nothing short of a imminent mid-air collision can justify the maneuver attempted." That's exactly what ATC said was about to occur!
Yup. That ATC was clueless during this landing and even more so when interviewed afterwards. Hopefully he's nowhere near that tower anymore.
ATC STALLED THAT AIRPLANE. Remote control did it.
The Pilot crashed the plane...no skilled pilot makes abrupt dangerous maneuvers cause of an ATC request. ATC was awful here but he didn’t crash the plane. The pilot did.
Years ago, in my youth I worked as a firefighter/paramedic in a county fire department with a small uncontrolled airport. I really wanted to get my pilots license. I spoke with the FBO about it and even started ground school with him. We had a plane crash about a mile from the runway. He and I discussed it at length about what caused it. That's when he advised me to look within myself and ask this question, " will I do it right every single time, go through all the check lists, never cut corners, never hot dog, know my limitations and never exceed them? " He was great, refunded me my money. I love aviation and I think these videos are incredibly valuable. I never became a pilot, I leave that to the men and women who can answer that question with a yes.
"the contrller felt it unnecessary to state a landing sequence"....hmmmm
This whole thing could have likely been avoided with a simple "...number two following the [aircraft on final] in the landing [pre]clearance"... A true travesty.
Agreed
That is exactly why I never understood the american habit of issuing landing clearances on runways that aren't free. In europe (and most of the world) you can't have two landing clearances active on any one runway at the same time. The preceeding aircraft has to vacate the runway before you can issue the next "cleared to land" command. Because "cleared to land" basically means "runway's all yours, buddy", it's just so dangerous to issue that with an addendum like "after that other plane, though"...
I've never heard them do it like the controller in this video did. Normally you'd hear "#2 cleared to land" or "cleared to land following the other cirrus" or "#2 cleared to land following the cirrus". Never heard a controller give an instruction like this without mentioning the other landing traffic ahead.
The controller's sequencing didn't make sense either, maybe he had a bad understanding of where the traffic on the straight in really was. Normally in that situation you'd expect the accident aircraft cleared first OR the controller to have the accident aircraft extend downwind and land #2. I have seen things like this before, a lot of these small class D fields don't have radar and the controllers often will send the pilots to places/pattern entries that don't really make a lot of sense.
Contract twr with retired lazy controller just there to make a buc. I see them all go out the door, could care less by the end of their career and then get these contract twr jobs that are Cush so they can enjoy a huge retirement pension and work nearly part time for a large check. We have a retirement date for a reason that we cannot work past. These dudes are lazy and have poor phraseology. (FAA controller/Commercial Pilot)
No, pilot failed his #1 responsibility, fly the plane regardless of what is going.
Clearly100% pilot screwup ending his life.
The controllers are not fly the plane the pilots are. Again 100% pilot error....
I know that at my home airport it is indeed standard practice to clear multiple aircraft for landing in sequence on the same runway. But the simple call by ATC for "number 2 behind traffic on one mile final" could've prevented this whole accident. ridiculous.
You know what ultimately would've prevented this whole accident? The pilot controlling his plane no matter what ATC said to him. Clearance to land does not give you clearance to stop paying attention to what's going on around you.
I try not to rush to judgemen in thise cases its the unknown that might be missed
@@MegaTechpc True, but human beings aren't perfect. The pilot is only one ling in the chain of events that led up to the accident. One could say that this accident wouldn't have happened had the controller issued a more precise instruction just as easily.
MegaTechpc To be honest if the controller didnt specify that i’m number 2 or theres a plane on final, i’ll assume i’m number 1 since im cleared to land. Even if you are looking out, it can be hard to detect other planes especially if youare configuring to land late downwind or base. If ATC says tight turn and I have no idea where the other plane is, hell yeah im gonna make that turn tight as possible. Cant just blame the pilot just because he is in control of the plane. It is the ATC’s job to maintain separation unless we have visually established the traffic in concern.
@@gnsgml11 But that's not what caused the accident. This was not a midair, or even a near miss from the look of it. "But for the controller's horrible communications," the plane would not have crashed. "But for his parents making a baby," the plane would not have crashed. It's part of the chain, but the pilot over-controlled his plane and spun it in the traffic pattern. Student pilots are taught not to do that in ground school.
If you assumed you were #1 to land in this case, and you landed, there would have been no accident. (Traffic was still a mile out.) This was not a midair. This pilot died precisely because he didn't do what you suggest he should have done. Instead he pulled a crazy maneuver that was contrary to our most basic training as pilots.
Unless there's been a change I don't know about, it's the VFR pilot's responsibility, not the controller's, to see and avoid traffic in the pattern. But again, that's irrelevant because this was not a midair.
We had a similar accident at KPNE years ago. Student pilot and CFI on board. Practicing touch and go. Right after touching and going up again the controller told the pilot: “when able turn right close traffic” apparently the student pilot assumed tower said “turn close traffic NOW” and he started turning abruptly to the right at very low altitude. Unfortunately the CFI was not in position to overtake control and the airplane crashed in a similar way as this one did. We have to learn from this and not let pressure like this overcome our normal sense. Practice listening to tower comunications. Most of the time you don’t have to act right now. Listen, think then act.
The irony here is if the two Cirruses had collided we'd all be 100% in agreement the tower was ultimately at fault. But because the pilot stuffed it, we're ultimately blaming the pilot. Somehow our blame changes by outcome, despite same faults leading to it.
Don't say "we're ultimately blaming the pilot". I'm a pilot and I place the blame squarely on the ATC.
Leggo My Ego, true. It seems many in the comments agree with you as well. It’s the videos narrator that places the majority of blame (unjustly many here contest) on the pilot.
...because the pilot failed to fly the plane with safe design parameters it's the pilots fault, clearly.
its hard to keep a safe patern when atc shout "cut tight" at you like you're about to colide mid air any second @@airgliderz
@@instawarlock1155 no, you still have to maintain flying the plane withing known design parameters. Clearly this pilot did not fly the plane properly or manage the controllers request, another clear pilot requirement. All resulting in the loss of Control of the plane caused directly by the pilot... Clearly pilot error is loss of control and managing the controllers. All clearly pilots poor flying skills and poorly managing the flight skills, stupidity, arrogance, and over confidence with poor piloting skills killed this pilot. As another airline pilot witness called it a surprising hot dogging maneuver, the again pilot stupidity/ego/arrigance and total lack of responsibility.
I am a student pilot ultralight (Belgium) and I have started to watch this channel. It scares me a lot and that is a good thing.
High aspect ratio wing high speed stalls again. If you own a Cirrus, Lancair, Glassair you must be constantly vigilant to avoid any sudden pitch changes especially at any lower speeds. These wings, although great for high speed travel, are very susceptible to high speed stalls with a wicked roll to follow. After the stall it takes a lot more altitude to recover than a wing with lower aspect ratio. Caution in the pattern always. ALWAYS. Be patient. No good thing comes from hasty maneuvers.
Very informative. So What planes have low aspect ratios wings?
@@charlibravo371 Piper Cherokee 160,180, with a constant chord.
Great point! 🤔
This is actually a good commentary, I liked it. Thanks for creating.
The tower first said that he needed the plane to extend the downwind which would require the pilot to go left and continue the downwind. Then the tower said in a hurried voice to cut it in tight. Confusing. I think the pilot was locked on to the first statement and planed to go behind the plane on final.
There was no mention of ATC's use of the word "needed". Many ATC will profusely use the phrase "I need you to..." followed by their instruction. That is fairly normal. ATC here decided to focus on what the pilot had previously been instructed to do, then gave them a new instruction in the opposite direction saying "Cut it in close for". In this case the Pilot's left turn can be explained if the pilot interpreted "Needed" to be the word "Need".
The choice of ATC to chide the pilot first before providing his subsequent instruction contributed to this accident in my opinion.
I was always told in my flight training: The ATC doesn't fly the plane. You do. That ATC may have big picture resolution, but they aren't aware of your payload and can't see your instruments. The way I look at it, its the controller's fault that the situation happened in the first place, but the actual accident is the pilot's fault for making a turn that put him into an unrecoverable position so close to the ground. However, the urgency in the controller's voice might have suggested to the pilot that a much more dangerous situation existed and that collision was imminent. As mentioned, lots of contributing issues. A real shame.
"Familiarity breeds contempt and that's a dangerous thing with airplanes." Crrraaaazzzzyy! Mad Heart to those who spread their wings in the first place. Ultimate teaching tool!
He was cleared to land... this falls on the controller for starting the accident , but the pilot in the end made the final mistake that could have avoided the crash... could have been avoided
I had two instances where I questioned a controller's communication. Once at Concord airport in California. The airport was very busy. It did not appear to me that the controller was providing proper separation between the airplanes in the pattern. I left the pattern and came back in 15 minutes. I later talephoned the tower, they said they do not provide separation, that is up to the pilot. It is very important to know what to expect and what you can not expect from a controller. I suspect there needs to be a lot more clarity on this in flight training.
The second case was at Livermore airport. There were several airplanes in and around the pattern. The controller was careful to call out the location of airplanes approaching the airport and in the pattern. I remember the situation as 1 airplane on long final, how long was not clear. I was on downwind just past the approach end of the runway. The controller notified me I was cleared to land. Not cleared to land number 2, cleared to land. I was a bit new to flying and that indicated to me that I should land before the ariplane on long final. Given how precise the controller had been up to that point, the instructions seemed clear. That was a bad call from the controller. My flight path was much like this case, applying full throttle and turning left to continue downwind. This put me very close to right final. The controller then instructed me to turn back to base and land on the left runway instead of the right, crossing the right runway's final.
The problem I see is that we are taught to follow the controller's instructions. At some point you do learn that you are pilot in command. You can question the controller's instructions if the situation is unsafe. Frankly, this does not excuse a controller from deviating away from a common set of instructions. Cleared for takeoff, hold short, line up and wait, clear to land, cleared to land - number 2. I have had cases where a controller has fit me in before an airplane on long final. Communication is very important, controllers are trained professionals and should conduct themselves accordingly, without ambiguity.
In this video, the controller communicated instructions that were plainly incorrect. "Cleared to Land", "Cut in tight now, cut in tight for Nine Right". The pilot followed those instructions with the urgency conveyed by the controller, including making a sharp turn when told to do so. While there is clearly an attempt to say the pilot holds some of the responsibility in this case, I feel it was entirely on the controller. Bad instructions from the controller, bad follow through from the controller, bad end result. Just as the pilot needs to have a picture and plan, so must the controller. Given the controller has the veneer of authority, they must also be ready for the unexpected when failing to be exact.
The pilot might be ultimately responsible, but you won't convince me that ATC didn't contribute. The controller sounds very uncomfortable handling traffic.
In the early '70s there were two Cessna 210s with tail numbers that differed only in the last digit and identical liveries based at the Oakland (CA) airport. I once listened to tower trying to keep them clear in his mind as both were on approach at the time.
I'm not a pilot, but if ATC gives me a "cleared to land", doesn't that mean I'm the next one on the runway?
No, you can be cleared to land after other traffic
No but normally they will give you a number if you are not the first person to land. Also a lot time tower will tell what and where the traffic is
IE
TWR: 4SR traffic is a SR 22 on final, you are number 2 clear to land RWY 11L
Or
TWR: 4SR traffic is a SR 22 on 3 miles final for 11C, clear to land RWY 11L
That's what I thought too, I don't know how it's done in the US, but here in Iceland you do not get a landing clearance until you are "CLEAR" to land, meaning you are number 1 for the runway, the runway and approach is clear for other traffic. Clear to land means exactly that, you are cleared to land, and it's prohibited for ATC to clear two seperate aircrafts for landing simultaneously. If there is another aircraft on approach, you are number two after traffic on final, if there are two aircrafts on approach, you are number three after traffic on final / Downwind / Baseleg whatever it is and you DO NOT GET CLEARED TO LAND until you are number one for landing and other aircraft are clear off the runway
I've had a very late landing clearance because of this, I was over the runway threshold some 50 feet above the runway, another aircraft was finishing vacating the runway, it wasn't until the aircraft was on the taxiway and off the runway that I got Cleared to Land.
I'm sure I would've assumed, if I was that pilot, and ATC gave me a clearance to land, that I am number one for runway 9R. Since he never specified that another aircraft was on final for the runway I'm cleared to land on.
The ATC also gives the pilot absolutely useless information, "I am very busy right now" and telling him what he 'thinks' what taxi clearance he's going to give him before he lands. If the pattern is full or the airport is busy, then make the traffic do an orbit over a specific point, and give the aircraft taxi clearance AFTER he's landed. This is pisspoor managing by ATC.
No. At LAX when you check in with Tower, they clear you to land shortly after. I've mentioned it to ATC when I was an FAA Accient Investigator and they blew me off.
But you are PIC and responsible for the aircraft, not ATC.
Hey I have been flying since i was 22 and i am 58 Most instructors even now discourage going into class B airspace, because it is too busy..... If you are going to make long cross country trips you do not need to be afraid of that...... So to me one of the biggest issues in the industry of training is show and doing at least 3 long cross country at least 300 NM... Showing the new pilot what to expect and that it is not that hard... get them used and unafraid of busy airport traffic... Also how to get from Airport to restaurant... how to pick airports for fuel and food..... then the most important thing the weather changes and learn you can always wait for a clearing...
The controller cleared him to land knowing another plane was on final and cleared to land it was the controllers fault. Period.
GBigs Angle this happens all the time, that's why there is standard traffic patterns and spacing. Being a pilot and airport worker it was in my opinion miscommunication chain of events that led to the accident.
This does not happen all the time. A clearance to land is absolute...it is not a suggestion. You may not approach to land without a clearance. ATC will queue planes, "you are second, cleared to land behind the Cirrus" but that was not done here. The controller simply gave them each a clearance to land and killed people.
GBigs Angle Exactly. "cleared to land #2 behind a cirrus on a 1 mile final. report aircraft in sight." heard it a million times. the controller fucked up, and the pilots didn't catch the mistake. It was a noob error to make on the pilots part, but not absurd
A lot of things could have been differently it's obvious why the video is called communication breakdown controller is confused who is talking to the pilot assumes the collision is about to happen below him so he cuts left he can't see directly below him low wing aircraft. The controller should have just told him to abort landing and proceed back into the pattern right or left whichever.
While the controller definitely contributed, I still have no idea why the pilot's response was to enter a maneuver like that. While ATC certainly made mistakes and added confusion to the situation, ATC did not make the pilot pull left so abruptly that he crashed.
These videos are very well done, plenty of food for thought.
Never has an air traffic controller been more at fault .. wow
When it is clearly the pilot at fault, everyone is even in their responses, that it was a tragic accident and a good learning experience. I think we should extend the same respect to the air traffic controller who obviously did this without malice and has to deal with the aftermath as well.
Another Cirrus pilot?
The urgency in the controllers voice made him think he was closer than he really was.
This channel has taught me to stay far away from Cirrus aircraft.
Wogden 700 i may be an idiot but at least i'm a living idiot.
The sadistic controller has blood on his hands!!!!
I was an instructor based at Melbourne, and was on the ground at the airport that day.... Spoke with the guy who said "Tower did you see that?" right after he landed. Never in a million years did I think the tower had not sequenced either of the two aircraft. This is the first time since that day I am seeing this and my blood is boiling.
Why did the pilot have a panicked response?? Any pilot with experience on the low end could have such a panic given the controller's tone.... but this and one other controller at Melbourne were famous (no idea about now) back in the day all over Florida.... Experienced pilots used to avoid flying in because of the two controllers who got heir kicks by making life miserable for all including students... They would at times even mock in thinly veiled transmissions and often made the students feel like crap while pretending to be the best thing since sliced bread....we had a large number of foreign students which meant less than perfect English.... I have to say both the concerned controllers were usually (not always) correct, and good at managing the extraordinary amount of traffic that airport was often bombarded with .... but these two lived to make the lives of other miserable and were hated across the pilot spectrum and from what I had heard not very well liked even among their peers.
I don't remember hearing about any repercussions in the aftermath of this accident and that is making me even more angry. From all counts the pilot was a very nice, humble and generous member of the society well liked by all.... RIP.... I had no idea the controller who knew better caused it by habit.... By the time this happened, this accident had been in the making for quite some time.
Anyone investigating this could not possibly have missed the reputation these two controllers had. I know these videos tend to be not too harsh with individuals but by not presenting this recurring side of the controller's behavior , it keeps the viewers in the dark about things that should be foremost when discussing this accident.
"tower, did you see how you contributed to that pilot's death?"
rustyroo82
Did tower tell pilot to do a tail spin? Pilots shouldn’t be so ramified on the controls. Especially when turning left while adding power. That’s basic private pilot stuff.
tie oneon
Yes. I wasn’t there but yes. In order to make an abrupt turn to left, a pilot needs to bank left while adding back (up) elevator and left rudder. If all of that is done too abruptly at too low of airspeed with heavy payload @ aft CG, and high power setting (high torque) then yes, the airplane will be on the verge of a stall immediately followed by a diving tailspin. And that’s not a good thing to do at low altitude. Professional (high time) pilots don’t “jerk” their planes around. It’s usually the newbies. Also, as a pilot, you don’t have to do EVERYTHING the controller tells you to do. You’re still the captain of your own ship. If you listen to the controller there around 6:50 he’s saying “cut it in tight now, cut it in tight!” Well, that’s not a good thing to tell a low time pilot in a high performance aircraft. Not saying it was the controller’s fault. The pilot is responsible for safety of the flight. End of story.
@tie oneon there are many links in the chain,if one fails you may go down in a blaze of glory.
Tower: "I Did"
M Detlef exactly, fire that fool
Wow melbourne airport is where i started my flight training. Ive heard about this crash before but this video really suprised me.
When you clear an aircraft to land you're allowing him to make whatever approach he'd like. Only clear an airplane to land when you don't need him to extend the downwind!
Absolutely. The pilot overreacted, and is of course directly responsible for the accident (#1 rule: fly the damned plane), but the controller didn't tell him to sequence behind the guy on final. It's debatable whether the crash pilot even knew there WAS someone on final until the controller flipped out on him.
It's good to watch these things looking for "what would I do differently if I were in that situation." I think I'd have just turned right and landed as I planned, especially since the FBO was at the end of the runway. Just land long and get down there to the taxiway by the FBO. My logic would be "I was given clearance and there was nobody on the runway. I have no idea what the clown in the tower is blathering about, but by God I was given clearance, there's nobody on the runway, and I'm about 500 feet from turning short final, so that's what I'm doing." If the sequencing is screwed up, that's the controller's problem and the other pilot should see me on the runway and go around anyway.
Completely untrue. Read the AIM.
Yeah. Taking initiative is the thing to do. Whether it's to land and force someone else to go around or to initiate a go around yourself, any decision is better than to follow blindly.
He is completely right. Once the controller gives "clear to land", the runway is promised only to him. Whether he will go on short final or extend downwind, that is up to the pilot, whatever the case nobody can land or takeoff from that promised runway until he lands. Once the pilot receives clearance to land he can turn off the radio for all he cares, and shouldn't worry about anything else.
I'd do the mid downwind first, because it wasn't aborted. But I'd agree with that that the ATC was freakin' the pilot.
These videos are so well done and very informative but after watching so many of them, I am going to stick to sailing.
wow. 60 degree bank, low altitude, very scary stuff. My sympathies to all involved
He could have stayed in the circuit till things got sorted out i think
im and experienced pilot with 400 hrs on a tail dragger super cum
Hearing Air Force One setting up an approach is always interesting. Just the tone of voices makes it eminently clear as to whose in charge.
It's very clear what happened here - the pilot interpreted "I NEEDED you to extend" as "I NEED you to extend" and did exactly that - it's very difficult to hear the difference between the two without subtitles.
In the panic of the moment, induced by the controller's poor panic-stricken communication, he made too abrupt of a manoeuvre - something that anybody is susceptible to when they are in an aircraft as opposed to their armchair, and put the aircraft into a spin.
Humility protects against humiliation, and this applies to the armchair critics blaming the pilot. Anyone could have sadly made this mistake. We do not know precisely what we are INCAPABLE of when put into a high stress situation. We are not the same person- our primal brain takes over.
My first instructor, Old Ray Jourdan used to tell me to get stable on downwind and ask the controller to always call my base (stay away from Class B in small GA craft unless you have important business there). ATC doesn't mind doing this. Seriously cuts down on confusion. I can take that decision out of my cockpit, and concentrate on PPT, and watching for traffic.
he cleared to land without mentioning the aircraft before him?, honestly I know I learned in KASH with some of the best controllers in the country but still I've never seen landing approval without a number unless you were number 1.
Just some thoughts on how safe it is to clear several aircraft for landing at the same time.
Being new to flying in the US, I noticed that controllers can give a landing clearance quite early, even when the preceding traffic has not landed or cleared the RWY. In Europe, a GA aircraft would typically never get a landing clearance if they're not no. 1 in the pattern or if the RWY is still busy. Here, the pilot seems to have understood the landing clearance as if he could just “proceed for landing” and tbf, considering his position and that he ignored that he was in fact no. 2 for landing, I would've probably done the same ie. joining the base leg upon getting the landing clearance… Happy to have anyone’s insights on this.
Thanks ASI for these thorough analyses!
At a local airport that I fly out of frequently, a usual pattern of conduct with the controllers is to issue the "cleared to land" when you are not #1 for landing. You'll be given instructions like ", number 2 following the Cessna on base, cleared to land". While this is technically correct, I would actually prefer that they say something like ", number 2 following the Cessna on base". Then at the appropriate time, when the leading aircraft has cleared the runway, be issued the "cleared to land" instruction. As I seem to remember when I was getting my private in the mid-80's, this latter protocol was the one that was followed. Anyone else have similar experiences?
I absolutely agree. In 500 landings in the UK I have only ever been cleared to land when I am #1. When there is traffic ahead I am given different instructions by ATC such as "[callsign]report on final" and if on final I am still not #1 I would expect "[callsign] Continue approach" until the runway is clear, and if I get too close without clearance either I or the controller will decide on a go-around. This case is tragic and I have to say I find US controllers using a much wider and therefore often more vague range of language that is used in the UK. In the UK we have a strictly defined set of phrases that can be used as set out in the Radiotelephony Manual and this leads to much less confusion. publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=6973
+Howard Graff I think that is true in the whole of the EU. You won't get a cleared to land when you're not no 1. You seldom get a cleared to land before you report final.
CPL student pilot in New Zealand and never been cleared to land while Im number 2. Always instructed to follow then on final I’ll be given clearance to land
In 50 years of flying, most of it as a professional pilot I don’t ever recall being cleared to land when I wasn’t the aircraft number one to land.
Totally awesome landing. No room for error landing on a carrier. I appreciate the skill of this pilot, his dedication and his ability to put his plane exactly where he wants it. Fabulous video!
When my wife tells me I forgot my wallet on the counter, I don't jerk the steering wheel to the left and flip the car over.
I do
@@afkgregme as well
Based on the controller's instruction, I think I would have also made a left turn. He said: "I need you to extend to FOLLOW the Cirrus out there on mile final." Since the pilot was about to cut in front of the other Cirrus, he made a quick left in an attempt to go outbound and allow the other plane to land first. The controller then gave what was, to me, a conflicting instruction to "cut it in tight now, cut it in tight for Nine Right" which I took to mean make a tight right turn and land immediately (in front of the other Cirrus). The crash was already in motion so that instruction was never followed. It seems in a matter of seconds the ATC changed his mind on which plane he wanted to land first. He was confused, the pilot was confused, and a tragedy unfolded.
Oh, man. I had some words about the ATC, but hearing him in the transmission when he was telling the other Cirrus to go around... that guy is going to beat himself up worse for the rest of his life than I ever could, and worse than he deserves.
This is one of my favorite things I just wish they would do more! 🙏
I totally agree with Shane on this one, It's the controller's fault.
You don't give CLEARED TO LAND to an aircraft on downwind and expect him to be aware of traffic on final for the same RWY or expect him extending the downwind for another mile before turning base, you mustn't expect anything.
The poor guy made a mistake, fearfully reacting to avoid causing a midair collision with the other Cirrus of which he first heard a second ago, not being aware of the other being a mile away.
CLEARED TO LAND means cleared to land for me, the RWY is yours for the time being, no matter if you're too long, too short, too high, too low, too fast or too slow, it's the pilots discretion from there on to make or break the landing or go around in the end.
A simple " cleared to land, NUMBER 2 ", would save their lives.
Andrej
One issue they don't seem to make much of in this analysis: both aircraft were Cirrus. There seems to be a critical moment where the pilot who eventually has the accident thinks ATC is referring to him on final (and that ATC is just mistaken about his position) when in fact the controller is pointing out to him a completely different Cirrus on final. ATC asks "Do you have the Cirrus there on mile final?" but the accident pilot just responds with "I'm on a real short base", in other words, just responds with where *he* is at, apparently just trying to correct ATC's "mistake" about his own position. These are critical seconds where the two aircraft are fast approaching each other. Then there seems to be an "oh crap!" moment where the accident pilot realizes there's *another* cirrus out there and overreacts.
I am a bit surprised that no one seems to have commented on the fact that this plane was only 31lbs under max gross, when he had been up and flying for a while. How heavy had he been before taking off? What does that say about his attitude towards safety?
Larry B I know next to fuck all about flying, but that struck me too. I just didn't want to get horse-whipped in the comments.
Larry B Hadn’t noticed that either until you mentioned it
Might be missing something but on specs for this plane it has a difference from empty to gross weight of 1331 lbs and holds 944 lbs of fuel and has 5 seats, 3 occupied at this time. Guessing this plane is routinely close to max weight for majority of people that use it.
@@420xanatos Most planes are often flown at or close to max weight AT TAKEOFF. Fuel weighs 6lb/gallon, and so you quickly shed weight and are landing well below that.
I'm not a pilot, so I'm happy to get some clarification or be corrected if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like the lack of standard phraseology is incredibly endemic in the US. These discussions between ATC and pilots sound more like an informal chat rather than clear and concise communication. That means there's just way too much ambiguity between discussion and directives, lack of standard phraseology can lead to misunderstanding, low signal to noise ratio means it's harder for other pilots to form a mental picture, and the informal attitude is incredibly likely to lead to complacency. Happy to be corrected, but it seems like US pilots have a serious case of wanting to sound like cool cowboys rather than being safe, efficient, clear and concise in their communications.
I've only ever flown 152's and 172's and they're pretty docile and forgiving. I'm not so sure about the SR22.
I'm a huge fan of Green Dot Aviation vids, now I'm a huge fan of ASI vids! Wow-screwed by ATC.
Sad irony: 1DA received go around anyway...
Bloody hell!
where's the irony? after the other plane crashes of course he goes around
@@ggurks, that's the whole point.
1. ATC didn't want to send big planes to go around.
2. And that forced small plane to struggle.
3. And eventually pressure was built and plane crashed.
4. And one of the big planes was forced to go around despite ATC's desires.
It could turn out much better if ATC just sent the first big plane for circle allowing small one to land without extra pressure ASAP.
@@МихайлоСєльський I think you're talking about another video, there are no big planes here
@@ggurks "big plane" or not. The irony is real
I read quite a few comments, but didn't hear any mention of the pilot attempting to scan for other traffic. It is always the pilot's responsibility to look for other aircraft and listen for ATC talking to other aircraft when he was cleared to land. If, in fact, he cleared the other aircraft, did the pilot not hear that? There's enough fault to go around here to both, but the title should be, "first priority, fly the aircraft safely, miscommunication can happen. Controllers can make mistakes, so don't assume anything. I fly at a class delta airport and they always, always tell if you are not number 1. Nobody mentioned if that controller always uses that procedure of telling someone if they are not number 1. If he does, then he got confused and forgot he had 2 cirrus's cleared to land, so he made a mistake. I feel bad for the controller becasue he has to live with it. I feel bad for the pilot and passengers because they are no longer with us. Ultimately, we must remember as pilots it is our responsibility to fly the plane safely!
That’s a good point. The video is spot on. But it doesn’t paint the entire picture. (Otherwise would be way too long) The controller was flustered and actually cleared 1DA to land twice. (Forgot he had already cleared them to land once already) And twice while on final the CFI on board made two clear communications about being cleared to land on 9R.
"clear to land'" not "number two clear to land" he never even told him about the landing traffic. 110% the controllers fault. pilot could have made a right 360 instead though.
Clearly no, the pilot failed is #1 responsibility is flying the plane within safe known design parameters. This pilot caused and is responsible for this tragedy
@Jesus Christ do again you prove the pilot is at fault for failure to fly there plane safely. The controller is immaterial. Because yo r ego gets in the way of flying the plane based on your bull crap dues not matter "whiny controller" I would Never fly with you, you are dangeraouse, your poor attitude is what kills pilots.
It's simple fly the plane, if you can't control your emotions and allow them the have you stop flying safely is your fault. Period.
360? You mean 180?
No slick, 100% pilot incompetence.
Your train of thought is dangeraouse and lethal, I would NEVER fly or drive with you. Youist be a democrat, common thing to blame others for what you caused.
Blaming controllers for the pilots f#ck up and failure to act as pilot in command. Controller were trying to help a stupid pilot.
@@shishi7gb no a 360, a 360 is commonly used by controllers to create space, in the time it take to do a 360 the other airplane lands and clears, and because its a 360 it resets him up for landing. 360s are used a lot especially at smaller busy (usually busy from flight training) airports.
there was also TWO cirrus a/c attempting to land at the same time..the tower transmission just prior to the accident surprised the accident a/c. cut it in tight does not mean to stall/spin your a/c.
I'm noticing in these case studies that Cirrus airplanes seem to stall very easily!
No, cirrus pilots just tend to be less than stellar pilots.
@@freakfly23 That parachute system might be making them overconfident, dunno why, it never seems to work when it's needed the most.
They flat spin easily. That's why the parachute is part of it's Type Design.
A lot of people seen to have a *fundamental misunderstanding of how the physics work.*
In a car, there is hardly any lag between applying power, and getting results, and this is true for many of our daily situations.
But in an aircraft, the power comes not from the engine, but from the airspeed.
*Increasing power, by itself, does nothing.* You have to wait until the airspeed increases.
Primarily, the controller's unbeknownst lack of attention to the other cirrus on short final caused the other cirrus pilot to panic in an obviously fatal manner. Almost certainly, that entire spin and vertical dive was preventable. The urgency in the tower's voice was of great concern to the pilot, I'm absolutely sure, but that last maneuver was totally just a maneuver out of panic. Put's the plane in a steep 45 degree turn to the left, rolls inverted and enters a spiral dive into the ground. Panic can be especially deadly when in any vehicle that happens to be airborne. Close to the ground and panicking is a whole other story.
I rest my consensus on the controller's lack of divided attention. If the controller had advised the other cirrus pilot of traffic on short final prior to this pilot recieving his clearance, this accident would be nonesistent in the NTSB's database. I agree with the scrutiny of the pilot's actions. He should have never made that extremely tight base to final entry without clearing with the tower on conflicting traffic prior to it. This entire situation was just doomed from the start...
Flying an SR-22 to me is like driving an Audi A6 - in addition to plenty of horsepower, you’ve got nice tech to help out: blind spot monitoring (ADS-B), collision avoidance (TAS), good visibility, and great sounding radios (Bose). And one might compare the airplane’s CAPS to vehicle skid control, but my point is I’m a little surprised that the video didn’t discuss situational awareness. The tech was there to help look and listen. I haven’t read the NTSB yet though so maybe I’m off base here.
I have no idea how this video pinned fault at the pilot. This makes me so mad.
1. When tower cleared him to land, (not cleared to land, number two, following another cirrus), he's cleared to land.
2. When tower realized he turned base early, instead of telling him to extend to follow the cirrus, issue a go around. He's in no position to turn from base back to downwind anyways.
3. Cut it in tight, cut it in tight for 9R. What does that even mean. Issue an clear instruction.
4. When you have a choice to issue a go around to an aircraft that is well establish on a final, and to an aircraft that is making a tight turn, the decision should be really clear.
Are you familiar with the term pilot in command , the pilot flies the aircraft. You can let ATC kill you , or you can fly your aircraft within limits. I agree the pilot should have gotten a sequence.
I'm not saying the PIC is not at fault, I'm saying he should not be the only one getting blamed.
Justin Kiang if you read at the end it said the controller was a contributing factor.
Justin Kiang He IS the one to blame. He flew the plane into the ground. He flew the plane beyond it's limits, pure and simple. ATC makes mistakes, it's your job as PIC to ALWAYS fly the plane within limits, regardless of even the most absurd ATC instructions.
Because as the old saying goes, there has never been a single reported case of an air traffic controller dying due to bad instructions. As p.i.c., you have the ultimate authority AND responsibility to fly the plane.
I have 2 questions. First off - what happened to that controller? Was he held responsible at all? Second - wtf does "cut it in tight" mean? Go left? Go right? Pull up? I feel like it has 0 instructional significance.
There are an awful lot of comments here that blame both ATC, and the pilot. As a pilot you should always be looking for other aircraft, especially in the terminal area which is where this incident occurred. The controller's failure to advise either one of the aircraft about the other's position, let alone presence, was certainly a contributing factor. But the bottom line is this...the tower controller didn't put the airplane in a stall/spin situation that resulted in it impacting the ground with enough energy to create a four foot crater...the pilot did. The pilot flies the airplane. Not the controller. Were both parties responsible for the confusion? Sure. But what people here don't seem to realize is that things like this happen EVERY DAY in aviation. The confusion between the aircraft and the controller is not what makes this case study unique. It's the pilots actions that make it unique. When confusion or hiccups arise, you work the problem. Ultimately, if the airplane ends up in a low level spin situation, there's nobody to blame but the pilot.
Great observation. I only have just over 100 hours of experience at the time of this writing. I personally am extremely vigilant of my surroundings, airspeed and coordinated turns when making turns to base and base to final turns. I took a stall-spin lesson in a Decathlon where we did low speed and accelerated stalls as well as a stall-spin. After just one lesson my instincts in stall recovery were much stronger. Stalls are quite benign if handled properly. I feel that the aviation community needs to put more emphasis on this sort of training since very little time is spent on it in basic PPL training. This is truly a tragedy that could have been easily avoided.
Great point, thanks! I suppose that the takeaway from this is to get proper stall training in the type of craft which you will be flying? I had no idea about the stall characteristics of the aircraft you mentioned above till now.
Tomahawks could, and did, kill !!!
Are you really getting any benefit out of a 172 that is so forgiving then move up to higher performance aircraft later on down the road which aren't forgiving and docile they catch a 2000 hour pilot by surprise in the pattern as it suddenly enters a spin because all he remembers was the 172?
That's my view of it as well. As a pilot its ultimately your responsibility to control your aircraft. Nothing ATC says should put you into a panic maneuver as you should've been scanning your immediate airspace already. Clearly no plane was an imminent threat for collision.
Sucks these accidents happen, but these videos are such high quality, they could make a TV program from them.
I've flown N611DA and I've done many approaches to that airport KMLB.Scary how easy it is for some pilots to make a wrong move.This whole thing could've been avoided.
Christopher DuBois me too... I'm at Aerosim now L3 now as we speak... really scary how I instantly knew that tail number when I heard it. Wow!! 😳
At 2:21 the controller does say that he has to extend to follow another plane (cesna).
He does only repeat the extend later, not the plane or sequencing.
Sloppy yes, but the pilot should have been aware that other traffic was approaching.
The clear to land should not have been given without a sequence though.
An urgent yell of 'tight', 'tight' is probably not the best communication by ATC. This accident is on their hands.
The pilot is the one who is dead, so whose hands is it really on.
The narrator is perfect in this series..
fuck that controller, told him he needs to extend to follow and cut it in tight for 9R in the same sentence!?
No he told him that he was supposed to have extended to follow the cirrus despite not specifying this so he just came in on a tight right base and came in ahead of the traffic he was supposed to follow so then the tower told him to cut it in tight for 19 right at that point because he had overtaken the cirrus and the aircraft were now way to close.
Zelda fan i understand but the controller should have just told him what he wanted him to do, not what he should have done, confused the shit out of him
A lot of blame to lay at his feet, however, at the end of the day one needs to maintain control of their aircraft at all times. The whole accident is unfortunate.
these videos are so interesting, really puts things into perspective about how being lucky, unlucky, smart, stupid all form 1 of a trillion results.Applies to alot of things in life
I’m confused. I’d interpret the controler's directions “Cut it in tight, cut it in tight!” to mean to execute a tight turn into a very short final and landing on 9er right witout delay. But, I’ll admit, I’ve never heard “cut it in” used as a flight instruction. So, exactly what did the controller mean? I also wonder about the pilot’s decision to pull up the nose of the aircraft. Obviously, he was ‘getting out of dodge’ as quickly as possible. That means speed is essential. Why would he raise the nose when everyone knows that slows the airplane down? Very odd.
vegasgeorge You pull the nose up in a tight turn to maintain altitude, otherwise because the lift is now directed at right angles to the wing angle, the aircraft will descend.
Another great video. What are your go to sources of weather while inflight?
Communication breakdown
It's always the same
I'm having a nervous breakdown
Drive me insane!
Outstanding series I learn a great deal with each one. In this case the mistakes are clear, hard to understand direction from the controller and a very odd movement on the part of the pilot. I agree with the summation, it’s my job to pilot the aircraft operating it in a safe manner, in this case the sudden and abrupt left turn against ATC direction doesn’t make sense. The pilot must have pictured himself in a dangerous situation and the left turn was the best way to avoid the situation. RIP all concerned
That accident is 99% on the controller. Terrible!
I am trying to learn something. By the time 4SR was cleared, wasn't it perfectly fine to fly the short approach with the base leg that close to the runway considering he was approved to land long? He was cleared to land and without the mentioning of the traffic there was no real reason for him to fly downwind, base then final or do I get something wrong? In my opinion the controller should have said something like "cleared to land, number 2 behind Cirrus on final behind, report in sight". In that case it would have been clear to continue on a downlind leg to sequence behind the traffic. Thank you for your response!
No amount of urgency in a controller's voice should be misunderstood as "exceed the envelope of controlled flight." If there was a collision, yes, the controller would have some responsibility. The controller did not tell him to to attempt a 4g turn against traffic. He clearly told him to come in sharp over the numbers once it was clear he broke the pattern and clearly told him the traffic was still a mile out. He should have used more of his eyes and ears and less jerky jerky on the yoke.
Agreed.
Yes, the controller was unclear.
But the pilot lost control of the plane.
Excellent video, thank you!