Pilot didn't get angry. Sounded more like frustration to me. He is flying within aircraft parameters and controller takes him out of sequence as punishment for refusing to compromise aircraft safety. She should have slowed the following traffic as he implied.
This is bizarre. If 15K can’t fly the requested speed because it’s beyond his approach maximums then that’s final. It’s not up to the controller to dictate how a pilot flies his aircraft. Cancelling his approach to accommodate the aircraft flying BEHIND him is also bizarre as that is the aircraft that should be instructed to go around (Speedbird had lower altitude on approach and right of way). Speedbird is totally right in this instance. Controller needs a kick up the arse.
Mike Doggers The issue is that they cancelled approach for the wrong aircraft. 15K had right of way, 1AJ should’ve been asked to move instead. That’s what the guys had a problem with. Procedure wasn’t followed here and spacing was clearly an issue. 180kt at 5 DME is flying low and fast - the controller would’ve been well aware of this and asked for it anyway, that just isn’t reasonable.
@@BIGDROC99 Because, from my limited understanding, the BA aircraft cannot achieve what is classed as a stabilised approach using the parameters set out by the controller. Being the lower aircraft, BA should have been allowed to continue and the aircraft *behind* go around for traffic and resequence.
Ninedaysjane has nothing to do with sex, I feel the same way about the incident between the Aer Lingus pilot and NYC controller, which is another VASAviation
@@charlesreid9337 Wow, what an ignorant statement! Both commercial pilots and ATC are well-trained professionals and deserving of respect. Yes, there are some unprofessional pilots as well as controllers, but that is true of any profession. And yes, the captain is responsible for the safety of his aircraft, but he's not the only bird in the skies.
Having operated heavy metal for BA globally for 27 years, JFK is among the most challenging ATC anywhere. They KNOW we have to slow to final speed by 1000ft, which equates to 3 miles, and they have been reminded countless times that any wide-body has very limited ability to decelerate, but they continually ask for the impossible, and they get stroppy when you are unable to comply. One night many years ago I ended up doing 2 go-arounds because they got us too close to the aircraft in front and the runway was not vacated... the BA179 so it was 0300 GMT and we really didn’t need it! On the 3rd approach we insisted on slowing because - again - they wanted us to stay 2.5 miles behind a CAT B aircraft which has a landing speed 20 slower than a Jumbo... absolute muppets!
Yeah, it is always the FOREIGN pilots that seem to have the problems. Never seen any pilots on carriers from the *United States* have any issue whatsoever at JFK, in these videos! If you cannot handle the "heat" in America, then don't fly here! End of story! Just because your training is not to the high standards of the US, don't take it out on our controllers!
OK, honestly, I think you old timers (from places like UK, Europe, etc.) are great pilots. I suppose my reference to the "loser pilots" that you guys produce, are the _CURRENT GENERATION_ of 250-hour ignoramuses that you guys like to stuff in the right seats of your big jets, mostly at places like Ryanair, EasyJet and so on!!
@@747-pilot Steady on there cowboy, I operate out of the likes of many major European airports and the guys who struggle to follow basic procedures and cause the most havoc are the American carriers. I love how you have the audacity to label it is the "high standards of the US", because as a matter of fact I operate for a very reputable European airline whom has zero fatalities and after returning from the US where I did my basic training the first thing we were all told by our instructor who happens to be an ex Concorde Captain was to forget everything we were taught in the US because it is all incorrect. This is exactly what I hate about American pilots and controllers, they are amongst the least competent, most unsafe yet they have the biggest God like ego and it is that exact attitude which gets people killed, the statistcs are written everywhere go look them up. Like I said, a bunch of cowboys who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an aircraft. Rant over.
@@karlosbricks2413 Not just that, apparently they consider anything with more than 9 seats a big jet because they need 1500 hours before they can even touch it... They also think flying a Cessna 152 around the circuit for 1500 hours makes them God like pilots -.-
Why is revectoring punishment. If the speed restriction was necessary , how could she accept unable without taking some action. Speed restrictions are to keep planes from running into eachother either in the air or the runway. Other airports maybe she could have adjusted the other planes but the airplanes are spaced with little wiggle room there
wewk584 I’m not too sure but I’m pretty sure the plane in front with the lower altitude has the right of way and the plane behind him should be the one asked to slow down or revectored.
The pilot is completely correct I’d say. You can’t stabilise a 747 at 180 and he correctly informed ATC that he was unable and as he was the lower aircraft he has right of way. Bad part on the controller id say. He was polite enough and tried his best to accommodate by saying he can do 160 so I think speedbird didn’t do one thing wrong
Steffan Dawe so.... He can fly 160 but can’t bump it up to 180??? Mind you he’s only being asked to give the extra 20 until a 5 mile final. If you can’t lose 20 knots and stabilize in 4 miles so your stabilized before 1000ft you might need to try harder. Also he was unreasonably slow way out compared to every one else.
It was a SPEEDBIRD pilot. They are never correct. He was holding up the pattern, as they usually do. She wanted a bit more speed out of him and he could easily accommodate. Of course, she could have waited 30 seconds for him to complete the config in order to reach the 180 kts. Probably tired of Brits. It's easy for that to happen.
Andy Taylor the POH for BA in the 747 states you are t able to stabilise the approach and continue unless at 160kts. He is the pilot he has right of way. It’s insufficient planning by ATC. The Speedbird (British or not) did nothing wrong in this instance. Bit arrogant of you to say such things about British pilots
@@jordan4541 stabilized on virtually any transport category aircraft is 1000 AGL. Ref speed on a 747 is already quite close to 160, there's no reason he needed to be snippy about things, and I believe someone else took over the radios for him (it sounded like) after the cancelled approach
And ATC is right to keep planes separated. Would be interesting if this was further resolved and if either or both parties would have done something different?
@@phapnui so she should've increase separation behind him, not by sending him out... It's should be FIFO structure as much as possible. I understand that would require slight more workload for her but that's her job.
@@masflow09 It is illegal not to follow ATC instructions and any pilot found not doing so can be prosecuted for endagerment of an aircraft which carries a pridon term of life in prison, at the very least the pilots licence would be permanently revoked.
My favorite part is after the clearance got cancelled the pilot asked what was the reason for it? And she says I just needed you to maintain 160 for 3 more miles which is exactly what he was doing to begin with 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Why is this video not called Rude ATC controller takes out her frustration on pilot? Feels like there is a bias against the pilot in the title, but when actually watching the video in reality its the other way around
Because the pilot is wasting time explaining unnecessary things to a professional ATC as if she doesn't know how an airline works. He got all huffy at her for doing her job.
@@babababad he got annoyed at her for not following procedure and he thought she took him out just to spite him which is probably true. She needed him to slow down but he had company operational limits to follow. He's flying the plane so she should've done her job and adjusted the speed of traffic behind him accordingly
@@ajk6656 ATC canceled approach clearance long after the pilot had abandoned professionalism to waste everyone's time with an unnecessary lecture. All he had to do was supply ATC with sufficient information for her to control separation, instead he goes off about what kind of aircraft he's got as if ATC doesn't already know.
@@babababad I agree he took up the channel explaining why he was pissed off which is not very professional, but at first he told her what he couldn't do and what he could do. Her response disregarded that completely with a bad attitude which set him off. Instead of asking him to do something he just told her he can't do, she should have adjusted the traffic accordingly. It's not like he was going so slow that it was unreasonable to slow the traffic behind him
As an ATC I never resort to asking pilots to modify speeds unless it’s absolutely the last option. There’s no way I would know their ship better than they do, so I’d rather take the braking of the aircrafts on final into account when I vector them. There was plenty of time for the traffic behind to get a later turn into final and everything would’ve turned out great. No speed change needed. It’s hard for some to accept the fact that your job as an ATC is to help pilots as much as possible, not boss them around.
Buddy! Where are you an air traffic controller at because obviously you haven't worked real traffic? The 7110.65 spells out that vectoring is used to get spacing and speed is used to maintain it! When you work high volume traffic the front of the gap is just as important as the back of the gap! You HAVE to control the speeds because having too much space i.e. pilot is flying too slow, is just as bad to the operation as too little space!
Think it is important to say that there are many good controllers and also a few bad ones. At least in the UK there is also the problem that there is more and more a driver for cost saving meaning that they are understaffed ... shouldn't be the case at JFK though
@@56independent42 The sooner I get rid of them, the sooner I can go back to discussing the chow run. Bogdan, airports with any real volume require speed control in order to maintain arrival rates and consistent spacing. There's a whole section on speed control in the 7110.65, I'd recommend you read it sometime, lots of very interesting stuff in there.
Im sorry, but that controller is a bit(h. Pilot nearly got mad but was able to stay fairly cool. Punishing a pilot and flight because they couldn't keep speed up? Lame and possibly dangerous. Although, I AM surprised the 747 couldn't do 180kts for a couple minutes. If it really couldn't, then it was an even MORE unreasonable request from ATC with a petty outcome.
We all have bad days at work - but the worst bit about this was her attitude. ‘You still haven’t answered my question, so whenever you want to get around to that’. Unacceptable. She was also in the wrong, the pilot cannot compromise his SOP’s and overspeed the landing to make her life simpler.
APS - Pictures that was my problem. The sarcasm was unprofessional, unnecessary, and unwarranted. The pilot said everything but the exact word “unable”. It’s clear that his explanation was communicating “unable”. When a pilot (or controller) uses that word - or words to that effect in this case - it means there’s a good reason, usually safety related. I hope the controller here gets pulled from the tower, made to listen to the tape, explain why she acted that way (so she can be introspective), and be warned that if it happens again she’s looking for another line of work. A bad day and a bad attitude are different things. One is temporary, and the other will get someone hurt.
@@rjhornsby "the pilot said everything" is the exact problem...ATC requested aircraft to slow to a speed within criteria and he came back with some pedantic, patronizing explanation. ATC's subsequent reaction wasn't constructive but perhaps understandable given the uncooperative pilot.
@@babababad How is "I can't do that mam" pedantic or patronizing? He is basically saying he is unable to comply. You can't threaten the pilot or start bitching, especially if you are incompetent at your job, like this so called ATC. Thanks god I don't have people like this in my station.
The controller circled No3 to avoid slowing down the No4 that is mental! Preceding Aircraft was doing 200 she could slow the NAX or send it through the locliser for spacing. Pilot seemed very reasonable he offered 160. IMO the controller was quite rude. BAW was doing 130 and was asked when are you SLOWING to 160, "When ever you get around to answering my question that would be great" Appalling RT. Pilot would have done better to just say "Unable"
130kt ground speed. Considering the winds even at 2000ft can be quite strong (in the UK anyway), the BA 747 could very well be flying anywhere between 150 to even 170kts indicated so when he offered 160kts (indicated, not GS like shown on scope) or greater, at least to me, it would sound like he was happy to speed up a lil/keep the same speed to keep the controller happy but not any faster.
Yet another example of aggressive, confrontational controllers around JFK. I've listened in to Heathrow for years and have yet to hear one single confrontational exchange. There is something about some US controllers that seems to create so much unnecessary aggro. Not all of course - most of them are excellent. The BA pilot was completely correct. The Controller was rude, ignorant and plain wrong. She caused the situation by vectoring aircraft too bunched up in the first place
@@patrickmorrissey3084 All of them? Sounds more like you're one of them. Calling everyone an asshole just because they're from a place is something an asshole would say :)
"Penalty vectors"? Geeezus, man, are we back to the Middle Ages of flying? Flying is about sticking to rules, regulations, procedures, performances, techniques, etcetera. Can you show me ONE publication mentioning the existence of "penalty vectors"? Please!
@@francescocandian2708 One example is the "Penalty Box" at ORD. It actually used to be printed on the airport diagram "Penalty Box". If you didn't get to the runway fast enough or took excessive time to run checklists ORD Ground would send you to the Box and you'd be penalized and have them replay something back like "SKW5020 you are number 23 for the active". So yes ATC does do things like this. Theyre most not vindictive but this does exist.
@@JohnGalt289 Thanks. Honestly, I had never heard of that, yet I believe you. But of course, I do not buy this s***. Can the solution to high traffic be better Flight Deck performance? Partly, and ONLY to a certain extent. But higher performance means higher standards and in turn this implies different TRAINING standards. The "penalty box" solution is disrispectful, unless the assumption is that for some reason a given crew is WILLINGLY taking longer than required to perform their duties. Which, btw seems to be the ATC controller's attitude, and in my opinion EXACTLY what irritates the crew. If, on the other hand, it is recognized I am doing my best as a pilot, yet my performance is sub-standard, we should either consider changing my performance or changing the standards. In both cases the solution is not an idiotic "penalty box". This is a "Third World", "Banana Republic", "Medieval" approach, "your problem"-style approach. Guess what, when I'm crashing on your kindergarden it's OUR problem...!
@@francescocandian2708 I partly agree that solutions for super busy airspaces need to be training for both flight crew and ATC but I really was just saying that the FAA/ATC does do things like make you wait or give you bad sequencing for little things like this.
40 years in the ground operations side. Of all the phone calls I've witnessed between a captain and ATC, after arriving at the gate, this is the most common. ATC asking the pilots to do something that falls outside of safe aviation parameters. On the plus side, once on the ground, a simple, civil phone call to the controller usually sets things right. No big deal, pretty routine.
@@omerozgur1126 Pretty much what I was saying. The controller got huffy. The pilot handled it well. Best time to discuss this is once the aircraft is on the ground.
Looks like an ATC training issue to me. Train the controllers to understand what the pilots need and accommodate accordingly. Doesn’t seem like a difficult change to make.
In many parts of the world its 160 to 4 dme, I fly an a A320 and I'd be unable to comply with 180 to 5 Dme because on a 3 degree approach 5 dme is about 1500 feet, most airline SOP's (standard operating procedures) have what we call "gates" 1000 ft and 500ft at my current company 1000ft we must be in landing configuration (flaps and gear) and speed within +30 of VAPP it would be a massive push and challenge to maintain 180 to 5 dme and then dump everything and slow down within about a mile, can't imagine with higher inertia what its like for the 747, good on the crew.
Ajit Sidhu I think it's still possible. At 5 dme you're at 1700ft. If you're at 180kts at this altitude with the gear down it's quiet easy to be stabilised at 1000ft. In some airlines it's even 500ft in VMC conditions. Now of course it depends on the plane. I don't fly the 747 but I think it loses speed really quickly.
Ajit, this reinforces my earlier observation that controllers are typically not pilots and don't know squat about the operational limitations of the aircraft under their direction. The controller cancelling his clearance was just her ego overriding her better judgement and professionalism. A call to the tower post flight would absolutely be appropriate, and from the sound of it was likely the pilot's intention.
Yes..... 1,000 ft AGL "Gates" upon being configured are SOP at the Airlines (usually worlwide). The key is to be more vigilant, self aware of your environment, and a anticipate the ensuing slam dunk. Preparation means everything on sequence, descents, speed, and where you're at in that sequence on "all" approaches. Be Safe out there.
She gave him an instruction he was unable to comply with, explained why he couldn't comply, she got short with him after that. Aircraft behind could've/ should've been asked to slow after she was told the reason the 747 couldn't
You can’t just slow down an airplane because then you slow down the one behind them and so on it becomes a mess. You have to sequence them back through either the BA or the Norwegian. Weather she was right or wrong about which one she pulled out is up to you I’m just explaining there’s more to it than just slowing down.
@@Phx737swa She literally told the one behind to speed up straight after telling BA to do so so she could've not had the plane behind increase it's speed. You also can't have aircraft coming in in an unstable way. To expect that( especially when you've been told that would be consequence by the pilot flying) is totally unreasonable imho
C2K she had him maintain the faster speed that needed to keep the flow going. This flow number you have is from the time you depart they are betting on you coming in at a certain time. And 5 miles out is still more than enough especially at 2000. I haven’t seen the approach plate but they are probably just intercepting. But you’re correct if that they didn’t feel comfortable accepting it then they don’t have to and she had to re sequence someone and it just ended up being them. You’d find the same thing at ORD LAX any of the big Bravos. It’s all just keeping the flow going
@@C2K777 TBH I think it's going to bite one of them in the ass at some point. More than enough accidents have already happened when pilots take clearances they really shouldn't... An overshoot at LGA isn't a hard scenario to picture.
Chris V improper procedure, unprofessionalism, forcing excessive use of the channel by giving shitty instructions and not listening when the pilot mentioned that’s not protocol and the parameters of the plane cannot do what she is asking.
@@Boodieman72 I did. What's the complaint? ATC did what she felt would continue the flow of inbound flights. The BA pilot promulgated that he was not going to comply with her instructions due to stabilization criteria per company policy. She instructs him to break off the approach and vectors him around for another approach - nothing illegal nor unsafe. I don't see how submitting a complaint would change anything. Enlighten me please as I am keen to learn.
It’s not about the aircraft or pilot being unable to comply it’s about each airlines own stabilized approach criteria which precludes us from doing what might seem a reasonable thing to controllers. If you land from an unstable approach as detailed by your company you will face disciplinary action where I work.
ramjet2977 Where I work as well. FOQA monitors everything and if you land from an unstable approach you will be getting a phone call to explain yourself.
@@HEDGE1011 Don't know if you are ramjet2977 are familiar with this www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pilot-in-near-miss-found-dead-in-car-1561147.html It's a harsh reminder of the need to fly to the airline OPs Manual
He just told you he can't do it. I know that the controller has to keep spacing but in a dispute, whether emergency or not, the benefit of the doubt goes to the pilots.
Surly if thats the case, what she should of done is got NAX1AJ to either match BAW15K speed or less to keep the spacing. Or set one of the aircraft up on the other parallel runway.
@@pdxpilot06 Did you even think about your post for 2 seconds? It's less safe to send the aircraft further into their approach around than the one less far into the approach. Which is why the FAA safety regulations give the lower aircraft the right of way. Which is why, as everyone is saying, if there was an issue with following traffic, the plane behind should have been the one sent around.
Richard Dalrymple Thanks for mentioning this Richard...I think I actually said something about calling the tower supervisor once at the gate and shut down and I misspoke. I can't readily find that right now or I'd edit it but I appreciate you making that clear. What I should have said was that I'd get the number for the facility and call their supervisor to discuss it. Best Regards and thanks for the prompt.
At Houston Hobby a few years ago, a Cirrus (I think) in the approach sequence was flying too slowly for ATC and was going to be overtaken by the plane behind. Hobby’s ATC gave the go-around to the Cirrus which then stalled and crashed. The controller was specifically criticized for making the Cirrus go-around even though it was first in the sequence.
Well, you're leaving out a whole lotta things there. The Cirrus was taken out of sequence in that instance several times and given several runway changes. The controller was critized for making things very complicated and confusing with a single pilot at the controls. One go around is easily trained for, but three+runway changes, flaps in and out in a small but fast airplane? It can easily stress a single pilot, especially after a long flight. Of course, you're right if ATC had just followed FIFO it probably would have been fine...
Yes, there were many, many factors that went into the crash - the pilot’s inexperience, her refusal to speak assertively and accept ATC instructions without question, conflicting and confusing commands from ATC, the list goes on and on. I only mention the sequencing because it’s what applies to the video. Of the many things that the ATC was criticized for by the NTSB, making the Cirrus go-around because it was flying too slowly for the planes behind it directly applied to this video.
Pilots of Delta 3567 rightly criticized for blindly following misleading ATC altitude instructions in mountainous terrain, only to be saved by an automated terrain warning. Here the ATC requests unsafe speed/altitude combination for the 747. The pilot corrects her error, and she responds by being petty and vindictive, punishing the 747 for operating safely. Her attitude is dangerous, and I certainly hope she was reprimanded.
so you assume it was a punishment, not because she had other 5 planes behind coming at a faster speed and has to maintain a minimum separation. Ok, sure.
@@pubudusenanayake6724 yeah sure, scroll down and tell the same thing to the pilots that are used to operate in that airspace and said that this is how it's always done there. Dont reply only to me because you want to start some childish gender battle. Bye. Silenced. Dont bother to reply.
@@vanessaruiz4705 Gender battle? What are you on about? Anyway, controller was acting against protocol. The FACT that you are ignorant about that, and revel in your ignorance has nothing to do with your gender, or mine.
Jonathan and Speedbird clearly slowed down earlier than normal. Causing an accordion effect behind him. Not that hard to just bump the power up, give an extra 20 and just as easy to lose that 20 inside a 5 mile final as asked.
Wade Saxton Again I ask for your operational knowledge and experience on the -400 to make this statement. Signed, A guy with a B-747-4 type rating and loads of applicable experience
Wade Saxton are you the same goof commenting on all the other comments trying to rebut actual pilots with your non existent knowledge? I like watching these videos but at no time do I think I’m an actual pilot or have the expertise of one. Get off the internet, wade.
FAA ATC order says, "Do not assign speed adjustment to aircraft: ... 4. Inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway." For the trailing aircraft. There are instructions to account for spacing compression during speed changes. Standard procedure is to assign arriving jet aircraft below 10,000msl a speed not less than 210kts and 170kts within 20nm of the runway threshold.(The aircraft can be allowed to fly slower, but should not be required to fly slower. ie "maintain 170kts or slower" is acceptable) The wording of the FAA rules indicates this is a best practice not a not a hard rule, as it is followed by "Lower speeds may be assigned when operationally advantageous." 'When operationally advantageous' is FAA speak for special conditions that can not be handled with the common recommended methods. That is the exception provides a substantial gain in efficiency or safety, as an example maybe an airport is near a mountain and normal speeds cause approach problems.
Given the pilot saying "I don't believe that is FAA approved procedure but we'll discuss that later", I suspect either she accepted that she was at fault on the phone (or possibly he did), or such a report was filed.
@@Person01234 Even if he had contacted the facility on the ground he would not have spoken to the controller. He would have spoken to whoever was working the desk and fielding phone calls for that area, most likely an FAA operations supervisor. Given that no one appeared to actually violate any rules here apart from getting their panties in a twist, all that would likely come of it is a discussion between the controller and her supervisor.
New York controllers are the worst. Always an attitude. Not following procedures to push metal through. BAW was correct in this situation in that he has standards to fly his aircraft to before complying with controller instructions. “Unable” means exactly that.
seoceancrosser Yes they are but more specifically JFK is infinitely worse than LGA (or EWR). That's why JFK is the only airport I bid to avoid every single month. The only way you'll find me there is on a reroute. I did it a ton when I was junior, now I'd be happy never to have to see that place again. The worst.
If she had stated a speed requirement earlier in the approach, he probably could have complied. It looks like she noticed the separation issue quite late when it was already hard to correct it.
If you listen to many TRACONs you will hear speed restrictions almost always given right around approach clearance. They're also usually published on the approach plates.
@@greensagan I have one, the RNAV Z 06L (and 06R) at PGUM. 210 knots or slower at RASPE, and at or below 4,500 feet. I think the approach gets lower minima (partially) by restricting the energy the aircraft can carry crossing the IAF; the similar RNAV Y doesn't have these restrictions.
How does any controller expect a 747 to slow from 180kt to Vref in 5 miles and getting stable at 1000ft. I think physics class needs to be taken again.
@@knndyskful It's fairly simple. Big heavy plane takes a long time to slow down. Must be at final approach speed and plane configured for landing by 1000 feet to go.
Wonder if they ever “discussed” that FAA approved procedure? If I were him, I’d sort her out real good! With that kind of emotion, she shouldn’t be ATC
@@ninedaysjane2466 If it was a male controller and a female pilot you wouldn't say he's sexist. But everytime there's a woman in the wrong and men point that out apparently they are sexist...
I fly here all the time with a major carrier, and this is the most dangerous destination on the network. Aggressive, non-standard ATC, extremely poor approach designation and design (with awful missed approach controlling), rushed ground control with multiple frequencies in use, and the ground crews make Manila and Jakarta look positively space age sometimes. Last time I was there I had a TCAS RA at 1200', as did the aircraft ahead of me. We both went around, and absolutely nobody cared. It's a madhouse. Edit: Oh, and 180kt until 5nm (1500') is crazy - even in my smaller airbus. They do it routinely as well. You have to ask for 170kt, then steal 10 more knots (ie go to 160kt) or you get into this ridiculous debate, or you'll be unstable and go around.
SenorCrazylegs I also fly into there with a major carrier and have done so for 29 years: I couldn't agree more! I'm normally senior enough to avoid it now, and it's the only destination I avoid every single month. JFK has the rudest, most aggressive, totally non-standard controllers of anywhere I've ever been, and I've been a lot of places. Terrible facilities, awful airport design, rushed taxi clearances, petulant, spiteful ATC. Just the absolute worst. I actually bid to get Christmas off after bidding no trips that touch Kennedy. It's a national embarrassment and I feel especially bad for our foreign colleagues who are bullied by controllers because their first language isn't English. Hey JFK: you're a disgrace!
Worth remembering, too, that this isn't a pilot only used to working out of small regional airports and unfamiliar with the demands of a busy airport. BA work out of Heathrow, so are very aware of traffic separation constraints. SOP are written with that in mind. Working ATC in these locations must be frustrating and difficult, but controllers need to cope with what is practicable and accept that they are not the ones flying the plane. The pilot actually explained to her why he was unable to comply; she might have been surprised but it was something she had to work around.
I agree! It’s amazing how LGA or JFK still have “climbs.” That you get vectored on. The SIDS ans STARs are so 1970s It’s 2019. How about some RNAV procedures that can decrease the workload and have pilots fly more predictable. It’s so weird seeing charts without preassigned routings or very limited rnav routings
@@warden330 Yep, this is a BA747 pilot and I would imagine the captain based on his RT - this is a guy who will have many hours in and out of busy international airports. Very poor controlling and a blatant punishment go around - reminds of when they vectored a Ryanair aircraft into a continuous hold and basically wouldn't let him leave.
180 to 5 out is pretty standard. Atc can give you a speed assignment to the final approach fix or 5 miles from the end of the runway, whichever comes first. I’ve never had an issue slowing even in a loaded 321.
glishskiii what’re the weight differences and the stabilization criteria differences between the planes? I mean that’s cool but if they’re different on a different plane.. then how is that relevant?
She made a mistake, the pilot told her it was outside of his ability to do safely, so they had the aircraft go around and reworked the busy sequence to better fit the needed parameters. If the only thing you screwed up was the one plane, and you were informed, just pull out the one thing you screwed up and rework it. Don't rework the next 5 aircraft . It seems like if this was a mistake on the ATC part, it was the safer of the mistakes they could have made.
@@MetalSmith Aviation right of way rules state that the lower aircraft on approach has the right of way, and you cannot descend below and overtake to gain the right of way. The Speedbird had the right of way, and the following traffic should've been the one to slow their approach speed for the Speedbird or go-around if unable. Generally speaking, all aircraft being overtaken have the right of way and you cannot overtake an aircraft on final. ATC was in the wrong 100%
Controller didn't mess up too bad. That is, until she got sarcastic and cancelled his clearance for traffic *behind* him. That was seriously petty and wrong.
Well, from my review of the most popular comments here, I'd say it's pretty much unanimous that the controller in this instance was in the wrong, and Speedbird was completely in the right.
This is the first comment section of one of these videos where it’s essentially unanimous that the controller is wrong, at least among people who are commercial(or say they are)pilots. Like almost no comments defending the controller in any way and zefo arguments as why the pilot would be in the wrong(that have to do with procedure and/or aircraft operating capability and safety). I’ve never seen it that one sided on any of the videos.
And yet the title is still structured to make it sound as though the pilot is in the wrong, I'm smelling a little anti-British bias. Or just clever clickbait.
Basically because the controller was in the wrong. If you look at just the regs. The lower and slower airplane has right of way over a faster, higher airplane. The first one in sequence should've been given priority as he was already stabilized for the approach unless the trailing aircraft had declared an emergency.
No, it's NOT "essentially unanimous". ATC is managing the ENTIRE airspace, and has thousands of lives relying on her and ALL the aircraft working together. Speedbird decided that HE was more important that all the other aircraft, and she didn't have time to play games and explain everything. I suspect that in a pissing contest, she's going to come out on top.
I'm not a pilot nor a controller. But what it sounds like to me is that the ATC asked the pilot, who was on a CLEARED APPROACH, to alter his stabilized approach envelope to accommodate traffic behind him. WTF? Does she know the performance envelope of his aircraft better than he does? Was she trying to force him to make up for her possible mistake in vectoring the second aircraft behind him on an approach that was too close to him in the first place?
The SpeedBird was asked to do 160 yes due to the traffic behind him but in my opinion he kinda deserved landing approach canceled since he just could of went 170. also if he’s flown into jfk before why is it now he as an issue. hope this helps lad.
@@PolarPenguin526 160 was the max he could go with the current flap setting and probably also gear down. The controller should have slowed the norwegian behind him or made them go around. 180 is quite and high approach speed for a 747, and 170 would still be too fast for the configuration he had, so he would have to pull up the flaps and the gear which means he wouldn't have enough time to reconfigure after.
so not reducing speed would have affected separation distances which could have caused others to go around had speedbird landed? so does that mean it was easier for speedbirds clearance to be cancelled and for speedbird to be re vectored for a second approach? please correct me if i am wrong.
ATC needs to remove her pride and ego from her on-duty mindset. And probably attend mandatory Anger Management sessions. She is definitely in need of some retraining.
Speedbird completely in the right. 180kts below 2000ft is alot of energy to scrub off before the stable requirement at 1000ft. She was trying to cover her own fuck up and didn't admit it... Not someone I would want on the scopes! Controller should get an attitude adjustment and supervised training.
The problem with a lot of controllers is they let that word go to their heads, they are there to assist and inform the aircrew, not instruct the aircrew in how to fly the plane.
Might be piss poor planning but if she can't make the sequence work then she has to break someone out. She is not a 747 pilot and working some of the busiest airspace in the world. This is not her first rodeo.
That controller is ALWAYS arrogant. No wonder some pilots end up being defensive with ATC... I'd have her removed right away if I was her superior, no room for that in aviation.
Punishing pilot, crew, and passengers on that 747 for the pilot flying the plane in a safe manner and within the proper operating envelope: it's appalling! Who's running that show anyway? I always thought that ATC was there to secure the public's safety, not unnecessarily endanger it!
totally got the mental image of the controller nonchalantly filing her nails, and chewing gum, with a big poofy hairdo as she initiates the back and forth with BAW15K x~D
Alternate title: ATC fucks up and doesn't leave enough separation to the aircraft behind, expects pilots to cover for her and risk the lives of hundreds of people.
180kts to a 5 mile final is a legal and safe speed assignment. If the pilot needs something slower all he has to do is ask with enough time for the controller to plan for their request. This pilot didn’t.
@@SpicyFaceActualNO it is not... Totally illegal. 180 to 5 DME. . That is actually speed control to 3.6 miles from touchdown. . Your obviously don't understand and are obviously no pilot... You know nothing about the dynamics and energy management of a B747-400. And never will from your armchair m
@@daftvader4218 I said 180 to a five mile final is a legal speed. And you said it isn’t. Here’s my source from the 7110.65. You’re wrong. You’ve lost all credibility. Game over. ATC is only allowed to “assign speeds to “the final approach fix (which is usually 5/6 mile final) or to a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.” -7110.65 5-7-1
Not a pilot or controller but an avid enthusiast and retired avionics technician. I understand this airspace is incredibly busy, but I'm with the pilot on this one.
The Controller screwed up the separation of the aircraft on the approach and issued BA with an illegal clearance in terms of SPEED and DISTANCEfrom landing for ANY commercial aircraft. . FACT 180 kts to 5 DME is actually 3.6 nm from touchdown on this JFK ILS. The .DME is not co-located! This is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a B747 to remain STABLE. FACT That is why the Captain states he is flying a B747...not because he is a arrogant !! FACT The Controller then gave a illegal clearance to go around because the BA Captain would not accept an illegal clearance. FACT No B747-400 would accept this Clearance ANYWHERE in the world.. JUST THE FACTS. ..NOT OPINION.
He would have said something to relieve the tension. I'm not sure if he would have handled this differently, but I certainly would bet that he would have smoothed the situation down a bit. He had a special talent for dealing with just about anything, even angry and frustrated pilots.
@@Cissy2cute I thought this was a social experiment of something he had done, but with a girl voice- just to see how people would attack her (but not Kennedy Steve had it been his voice)
This ATC has to be taken off duty and retrained immediately. If her irresponsible and unsafe behavior continues, she must be dismissed from the ATC role permanently.
@@shaanemillat He retired on the 777. He flew 747-200s/300 as First Officer then became Captain on the L1011 TriStar out of Kai Tak then became a Check and Training Captain on the A330-300 and A340-200/300/600. My family had to live in Toulouse for a while while they airline sent training captains to learn the Airbus and write the training curriculum. The -600s came much later though and didn't last long in service. He then transferred to the same role on the 747-400/400F and was one of the people who managed for the introduction of the -400BCF which CX launched. In his last years he retired from Check and Training and became a standard Captain on the 747-8F then latter took up the 777 before retiring which I'm fairly certain he also flew into JFK as they took over the route from the 747.
Controller made a mistake. Should have instructed the faster aircraft to do a 360, or vector them to out and back in, but the 747 who was ahead and on final should have continued on to land. If the pilots of the 747 were miffed, they had every right to be.
Peter Toth I fundamentally agree with your position and think the controller was rude and inept (but it is JFK, so I didn't expect much), but a 360 would have likely conflicted the trailing aircraft with the following aircraft. As I've said elsewhere, I would have simply stated that I was unable to do 180K, told her what the fastest I could do was, and if I got sent around called the ATC facility manager after we were safely parked at the gate and shut down. That's just me.
@@cliveramsbotty6077 Just as well really. With this ATC it would be like "Maintain 180 knots" "We can't do that, our engine is on fire, we need an emergency landing" "Cancel approach, take a turn in the hold for disobeying my orders"
Pilot is spot on. This was weird. Looks like the controller was taking her frustrations out on him. Can't understand why she'd make things good for NUMBER 2 by FORCING NUMBER 1 to adjust???
typically I hear ATC to adjust the speed of the following plane behind to accommodate the plane in front, if they can’t do that then they will have to go around. Why you would want to take out a plane that has the approach set up and go through the thing all over again, unless there’s serious safety issue like something on the runway, or as a punishment because you cannot do what I want.
What an absolute joke of an ATC controller. She forgot what plane he was flying, asked him to fly unreasonably and outside a stabilised approach....got embarrassed and out of spite she diverted him. That's a pathetic power trip. Putting her pettiness over air safety.
@@TheVinceZampella Yeah because adding 20 knots on a 747 landing speed, which violates their company safety policies and procedures for landing speeds is no big deal. 🙄
The pilot said he would talk to her after the incident which likely means she either accepted fault to a degree the captain was satisfied with, or he filed a report.
@@Person01234 I think Captain said he would like to talk to her after on ground because he wants to focus on flying the plane after being taken out of sequence.. Also, pilot was trying to avoid taking time to complain on busy arrival frequency.. I hoped he atleast filed a report later.
@@amitsingh09004 He did that because an active ATC frequency is not the place to have that discussion. He will get the number for the facility and have a phone conversation with the woman. If he satisfies himself it was a just a mistake under stress, or she has a good explanation, he likely will let it go. Otherwise he will likely file a report (although it's up to him). It'll be the same number pilots are given when ATC says "I have a number for you".
@@amitsingh09004 Yeah when it comes to ATC frequency they must be related to the flight of aircraft. Thus any conflicts are either the ATC saying "I have a number for you to call when you get on the ground" and in this case the pilot saying "I don't believe that is FAA approved but we will discuss that later. But yeah I'm also endlessly curious to what the aftermath was.
So I know ATC has to do their job and most importantly they have to help out and keep everyone safe however in this case the pilot is absolutely right. He can't comply the instructions from ATC because of the approach he was following and also because the aircraft he is on. He needed a stabilized approach. Also I'm sure the airline has their pilots to follow certain approches and final procedures.
Hmm, well she wanted them to be 180kt until 5 DME, at around 6.8 DME, they should 1800ft, and I’d assume somewhere around 1400ft, and I don’t think it’s possible to go from 180kt to about 145kt (Average VRef for B748). And yeah I think it was right for the pilots to say they couldn’t do it, because there is honestly no way they could stabilize by 1000ft.
Pilot is right, They had there plan / criteria its happening and then ATC get things a bit tight and all of the sudden they have to speed up, after configuring the aircraft to slow. She didn't like it so got the hump and broke him off. She should have had the following aircraft do the changes as they have more options. I'm with the BAW pilot. He is not grumpy but irritated, He is not a perfectionist just a pilot doing what he should be doing.
Pilot didn't get angry. Sounded more like frustration to me. He is flying within aircraft parameters and controller takes him out of sequence as punishment for refusing to compromise aircraft safety. She should have slowed the following traffic as he implied.
I agree 110%
Speaking as a Brit, saying "we'll discuss that later" means we are thinking of disembowelling the person we're speaking to.
@@geckolocator My guess is that she would have stabbed him if she's a true New Yorker.
Matt Ferguson Too right 😂🙏🏻
@@geckolocator It means that to EVERYONE BUT Americans.
This is bizarre. If 15K can’t fly the requested speed because it’s beyond his approach maximums then that’s final. It’s not up to the controller to dictate how a pilot flies his aircraft. Cancelling his approach to accommodate the aircraft flying BEHIND him is also bizarre as that is the aircraft that should be instructed to go around (Speedbird had lower altitude on approach and right of way). Speedbird is totally right in this instance. Controller needs a kick up the arse.
Mike Doggers The issue is that they cancelled approach for the wrong aircraft. 15K had right of way, 1AJ should’ve been asked to move instead. That’s what the guys had a problem with. Procedure wasn’t followed here and spacing was clearly an issue. 180kt at 5 DME is flying low and fast - the controller would’ve been well aware of this and asked for it anyway, that just isn’t reasonable.
@@BIGDROC99 Because, from my limited understanding, the BA aircraft cannot achieve what is classed as a stabilised approach using the parameters set out by the controller.
Being the lower aircraft, BA should have been allowed to continue and the aircraft *behind* go around for traffic and resequence.
That’s what I thought 🙈
Mike Doggers that’s not safety. She did that to punish them. Take the aircraft behind out of sequence.
Up the "daily business" ya mean!
Come on folks, bigger fish to fly in this world. What about that Gretta????
Seems like controllers get mad when pilots remind them that they’re flying and the controller is not.
Ninedaysjane has nothing to do with sex, I feel the same way about the incident between the Aer Lingus pilot and NYC controller, which is another VASAviation
And apparently pilots get mad when they don't get their way.
@@falcon759 pilots are extraordinarily well trained professionals >flying airplanes
we only hear the really bad ones on youtube etc. If you look around you'll hear controllers literally saving pilots lives too
@@charlesreid9337 Wow, what an ignorant statement! Both commercial pilots and ATC are well-trained professionals and deserving of respect. Yes, there are some unprofessional pilots as well as controllers, but that is true of any profession. And yes, the captain is responsible for the safety of his aircraft, but he's not the only bird in the skies.
“Unable” is the magic word on this one
To be fair, he said he can't and offered an alternative, controller ignored that and insisted on 180 until 5
Unable .... will now always be the magic aviation word
That's Sully word
There is another word AA002 uses, Emergency.
Having operated heavy metal for BA globally for 27 years, JFK is among the most challenging ATC anywhere. They KNOW we have to slow to final speed by 1000ft, which equates to 3 miles, and they have been reminded countless times that any wide-body has very limited ability to decelerate, but they continually ask for the impossible, and they get stroppy when you are unable to comply. One night many years ago I ended up doing 2 go-arounds because they got us too close to the aircraft in front and the runway was not vacated... the BA179 so it was 0300 GMT and we really didn’t need it! On the 3rd approach we insisted on slowing because - again - they wanted us to stay 2.5 miles behind a CAT B aircraft which has a landing speed 20 slower than a Jumbo... absolute muppets!
Yeah, it is always the FOREIGN pilots that seem to have the problems. Never seen any pilots on carriers from the *United States* have any issue whatsoever at JFK, in these videos! If you cannot handle the "heat" in America, then don't fly here! End of story! Just because your training is not to the high standards of the US, don't take it out on our controllers!
OK, honestly, I think you old timers (from places like UK, Europe, etc.) are great pilots. I suppose my reference to the "loser pilots" that you guys produce, are the _CURRENT GENERATION_ of 250-hour ignoramuses that you guys like to stuff in the right seats of your big jets, mostly at places like Ryanair, EasyJet and so on!!
@@747-pilot Steady on there cowboy, I operate out of the likes of many major European airports and the guys who struggle to follow basic procedures and cause the most havoc are the American carriers. I love how you have the audacity to label it is the "high standards of the US", because as a matter of fact I operate for a very reputable European airline whom has zero fatalities and after returning from the US where I did my basic training the first thing we were all told by our instructor who happens to be an ex Concorde Captain was to forget everything we were taught in the US because it is all incorrect. This is exactly what I hate about American pilots and controllers, they are amongst the least competent, most unsafe yet they have the biggest God like ego and it is that exact attitude which gets people killed, the statistcs are written everywhere go look them up. Like I said, a bunch of cowboys who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an aircraft.
Rant over.
@@747-pilot Interesting. So you yankees consider an A319 to be a big jet? That's very interesting indeed...
@@karlosbricks2413 Not just that, apparently they consider anything with more than 9 seats a big jet because they need 1500 hours before they can even touch it... They also think flying a Cessna 152 around the circuit for 1500 hours makes them God like pilots -.-
She seemed a bit too eager to “punish” him here
Why is revectoring punishment. If the speed restriction was necessary , how could she accept unable without taking some action. Speed restrictions are to keep planes from running into eachother either in the air or the runway. Other airports maybe she could have adjusted the other planes but the airplanes are spaced with little wiggle room there
She didn't get laid for quite a time, I guess, that makes women do thing like she did right there... Get laid often and avoid conflicts like that.
But it wasnt a speed restriction, she wanted him to fly faster. Then it should have been the one behind that should have slowed down?
wewk584 I’m not too sure but I’m pretty sure the plane in front with the lower altitude has the right of way and the plane behind him should be the one asked to slow down or revectored.
@@ninedaysjane2466 has nothing to do with her being a women - would have said the same thing about a man
She made a 747 leave the pattern for traffic BEHIND them??? Unbelievable.
he would mess up the whole sequence, so ya. F off limey
Sounds like we might have a Kennedy Karen on our hands
Lol, "Speedird 15K Heavy approach clearence canceled, when able give me a number of your manager to copy" :D
Naw, Speedbird is infamous for holding up flow.
Golden 👌 lol
They all think they are celebrities now because of channels like this one.
100% has the “Karen” voice 😂
The pilot is completely correct I’d say. You can’t stabilise a 747 at 180 and he correctly informed ATC that he was unable and as he was the lower aircraft he has right of way. Bad part on the controller id say. He was polite enough and tried his best to accommodate by saying he can do 160 so I think speedbird didn’t do one thing wrong
Steffan Dawe so.... He can fly 160 but can’t bump it up to 180??? Mind you he’s only being asked to give the extra 20 until a 5 mile final. If you can’t lose 20 knots and stabilize in 4 miles so your stabilized before 1000ft you might need to try harder.
Also he was unreasonably slow way out compared to every one else.
It was a SPEEDBIRD pilot. They are never correct. He was holding up the pattern, as they usually do. She wanted a bit more speed out of him and he could easily accommodate. Of course, she could have waited 30 seconds for him to complete the config in order to reach the 180 kts. Probably tired of Brits. It's easy for that to happen.
Andy Taylor the POH for BA in the 747 states you are t able to stabilise the approach and continue unless at 160kts. He is the pilot he has right of way. It’s insufficient planning by ATC. The Speedbird (British or not) did nothing wrong in this instance. Bit arrogant of you to say such things about British pilots
@@andytaylor1588 I assume you have experience in flying the 747?
@@jordan4541 stabilized on virtually any transport category aircraft is 1000 AGL. Ref speed on a 747 is already quite close to 160, there's no reason he needed to be snippy about things, and I believe someone else took over the radios for him (it sounded like) after the cancelled approach
In a sense pilot is right, he has to fly the plane
And ATC is right to keep planes separated. Would be interesting if this was further resolved and if either or both parties would have done something different?
Indeed
@@phapnui so she should've increase separation behind him, not by sending him out... It's should be FIFO structure as much as possible. I understand that would require slight more workload for her but that's her job.
kabaddiify yes, my instructor told me not to be afraid to say no to atc
@@masflow09 It is illegal not to follow ATC instructions and any pilot found not doing so can be prosecuted for endagerment of an aircraft which carries a pridon term of life in prison, at the very least the pilots licence would be permanently revoked.
'British Airways pilot makes good decisions. ATC gets snippy.' Fixed the title for you.
My favorite part is after the clearance got cancelled the pilot asked what was the reason for it? And she says I just needed you to maintain 160 for 3 more miles which is exactly what he was doing to begin with 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sure thing, mum.
He was frustrated. But her passive aggressive "when you get around to that, that'll be great" is unprofessional
I hope the pilot made a report on that controller.
I hope the controller has to pay for the go around fuel.
I hope the controller gets arrested and tared and feathered
@@pluto8404 sometimes I wish shit like that was legal
@@justanotheraviator2357 arresting people? Legal? Are you mad?
@@HupfderFloh different situations. Not like this!
Why is this video not called Rude ATC controller takes out her frustration on pilot? Feels like there is a bias against the pilot in the title, but when actually watching the video in reality its the other way around
Because the pilot is wasting time explaining unnecessary things to a professional ATC as if she doesn't know how an airline works. He got all huffy at her for doing her job.
@@babababad he got annoyed at her for not following procedure and he thought she took him out just to spite him which is probably true. She needed him to slow down but he had company operational limits to follow. He's flying the plane so she should've done her job and adjusted the speed of traffic behind him accordingly
@@ajk6656 ATC canceled approach clearance long after the pilot had abandoned professionalism to waste everyone's time with an unnecessary lecture. All he had to do was supply ATC with sufficient information for her to control separation, instead he goes off about what kind of aircraft he's got as if ATC doesn't already know.
@@babababad I agree he took up the channel explaining why he was pissed off which is not very professional, but at first he told her what he couldn't do and what he could do. Her response disregarded that completely with a bad attitude which set him off. Instead of asking him to do something he just told her he can't do, she should have adjusted the traffic accordingly. It's not like he was going so slow that it was unreasonable to slow the traffic behind him
@@ajk6656 Also the pilot needs to tell her he is going to file a report
As an ATC I never resort to asking pilots to modify speeds unless it’s absolutely the last option. There’s no way I would know their ship better than they do, so I’d rather take the braking of the aircrafts on final into account when I vector them. There was plenty of time for the traffic behind to get a later turn into final and everything would’ve turned out great. No speed change needed. It’s hard for some to accept the fact that your job as an ATC is to help pilots as much as possible, not boss them around.
Buddy! Where are you an air traffic controller at because obviously you haven't worked real traffic? The 7110.65 spells out that vectoring is used to get spacing and speed is used to maintain it! When you work high volume traffic the front of the gap is just as important as the back of the gap! You HAVE to control the speeds because having too much space i.e. pilot is flying too slow, is just as bad to the operation as too little space!
Strange, i always thought ATC was just allergic to pilots and helped them go out of the airspace as safely as possible.
Think it is important to say that there are many good controllers and also a few bad ones. At least in the UK there is also the problem that there is more and more a driver for cost saving meaning that they are understaffed ... shouldn't be the case at JFK though
@@56independent42 The sooner I get rid of them, the sooner I can go back to discussing the chow run.
Bogdan, airports with any real volume require speed control in order to maintain arrival rates and consistent spacing. There's a whole section on speed control in the 7110.65, I'd recommend you read it sometime, lots of very interesting stuff in there.
Where do you work, we use speed control everywhere, 10 knots at 60 miles may save a sequence of 6!
"Okay do this."
"I physically cannot do that."
"Alright go around."
"Why?"
"Because shut up."
ATC: "Okay, do this"
BA: "I don't wanna"
ATC: "Fine, then don't"
Im sorry, but that controller is a bit(h. Pilot nearly got mad but was able to stay fairly cool.
Punishing a pilot and flight because they couldn't keep speed up? Lame and possibly dangerous.
Although, I AM surprised the 747 couldn't do 180kts for a couple minutes. If it really couldn't, then it was an even MORE unreasonable request from ATC with a petty outcome.
Karen has found her way in to atc...
@@endokrin7897 It isn't that the 747 couldn't do that speed it is that it needs to be under that speed to make the approach
LOL!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
We all have bad days at work - but the worst bit about this was her attitude.
‘You still haven’t answered my question, so whenever you want to get around to that’.
Unacceptable. She was also in the wrong, the pilot cannot compromise his SOP’s and overspeed the landing to make her life simpler.
APS - Pictures that was my problem. The sarcasm was unprofessional, unnecessary, and unwarranted. The pilot said everything but the exact word “unable”. It’s clear that his explanation was communicating “unable”. When a pilot (or controller) uses that word - or words to that effect in this case - it means there’s a good reason, usually safety related.
I hope the controller here gets pulled from the tower, made to listen to the tape, explain why she acted that way (so she can be introspective), and be warned that if it happens again she’s looking for another line of work. A bad day and a bad attitude are different things. One is temporary, and the other will get someone hurt.
@@rjhornsby "the pilot said everything" is the exact problem...ATC requested aircraft to slow to a speed within criteria and he came back with some pedantic, patronizing explanation. ATC's subsequent reaction wasn't constructive but perhaps understandable given the uncooperative pilot.
Rick Hornsby of course she is, shes a woman.
@@babababad How is "I can't do that mam" pedantic or patronizing? He is basically saying he is unable to comply.
You can't threaten the pilot or start bitching, especially if you are incompetent at your job, like this so called ATC.
Thanks god I don't have people like this in my station.
@@babababad The other way around.
ATC requested a higher speed than SOP
The controller circled No3 to avoid slowing down the No4 that is mental! Preceding Aircraft was doing 200 she could slow the NAX or send it through the locliser for spacing. Pilot seemed very reasonable he offered 160. IMO the controller was quite rude.
BAW was doing 130 and was asked when are you SLOWING to 160, "When ever you get around to answering my question that would be great" Appalling RT.
Pilot would have done better to just say "Unable"
160 or GREATER is what she stated at first. He was holding up the line.
Technically the pilot was correct, but man,what an attitude
130kt ground speed. Considering the winds even at 2000ft can be quite strong (in the UK anyway), the BA 747 could very well be flying anywhere between 150 to even 170kts indicated so when he offered 160kts (indicated, not GS like shown on scope) or greater, at least to me, it would sound like he was happy to speed up a lil/keep the same speed to keep the controller happy but not any faster.
I hope she gets fired.
rude? bitchy is the word. she vectored the guy that flew cross atlantic just to make her point.
Yet another example of aggressive, confrontational controllers around JFK. I've listened in to Heathrow for years and have yet to hear one single confrontational exchange. There is something about some US controllers that seems to create so much unnecessary aggro. Not all of course - most of them are excellent. The BA pilot was completely correct. The Controller was rude, ignorant and plain wrong. She caused the situation by vectoring aircraft too bunched up in the first place
The people that work at Kennedy are all assholes from Long Island.
@@patrickmorrissey3084 All of them? Sounds more like you're one of them. Calling everyone an asshole just because they're from a place is something an asshole would say :)
No seriously, my uncle and cousins are in L.I. I'm there all the time. Assholes thru and thru😂
I think its just america in general its A culture of me first fck you its mine, i come first etc.
Typical New Yorker.
I, too, got penalty vectors once out of JFK. He said we weren’t accelerating fast enough for him and we got chewed. Wtf dude. My plane is slow!
"Penalty vectors"? Geeezus, man, are we back to the Middle Ages of flying? Flying is about sticking to rules, regulations, procedures, performances, techniques, etcetera. Can you show me ONE publication mentioning the existence of "penalty vectors"? Please!
@@francescocandian2708 I think he's referring to getting a phone number from ATC sir
@@francescocandian2708 One example is the "Penalty Box" at ORD. It actually used to be printed on the airport diagram "Penalty Box". If you didn't get to the runway fast enough or took excessive time to run checklists ORD Ground would send you to the Box and you'd be penalized and have them replay something back like "SKW5020 you are number 23 for the active". So yes ATC does do things like this. Theyre most not vindictive but this does exist.
@@JohnGalt289 Thanks. Honestly, I had never heard of that, yet I believe you. But of course, I do not buy this s***. Can the solution to high traffic be better Flight Deck performance? Partly, and ONLY to a certain extent. But higher performance means higher standards and in turn this implies different TRAINING standards. The "penalty box" solution is disrispectful, unless the assumption is that for some reason a given crew is WILLINGLY taking longer than required to perform their duties. Which, btw seems to be the ATC controller's attitude, and in my opinion EXACTLY what irritates the crew.
If, on the other hand, it is recognized I am doing my best as a pilot, yet my performance is sub-standard, we should either consider changing my performance or changing the standards. In both cases the solution is not an idiotic "penalty box". This is a "Third World", "Banana Republic", "Medieval" approach, "your problem"-style approach. Guess what, when I'm crashing on your kindergarden it's OUR problem...!
@@francescocandian2708 I partly agree that solutions for super busy airspaces need to be training for both flight crew and ATC but I really was just saying that the FAA/ATC does do things like make you wait or give you bad sequencing for little things like this.
40 years in the ground operations side. Of all the phone calls I've witnessed between a captain and ATC, after arriving at the gate, this is the most common. ATC asking the pilots to do something that falls outside of safe aviation parameters. On the plus side, once on the ground, a simple, civil phone call to the controller usually sets things right. No big deal, pretty routine.
elk hunter the bad attitude is the problem. No one should work as Atc with those kind of attitude. Btw the request was against Faa and ICAO rules.
@@omerozgur1126 Yup. The request wasn't the problem. The shitty lecture and incoherent procedure after being told unable is.
@@omerozgur1126 Pretty much what I was saying. The controller got huffy. The pilot handled it well. Best time to discuss this is once the aircraft is on the ground.
If it's routine, then things aren't being set right, now are they?
Looks like an ATC training issue to me. Train the controllers to understand what the pilots need and accommodate accordingly. Doesn’t seem like a difficult change to make.
Good airmanship !
Poor controlling !
Pilot sounded frustrated, seemed more like the controller canceled the clearance just to be petty lol
Sounds like the controller would be more at home in a McDonalds drive-thru.
LMAO.......
Anthony 1976 actually it was the pilot that showed worst manners
Olasek Thanks for being corrected, silly me. Obviously you’re a 747 pilot with massive experience flying the airplane into JFK 👍💪
Anthony 1976 and what exactly makes you think that judging who qualifies for McDonalds drive-thru requires 747 experience?
Olasek Because a Big Mac isn’t as important as 300 tonne machine containing hundreds of people, with a bad attitude controller running the drive-thru.
In many parts of the world its 160 to 4 dme, I fly an a A320 and I'd be unable to comply with 180 to 5 Dme because on a 3 degree approach 5 dme is about 1500 feet, most airline SOP's (standard operating procedures) have what we call "gates" 1000 ft and 500ft at my current company 1000ft we must be in landing configuration (flaps and gear) and speed within +30 of VAPP it would be a massive push and challenge to maintain 180 to 5 dme and then dump everything and slow down within about a mile, can't imagine with higher inertia what its like for the 747, good on the crew.
Ajit Sidhu I think it's still possible. At 5 dme you're at 1700ft. If you're at 180kts at this altitude with the gear down it's quiet easy to be stabilised at 1000ft. In some airlines it's even 500ft in VMC conditions. Now of course it depends on the plane. I don't fly the 747 but I think it loses speed really quickly.
@@noah9130 The 747 actually doesn't lose speed as fast as you might think. Though it's heavy and large, it glides really well.
always great to have input from the professionals, thanks!
Ajit, this reinforces my earlier observation that controllers are typically not pilots and don't know squat about the operational limitations of the aircraft under their direction. The controller cancelling his clearance was just her ego overriding her better judgement and professionalism. A call to the tower post flight would absolutely be appropriate, and from the sound of it was likely the pilot's intention.
Yes..... 1,000 ft AGL "Gates" upon being configured are SOP at the Airlines (usually worlwide). The key is to be more vigilant, self aware of your environment, and a anticipate the ensuing slam dunk.
Preparation means everything on sequence, descents, speed, and where you're at in that sequence on "all" approaches.
Be Safe out there.
She gave him an instruction he was unable to comply with, explained why he couldn't comply, she got short with him after that. Aircraft behind could've/ should've been asked to slow after she was told the reason the 747 couldn't
You can’t just slow down an airplane because then you slow down the one behind them and so on it becomes a mess. You have to sequence them back through either the BA or the Norwegian. Weather she was right or wrong about which one she pulled out is up to you I’m just explaining there’s more to it than just slowing down.
@@Phx737swa She literally told the one behind to speed up straight after telling BA to do so so she could've not had the plane behind increase it's speed.
You also can't have aircraft coming in in an unstable way. To expect that( especially when you've been told that would be consequence by the pilot flying) is totally unreasonable imho
C2K she had him maintain the faster speed that needed to keep the flow going. This flow number you have is from the time you depart they are betting on you coming in at a certain time. And 5 miles out is still more than enough especially at 2000. I haven’t seen the approach plate but they are probably just intercepting. But you’re correct if that they didn’t feel comfortable accepting it then they don’t have to and she had to re sequence someone and it just ended up being them. You’d find the same thing at ORD LAX any of the big Bravos. It’s all just keeping the flow going
@@C2K777 TBH I think it's going to bite one of them in the ass at some point. More than enough accidents have already happened when pilots take clearances they really shouldn't... An overshoot at LGA isn't a hard scenario to picture.
I hope the BA crew file a complaint.
For what?
@@user-wl6bw3jl4n Did you even watch the video?
Chris V improper procedure, unprofessionalism, forcing excessive use of the channel by giving shitty instructions and not listening when the pilot mentioned that’s not protocol and the parameters of the plane cannot do what she is asking.
@@Boodieman72 I did. What's the complaint? ATC did what she felt would continue the flow of inbound flights. The BA pilot promulgated that he was not going to comply with her instructions due to stabilization criteria per company policy. She instructs him to break off the approach and vectors him around for another approach - nothing illegal nor unsafe. I don't see how submitting a complaint would change anything. Enlighten me please as I am keen to learn.
@@mrjjman2010 👌
It’s not about the aircraft or pilot being unable to comply it’s about each airlines own stabilized approach criteria which precludes us from doing what might seem a reasonable thing to controllers. If you land from an unstable approach as detailed by your company you will face disciplinary action where I work.
ramjet2977 Where I work as well. FOQA monitors everything and if you land from an unstable approach you will be getting a phone call to explain yourself.
@@HEDGE1011 Don't know if you are ramjet2977 are familiar with this www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pilot-in-near-miss-found-dead-in-car-1561147.html It's a harsh reminder of the need to fly to the airline OPs Manual
He just told you he can't do it. I know that the controller has to keep spacing but in a dispute, whether emergency or not, the benefit of the doubt goes to the pilots.
Surly if thats the case, what she should of done is got NAX1AJ to either match BAW15K speed or less to keep the spacing. Or set one of the aircraft up on the other parallel runway.
@@pdxpilot06 Did you even think about your post for 2 seconds? It's less safe to send the aircraft further into their approach around than the one less far into the approach. Which is why the FAA safety regulations give the lower aircraft the right of way. Which is why, as everyone is saying, if there was an issue with following traffic, the plane behind should have been the one sent around.
I remind myself never to fly my plane to JFK as ATC is so rude.
Then I remember I am not a pilot.
this is not jfk tower. this is the tracon. N90
Richard Dalrymple Thanks for mentioning this Richard...I think I actually said something about calling the tower supervisor once at the gate and shut down and I misspoke. I can't readily find that right now or I'd edit it but I appreciate you making that clear. What I should have said was that I'd get the number for the facility and call their supervisor to discuss it.
Best Regards and thanks for the prompt.
😅
"Kennedy Ground, Honda Accord with information Golf, request taxi for departure to the west..."
Hell, I don't think I even want to fly into JFK on Microsoft flight simulator!!!
At Houston Hobby a few years ago, a Cirrus (I think) in the approach sequence was flying too slowly for ATC and was going to be overtaken by the plane behind. Hobby’s ATC gave the go-around to the Cirrus which then stalled and crashed. The controller was specifically criticized for making the Cirrus go-around even though it was first in the sequence.
timmohthee is it this one th-cam.com/video/mf3xhjXl454/w-d-xo.html
Well, you're leaving out a whole lotta things there. The Cirrus was taken out of sequence in that instance several times and given several runway changes. The controller was critized for making things very complicated and confusing with a single pilot at the controls. One go around is easily trained for, but three+runway changes, flaps in and out in a small but fast airplane? It can easily stress a single pilot, especially after a long flight. Of course, you're right if ATC had just followed FIFO it probably would have been fine...
Yes, there were many, many factors that went into the crash - the pilot’s inexperience, her refusal to speak assertively and accept ATC instructions without question, conflicting and confusing commands from ATC, the list goes on and on. I only mention the sequencing because it’s what applies to the video. Of the many things that the ATC was criticized for by the NTSB, making the Cirrus go-around because it was flying too slowly for the planes behind it directly applied to this video.
Airwipe yes
@@drfaustus72 ...and even more particularly if you are taking zolpadem and flying illegally being out of date for the BFR.
Pilots of Delta 3567 rightly criticized for blindly following misleading ATC altitude instructions in mountainous terrain, only to be saved by an automated terrain warning. Here the ATC requests unsafe speed/altitude combination for the 747. The pilot corrects her error, and she responds by being petty and vindictive, punishing the 747 for operating safely. Her attitude is dangerous, and I certainly hope she was reprimanded.
so you assume it was a punishment, not because she had other 5 planes behind coming at a faster speed and has to maintain a minimum separation. Ok, sure.
@@vanessaruiz4705 According to protocol the aircraft behind should go around. Not the one in front.
@@vanessaruiz4705 you revel in your ignorance huh?
@@pubudusenanayake6724 yeah sure, scroll down and tell the same thing to the pilots that are used to operate in that airspace and said that this is how it's always done there. Dont reply only to me because you want to start some childish gender battle. Bye. Silenced. Dont bother to reply.
@@vanessaruiz4705 Gender battle? What are you on about?
Anyway, controller was acting against protocol. The FACT that you are ignorant about that, and revel in your ignorance has nothing to do with your gender, or mine.
Clearly ATC is at fault. She's incharge of vectoring all aircraft safely with safe seperation between them
Jonathan and Speedbird clearly slowed down earlier than normal. Causing an accordion effect behind him. Not that hard to just bump the power up, give an extra 20 and just as easy to lose that 20 inside a 5 mile final as asked.
Wade Saxton Again I ask for your operational knowledge and experience on the -400 to make this statement.
Signed,
A guy with a B-747-4 type rating and loads of applicable experience
if he cant go as fast as needed for whatever reason, it is easier to pull him out, than it is to correct the speed of the other 5 planes behind him.
Wade Saxton are you the same goof commenting on all the other comments trying to rebut actual pilots with your non existent knowledge? I like watching these videos but at no time do I think I’m an actual pilot or have the expertise of one. Get off the internet, wade.
@@mrjjman2010 there are at least 4 "actual pilots" here that agree with the ATC, given this particular airspace. So it's not only one person.
Icao rules dictate maximum speed can be 160 till 4 miles. So 180 is out of the window. That lady should have been reported.
FAA ATC order says, "Do not assign speed adjustment to aircraft: ... 4. Inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway."
For the trailing aircraft. There are instructions to account for spacing compression during speed changes. Standard procedure is to assign arriving jet aircraft below 10,000msl a speed not less than 210kts and 170kts within 20nm of the runway threshold.(The aircraft can be allowed to fly slower, but should not be required to fly slower. ie "maintain 170kts or slower" is acceptable) The wording of the FAA rules indicates this is a best practice not a not a hard rule, as it is followed by "Lower speeds may be assigned when operationally advantageous."
'When operationally advantageous' is FAA speak for special conditions that can not be handled with the common recommended methods. That is the exception provides a substantial gain in efficiency or safety, as an example maybe an airport is near a mountain and normal speeds cause approach problems.
Given the pilot saying "I don't believe that is FAA approved procedure but we'll discuss that later", I suspect either she accepted that she was at fault on the phone (or possibly he did), or such a report was filed.
@@Person01234 Even if he had contacted the facility on the ground he would not have spoken to the controller. He would have spoken to whoever was working the desk and fielding phone calls for that area, most likely an FAA operations supervisor. Given that no one appeared to actually violate any rules here apart from getting their panties in a twist, all that would likely come of it is a discussion between the controller and her supervisor.
@@BlackOpSource This is wrong in every way.
@@Person01234 I've been controlling air traffic professionally for the last ten years, but do tell.
Pilot was right. Hope he reported the incident
"So whenever you get around to that, that'd be great."
WTH 🤔🤨
New York controllers are the worst. Always an attitude. Not following procedures to push metal through. BAW was correct in this situation in that he has standards to fly his aircraft to before complying with controller instructions. “Unable” means exactly that.
seoceancrosser Yes they are but more specifically JFK is infinitely worse than LGA (or EWR). That's why JFK is the only airport I bid to avoid every single month. The only way you'll find me there is on a reroute. I did it a ton when I was junior, now I'd be happy never to have to see that place again. The worst.
Michael Gordon Fair enough. Why does have so many of them working as Air Traffic Controllers?
New yorkers bunch of cockwads
ATC needs to get another job that's less stressful. She got a smart mouth on her
If she had stated a speed requirement earlier in the approach, he probably could have complied. It looks like she noticed the separation issue quite late when it was already hard to correct it.
If you listen to many TRACONs you will hear speed restrictions almost always given right around approach clearance. They're also usually published on the approach plates.
She was negligent.
@@ownage2214 Can you give me an example of an approach plate with a speed restriction?
@@greensagan I have one, the RNAV Z 06L (and 06R) at PGUM. 210 knots or slower at RASPE, and at or below 4,500 feet. I think the approach gets lower minima (partially) by restricting the energy the aircraft can carry crossing the IAF; the similar RNAV Y doesn't have these restrictions.
How does any controller expect a 747 to slow from 180kt to Vref in 5 miles and getting stable at 1000ft.
I think physics class needs to be taken again.
I wish I was a pilot so I understood all this :D
@@knndyskful It's fairly simple. Big heavy plane takes a long time to slow down. Must be at final approach speed and plane configured for landing by 1000 feet to go.
Controller can't tell the pilot to violate the laws of physics because she is trying to cram in an extra landing.
she can give directions, but one thing is that the pilot can comply and he said it he cant do 160 at the time 🤷🏻♂️
Wait, I heard the controller say she wanted him to go 180 (or faster). The pilot is the one who said he has to go 160.
I think they were both right. Pilots should always say unable if unable. And its dangerous to let approaching planes get too close to each other.
@@krubokrobu You do know that it's not easy to just keep going up and down in speed when dissenting a commercial aircraft right?
I think pilot was flying safe and spoke nicely. I think tower lady had an attitude.
The pilot had a attitude the virgin Atlantic flight which comes from the same place had no problem following the ATC instructions.
Wonder if they ever “discussed” that FAA approved procedure? If I were him, I’d sort her out real good!
With that kind of emotion, she shouldn’t be ATC
agreed. Making a 747 do a go around just to stroke her ego is a huge waste of time, money and fuel
I have read elsewhere that she was fired.
This controller really struck a nerve with me. Her narcissistic response to the pilot is astounding! Clearly not a team player.
cookiemonster Welcome to New York! This is why pilots hate dealing with NYC and JFK in particular.
@@ninedaysjane2466 If it was a male controller and a female pilot you wouldn't say he's sexist. But everytime there's a woman in the wrong and men point that out apparently they are sexist...
I fly here all the time with a major carrier, and this is the most dangerous destination on the network. Aggressive, non-standard ATC, extremely poor approach designation and design (with awful missed approach controlling), rushed ground control with multiple frequencies in use, and the ground crews make Manila and Jakarta look positively space age sometimes.
Last time I was there I had a TCAS RA at 1200', as did the aircraft ahead of me. We both went around, and absolutely nobody cared. It's a madhouse.
Edit: Oh, and 180kt until 5nm (1500') is crazy - even in my smaller airbus. They do it routinely as well. You have to ask for 170kt, then steal 10 more knots (ie go to 160kt) or you get into this ridiculous debate, or you'll be unstable and go around.
SenorCrazylegs I also fly into there with a major carrier and have done so for 29 years: I couldn't agree more!
I'm normally senior enough to avoid it now, and it's the only destination I avoid every single month.
JFK has the rudest, most aggressive, totally non-standard controllers of anywhere I've ever been, and I've been a lot of places. Terrible facilities, awful airport design, rushed taxi clearances, petulant, spiteful ATC. Just the absolute worst. I actually bid to get Christmas off after bidding no trips that touch Kennedy. It's a national embarrassment and I feel especially bad for our foreign colleagues who are bullied by controllers because their first language isn't English.
Hey JFK: you're a disgrace!
@@HEDGE1011 new york city is more like a third world country than a part of the US...
Worth remembering, too, that this isn't a pilot only used to working out of small regional airports and unfamiliar with the demands of a busy airport. BA work out of Heathrow, so are very aware of traffic separation constraints. SOP are written with that in mind. Working ATC in these locations must be frustrating and difficult, but controllers need to cope with what is practicable and accept that they are not the ones flying the plane. The pilot actually explained to her why he was unable to comply; she might have been surprised but it was something she had to work around.
I agree! It’s amazing how LGA or JFK still have “climbs.” That you get vectored on. The SIDS ans STARs are so 1970s
It’s 2019. How about some RNAV procedures that can decrease the workload and have pilots fly more predictable.
It’s so weird seeing charts without preassigned routings or very limited rnav routings
@@warden330 Yep, this is a BA747 pilot and I would imagine the captain based on his RT - this is a guy who will have many hours in and out of busy international airports. Very poor controlling and a blatant punishment go around - reminds of when they vectored a Ryanair aircraft into a continuous hold and basically wouldn't let him leave.
Terrible ATC. 180 to 4 would not be possible on an A320 forget 747. She requires a class on Aerodynamics and stabilisation criteria.
180 to 5 out is pretty standard. Atc can give you a speed assignment to the final approach fix or 5 miles from the end of the runway, whichever comes first. I’ve never had an issue slowing even in a loaded 321.
@@glishskiii But this Speedbird was not an A321.
Lars Henningsson yea I’m aware. Not saying it was
glishskiii what’re the weight differences and the stabilization criteria differences between the planes? I mean that’s cool but if they’re different on a different plane.. then how is that relevant?
@@glishskiii standard for what aircraft/airline?
She wanted a 747 to fly 180 knots to 5 miles 🤣
He's like twelve miles out.
@@MrMowky Yes and in 7 miles time they will be 5 miles out
180 knots itself is the highest speed limit for maximum flap settings (flaps 30) of Boeing 747-400, if I know correctly.
Controller was WAY out of line in this situation by ignoring the operational limits of BAW15K.
She made a mistake, the pilot told her it was outside of his ability to do safely, so they had the aircraft go around and reworked the busy sequence to better fit the needed parameters. If the only thing you screwed up was the one plane, and you were informed, just pull out the one thing you screwed up and rework it. Don't rework the next 5 aircraft . It seems like if this was a mistake on the ATC part, it was the safer of the mistakes they could have made.
@@MetalSmith Aviation right of way rules state that the lower aircraft on approach has the right of way, and you cannot descend below and overtake to gain the right of way. The Speedbird had the right of way, and the following traffic should've been the one to slow their approach speed for the Speedbird or go-around if unable. Generally speaking, all aircraft being overtaken have the right of way and you cannot overtake an aircraft on final. ATC was in the wrong 100%
An ATC that doesn't belong in her job
I will bet she gets a warning at least. Not doing her job properly
Warning???? She should be sacked due to incompetence!
Controller didn't mess up too bad. That is, until she got sarcastic and cancelled his clearance for traffic *behind* him. That was seriously petty and wrong.
women
lolbot no. Not “women”. That could have quite easily been the same with a male.
@@springbok4015 but it's more likely with a women
Rob Potato but it was a woman who did it lol
Have to admit she seemed very spiteful.
Bad move on the controllers part. He was ahead of the other traffic and a heavy jet! Should have sent the other plane around behind him.
New York ATC isn’t known for its professionalism
Or logic apparently.
“I need you to take the stairs up to the second floor”
“But I’m on a unicycle”
“You can’t come here anymore, bye”
Well, from my review of the most popular comments here, I'd say it's pretty much unanimous that the controller in this instance was in the wrong, and Speedbird was completely in the right.
This is the first comment section of one of these videos where it’s essentially unanimous that the controller is wrong, at least among people who are commercial(or say they are)pilots. Like almost no comments defending the controller in any way and zefo arguments as why the pilot would be in the wrong(that have to do with procedure and/or aircraft operating capability and safety). I’ve never seen it that one sided on any of the videos.
And yet the title is still structured to make it sound as though the pilot is in the wrong, I'm smelling a little anti-British bias. Or just clever clickbait.
As an old glider pilot, no one ever told me to go around because I wasn't doing the speed they wanted me to.
@@harryfaber lol
Basically because the controller was in the wrong. If you look at just the regs. The lower and slower airplane has right of way over a faster, higher airplane. The first one in sequence should've been given priority as he was already stabilized for the approach unless the trailing aircraft had declared an emergency.
No, it's NOT "essentially unanimous". ATC is managing the ENTIRE airspace, and has thousands of lives relying on her and ALL the aircraft working together. Speedbird decided that HE was more important that all the other aircraft, and she didn't have time to play games and explain everything. I suspect that in a pissing contest, she's going to come out on top.
I'm not a pilot nor a controller. But what it sounds like to me is that the ATC asked the pilot, who was on a CLEARED APPROACH, to alter his stabilized approach envelope to accommodate traffic behind him. WTF? Does she know the performance envelope of his aircraft better than he does? Was she trying to force him to make up for her possible mistake in vectoring the second aircraft behind him on an approach that was too close to him in the first place?
can someone explain why the controller was annoyed that the aircraft could not slow down considering traffic was behind speedbird 15k heavy?
The SpeedBird was asked to do 160 yes due to the traffic behind him but in my opinion he kinda deserved landing approach canceled since he just could of went 170. also if he’s flown into jfk before why is it now he as an issue. hope this helps lad.
She had her sequence built and BAW would destroy it maintaining slower than 180 knots.
@@PolarPenguin526 160 was the max he could go with the current flap setting and probably also gear down. The controller should have slowed the norwegian behind him or made them go around. 180 is quite and high approach speed for a 747, and 170 would still be too fast for the configuration he had, so he would have to pull up the flaps and the gear which means he wouldn't have enough time to reconfigure after.
so not reducing speed would have affected separation distances which could have caused others to go around had speedbird landed? so does that mean it was easier for speedbirds clearance to be cancelled and for speedbird to be re vectored for a second approach? please correct me if i am wrong.
@@PolarPenguin526 "could of went" ???
ATC needs to remove her pride and ego from her on-duty mindset. And probably attend mandatory Anger Management sessions. She is definitely in need of some retraining.
Pilot in command has ultimate authority, and that is straight from the FAA
Speedbird completely in the right. 180kts below 2000ft is alot of energy to scrub off before the stable requirement at 1000ft. She was trying to cover her own fuck up and didn't admit it... Not someone I would want on the scopes! Controller should get an attitude adjustment and supervised training.
The problem with a lot of controllers is they let that word go to their heads, they are there to assist and inform the aircrew, not instruct the aircrew in how to fly the plane.
He did answer her questions and gave a valid reason but because it wasn’t the answer she wanted she ignored what he said. Such an attitude
Piss poor planning on her part! Penalty vectors due to a speed restriction outside of the aircraft’s approach tolerance, wow!
Might be piss poor planning but if she can't make the sequence work then she has to break someone out. She is not a 747 pilot and working some of the busiest airspace in the world. This is not her first rodeo.
Kennedy Steve retired. Behold his replacement: Kennedy Karen.
That controller is ALWAYS arrogant. No wonder some pilots end up being defensive with ATC... I'd have her removed right away if I was her superior, no room for that in aviation.
I bet she's the kind of person who can get a raise just by looking at her boss...
@@assreductionist8575 probably is the boss...
Actual title, "British pilot gets frustrated with amateur flight controller at JFK"
Just thinking about it, 180 till 5? Then they will need to drop 40 knots before touch down. Thats a big ask for a 747.
Punishing pilot, crew, and passengers on that 747 for the pilot flying the plane in a safe manner and within the proper operating envelope: it's appalling! Who's running that show anyway? I always thought that ATC was there to secure the public's safety, not unnecessarily endanger it!
She was well out of order! She’d cleared him to land and if the aircraft behind was too close then she failed.
totally got the mental image of the controller nonchalantly filing her nails, and chewing gum, with a big poofy hairdo as she initiates the back and forth with BAW15K x~D
Alternate title: ATC fucks up and doesn't leave enough separation to the aircraft behind, expects pilots to cover for her and risk the lives of hundreds of people.
When will JFK ATCs acknowledge the requirements of wide-bodies ... after there's a tragedy...?
180kts to a 5 mile final is a legal and safe speed assignment.
If the pilot needs something slower all he has to do is ask with enough time for the controller to plan for their request. This pilot didn’t.
@@SpicyFaceActualNO it is not...
Totally illegal.
180 to 5 DME. .
That is actually speed control to 3.6 miles from touchdown. .
Your obviously don't understand and are obviously no pilot...
You know nothing about the dynamics and energy management of a B747-400.
And never will from your armchair m
@@daftvader4218 I said 180 to a five mile final is a legal speed. And you said it isn’t. Here’s my source from the 7110.65. You’re wrong. You’ve lost all credibility. Game over.
ATC is only allowed to “assign speeds to “the final approach fix (which is usually 5/6 mile final) or to a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.” -7110.65 5-7-1
Not a pilot or controller but an avid enthusiast and retired avionics technician. I understand this airspace is incredibly busy, but I'm with the pilot on this one.
ATC should have got the number 2 aircraft to reduce speed.
Wow... I hope the controller got reprimanded! I hate flying in the north east.
The Controller screwed up the separation of the aircraft on the approach and issued BA with an illegal clearance in terms of SPEED and DISTANCEfrom landing for ANY commercial aircraft. .
FACT
180 kts to 5 DME is actually 3.6 nm from touchdown on this JFK ILS. The .DME is not co-located!
This is physically IMPOSSIBLE for a B747 to remain STABLE.
FACT
That is why the Captain states he is flying a B747...not because he is a arrogant !!
FACT
The Controller then gave a illegal clearance to go around because the BA Captain would not accept an illegal clearance.
FACT
No B747-400 would accept this
Clearance ANYWHERE in the world..
JUST THE FACTS. ..NOT OPINION.
Where's Kennedy Steve when you need a good laugh? Yes I know he's retired.
The damm old days with Kennedy Steve
He would have said something to relieve the tension. I'm not sure if he would have handled this differently, but I certainly would bet that he would have smoothed the situation down a bit. He had a special talent for dealing with just about anything, even angry and frustrated pilots.
When did that happen?
th-cam.com/video/F1cKfZatlQ4/w-d-xo.html
@@Cissy2cute I thought this was a social experiment of something he had done, but with a girl voice- just to see how people would attack her (but not Kennedy Steve had it been his voice)
the famous JFK attitude strikes again...
Attitude of entitlement, I'd say...
Agreed, except Kennedy Steve, he was great lol
This ATC has to be taken off duty and retrained immediately. If her irresponsible and unsafe behavior continues, she must be dismissed from the ATC role permanently.
It's official. This controller is now The Kennedy Karen
BAW15K is totally in the right here, Kennedy Approach doesn’t fly his plane, he does. Period.
My Dad used to fly A340-600s and 747s between Hong Kong and NYC when he was a Captain for Cathay Pacific. He always said it was an absolute circus.
That is amazing to know. Your father retired flying which one?
@@shaanemillat He retired on the 777. He flew 747-200s/300 as First Officer then became Captain on the L1011 TriStar out of Kai Tak then became a Check and Training Captain on the A330-300 and A340-200/300/600. My family had to live in Toulouse for a while while they airline sent training captains to learn the Airbus and write the training curriculum. The -600s came much later though and didn't last long in service.
He then transferred to the same role on the 747-400/400F and was one of the people who managed for the introduction of the -400BCF which CX launched. In his last years he retired from Check and Training and became a standard Captain on the 747-8F then latter took up the 777 before retiring which I'm fairly certain he also flew into JFK as they took over the route from the 747.
@@goodshipkaraboudjan that is a really rich history, I must say! Your father is so fortunate. Wishing him glorious and happy retirement. 😃
Controller made a mistake. Should have instructed the faster aircraft to do a 360, or vector them to out and back in, but the 747 who was ahead and on final should have continued on to land. If the pilots of the 747 were miffed, they had every right to be.
Peter Toth I fundamentally agree with your position and think the controller was rude and inept (but it is JFK, so I didn't expect much), but a 360 would have likely conflicted the trailing aircraft with the following aircraft.
As I've said elsewhere, I would have simply stated that I was unable to do 180K, told her what the fastest I could do was, and if I got sent around called the ATC facility manager after we were safely parked at the gate and shut down. That's just me.
Do a 360? LOL!
Not a mistake. A sin.
Oh boy, I wish she does that with a Concorde HAHAHAHA.
Her: Speed between 180 or lower.
Pilots : Best I can Give you is 220.
😂
Concorde doesn't fly anymore
@@cliveramsbotty6077 Oh really? /s
@@cliveramsbotty6077 Just as well really. With this ATC it would be like
"Maintain 180 knots"
"We can't do that, our engine is on fire, we need an emergency landing"
"Cancel approach, take a turn in the hold for disobeying my orders"
Pilot is spot on. This was weird. Looks like the controller was taking her frustrations out on him. Can't understand why she'd make things good for NUMBER 2 by FORCING NUMBER 1 to adjust???
Maybe Number 2 was Airforce 1.
typically I hear ATC to adjust the speed of the following plane behind to accommodate the plane in front, if they can’t do that then they will have to go around. Why you would want to take out a plane that has the approach set up and go through the thing all over again, unless there’s serious safety issue like something on the runway, or as a punishment because you cannot do what I want.
Pilot: I have a number for you to call
JFK controllers are the worst, I flew there for more than 30 years
Care to share some of your worst experiences?
Yes, do tell.
New York. Who would have guessed.
What an absolute joke of an ATC controller. She forgot what plane he was flying, asked him to fly unreasonably and outside a stabilised approach....got embarrassed and out of spite she diverted him. That's a pathetic power trip. Putting her pettiness over air safety.
Gotta swing by and say nope. All she needed was a little extra speed and he threw a fit.
@@TheVinceZampella Yeah because adding 20 knots on a 747 landing speed, which violates their company safety policies and procedures for landing speeds is no big deal. 🙄
That ATC is a sure fit to work at the DMV.
Pilot can decline ATC’s request/ instructions if pilot is unable to do or it jeopardizes safety.
I hope FAA looks into this incident.. I hope, It's not just another youtube video people are angry about with no consequences
The pilot said he would talk to her after the incident which likely means she either accepted fault to a degree the captain was satisfied with, or he filed a report.
@@Person01234 I think Captain said he would like to talk to her after on ground because he wants to focus on flying the plane after being taken out of sequence.. Also, pilot was trying to avoid taking time to complain on busy arrival frequency.. I hoped he atleast filed a report later.
@@amitsingh09004 He did that because an active ATC frequency is not the place to have that discussion. He will get the number for the facility and have a phone conversation with the woman. If he satisfies himself it was a just a mistake under stress, or she has a good explanation, he likely will let it go. Otherwise he will likely file a report (although it's up to him). It'll be the same number pilots are given when ATC says "I have a number for you".
@@Person01234 Yes I agree.. I am very curious to know what happened afterwords...
@@amitsingh09004 Yeah when it comes to ATC frequency they must be related to the flight of aircraft. Thus any conflicts are either the ATC saying "I have a number for you to call when you get on the ground" and in this case the pilot saying "I don't believe that is FAA approved but we will discuss that later. But yeah I'm also endlessly curious to what the aftermath was.
So I know ATC has to do their job and most importantly they have to help out and keep everyone safe however in this case the pilot is absolutely right. He can't comply the instructions from ATC because of the approach he was following and also because the aircraft he is on. He needed a stabilized approach. Also I'm sure the airline has their pilots to follow certain approches and final procedures.
Virgin and BA pilots are of an exceptional standard and are extremely professional. He was right, Kennedy Karen wasn't.🇬🇧🇺🇸✌✌
There's no such thing as a virgin pilot
totally stand behind the pilot on this one.
It seems to me controller was a little quick to deny landing. Pilot was doing the right thing.
Hmm, well she wanted them to be 180kt until 5 DME, at around 6.8 DME, they should 1800ft, and I’d assume somewhere around 1400ft, and I don’t think it’s possible to go from 180kt to about 145kt (Average VRef for B748). And yeah I think it was right for the pilots to say they couldn’t do it, because there is honestly no way they could stabilize by 1000ft.
Pilot is right, They had there plan / criteria its happening and then ATC get things a bit tight and all of the sudden they have to speed up, after configuring the aircraft to slow.
She didn't like it so got the hump and broke him off. She should have had the following aircraft do the changes as they have more options. I'm with the BAW pilot.
He is not grumpy but irritated, He is not a perfectionist just a pilot doing what he should be doing.