NASTY ARGUMENT IN BUSY NEW YORK | "FAA has joined the chat"
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 11. 2021
- Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASAviation
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
Please, give a big LIKE to support and for more videos like this!! :)
Are you serious? Then accidents happen...
Notice two completely different types of pilots here.
I'm not so sure that the pilot was in the wrong at all? It's not rare for pilots to have more up to date info (relayed to them from people on the ground, like in this case as he said he got straight from the airport's tower) than the central controllers sitting who knows where. Or they're just very experienced and can have a correct assessment. Looks like that was the case in this instance, as they were delayed and then we heard that someone landed before them while they were delayed.
It seems to be a case of the controller not even knowing exactly why.
The other pilot was given what the first pilot was denied, it seems like they're the same type of pilot but one of the controllers wasn't playing ball.
Pilot was not in the wrong here. There is nothing wrong with shooting approach to minimums, and going around if approach lights are not in sight. It's possible to catch approach lights even if the wx is reporting below minimums.
100% controller issue. If there is a safety in question, it rests with the controller causing delays. Reported and actual weather are two different things. This Pilot clearly knows this and wants to make that attempt as he should. A common misconception on this Chanel is the controller-pilot relationship. Controllers directions are neither law or absolute. Final decisions always rest with the Captain and that includes acceptance or denial of controller directions/guidance.
@@waynetokarz174 Pilots are required either to follow ATC instructions, request alternate instructions, or declare an emergency if the safety of the flight is in question. In this case, while Part 91 allows the pilot to attempt an approach even when weather is reported below minimums, it does not follow that ATC is required to give any approach clearance the pilot may request regardless of the overall situation (traffic/weather/workload/etc.), which we are unable to determine from the information we have in this video.
Bro the 'FAA has joined the chat' line absolutely destroyed me lmao
It was probably from a ppl who doesn't understand IFR regs.
@@karmathebrit7856 not in a Falcon
@@kenclark9888 the guy who said it wasn’t ID’d in a falcon. Lol was a random pilot on freq I think?
How can something so overused and stupid absolutely destroy you ?
@@dingodango1 😐
I think the "You TRY and have a good one" from the other aircraft is almost better than "FAA has joined the chat"
Just waiting for someone on these to go, "Hey, VASAviation!"
stupid childish things
@@Manaril The pilot wasn't stupid or childish. He was just a little impatient, which is completely understandable.
The "Since you are IFR, sir" was great too lol 1:50
@@cattey5428 What? Where the F did that come from? How was he going to cause a crash? It's perfectly safe and legal for a Part 91 aircraft to fly an approach when the weather is being called at below minimums. He can always go around. What's your complaint. Are you an IFR pilot? You talk like you don't understand the IFR system at all.
I never want to hear my pilot say “I don’t care what the weather is”.
...or "I'd like to shoot the approach anyway"
"I don't care about your stupid laws of physics, I make my owns laws"
😆
man, my flight got canceled due to high winds. I was a pissed for like a second, then I remembered all of the air crash videosI watch and then I was like good call guys!
I never want a pilot so overly confident that he would risk the safety of my life to "prove" his ability.
@@Rainersherwood You put enough aircraft on a bobbing carrier little scares you off. I agree with you.
Shooting approaches at night when weather is below minimums is how you transition from VAS Aviation to Blancolirio's channel and Kathryn's Report.
Even if the weather is reporting below minimums, it is possible to catch the approach lightings and go below minimums especially at nighttime
Exactly.
5EX, roger cleared to transition into the Blancoliro airspace.
No it’s not, that’s what a missed approach is. Maybe continuing below minimums will do that but there’s nothing dangerous in having a look.
🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾🙌🏾
I wouldn't call that a nasty argument. More like an impatient pilot meets a situation requiring patience. Argument assumes two-way trouble. ATC kept his cool.
I think it would be best to calmly respond to the ATC and ask for local alternatives.
Since when does atc have the authority to put you on hold because the weather is below minimums. If it was a part 91 flight, flight visibility is what matters. End of story.
@@menka91 because you are NOT the only plane in the sky, he doesn’t know what is going on at the CDW MMU airspace, ATC doesn’t have the time when weather is moving in to explain everything in detail to everyone that asks, quoting a rule book is great for academic discussions but this “end of story , period” attitude is never going to play well. Try it yourself next time with ATC, I am sure they will e happy to humor you.
He was remarkably cool and polite in the face of all that bullying.
@@AMD7027 okay then ATC could say “there is a traffic delay” and that’s it. Weather below minima is not a reason to delay a part 91 aircraft.
Ok not that heated But whoever said the FAA has joined the chat is awesome
Probably airforceproud95
It has 4chan written all over it
Epic
Definitely watches this channel.
@@alangaming2003 yep
315EX was a visitor at my airport a few times, I remember the pilot being quite rude about having to wait for fuel! seems like its the same guy!
Most likely. Entitled pilots are inherently unsafe. Please, oh please other entitled pilots, TRY to argue this with me and out yourselves.
Look at that tail number. 5EX...looks like sex, right? Think about who chooses that. It gives you an idea of who you are dealing with.
no problem, right at that moment theres´´s an issue with the fuel truck or the pump and he has to wait 2h ... he´ll get his carma one day
@@bobl78 lets just hope its not in the air
@@TugIronChief it means he likes screwing everybody
“Priceless” (FAA just joined the chat…;-)
I like your channel, as well as this one, Swiss001, DorDek Kiddy, Mini Air Crash Investigation, Three Greens - Aviation Safety and several others. :)
*Allec Joshua Ibay
Delta\KennyDang
Swiss002
Having spent lots of time around Morristown NJ, when the pilot started giving attitude about “So what’s the problem?” I’m surprised the controller didn’t just say “Oh you must be a local.”
🤣 True
Or, November 315EX enter holding at XXXXX, EFC…Thursday. 😂
I'm a local to Morristown....and I endorse your sentiment!
Ex New Yorkers that moved to MMU from Teterboro. Flew and taught at both..
He is how I would characterize the majority of NJ/NY. I wouldn’t call him rude but certainly bold.
Wonder if he is related to "Clear me through the Bravo then!"
There’s no problem with shooting an approach when the weather is below minimums as a part 91 aircraft. Busting them to land is a different story. I’ve shot many an approach when the weather is below minimums before… sometimes you might get lucky and see the airport, other times you don’t and just go missed.
“No one clears you to Morristown but me!” 🤣
@@kyleweisel sure. But is it ok to enter airspace you have been explicitly told you can't enter? That's what we are talking about here. Whether the ATC should have taken more time to explain to an impatient pilot is a whole other conversation.
@@jahbern of course not… where did I ever suggest that it was?
@@kyleweisel in the case we are talking about right now, he wasn't being allowed to shoot the approach, so clearly there WAS a problem with the pilot making the attempt. There's more to consider than whether it's technically possible for a pilot to attempt an approach. It's both/and - what's technically allowed and what's allowed by ATC.
But perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying. That's definitely possible. No one is arguing that the regulations allow it. So I'm not sure who you were responding to.
I spent 3 decades working that airspace (N90-EWR area, Mugzy sector). MMU, CDW, and N07 are treated as one when the weather IS IFR. That means one in, one out , so any CDW traffic is very pertinent to the MMU operation. That airspace is extremely complex, and traffic for TEB also goes through it (as well as EWR RWY 11 traffic). Very hard to explain without typing a book, but bottom line is, if he was holding is because the sector was at capacity. When the weather is that bad, we also have to be very mindful of go arounds, and we take those into account when accepting more aircraft into the sector. That pilot's unprofessional attitude is the last thing controllers need in busy, high stress IFR days like this one.
TEB is what EWR was 35 years ago. So...you know what I mean.
Someday a controller is going to put someone in a hold and he'll run out of fuel.
@@rumplestiltskin7304, that actually happens sometimes. The pilots need to communicate to controllers their fuel situation. If they can't hold anymore, the correct course of action is to divert to their alternate.
@@traianhernandez6695 ATC even asked him about his alternate.
@@patheddles4004, typically ATC would not ask about the alternate unless the original destination airport is either closed, or unavailable for a lengthy period. It's on the pilot to inform ATC if they're unable to hold any longer, and request a clearance to their alternate.
I once heard the response from ATC as...
You can do it now, or you can do it safely, but you can't do both.
Pilot was completely satisfied with the response and his response was.
Roger thanks, we will keep that in mind (may not be verbatim)
I just loved the way it toned the situation down almost immediately.
Here’s a good idea, piss off the guy that has the power to park you in a hold for as long as he wants. It’s like pissing off the receptionist at the dentist office. The only person that is going to lose is you.
yep 2 hours later still in hold
I was in transportation for 32 years and early on I learned that the 2 people you never wanted to get on their bad side was the payroll manager and the dispatcher. This pilot better know that the next time he has to deal with that ATC he may end up in a holding pattern just for the heck of it. That is if the FAA doesn't put him on the carpet first.
😂
If ATC cannot conduct themselves without being petty and/or emotional, they have no business being there.
Might as well go be a cop at that point. 🤪
@@TheGospelQuartetParadise
can the atc do that without facts supporting that action?
thanks
Context here, yes NORMALLY a pilot can still choose to shoot any instrument approach they like regardless of the weather. The exception here is that New York deals with so much traffic in multiple sectors that ATC is honestly assuming some risk if someone goes around due to weather below mins and has to be resequenced with everyone else. It’s much safer and easier to just keep everyone in holding the way they are and work them in progressively. 5EX needs to put his ego aside and give ATC a break.
This is the comment I wanted!
The guy who whispered FAA has joined the chat had me loled
I absolutely CACKLED.
ROFL
::| get that guy #511 1:50 if you're on #ifr wytf can't U hold 2:26 guffaw !
i would of asked for a "expect further/leave hold clearance" in 5-15 minutes....planning to shoot approach if weather improves..then i would stop transmitting and squawk "no radio 7500"....and land all by my self...lol......BTW not sure whats the deal, the part 91 Falcon does not require mins to shoot approach, just descend below mins..,...Airlines part -121 are not allowed to even try the approach. Dude tells him the airport is closed but a arrow just landed? what am i missing here?
My favourite one was the “since when does he get to decide?” “Since you filed IFR sir” 😂 then again this guy sounds like that airline pilot who didn’t get the runway he wanted, so declared an emergency and just came in and landed anyway.
Good for him! That lady the FAA jacked around in that Cirrus at Holly Hobby should have declared an emergency and landed wherever the hell she wanted since the controller wasn’t able to help her. And because of his incompetence she died. ATC sometimes forgets it’s a service for pilots not the other way around.
@@VLove-CFII the hobby pilot wasn't competent to be flying a paper airplane, let alone a cirrus. Her trying to land an airplane (over and over again) was an emergency all by itself.
@@bhc1892 what’s your pilot certificate #? I’ll wait…
More to the point, unless she was on fumes (which she never mentioned at any point) she didn't need to jump the line, she needed to be resequenced. Exit the pattern, reorient and try again. Or consider an alternate. And until she put herself in a stall I don't see how she was in an emergency.
I do agree that ATC was a major cause of that accident, but I disagree that "declaring a mayday so she can land wherever" is legal, appropriate or helpful in her position.
The accident was caused by her executing the go-around incorrectly when she retracted the flaps way too early. However, the contributing cause was from the ATC gave her the run around, and her lack of assertive nature to decline the ATC request to go around.
1. Getting an opposite direction approach when it's busy isn't going to happen (rwy 23 when rwy 5 was being used), and
2. Caldwell is relevant because N07, MMU and CDW are more or less treated as a single airport for IFR purposes, they're very close together and the missed approaches conflict to some extent. So, if there is an arrival into CDW, you might not be able to have a MMU arrival at the same time. This is why N07 departures (like me) often wait 20+ minutes for an IFR release on a bad day.
EDIT: search for Traian H's response in the comments. He's a retired N90 controller and knows of what he speaks.
Awesome information, thanks and fly safe!
Thanks for that info!
Yup. That was my old stomping ground. Crazy busy airspace. I suspect half the planes in the N07 pattern bust the CDW airspace without even realizing it. There was also an approach into TEB that basically took you right through the CDW traffic pattern. VOR-A, I think, but I see that approach doesn't exist any more.
Don’t forget TEB and EWR in close proximity. It was tough doing IFR into those airports back in my 135 days.
If atc is holding me because of congestion then fine, but if they tell me because the field is below mins, I will question them.
Normally, Part 91 can shoot an approach even if the reported weather is below minimums, but when preceding aircraft are already holding for the same airport, especially from multiple directions, it becomes extremely complicated for controllers to sort it all out. And if aircraft are holding for other airports in the region as well, it may be almost impossible for ATC to get someone on top of the multiple holding stacks to a point where they can begin the approach.
Thanks for the clarification. The pilot would've probably liked to have the controller be able to articulate that to be the situation, instead of the strange dance he put the pilot through.
Sounds like the pilot was someone very on top of all aspects, and was confused when what the controller was telling him didn't add up to his overall picture of the situation.
@@pistonburner6448 That isn't my take. The controller was doing his best. I've had captains like that. I usually don't appreciate them.
I'm not one. Heh-heh ... give a guy a Falcon and see how solid his character is.
S
@@tilmaneiche758 Part 91 is the official "General Operating and Flight Rules" for most small aircraft flights in the United States. Charter operators, airlines, and other operations use different rules. Under a Part 91 flight like this seems to be, there is no prohibition against starting an instrument approach with reported weather below minimums.
@@zidoocfi Part 91 regulations apply to all aircraft operators in the US. Not just general aviation.
@@tilmaneiche758 Great observation about an inherently complex situation. As I'm sure you can understand, we controllers get absolutely inundated with information about weather, airplanes, flight plans, holding patterns, and everything else in situations like this, and it's constantly changing. That's why if it's just one sector holding for one airport we can sometimes approve a pilot request like this one, but when it's multiple sectors, multiple airports, and multiple aircraft in the hold, it can be almost impossible to accommodate an otherwise very reasonable request. And, we have almost no time to explain it to pilots in real time. I can't presume to speak for this controller, but that's what appears to me to have happened.
Had a similar one. Runway condition was reported to be really poor, most planes decided to divert or hold and wait for improvement (happening only in 30 mins due lack for ground workers). So the runway is not closed, but any time soon they will start chemically treating it. Some pilot refuses to go into holding, starts arguing that he doesnt care what is the runway condition, requests to continue approach. In the end he lands, the runway condition is better than reported, every other holding aircraft also wants to land and as soon as they start leaving holding, the ground workers decided to close the runway for 20 minutes for treatment. Complete chaos ensues. It opened in 10 min however, when most of the other aircraft diverted.
“When you decided to go IFR” is the best come back from ATC. Declare a fuel emergency or shut the hell up.
We all know why they chose the tail number 5EX
Should have been ASS.
@@willer3399 Why not both?
@@pistonburner6448 4SSHL
@@noahwilliams8918 I'm pretty sure controllers don't have tail numbers. Well, maybe he's jealous and has something tattooed on his tail...
AS5EX
The ATC guy was like a Ninja the way he deflected all of Echo-Xray's terse communications. LOL Echo-Xray sounded like a snippy Owner-operator.....if you know what I mean. An entitled rich guy.
"FAA has joined the chat" 😂😂 I see a man of wisdom
it should be reported because a pilot no caring about weather below minimums should not be in a cockpit
You can still fly an approach even if the weather is below minimums. He might have been able to see the approach lights which allows him to go below minimums
@@FeNite8 - Might...???...you do understand "might" actually adds a potential go-around situation/element to a complex area that includes MMU, CDW, and N07 which at the time HAD IFR in play... so it's basically one in, one out. CDW traffic is very pertinent to the MMU operation. TEB also goes through it, as well as EWR RWY 11 traffic. Now that you took time to accept/understand the "bigger picture" do you still think ATC made the wrong call given the area and conditions...(?)...
You heard of Sky King. now prepare for Sky Karen.
don't disgrace sky king like that
😂
Who the hell is Sky king?
@@squares4u look up horizon air q400 incident
Yes. When you are IFR, Approach does decide when you can shoot the approach. I’ve held until this be had to divert many times.
Approach decides when you do the approaches based on workload, traffic management and other things, but they don’t decide you can’t do the approach simply because the weather is below minimums. The pilot in this case is right that under Part 91 even if the weather was reported 0 ceiling 0 vis he can still legally decide to execute the approach to minimums if he’d like.
I think this is more of a case of miscommunication. Sounds like the Tracon was busy based on the first reason and then the controller tried to come up with a second execute while the airspace was still busy.
You’re wrong dude.
@@usaswimmer1020 And if the weather is below minimums, they are most likely diverting aircraft from every airport nearby to a different airport. This controller was only the messenger and the airport being below minimums (and most likely many airports nearby) was probably creating task saturation.
So, in this case under part 91, the pilot was wrong. I’ve held because the airport is below minimums. Because if one airport is below minimums most likely many airports nearby are as well. So the airspace is busy with reroutes and diverts. He was never told he couldn’t shoot the approach later. He was only saying, “well another guy just shot the approach, why can’t I.” As if he’s the only airplane in the area.
By the way, I’ve been a Captain at a major airline in the US since 1994.
@@josephdale69 They may no longer be issuing IFR clearances to aircraft attempting to pick them up on the ground, but it’s not up to them to make the decision to divert aircraft for pilots already in the air. That decision rests solely with the PIC. Now that doesn’t mean you won’t receive hold instructions for busy airspace until it becomes a need to divert for fuel, but again the decision to divert and where to divert lands again with the PIC and solely on the PIC. Even on 9/11 the entire NAS was closed the FAA users the terms “Airborne aircraft are encouraged to land shortly,” not Land and the nearest suitable now.
As I said before in the situation it sounds like he was holding because the sector was obviously busy, but decided to question the controller when he said he was holding because the “airport is below minimums” which is fair because it’s perfectly legal and the pilots choice to shoot an approach to minimums under Part 91. Source: Current CFII.
@@usaswimmer1020 I think we both agree that the airspace was busy and that is why he was holding. The air traffic controller speaking on this recording isn’t the one making the decision. He is only telling the pilot what he is being told. I agree with you on almost everything. I do believe that the controller said the airport was below minimums (thus a busy sector with diverts, etc). Not that he was unable to shoot the approach. It just wasn’t his turn yet in sequence.
But yes, the controller should have been more specific in his instructions and the pilot should have had a more respectful approach to the controller. Sometimes that attitude alone will put you in a holding pattern.
Might be the pilot, might be his boss in the back; you never know. Very professional and patient controllers, hats off.
Pilot, grow up.😡
negative
lol FAA has joined the chat. 💯 legend
what a legendary video. pilot with plane callsign of 5EX, who wants to land with weather below minimum, and someone else in comm is making memes about FAA.
Part 91 can legally shoot an approach below mins. They just can’t descend below mins without the runway environment in sight.
Welcome to FSX steam edition.
Too bad most people in the comments here have no idea what they're talking about. Nobody ever said anything about landing below minimums. He only stated he wanted to attempt the approach...which is perfectly legal, safe and there is nothing wrong with that. Under FAR part 91 the Pilot in Command gets to minimums and decides if he has the visibility to land out of the approach. If he doesn't he goes missed. If he does, he lands. End of story. Professional pilots are trained for this over and over and over again. Under FAR part 121 or 135 that's a different story. While trained for it, you cannot start the approach if it's below the minimum visibility...not ceiling but visibility. If inside the final approach fix (usually around 4-5 miles from the runway) the weather goes below minimums a 135 or 121 operator can continue the approach to minimums and land if he determines the visibility is there, or he can go around. Assuming he was operating under part 91, there was nothing wrong with this guy asking why he couldn't attempt the approach, regardless of the weather minimums.
@@enthalpy wrong! You u must have the vis. Under 91 the vis is determined from the cockpit unlike part 135. In United States visibility is your mins not your cloud ceiling. Cloud ceiling means nothing.
@@mrkenpilotman you only need visibility to descend below the MDA. Please show me where it says you can’t start an approach part 91 without vis. (Hint: it doesn’t)
Instantly grabs my popcorn 🍿
Exactly at minimums. We ALL know what that means. Wink wink
Gimli?
Exactly, and ESPECIALLY when they say, "and it looks like it's going down" or "getting worse". That's a huge red flag. That's the CYA comment when the next guy inevitably gets to MDA and sees nothing all the way to the MAP.
"Rude" and "Pilot" should not happen in the same sentence.
When I heard him whisper "FAA has joined the chat" I lost it. xD lolll
"I don't care about weather" - I hope I won't have to fly with this type of pilots.
It's probably a regular occurrence, if you have enough experience at a "home base" airport it's easier to fly close to minimum and a little below
You don't understand. It does not care about the REPORTED weather. Which is fine because he can legally and safely shoot the approach, descend to the minimums and perform a missed approach if the lights are not in sight.
I hope the FAA enters chat dude finds this video
There's a reason you request an approach, not demand it...
Fuel
@@jbreezy101 Fuel doesn’t affect ATC decision making unless you declare an emergency
@@caspianmerlin6434 I know
ATC cannot deny an approach due to them thinking the weather is below mins.
Yes we can. Mmu/Teb had GS which included arrivals, aerostar was a pathfinder even though he landed, but if tower decided to hold further based on his report, you’’re not getting your approach, until tower deems its safe.
"I don't care what the weather is." That was disturbing to me but I'm not a pilot.
You are right to be disturbed
It's not (necessarily) as bad as it sounds. The instruments would have taken him safely close to the runway, what he wanted to do was try the approach and see if he could get the runway in sight before minimums -- if not, he would have ostensibly done a go-around. Visibility can change real fast so it's not unheard of to just give it a go and see if you can make it work... the problem here was, it all means increased workload for the controllers, and here the next sector just chose not to allow any more planes in before they could sort out what they were already handling.
Trying the approach is not necessarily a bad idea, even if he's likely to end up going around. Definitely a gamble, but it can and does work out sometimes.
@@wloffblizz Totally understandable that the pilot would've wanted to see for himself, especially since sometimes the pilots are really experienced with the airport and local weather, and can even have far better info relayed to them from the ground/company (and the controller usually is sitting somewhere totally different). And going down there to see is understandably often a preferred choice too, rather try than unnecessarily hold.
Part 91 (private pilots) are legally allowed to attempt an approach even below mins. Part 121/135 are not (commercial) are not.
Clarification for some, Part 91 operations can execute approaches regardless of the weather at destination. 121/135 operations some company policies are to hold until weather is at minimum or higher. When the field is IFR, only one aircraft at a time can execute the approach when the field is IFR, this is because visual separation can not be maintained by the second aircraft initiating the approach. Due to line of sight radios and other frequencies, ATC can be talking to other aircraft but you may not hear it or be aware of what other traffic is in the area. TL;DR Don't be a dick when flying.
Argument wasn't as bad as expected. Definitely LOL'd when FAA joined the chat.
Cool. I always embrace the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others. I will assimilate his bad attitude and do the same thing next time when I am advised to fly a holding pattern in Frankfurt.
Because all we pilots always assume that ATC is our enemy and lets us hold out of sheer malice.
Grüße aus der Wetterau;)
In fairness, you may have never visited New Jersey...
@@VisibilityFoggy Hahaha well I did not thought about that
"State fuel remaining, and do not lie."
@@VisibilityFoggy Actually I have as a pilot....and I was an exchange student in Chatham, NJ, as well.
I'm a medic, not a pilot, but everyone knows you don't argue with dispatch.
I married my dispatcher. I concur with your assessment.
"Yes I'm poling around in the soup up here old boy, I'd be awfully glad to get home for tea and crumpets".
This is the equivalent of a chef saying “I don’t care what goes into the dish!”.
“Don’t I get to decide what approach I want?”
“Negative.”
lol
He can request it, but like my wife says.. just because you ask nicely I’m not always giving it lol 😂
A part 91 flight can try the approach in any weather. Approach and tower tend to forget that and will be recalcitrant as we heard here. But there is a way to remind them and get clearance that is less abrasive then the pilots demonstrate here as well.
@navion1946 - Well said... especially the last part!!
What do you expect with someone with a tail number with "5EX"?
I thought this was Flight Sim for a minute.
Hahaha omg I didn’t even catch that until you said something. I would love an update. I bet this guy lost his job. The flight data has since been made private. I’m sure the faa joined the chat after the calls flooded in.
"Since when does he get to decide?" -- "Since you are IFR, Sir." *ThugLife*
This is literally just a FSX experience 😭
airforceproud has joined the chat
No, it's missing a few things: Someone in an Airbus A380 going space shuttle status, a hot air balloon buzzing the tower at 350 kts, and at least four Air Force One planes in the air.
VATSIM in a nutshell lolssssssssssssss
Old man yells at clouds
#GrandpaSimpson #TheSimpsons
This reminds me of the time I worked for Kalitta Air or Evergreen cant remember at the HUF back in the 90"s. It was extremely foggy to the point you couldn't see the top of the tower and just above the ramp lights. All the aircraft were holding in a pattern. Supervisor said one is going to try and land ( shoot the approach). So we sat there looking towards the runway. If i remember correctly it was a DC-10 and we could hear the engine's whining. Looked left and then we seen the lights. You could hear the RPM's rising and he was directly over the ramp. Extremely close to the tower. It was a wild experience to have a aircraft that large and that low fly right overhead where they shouldn't have been. Bet the controller and pilot were shitting their pants. I know us ground crew were.
I was seriously expecting them to turn him back around after the turn to final 😂😂
If this flight was conducted under part 135, it would most likely be illegal to initiate the approach if the weather was below minimums. Under part 91, try it all you want. I've never heard of ATC denying an approach attempt because weather was below mins, so I understand why the pilot was flustered, but he could have handled himself better. We all have bad days.
And ultimately if you are under IFR it’s the controllers airspace and they can choose to clear you or not clear you. Can raise any complaints with the controllers sup or at the FSDO
@@RainbowManification if the sole reason for denial is because the airport is below minimums the controller was wrong. If the delay is traffic congestion that's a whole different story. There's nothing in the .65 that says you will deny clearance for an approach based on published minimums. (I'm ATC) controller probably should have articulated better....and the pilot was a cocky asshole.
@@clintford5315 The issue is when weather is below minimums capacity often goes down. Talking a random pilot through the full airspace factors on air while trying to manage a busy IFR day would be the height of insanity. If pilot is concerned ATC is not managing airspace properly wait till on the ground and for a quiet day and you can complain to all sorts of folks. Frankly, the pilot sounded like an idiot. What's the excuse etc etc. If every pilot engaged in this much back and forth with ATC in congested airspace there would be problems.
@@randominternet5586he’s holding on the arrival. So release him he shoots the approach goes missed and hold on the Missed.
So, it looks like all you need is just a little more patience, and then the minimums might just improve enough to get you sequenced in. The pilot may not care about the weather, but the controller has to. They also have rules on what they can or cannot do. How can the pilot not understand that?
It Honestly Sounds Very Similar To a Type Of Scam Call We All Recieve
Lot of people here don’t realize that part 91 can legally attempt the approach, they just cannot descend below minimums without meeting requirements and visibility.
"I don't care if the weather is below minimums, I want to go there NOW" sounds like the perfect recipe for an accident.
Accidents are for things that can't be prevented. This idiot is a crash waiting to happen.
It really isn't, though. It's Part 91 flying. There is nothing wrong with shooting an approach to "take a peek." Reported weather and flight visibility are often quite different things. It is entirely the responsibility of the pilot to execute a missed approach if he reaches the minimums and doesn't have the approach lights/runway environment in sight, but that is something we're all trained on, and not remotely dangerous.
His insistance on trying the approach is fully his prerogative, and the given ATC explanations were inadequate, nor were they ATC's call to make. If there was conflicting traffic going into another nearby airport (which I believe was the case, and a perfectly valid reason, btw), that needs to be communicated.
Sounds like a petulant child.
Stupid,can't control his temper
Man you can really tell the age differences between pilots, sometimes it sounds like a discord server
yeah sure
For those who are wondering the area off of Columbia Turnpike and State Rt 24 is notorious this time of year for fog at dusk and dawn. Short Hills Mall down the road is basically in a marsh.
Haha the guy at 1:15 is an absolute legend 😂😂
Hi U R A. I thought the same thing. And loved how it was a whisper. It's like "We watch everything you do, we listen to everything you say, and we're just letting you know".
@@roderickcampbell2105 lol
And this is why I like to drive anywhere I go. No one telling me to circle at the previous town until the weather clears!
seeing in the title " the faa has joined the chat " had me saying it in my head ln the style of airforceproud lmao
Thanks!
I used to live up in the hills outside of Morristown. I remember my dad taking a sikorsky CH-47 type helo to land at the Pan Am building when he called on customers in NYC..
Claps to the ATC for remaining professional between all that BS.
How could anyone get that excited about going to Morristown?
The love the smell of America's armpit?
That’s where the car is
2:00 That "Negative" was cold as🥶
I look up to professionals. They leave with an everlasting impression.
I’d hate to be sitting next to this guy, much less in the back of a plane he’s operating.
I wouldn't sit next to him on another flight, that's for sure.
they landed safely at Morristown.
Shit talking ATC will never end well for you... and even if you could fly the approach, sectors can't clear you into another sector's airspace without permission!
Yes, and the pilot simply asked what the hold-up is now.
Strange how devoid of any kind of empathy people are in the comments, not having any kind of ability to understand the feelings of the pilot who is being delayed and him not knowing why, told incorrect info as the reason...
-A pilot sighing from the feeling of weather delays is now absolutely horrible?? Why would that automatically be a sign of aggression towards anyone like the controller? This is just outrage and offence-hungry people just hunting for things to get offended about. With zero empathy or understanding, and being pretty vicious in pushing for their own made-up narratives.
-A pilot asking clarification after getting contradicting data is now somehow inappropriate, makes him all kinds of evil? Once again more like unsympathetic and cold people looking for reasons to unload on the Falcon-flying young guy...
@@pistonburner6448 Ironic you are lecturing someone about being "understanding" while defending a pilot trying to force his way into an approach which ATC clearly cannot accommodate.
@@BIOHAZARDXXXX What do you mean "which ATC clearly cannot accommodate"??
Clearly it was unclear, as the controller kept giving conflicting info and in the end we finally only got: "well the next sector won't let me pass you through" which is not what the controller was saying at first. And which clearly seems to not be in line with the actual conditions.
@@BIOHAZARDXXXX I think he's the pilot in question. He's defending the pilot in every thread.
@@FuburLuck That’s because @Pistonburner is correct. ATC can say the airspace is saturated and they cannot accept the aircraft in the next sector, but that is not what was said. They cannot say they won’t allow an approach due to the WX being below mins, which is what the pilot was saying he had been told.
-Approach still wants me to hold you there
-Since when does he get to decide?
-Since you are IFR, sir
BOOM!
I love Falcons. Trijets are getting rarer, and on the rare occasion I get to tag along with my dad to the hangar there's sometimes a 900.
Do "skilled" and "competent" pilots ever get overconfident and crash? I think everyone knows the real answer to my question. I've listened to a lot of audio from confident pilots just before they crashed. Did this pilot have an important passenger he was trying to get to a meeting on time? How many times have heard people talking about skilled pilots making bad decisions just because they were under pressure? In this case I will side with the controller. If the plane crashes the pilot is most likely deceased and won't have to answer to anyone. On the other hand the ATC will be under scrutiny for allowing someone to make landing in conditions not considered suitable.
Old pilots and bold pilots, but no old bold pilots comes to mind. Good idea to never take off if you feel like you HAVE to get there no matter what.
Kobe Bryant. Helo pilot took a shortcut to stay on time, into fog.
@@sneakybow1 good comment, beat me to it.
there was the Smolensk crash with Polish president on board. Bad weather, pilot pressured.
@@asc_missions3080 Incorrect. He didn't take a shortcut. He took the route he did because the weather on the normal route was even worse. He flew into clouds as the terrain rose likely because he felt pressure to complete the flight. He should have turned around and landed at one of the numerous airports he crossed and let them rent a car for the remaining trip.
If he's part 91 even if the field is below minimums he can shoot the approach. His attitude is aweful but he's technically correct, he certainly can shoot the approach and it should not be denied.
This is my facility, so in the radar environment, you have to "hand off" aircraft prior to them entering another facility's airspace. In this case, N90 did not accept any traffic into their space over STW, hence the hold west of STW. Has nothing to do with what he wants or doesn't want approach wise, that's not how this works. You get to go to the next Controller if they accept your IFR flight.
@@UnableVFR I've only listened through the once before reading comments but I have to say, the controller didn't make that clear. He kept talking about wx, when he should have just said what you said essentially- I.e., I can't hand you off and clear you into the sector
That said, very unprofessional attitude by the pilot and not somebody I'd want to fly with
@@UnableVFR Thanks for the info - communicating the fact that the next sector didn't accept the handoff might have relieved some of the consternation. That fact did get finally passed on but not in a clear manner. They kept saying NO - it's below minimums. That was the cause of the pilot's misunderstanding. It's pretty clear the pilot thought that the cause was that the weather we below minimums and not because the next controller didn't accept the handoff.
When looking at exactly what he said, IMHO the pilot said nothing inappropriate or incorrect at all.
Can shoot the approach if ceilings are below minimums but not if the visibility is below mins
Morristown's and Caldwell's airspace butt into each other. We have to carefully approach and depart the airspace and keep clear of air traffic for the other airport. IFR arrivals and departures to and from each airport are drastically throttled when there is low IFR. MMU CDW and TEB are very close to each other, and all wedged under EWR class B.
“Yeah, yeah, you want to try it? “😂
In my day, long ago, it was possible for a couple of jetliners to be sitting in the runup area waiting for enough RVR to takeoff legally and for some little cessna 172 to taxi around
them and takeoff ifr legally. Always wondered what the passengers and pilots thought about that.
Exactly, different rules!
Right but comparing a jetliner to a 172 is like comparing an ar15 to a BB gun as far as safety margins are concerned.
That's actually still 100% legal in some situations
1%-er needs to get on the ground to get his diamond shoes polished STAT!
The 1%er would be his passenger. This guy is a working stiff. You are the type who doesn't know where electricity comes from. Please sit down before you hurt yourself.
the "Okay, and?" is so chuckfull of attitude, I love it. I want it as my ring tone
It will be hours and hours of flight time ahead of me, but I will always and forever have "FAA has entered the chat" on the tip of my tongue.
I completed my doctorate at Drew University in Madison, about a mile away from Morristown. We went jogging before class early in the morning (often with a hangover). I've never seen so many private jets before or after in my life. The homes were amazing and two centuries of expensive. Entitlement knows no bounds. Pilot is a baby crying because he didn't get his way immediately.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that you are probably one of those people who start every conversation with your first 9 words.
@@PilotLife175 lmao...Yep, we all know at least one.
@@PilotLife175 And I bet you're one of those people that will ask someone what they do, then turn right around and say, "How do you tell if someone is an (xyz)? Just wait, they'll tell you", when you were the one that asked them.
@@PilotLife175 how else will we know to ask what this person's doctorate was....
Maybe it is relevant to the discussion or the vid
I dig it when I hear these for my local airport. I actually live in Stillwater and probably saw this guy fly over. We don't get too much air traffic out here. (Stillwater is a small town between Newton and Blairstown.)
4:09 Imagine an aircraft using a warp drive while on final approach.
An example of the all too common clash of egos in the aviation industry. Too bad everyone can't just relax a little. Safety is the priority and I will never criticize a controller for placing that at the top of the list.
There was only one ego in that conversation as far as I could tell.
@@mattman237 Whose was that, and based on what?
So who criticised anyone? Can you point out what you're claiming to be incorrect by the pilot exactly? Look at it again and you'll see that he's in the right and said nothing wrong.
@@pistonburner6448 Saying he's in control of routing and flight in IFR plans and gets to do what he demands shows that he's in the wrong (around 2 minute mark). He can work *with* ATC to get something different than what he filed, but I agree with the other comment that says 'if there's a stack of waiting aircraft above an airport, you can't just cut in line, descending to shoot an attempt below min's.'
@@pistonburner6448 Are you the pilot in the video?
As an instrument flight instructor, this makes no sense and I completely agree with the pilot. The pilot decides what approach he wants to attempt not ATC. Getting weak reasons that keep changing on why he was getting denied the approach after getting denied a different airport that's only 7 miles away for reasons not related to weather, makes me think ATC is lying and there's something else happening that the pilot isn't being made aware of. While his "I don't care about the weather" comment wasn't the smartest thing to say, I believe it was out of frustration and knowing that the weather at that time was nothing of concern to aircraft safety.
an instrument-instructor here as well as jet pilot- i do agree with you that pilots can decide what approaches they’d like to shoot; however, that is not and will not always be the case depending on whatever else is happening in the airspace. if the tower is reporting specific approaches via ATIS, that’s the approach one should expect. a request to fly a different approach can be made, but won’t always be accommodated. i’m unfamiliar with KMMU but a reason as to why air traffic control continued to hold the seemingly impatient aircraft may have been a conflict with another approach/missed approach segment with another aircraft at a nearby airport. i often find that when i notice something that may seem so simple to us as pilots is usually a result of something that we just can’t see but controllers do.
@@brownbrownson Correct, though that is not what's happening here. The pilot got denied both the ILS and RNAV. He said he believed the arrivals were finished and atc did not refute that. If departing traffic was the issue then all atc needed to say was "hold for departing traffic," give an EFC time and this would've been a done deal. Not multiple sketchy excuses.
Fantastic video mate 👍🏻
I wouldn't expect any less from an aircraft with the call sign "5EX"🤣
Yes it is "legal" to initiate an instrument approach at an airport with weather reported below minimums (assuming the flight is under part 91). I am not aware of the law that says ATC must clear you for every approach you ask for. ATCs primary responsibility is maintaining separation of IFR traffic. The controller could have more clearly explained the issue to the Falcon pilot, but if you dont treat me with courtesy and respect I am not sure why you would expect it in return.
He was pretty courteous. ATC doesn’t have time for pilots being divas.
I hope FAA really joined the chat
@SkepticAll Jealous people always add in their own interpretations of "air of superiority" be it BMWs on the ground or Falcons in the air...
Still laughing about that comment
@SkepticAll I'd like to know what you are claiming was incorrect from the pilot's side?
All the "air of superiority" is actually just your air of superiority producing lies against a fellow human being.
@@pistonburner6448 Defending an air Karen. Interesting take.
@SkepticAll You're just spewing hateful comments and now ad hominem on me based on nothing! I wrote that your negative comments about the pilot are based on nothing. If you disagree then you are free to tell us why you are slagging off a fellow human being.
The pilot had no "air of superiority". It's strange that you feel the need to find something to murder his character with. Especially since I have yet to hear what exactly was so wrong about what he said? What words or sentences exactly were wrong?
It’s like this all the time when I’m trying to park my car, it’s getting ridiculous
“FAA has joined the chat” absolutely hilarious
Pilot Sounds like Marverick in TopGun.......
negative ghost rider, the pattern is full
I see a lot of people ripping on the pilot, but for real though: unless there's traffic or some other conflict, ATC shouldn't hold you because the weather is below minimums. You are still allowed to conduct the approach. If you were to continue to land with it below minimums, then it would be an issue, but that's not for ATC to decide.
It might just be a misunderstanding, where there's something going on causing the delay, but if it's just because of the minimums, they shouldn't be holding the aircraft when he doesn't want to be.
Source: I am a controller
Sure, let the pilot do something stupid when he has multiple other options.
Okay you are right, but if this pilot has brains he wouldn't take the risk to shoot the approach and land that plane. Some pilots just have to much confidence
@@robertoskeetrech3206 Conducting the approach is not stupid. Landing is stupid, but it's not ATC's job to decide whether he's allowed to shoot the approach if there is no unsafe situation. We are not the sky police.
@@jensdewaele465 Shooting the approach ≠ Landing. Approaches have missed approach procedures. It's his job to to go missed if he doesn't have the appropriate minima. It's not ATC's job to stop him from doing the approach.
I'd rather ATC stop me from potentially killing myself by shooting a dangerous approach
I learned to fly at Caldwell. Fun seeing this.
If 5EX is Part 91, traffic permitting, he's correct. If the pilot talked to the tower, and determined that minimums existed to allow him to begin the approach, then they can't just hold him because it is "at minimums". Perhaps they were trying to get a departure(s) out of Caldwell or protecting for an approach there, but that's quite different then because the ceiling was low.
As a controller, it really isn't my business to determine if a particular aircraft can *legally* start an approach based on the weather minimums. I won't clear someone into convective activity (I've had a pilot try before!) but the ceiling/visibility is on them.
Bingo. It's amazing how many people forget their Part 91 regs. Plus, flying a missed approach, if you get to minimums and don't see what you need to land is not exactly an emergency procedure, just requires basic airmanship and knowledge.
“Traffic permitting” is the key here
2:15 - 'an aircraft just landed at Morristown'. - didn't atc tell him that they were going to try and land an aircraft to see how it goes?
Can someone with more knowledge than me tell me if atc are holding this guy for his safety?
Hope everyone's good.
Just by the pilots arrogance I can almost for certain say that he is a New Jersey residence lol possibly even Morristown, which is around the area I grew up in. God, I do not miss New Jersey in the least 😂😭
Summary of CAT.OP.MPA.305 EASA Europe legislation
An IFR flight CAN legally start an approach regardless of the weather conditions. If reported RVR/VIS is below minimums at 1000ft, they have to go around. If at minimums they can't se the runway due to the ceiling being too low or RVR/VIS too low, then they have to go around. But they can always start an approach, regardless of the conditions.
I don't know if FAA is the same or not. In case it is the same law (I suppose so) ATC is wrong here, and obviously the pilot was angry.
As a former cargo pilot I can say, been there done that. We will get in.
Sounds like an "anti-authority" attitude on that part of the pilot
5EX: "So whats the problem?"
Approach: "...Weather ...is below minimums. ...?"
5EX: "K. I still want to shoot the approach."
Approach: "Sir, that is literally against the law. Want me to give you clearance to rob a bank while you're in town too?"
I /just/ passed my IRA, havent scheduled my checkride yet, but "MINIMUMS" AND WHAT THAT MEANS was one of the first things we went over... what a gross attitude to have. I hope the FAA goes and sniffs this punk out before he hurts someone.
@@OHNOKite In the US, you can shoot an approach regardless of the weather if you want as long as you are operating under part 91. I wouldn't exactly advise it, but it is legal.
Sounds like an unhelpful controller to me...
@@OHNOKite the guy sounds British. In many other countries you're allowed to shoot the approach regardless of the weather.
@@DreamFreeFPV If you were a pilot or involved in aviation, then you would understand that you don't argue with a controller while you are flying an airplane. You request a phone number and you deal with it while safely on the ground.