Thanks to this pilot for sharing his experience with VASAviation. I can confirm that Socal ATC was extremely busy that day although I have trimmed all other communications out. Glad they are safe!!!
What happens after a possible pilot deviation? Is there an analysis of the situation afterwards? What are the consequences for a pilot that actually made a mistake?
@@nApucco Depends on what happened. it might just be a lecture by the controller... it might be escalated to an FAA review where there can be fines, suspension of license, loss of license and in extreme cases, prison. It appears this was a case of miscommunication and possibly radio interference by someone transmitting over the tower's instructions. Good call by 798 to maneuver to avoid during the confused communications. That's rule #2... don't hit another airplane. Rule #1 is don't unintentionally meet the ground. I can't read the picture of the pilot's statement... the text is blurry.
@@fhuber7507 It is the pilot of 798 recounting events. It was from a flight school and the student got an unexpected lesson on the importance of staying alert. Turns out the trwo planes landed at the same airport and the two pilots had a nice chat.
@@nApucco it all depends on what happened. Some deviations are mandatory report and others are not. If you get the number to call, that is most likely a mandatory report. You could get a simple come to Jesus conversation to a 709 check ride. Depending on how the offending pilot responds to ATC when he calls the number and when the FSDO calls him. It may also depend on what atings you hold. A CFI will be held to a higher, and tougher standard than a private pilot.
You can hear the shock in the controllers voice "34Z, are you climbing?". I find it very good, that all 3 involved were very professional afterwards an did not argue on the frequency.
And the pilots even had a civilized conversation about it on the ground after landing. Good to see that kind of professional attitude! I hope that when pilots are asses about it, that they get the full load piled on by the ATC Admin, but when they act like this pilot, that the consequences are moderate. There's just something to be said these days for owning up, and not "being a Karen" in a bad situation.
@@drmayeda1930 but he said later that he thought he was cleared to 4500 - if he'd readback the incorrect altitude it could have been corrected. That's what readbacks are for. And yes the ATC should have asked him to confirm the readback but possibly felt he had bigger risks that needed his attention elsewhere.
@@drmayeda1930 That is exactly why we all should get rid of this antiquated radio system. You can keep it as an always on fall back but we need to switch to a digital system with nonverbal instructions (additionally)!
I like this CFI in the N40798, he was fully aware of the picture and saved a few lives with that - but after he wasn't sweating one drop and even told ATC that it wasn't his fault and thanked him to put the man who has to continue a busy shift at ease. Can't have ATC fret over that while still on duty. Superb airmanship!
@@MrWATCHthisWAY it's not about should, pilots are required to read back ATC instructions (nuanced depending on airspace), but if they do not read back the clearance / instruction properly, it is ATCs job to correct and get the proper readback. This has happened to me several times, it's not a big deal. And ATC is not in control - the pilot is always in control, thus the deviation by the other aircraft. If you're a PPL or greater, which I don't think you are, you're very familiar with Aviate, Navigate, Communicate...
@@MrWATCHthisWAY you're not a pilot, never even held a student pilot cert. The FAA Airman Registry doesn't lie, and a quick reverse IP address confirmed your name ;)
thank you for making the text portion a pause to read thing. we aren't idiots here who need a section of video that plays for two minutes just showing the same thing. pause, read, continue. respect for that
SoCal is a very busy airspace. Sometimes when I get switched to SoCal, I need to wait 10 transmissions before I can check in. There are some times that I don’t even have a chance to check in and SoCal just assumed that we have switched frequencies and say Nxxxx radar contact.
you don't *need* to check in necessarily, they'll call you when they need you. It's more for you so you can confirm you're on the right freq for when they do call you.
This is why there is an echo-acknowledgement protocol. ATC should not assume the pilot has received the ATC instructions unless the pilot has echoed them back correctly.
It’s a good point. I fly in Canada and if you are VFR, you only have to read back hold short instructions with your full call sign. I still like to make a habit of doing a little extra because it provides extra clarification for sure!
I see a lot of this in the USA on videos of sloppy RT, in the UK if we read back and incorrect instruction or do not reply we are very sharply contacted again and made to understand the instruction or information.
I certainly agree with both of you. I had a new first officer in the Challenger 350 last week that was doing the same and he absolutely knew it was wrong. I finally had to tell him to leave his ego at the door and make appropriate full calls. That is exactly what this is...ego. It’s not even laziness, it’s pilots thinking they are gods gift to the world. I’ve see it more in the corporate world with pilots flying aircraft such as the Challengers, Gulfstreams and Falcons...100% ego or thinking they are showing off. As a pilot with almost 20,000 hours and 28 different type ratings, I still am no different than the student pilot when it come to appropriate procedures.
Did all my training (Private single all the way to Commercial Multi add-on) out of Van Nuys, and can safely say that it's pretty much always been busy busy busy! I've had a couple of annoying situations myself with traffic on a 1200 code not talking to anyone coming straight at me like a T-junction. With the number of aircraft in and out of the major airports (KLAX, KBUR, KSNA, KLGB) and heavy intensive training traffic in the practice areas, it's easy to see how this could happen - especially as a lot of aircraft don't have ADS-B in to monitor other traffic in-cockpit. **Visual scanning for traffic in VFR conditions is an essential skill that should never, ever be taken for granted, especially in SoCal.**
VFR in Bravo airspace - you are well served to keep your eyes open and scanning, despite altitude assignment, traffic calls, traffic calls too late to help, or simply lack thereof... Experienced them all.
Yeah when the pilot didn't readback the stop climb instruction... But glad it worked out and hopefully the student learned something as well as the second pilot.
2:52 I believe the pilot was cleared to contact “Mugu Approach.” Pt Mugu is a naval air station on the coast just north of LA. Used to go to air shows there as a kid and watch the Blue Angels in their A-4s.
Mugu Approach is the ATC in charge of the section that includes the Naval Air Station, Camarillo, Ventura and Santa Paula airports. Mugu Approach is civilian. When you depart Camarillo towards the coast you are being handed over to Mugu Tower, which is military and controls the airspace of Pt Mugu NAS. Always cool to talk to those guys.
At 1:20 there is the issue. “I think you said 4500”. If you don’t know, ASK! The controller will not get upset at you if you need clarification. 500 feet of separation would have been given if both pilots understood their assigned altitudes. Also the pilot of the climbing aircraft regardless of having the aircraft in sight didn’t want to deviate from the ATC instruction. I’d assume the regulations are the same in the US as they are in Canada where, you can deviate from a clearance/instruction if it’s in the interest of safety but ATC must be notified as soon as possible (What the aircraft did that altered heading to avoid a collision).
@@rbnn CMA is the destination, with the "K" removed from the beginning, which is Camarillo Airport. The P28A is the aircraft type, a Piper Cherokee in this case.
Can someone explain in detail what actually happens when the pilot who deviated ends up calling the number? Does he meet with people after? Grounded? Thanks!
Sometimes the pilots in the skies above LA mimic the driving styles of its residents... Having had some flight training out of Van Nuys, I'm mind boggled by how these controllers are able to manage the amount of G/A and commercial aircraft in and around Los Angeles. Especially on a busy day like this. The few hours I've logged flying from Van Nuys I've had scary close calls in controlled airspace and one moment specifically, in Class E, with a warbird flying without a transponder. Buzzed right underneath me while I was practicing steep turns in a cessna (like something out of a dogfight haha)
I live 60 mi north of LA's traffic area and I never fly their airspace. It is always too busy in my opinion... I will fly in the eastern LA basin, but no closer than KEMT. Remember, You are the pilot, not the guy on the ground. The controller however, did a good job in response to the instructor. These things happen...
crazy communication at 0:55 Who is gonna turning? What you wanna do, I only got a callsign? Something was odd in this sequence. Like... It's me, Galda, I'm going to bed. Who is going to bed? Galda What are you going to do? I only got your name. It's me, Galda, I'm going to bed.
Just because we all heard the instruction to stop climb at 3500 doesn't mean the pilot of 34Z heard it. Clearly he didn't hear it as there was no read back & he didn't stop! Thats exactly why we have read back system. I had an almost identical situation here in New Zealand a few years ago.
I’m not being critical of people who aren’t native English speakers, much of my family are non-native...however, this shows the importance of ENGLISH PROFICIENCY in aviation!
To be fair, pilot replied "looking for traffic" controller probably could have challenged him to confirm stop climb at 3500. I could have missed that myself - could have been a little clearer from the controller. Anyway, all is well.
I agree. The pilot never read back the maintain 3500. The controller should have immediately instructed him to maintain 3500 again., though if what the club pilot allegedly stated to the CFII is correct, he should have also asked for the missed bit of com. Glad the CFII had excellent situational awareness and was not afraid to deviate from ATC to save his own buttocks.
That is exactly why we all should get rid of this antiquated radio system. You can keep it as an always on fall back but we need to switch to a digital system with nonverbal instructions (additionally)!
culdeus via satellite? There must be. My proposal is the following: a system with a 2 stages confirmation procedure. 1a) ATC gives out instructions via satellite link to the specific receiver 1b) The pilot gets the message and has 5-10 seconds (max) to acknowledge he received and read it, otherwise it will trigger a warning with ATC and in the cockpit 1c) ATC doesn’t need to react in any way unless an alert pops up 2a) the pilot has another 5-10 seconds to actually confirm he did what the instructions told him to do, so he or she confirms the execution, otherwise an alarm will go off (cockpit and ATC) 2b) ATC receives the confirmation response. As a fallback solution they can still use radio communication when the alarm triggers at 1b/1c or 2b.
@@klamin_original At some point you have to think there would be more or less an instant chat feature put into play where ATC commands get loaded into flight computer.
You're absolutely right. Radio amateurs have had a system like this since the mid late 80s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_System It's slow (1200 bps by default, sometimes 9600 bps) ... but it's a hell of a lot faster than what's being used now. It is designed to work with regular analog voice comm radios, so it's plug and play for them. It could also handle a very busy airspace. None of this switching frequencies nonsense required either. You can send positions, waypoints, headings, etc as well as short messages (a bit like sms). Look for HAMs in your area using this system here: aprs.fi/
Bizarre situational awareness of the 34Z, the controller gave traffic information and said traffic 500’ above, why you’d then climb when knowing this AND reporting visual is just bizarre :/
I was quite confused for a second when I read "less than .2nm away" in the beginning since less than 0.2 nano-meters sounds a bit too close to survive ^^'
@@ZsomborZsombibi Aluminium (which I guess the aircraft body is made of) has a lattice constant of 0.40495 nm - this means that technically, 0.2 nm 'apart' is not just "touching", but compressed with enough force to deform/destroy the crystal lattice.
If you listen again to the first message, it's really hard to hear that he's supposed to stop at 4500. I think he missed that part or thought the other plane was coming out of 4500 and that's why he didn't confirmed that.
@@jemand8462 I did before I replied the first time. It's still perfectly clear. It would have been even clearer in the plane since this was recorded on the ground with a less clear line of sight to the atc facility transmitting than the plane in the air had.
i don't see where this was any of the saratoga pilot's fault. ATC gave a borderline unintelligible "stop your climb there" instruction on a busy frequency, which was obviously missed and not acknowledged. is that really a "deviation"?
@@j_taylor I could not hear the instruction very clearly while listening at home in a relaxed setting and watching subtitles. ATC had advised 798 that the traffic was leveling at 3500 with an *assumption* that saratoga heard and understood. You may be right that saratoga was saturated, but being saturated is not a deviation in itself. I'd be really surprised if saratoga pilot is dinged for this. If he had acknowledged the 3500 restriction but blew through, it would have been a different story. The ATC could have said "34Z maintain 3500 or below for traffic" and waited for the readback.. kudos to 798 for being more alert and CFI doing a great job as a safety pilot
@@scottscouter1065 The ATC normally repeats critical instructions after not receiving a readback, but that did not happen here. Saratoga was probably continuing to his previously assigned 4500 altitude since he missed the 3500 restriction.
"is that really a "deviation"?" That's up to FSDO to decide. ATC can't declare deviations, just declare an action as a "possible deviation" and send the incident up the chain to be investigated.
Good on the CFi for telling the atc he was doing good. Keep the atc in your side. I'm going 50/50 fault between flying club pilot and ATC. Maybe 60/40.
jimmars - I would agree with you, fault, could be spread around. Sad that we do not have the recording from initial radio contact with both aircraft, and hear what their intentions were, and perhaps early vectors would have sufficed. Phraseology, also comes into play. "stop your climb there at 3500", is not in the book. Better, would have been to assign him, "Maintain 3500, acknowledge", then give the reason. The controller would then have had a reply, in this this incident no reply. Being that each pilot saw each other, and seeing they are on converging courses, wonder why neither chose to do 360 for spacing? From experience, an incident that could have been prevented, glad all are safe.
Sounds like 34Z heard to stop his climb at 4500 instead of 3500, and was crossing 4000 when 798 was there. A readback of that instruction probably would have avoided this, and I guess the controller had too many other planes to deal with and didn't see the altitude continue to climb on the track.
No, sorry. All that "love" was unnecessary congestion of a busy approach frequency. A simple thanks would have been more than enough. Did you not hear all those blocked calls in that clip??
I don't believe they were IFR since they did 3 approaches (according to the CFI's email). This is usually done under VFR as practice approaches. They were in Class E airspace.
@@Barceman True, we have the terminal to terminal concept, but the reality is that most practice approaches are still done VFR - at least in my experience. Reason is that even under terminal concept you get routed insanely wide and 3 approaches end up costing you 4 hobbs.
@@drfaustus72 I did my flight training in San Diego few years ago and we usually do approaches in IFR, if we were told to expect long delay for release, we will takeoff in VFR and ask for IFR clearance in flight. I would say less than 10% of my IR training approaches were done in VFR.
Hmm, note at beginning of this isnt quite an accurate portrayal. 34Z told to stay at 3500, not 3000. Also, 798 did lose a bit of altitude, down to 3700, during their turn getting closer to other plane it seems. Either way, nice to see collision avoided.
Ruben Villanueva well the other side of that would be, the airplane from the right would be the stand on, 798 was the give way, however procedurally he should have turned right and not left.
The pilot never read back to stop his climb at 3500', only that he was looking for traffic. So he definitely heard the instructions and continued to climb. It's not the ATC's fault here. I would love to hear the conversations of the two pilots on the ground.
Isn't the job of the ATC to be sure the instruction is read back correctly? I'm not a pilot or anything, but that's what I think, right? Maybe he understood correctly the traffic information but not the correct altitude, 4500ft instead of 3500ft...
It's a mitigating factor regarding the pilot deviation that 34Z never read back the altitude restriction. How can you deviate from an instruction you never aknowledged receiving. This is a effective defense he should use. Will likely not face any enforcement actions. I am not saying he is not at fault, however the FAA will not throw the book at him and nor should they
Maybe it is a good defense, but very bad airmanship for 34Z. While he is climbing through 3500' he heard an aircraft at 4000' and he still decide to continue climbing to 4500' with the other aircraft not in sight? BTW, he is probably flying VFR in class E, so under flight following doesn't relieve his responsibility of collision avoidance and the FSDO can issue warning or ask him to do flight check because he didn't maintain proper separation.
With today’s technology there has to be a better way to communicate than these crappy radios that step all over each other. Also ATC seems to talk really fast which is going to add to the confusion especially if a pilot is not a native English speaker.
After the Pan Am and KLM collision in Tenerife there was an automatic hederodyne awareness system that was proposed to significantly reduce the simultaneous transmission problem. I guess it is gathering dust somewhere.
Several of the subtitles were incorrect, but sometimes its not easy to hear the audio especially when people are doubling on the radio. Actually if the aviation radios were using single side band instead of AM then more than one transmission could be heard at the same time.
Mainly the pilot's fault for thinking 4500 instead of 3500 and not reading back the instructions, partially ATC's fault for not having them confirm via readback.
Ah yes, Los Angeles, where KLAX 25R is used for takeoff when 06R is used for landing. HAL2 landed on 06R at around 0711z 26 Sep 2020, right after GTI2848 took off from 25R at about 0709z.
Excuse my ignorance. When pilots are given a phone number who are they actually going talking to? FAA? Thanks for your replies in advanced. ATC communication is fascinating.
Pilot deviation. It’s times like these that exact instructions are imperative and ATC or pilot may not have time to repeat. So be clear and succinct. Though I’m not a pilot, I’m a retired Registered Nurse and we take the same due care during emergencies. If you’re bleeding out, no one has time for not being 110% involved. Time is often of the essence!
@@rubenvillanueva8635 yes, but we, humans, are known to be very good at creating other problems while preventing one specific event from happening again.
The ATC should have made sure the 34Z pilot read back the instructions given.The “possible pilot deviation” is BS, when the ATC should have asked for a read back, that would have kept the pilot deviation from even happening in the first place. I hope the ATC in question gets written up or even fired for this!
LOL, if every ATCs insist on proper readback in SOCAL, they gotta open 5-10 more frequency to handle the amount of traffic. I rather keep it this way to ensure they don't enlarge the C and D airspace. I mean flying in busy airspace should use extra caution, not blaming ATC all the time, especially when flying in VMC, flight following and IFR in VMC do not relieve the PIC responsibility of collision avoidance. How the hell he would think it is appropriate to climb through the collision altitude without having the other aircraft in sight?
Imagine how less congested our airspace would be if we had real high speed rail, like China, and Japan. Japan trains go 300 mph, and in 2025 they are putting their newest train in service that has a max speed of 425 mph Wow, imagine Albany NY to NYC in 15 minutes, DC in an hour, Savannah in just over 2 hours and Miami in 4. Wow Never happen here, because the airlines would be out of business in a month. Imagine not standing in the TSA line for 3 hours. Imagine not having to leave home 9 hours before your flight. To dream
You're talking of airline traffic. This is general aviation (GA) - people who fly their personal aircraft, or for training. SoCal, and Van Nuys in particular has heavy GA traffic - given the number of flight schools and people who use their own planes in and out of the LA area. In fact, you're allowed to fly literally right over LAX airport without talking to anyone, as long as you self-announce yourself. So no, this kind of airspace congestion hasn't got too much to do with airline/scheduled air service.
![[REAL ATC] AerLingus and Dolomiti NEAR COLLISION | 3D visuals](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9dz0HNFaCGY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] EVA B77W NEAR COLLISION + TRAFFIC CONFLICT out of LAX!](/img/n.gif)
Thanks to this pilot for sharing his experience with VASAviation. I can confirm that Socal ATC was extremely busy that day although I have trimmed all other communications out. Glad they are safe!!!
What happens after a possible pilot deviation? Is there an analysis of the situation afterwards? What are the consequences for a pilot that actually made a mistake?
@@nApucco Depends on what happened.
it might just be a lecture by the controller... it might be escalated to an FAA review where there can be fines, suspension of license, loss of license and in extreme cases, prison.
It appears this was a case of miscommunication and possibly radio interference by someone transmitting over the tower's instructions.
Good call by 798 to maneuver to avoid during the confused communications.
That's rule #2... don't hit another airplane.
Rule #1 is don't unintentionally meet the ground.
I can't read the picture of the pilot's statement... the text is blurry.
@@fhuber7507
It is the pilot of 798 recounting events. It was from a flight school and the student got an unexpected lesson on the importance of staying alert. Turns out the trwo planes landed at the same airport and the two pilots had a nice chat.
@@fhuber7507 try to watch in 1080p or in a computer. You will able to read
@@nApucco it all depends on what happened. Some deviations are mandatory report and others are not. If you get the number to call, that is most likely a mandatory report. You could get a simple come to Jesus conversation to a 709 check ride. Depending on how the offending pilot responds to ATC when he calls the number and when the FSDO calls him. It may also depend on what atings you hold. A CFI will be held to a higher, and tougher standard than a private pilot.
Doesn't help that folks were stepping on the frequency left and right.
This. I’m surprised the controller didn’t come on and tell all aircraft to stop transmitting.
Yeah almost makes sense that 803 or whatever it was couldn’t understand
You can hear the shock in the controllers voice "34Z, are you climbing?". I find it very good, that all 3 involved were very professional afterwards an did not argue on the frequency.
And the pilots even had a civilized conversation about it on the ground after landing. Good to see that kind of professional attitude!
I hope that when pilots are asses about it, that they get the full load piled on by the ATC Admin, but when they act like this pilot, that the consequences are moderate. There's just something to be said these days for owning up, and not "being a Karen" in a bad situation.
Zulu never acknowledged the hold at 3500. ATC should have barked him then, but was overloaded
@@morthomer5804
34Z says he was stepped on so he didn't get the message.
@@drmayeda1930 but he said later that he thought he was cleared to 4500 - if he'd readback the incorrect altitude it could have been corrected. That's what readbacks are for. And yes the ATC should have asked him to confirm the readback but possibly felt he had bigger risks that needed his attention elsewhere.
@@drmayeda1930 That is exactly why we all should get rid of this antiquated radio system. You can keep it as an always on fall back but we need to switch to a digital system with nonverbal instructions (additionally)!
So much stepping. Sounds like an AOL modem tryna come back from the dead. Thanks for sharing, Vas~ good stuff
I like this CFI in the N40798, he was fully aware of the picture and saved a few lives with that - but after he wasn't sweating one drop and even told ATC that it wasn't his fault and thanked him to put the man who has to continue a busy shift at ease. Can't have ATC fret over that while still on duty. Superb airmanship!
1/2 mile separation? Superb airmanship?! Hmm. Not good to be flying unintended formation, but hardly imminent swapping of paint.
Yeah Devin is a great CFII. I trust him implicitly and this is a perfect example of why.
@@j_taylor i bet the room never smells bad after you go poopoo either
Agreed
Bryan J - You miss the 100ft difference part? That coulda been imminent pretty easily.
Nice to see a pilot assume responsibility when they mess up , this time everybody was lucky
N8034Z never read back "maintain 3500" he just said "Looking for Traffic." That's important here.
@@MrWATCHthisWAY it's not about should, pilots are required to read back ATC instructions (nuanced depending on airspace), but if they do not read back the clearance / instruction properly, it is ATCs job to correct and get the proper readback. This has happened to me several times, it's not a big deal. And ATC is not in control - the pilot is always in control, thus the deviation by the other aircraft. If you're a PPL or greater, which I don't think you are, you're very familiar with Aviate, Navigate, Communicate...
@@MrWATCHthisWAY you're not a pilot, never even held a student pilot cert. The FAA Airman Registry doesn't lie, and a quick reverse IP address confirmed your name ;)
@@dixonp.4785 Lol reverse IP address. Classic 0/10
@@MrWATCHthisWAY hmmm well yeah I'd look into that then if you are legit.
@@simonrichards150 it's an IP address but backwards
Thank you again and again VASA for all the great videos. That was close.
So close!
ATC should’ve made sure he read back 3500’. All he replied with was “looking for traffic”
Exacly
thank you for making the text portion a pause to read thing. we aren't idiots here who need a section of video that plays for two minutes just showing the same thing. pause, read, continue. respect for that
Precious lessons to learn in this...thanks VASAviation.
SoCal is a very busy airspace. Sometimes when I get switched to SoCal, I need to wait 10 transmissions before I can check in. There are some times that I don’t even have a chance to check in and SoCal just assumed that we have switched frequencies and say Nxxxx radar contact.
Thst sounds dangerous 😕
you don't *need* to check in necessarily, they'll call you when they need you. It's more for you so you can confirm you're on the right freq for when they do call you.
This is why there is an echo-acknowledgement protocol. ATC should not assume the pilot has received the ATC instructions unless the pilot has echoed them back correctly.
It’s a good point. I fly in Canada and if you are VFR, you only have to read back hold short instructions with your full call sign. I still like to make a habit of doing a little extra because it provides extra clarification for sure!
I see a lot of this in the USA on videos of sloppy RT, in the UK if we read back and incorrect instruction or do not reply we are very sharply contacted again and made to understand the instruction or information.
I certainly agree with both of you. I had a new first officer in the Challenger 350 last week that was doing the same and he absolutely knew it was wrong. I finally had to tell him to leave his ego at the door and make appropriate full calls. That is exactly what this is...ego. It’s not even laziness, it’s pilots thinking they are gods gift to the world. I’ve see it more in the corporate world with pilots flying aircraft such as the Challengers, Gulfstreams and Falcons...100% ego or thinking they are showing off. As a pilot with almost 20,000 hours and 28 different type ratings, I still am no different than the student pilot when it come to appropriate procedures.
@@dejanbrice8774 Yep. And I'm guessing you haven't actually flown in busy US Class B airspace about 5pm on a weekday...
@@clarkgriswold-zr5sb Busy doesn't mean you get complacent, that's exactly how things like this happen.
858-537-OOPS
"ATC, that small radar blip you see is the dookie I just dropped".
Did all my training (Private single all the way to Commercial Multi add-on) out of Van Nuys, and can safely say that it's pretty much always been busy busy busy! I've had a couple of annoying situations myself with traffic on a 1200 code not talking to anyone coming straight at me like a T-junction. With the number of aircraft in and out of the major airports (KLAX, KBUR, KSNA, KLGB) and heavy intensive training traffic in the practice areas, it's easy to see how this could happen - especially as a lot of aircraft don't have ADS-B in to monitor other traffic in-cockpit. **Visual scanning for traffic in VFR conditions is an essential skill that should never, ever be taken for granted, especially in SoCal.**
Well done taking all necessary action to avoid a collision and stay safe!
VFR in Bravo airspace - you are well served to keep your eyes open and scanning, despite altitude assignment, traffic calls, traffic calls too late to help, or simply lack thereof... Experienced them all.
These guys were not in Bravo airspace.
Yeah when the pilot didn't readback the stop climb instruction... But glad it worked out and hopefully the student learned something as well as the second pilot.
2:52 I believe the pilot was cleared to contact “Mugu Approach.” Pt Mugu is a naval air station on the coast just north of LA. Used to go to air shows there as a kid and watch the Blue Angels in their A-4s.
Mugu Approach is the ATC in charge of the section that includes the Naval Air Station, Camarillo, Ventura and Santa Paula airports. Mugu Approach is civilian. When you depart Camarillo towards the coast you are being handed over to Mugu Tower, which is military and controls the airspace of Pt Mugu NAS. Always cool to talk to those guys.
I can imagine an underwear change for all involved was approved by ATC.
Andy Taylor 😳😂😂
Especially the student flying under the hood in 798 when this all went down :-)
At 1:20 there is the issue. “I think you said 4500”. If you don’t know, ASK! The controller will not get upset at you if you need clarification. 500 feet of separation would have been given if both pilots understood their assigned altitudes. Also the pilot of the climbing aircraft regardless of having the aircraft in sight didn’t want to deviate from the ATC instruction. I’d assume the regulations are the same in the US as they are in Canada where, you can deviate from a clearance/instruction if it’s in the interest of safety but ATC must be notified as soon as possible (What the aircraft did that altered heading to avoid a collision).
And if you think you *do* know, then readback the instruction...
This is what happens when ATC instruction are not repeated back by pilots to confirm they were understood.
Great job 798
even on vatsim it's hard to stay sperated from a lot VFR traffic.
I’m sure this is a FAQ but what does the second number under the call sign the 10 in “040 10” mean 0:56? Also the CMA P28A a bit later?
That's the aircraft's ground speed in knots with the last digit removed, so 10 = approximately 100 knots ground speed.
Michael Z what about the CMA P28A?
@@rbnn CMA is the destination, with the "K" removed from the beginning, which is Camarillo Airport. The P28A is the aircraft type, a Piper Cherokee in this case.
Can someone explain in detail what actually happens when the pilot who deviated ends up calling the number? Does he meet with people after? Grounded? Thanks!
The number is just for the controller and the pilot to discuss what happened off frequency.
Sometimes the pilots in the skies above LA mimic the driving styles of its residents...
Having had some flight training out of Van Nuys, I'm mind boggled by how these controllers are able to manage the amount of G/A and commercial aircraft in and around Los Angeles. Especially on a busy day like this.
The few hours I've logged flying from Van Nuys I've had scary close calls in controlled airspace and one moment specifically, in Class E, with a warbird flying without a transponder. Buzzed right underneath me while I was practicing steep turns in a cessna (like something out of a dogfight haha)
Maybe because some of the pilots flying there are actually residents of the area?
I live 60 mi north of LA's traffic area and I never fly their airspace. It is always too busy in my opinion... I will fly in the eastern LA basin, but no closer than KEMT. Remember, You are the pilot, not the guy on the ground. The controller however, did a good job in response to the instructor. These things happen...
crazy communication at 0:55
Who is gonna turning?
What you wanna do, I only got a callsign?
Something was odd in this sequence.
Like... It's me, Galda, I'm going to bed.
Who is going to bed?
Galda
What are you going to do? I only got your name.
It's me, Galda, I'm going to bed.
Curious what does VAS in VASAviation mean? Or it means nothing?
Caleb Allard - could be, Vas, to go, in Spanish. "Go Aviation", only my guess.
My initials
Just because we all heard the instruction to stop climb at 3500 doesn't mean the pilot of 34Z heard it. Clearly he didn't hear it as there was no read back & he didn't stop! Thats exactly why we have read back system. I had an almost identical situation here in New Zealand a few years ago.
I’m not being critical of people who aren’t native English speakers, much of my family are non-native...however, this shows the importance of ENGLISH PROFICIENCY in aviation!
To be fair, pilot replied "looking for traffic" controller probably could have challenged him to confirm stop climb at 3500. I could have missed that myself - could have been a little clearer from the controller. Anyway, all is well.
I agree. The pilot never read back the maintain 3500. The controller should have immediately instructed him to maintain 3500 again., though if what the club pilot allegedly stated to the CFII is correct, he should have also asked for the missed bit of com. Glad the CFII had excellent situational awareness and was not afraid to deviate from ATC to save his own buttocks.
@@kevtheis Understanding that you can deviate from a clearance if flight conditions warrant is one of the first things taught.
Maybe a check ride with 1 November Romeo is needed? That guy knows how to handle ATC
That is exactly why we all should get rid of this antiquated radio system. You can keep it as an always on fall back but we need to switch to a digital system with nonverbal instructions (additionally)!
Thought the issue with this was there are no frequencies left that can support the bandwidth
culdeus via satellite? There must be.
My proposal is the following: a system with a 2 stages confirmation procedure.
1a) ATC gives out instructions via satellite link to the specific receiver
1b) The pilot gets the message and has 5-10 seconds (max) to acknowledge he received and read it, otherwise it will trigger a warning with ATC and in the cockpit
1c) ATC doesn’t need to react in any way unless an alert pops up
2a) the pilot has another 5-10 seconds to actually confirm he did what the instructions told him to do, so he or she confirms the execution, otherwise an alarm will go off (cockpit and ATC)
2b) ATC receives the confirmation response.
As a fallback solution they can still use radio communication when the alarm triggers at 1b/1c or 2b.
@@klamin_original At some point you have to think there would be more or less an instant chat feature put into play where ATC commands get loaded into flight computer.
culdeus the Pilots have to navigate and aviate, ATC can’t do that ;)
But as far as I know they’re already working on a system like my proposal
You're absolutely right. Radio amateurs have had a system like this since the mid late 80s.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_System
It's slow (1200 bps by default, sometimes 9600 bps) ... but it's a hell of a lot faster than what's being used now. It is designed to work with regular analog voice comm radios, so it's plug and play for them. It could also handle a very busy airspace. None of this switching frequencies nonsense required either.
You can send positions, waypoints, headings, etc as well as short messages (a bit like sms).
Look for HAMs in your area using this system here: aprs.fi/
Bizarre situational awareness of the 34Z, the controller gave traffic information and said traffic 500’ above, why you’d then climb when knowing this AND reporting visual is just bizarre :/
34Z’s readback of the max climb altitude really should have been required.
So what happens in a deviation? The FAA investigates and then decides if the pilot was at fault?
No, you are the problem once you are told to call. The FAA may mandate remedial training, like they did with Harrison Ford.
@@davidhoffman1278 Thanks for the information!
I was quite confused for a second when I read "less than .2nm away" in the beginning since less than 0.2 nano-meters sounds a bit too close to survive ^^'
It beats _zero_ nanometers. 😁
I thought that too at first. That would have been a miracle.
That is still a distance where the aircrafts do not touch :)
@@ZsomborZsombibi Aluminium (which I guess the aircraft body is made of) has a lattice constant of 0.40495 nm - this means that technically, 0.2 nm 'apart' is not just "touching", but compressed with enough force to deform/destroy the crystal lattice.
@@CynicalIndulgence thanks, so it means that's a *crash*.
If you listen again to the first message, it's really hard to hear that he's supposed to stop at 4500. I think he missed that part or thought the other plane was coming out of 4500 and that's why he didn't confirmed that.
He was supposed to stop at 3500 the way I heard it.
@@davidhoffman1278 yes, correct, I wrote the wrong number, but that wasn't my point ;)
Jemand How is “Stop your climb at 3,500” difficult to understand?
@@peterharris3181 why do you watch it again without subtitles and then we talk again?
@@jemand8462 I did before I replied the first time. It's still perfectly clear. It would have been even clearer in the plane since this was recorded on the ground with a less clear line of sight to the atc facility transmitting than the plane in the air had.
i don't see where this was any of the saratoga pilot's fault. ATC gave a borderline unintelligible "stop your climb there" instruction on a busy frequency, which was obviously missed and not acknowledged. is that really a "deviation"?
@@j_taylor I could not hear the instruction very clearly while listening at home in a relaxed setting and watching subtitles. ATC had advised 798 that the traffic was leveling at 3500 with an *assumption* that saratoga heard and understood. You may be right that saratoga was saturated, but being saturated is not a deviation in itself. I'd be really surprised if saratoga pilot is dinged for this. If he had acknowledged the 3500 restriction but blew through, it would have been a different story. The ATC could have said "34Z maintain 3500 or below for traffic" and waited for the readback.. kudos to 798 for being more alert and CFI doing a great job as a safety pilot
@@scottscouter1065 The ATC normally repeats critical instructions after not receiving a readback, but that did not happen here. Saratoga was probably continuing to his previously assigned 4500 altitude since he missed the 3500 restriction.
@@scottscouter1065 you've never flown a real airplane have you?
"is that really a "deviation"?"
That's up to FSDO to decide. ATC can't declare deviations, just declare an action as a "possible deviation" and send the incident up the chain to be investigated.
Good on the CFi for telling the atc he was doing good. Keep the atc in your side. I'm going 50/50 fault between flying club pilot and ATC. Maybe 60/40.
jimmars - I would agree with you, fault, could be spread around. Sad that we do not have the recording from initial radio contact with both aircraft, and hear what their intentions were, and perhaps early vectors would have sufficed. Phraseology, also comes into play. "stop your climb there at 3500", is not in the book. Better, would have been to assign him, "Maintain 3500, acknowledge", then give the reason. The controller would then have had a reply, in this this incident no reply. Being that each pilot saw each other, and seeing they are on converging courses, wonder why neither chose to do 360 for spacing? From experience, an incident that could have been prevented, glad all are safe.
Sounds like 34Z heard to stop his climb at 4500 instead of 3500, and was crossing 4000 when 798 was there. A readback of that instruction probably would have avoided this, and I guess the controller had too many other planes to deal with and didn't see the altitude continue to climb on the track.
No, sorry. All that "love" was unnecessary congestion of a busy approach frequency. A simple thanks would have been more than enough. Did you not hear all those blocked calls in that clip??
Bryan J reminds me of that sr20 Pilot who was very polite with the atc up until the moment she spinned into the parking lot
Bryan J - And yet the exchanges you’re taking issues with weren’t blocked at all.
Was 798 IFR, and were they and the other aircraft in class bravo or charlie airspace? Anybody know?
I don't believe they were IFR since they did 3 approaches (according to the CFI's email). This is usually done under VFR as practice approaches. They were in Class E airspace.
@@drfaustus72 In SOCAL, 3 approaches can be done in IFR because we don't need to file IFR flight plan like flying in other area.
@@Barceman True, we have the terminal to terminal concept, but the reality is that most practice approaches are still done VFR - at least in my experience. Reason is that even under terminal concept you get routed insanely wide and 3 approaches end up costing you 4 hobbs.
@@drfaustus72 I did my flight training in San Diego few years ago and we usually do approaches in IFR, if we were told to expect long delay for release, we will takeoff in VFR and ask for IFR clearance in flight. I would say less than 10% of my IR training approaches were done in VFR.
Hmm, note at beginning of this isnt quite an accurate portrayal. 34Z told to stay at 3500, not 3000. Also, 798 did lose a bit of altitude, down to 3700, during their turn getting closer to other plane it seems. Either way, nice to see collision avoided.
Also common practice is to turn right to avoid a collision not left!
David Merullo - On a head to head convergence, yes, each aircraft turns to the right. This was not head to head. Why would you turn to the right?
Ruben Villanueva well the other side of that would be, the airplane from the right would be the stand on, 798 was the give way, however procedurally he should have turned right and not left.
I’m willing to bet he turned right and the mock up is incorrect however?
The pilot never read back to stop his climb at 3500', only that he was looking for traffic. So he definitely heard the instructions and continued to climb. It's not the ATC's fault here. I would love to hear the conversations of the two pilots on the ground.
Isn't the job of the ATC to be sure the instruction is read back correctly? I'm not a pilot or anything, but that's what I think, right? Maybe he understood correctly the traffic information but not the correct altitude, 4500ft instead of 3500ft...
It might be that he only heard the second part, not the first part.
Unless of course the first part of ATC's message was stepped on...
@@javiTests ATC knew, he and the pilot were both involved in that misunderstanding. He even said 'my mistake'.
It's a mitigating factor regarding the pilot deviation that 34Z never read back the altitude restriction.
How can you deviate from an instruction you never aknowledged receiving. This is a effective defense he should use. Will likely not face any enforcement actions. I am not saying he is not at fault, however the FAA will not throw the book at him and nor should they
Maybe it is a good defense, but very bad airmanship for 34Z. While he is climbing through 3500' he heard an aircraft at 4000' and he still decide to continue climbing to 4500' with the other aircraft not in sight? BTW, he is probably flying VFR in class E, so under flight following doesn't relieve his responsibility of collision avoidance and the FSDO can issue warning or ask him to do flight check because he didn't maintain proper separation.
With today’s technology there has to be a better way to communicate than these crappy radios that step all over each other. Also ATC seems to talk really fast which is going to add to the confusion especially if a pilot is not a native English speaker.
After the Pan Am and KLM collision in Tenerife there was an automatic hederodyne awareness system that was proposed to significantly reduce the simultaneous transmission problem. I guess it is gathering dust somewhere.
I know this area. The atc said contact mugu approach but the subtitles said Camarillo. Funny.
Several of the subtitles were incorrect, but sometimes its not easy to hear the audio especially when people are doubling on the radio. Actually if the aviation radios were using single side band instead of AM then more than one transmission could be heard at the same time.
@@kd5you1 Mugu is the approach control service for Camarillo (and Oxnard)
Mainly the pilot's fault for thinking 4500 instead of 3500 and not reading back the instructions, partially ATC's fault for not having them confirm via readback.
Seems like the same people who can't drive their car are allowed to operate a plane.
Ah yes, Los Angeles, where KLAX 25R is used for takeoff when 06R is used for landing.
HAL2 landed on 06R at around 0711z 26 Sep 2020, right after GTI2848 took off from 25R at about 0709z.
Creeper_NoDenial _ Walker #14604 - What is the concern?, opposite direction departures and arrivals are common for noise abatement.
At least he can copy a number flying
Good work on the CFI's part to have his eyes outside. I just cringe listening to all that traffic on one little frequency.
Owen Merrick - What is a large frequency?
These guardian angels of the sky are doing a amazing job ....I think this is the way to recognise their work ......Love the video much 👍👍👍
My trainers woulda backhanded me if I asked the pilot what he was doing while the incident was still occurring lol
What? Isnt the controller supposed to ask what their doing?
@@rachele7398 you’re supposed to fix the situation, then go and be like “mah dude.. wtf”
Excuse my ignorance. When pilots are given a phone number who are they actually going talking to? FAA? Thanks for your replies in advanced. ATC communication is fascinating.
James Steele - Usually it would be the Senior Air Traffic Officer, if they are not available then the Radar supervisor on duty.
Imagine if it had been IMC!!! Yuck!
Oh no 😬
Stephen Britton - Yes, cancel Christmas!
@2:12 "No, you're doing a great job. Keep it up." 🤥
Read back! Where is the read back?!
Pilot deviation. It’s times like these that exact instructions are imperative and ATC or pilot may not have time to repeat. So be clear and succinct.
Though I’m not a pilot, I’m a retired Registered Nurse and we take the same due care during emergencies. If you’re bleeding out, no one has time for not being 110% involved. Time is often of the essence!
What’s a close collision? Like he said ?
The dots came very close to touching, this is generally a bad thing...
They were basically close to crashing each other 😅
N8034Z..8 ball flying club. I wouldn’t gamble on the pilots in that club.
What's wrong with the 8-ball club?
Noel Down The owner of the aircraft is the 8-ball club. It was an attempt at humor. If you’re a member of the club and a pilot, I apologize.
"Near miss? More like a near hit."
Just stay off the damn frequency until there's a long enough break... Jesus. Yeah I know, socal... Even all the more reason
Automate it
The collision pilot sounds like Kahn from “King of the Hill”.
So?
So who is really to blame here?🤔
I guess the better question would be "What can be done so this can't happen again, without causing other issues?"
Bogdan N - Look at it this way, How, it happened, Why, it happened, and What, can be done to prevent it from happening again. Just a thought.
@@rubenvillanueva8635 yes, but we, humans, are known to be very good at creating other problems while preventing one specific event from happening again.
Bogdan N - I have had to review such incidents, and one has to break it all down into bits. If this were broken down, faults could be easily found.
How do you have a close collision? It is either a collision or not. Like a light switch. On or off. Maybe they are flying dimmer switch aircraft now?
Transcription fuckup - he says 'that was close to collision'
almost 2021 and were still using 1940s technology. pathetic.
The ATC should have made sure the 34Z pilot read back the instructions given.The “possible pilot deviation” is BS, when the ATC should have asked for a read back, that would have kept the pilot deviation from even happening in the first place. I hope the ATC in question gets written up or even fired for this!
LOL, if every ATCs insist on proper readback in SOCAL, they gotta open 5-10 more frequency to handle the amount of traffic. I rather keep it this way to ensure they don't enlarge the C and D airspace. I mean flying in busy airspace should use extra caution, not blaming ATC all the time, especially when flying in VMC, flight following and IFR in VMC do not relieve the PIC responsibility of collision avoidance. How the hell he would think it is appropriate to climb through the collision altitude without having the other aircraft in sight?
Could the problem relate to the fact that he is using Yahoo mail in 2020?
What’s wrong with yahoo mail? Yahoo is still a huge company yknow.
Oh traffic is in sight... Better beeline it towards him
Imagine how less congested our airspace would be if we had real high speed rail, like China, and Japan.
Japan trains go 300 mph, and in 2025 they are putting their newest train in service that has a max speed of 425 mph
Wow, imagine Albany NY to NYC in 15 minutes, DC in an hour, Savannah in just over 2 hours and Miami in 4.
Wow
Never happen here, because the airlines would be out of business in a month.
Imagine not standing in the TSA line for 3 hours. Imagine not having to leave home 9 hours before your flight.
To dream
This is GA traffic, it has nothing to do with 'high speed rail'. Why post something when you have no idea what you are talking about?
You're talking of airline traffic. This is general aviation (GA) - people who fly their personal aircraft, or for training. SoCal, and Van Nuys in particular has heavy GA traffic - given the number of flight schools and people who use their own planes in and out of the LA area. In fact, you're allowed to fly literally right over LAX airport without talking to anyone, as long as you self-announce yourself. So no, this kind of airspace congestion hasn't got too much to do with airline/scheduled air service.