[ANALYSIS] Near Collision with Control Tower at LaGuardia | What happened?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- Extensive but needed video to solve some questions that appeared in the original video's comments. If you have any more info or want to correct something that I said wrong, please leave your comment.
Thanks for the support and share this analysis so that everyone can have a better picture of the variables and conditions that led up to this near fatal accident.
______________
Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASAviation
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Flying Eyes 10% OFF: flyingeyesoptics.com/?ref=Vas...
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!! :)
![[柴犬ASMR]曼玉Manyu&小白Bai 毛发护理Spa asmr](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0TsXQ7z2Dh4/mqdefault.jpg)
*EDIT 1: NA stands for NOT AUTHORIZED, and not "not available" as I incorrectly said.*
Extensive but needed video to solve some questions that appeared in the original video's comments. If you have any more info or want to correct something that I said wrong, please leave your comment.
Original full video: ua-cam.com/video/xauO-7FH8qI/v-deo.html
Thanks for the support and share this analysis so that everyone can have a better picture of the variables and conditions that led up to this near fatal accident.
i am seeing some wind components requiring a left crab based on those trck overlays which could of added to aprch to lndg sight picture at mins.
Correct Victor, Final approach fix inbound has to be hand flown. Autopilot coupled approach not authorized.
The only reason to continue beyond DA without seeing the runway environment is if they could see the approach lighting system. Then they can descend to 100 feet above the TDZE before they must see the runway environment. The way runway 4 is laid out there is no possible way they mistook the lighting on the local roads or the Grand Central Parkway for the runway. UNLESS, the winds aloft were showing that above the wind sheer layer the winds were a tail wind coming from the South. Arriving into runway 4 that would have meant that they were initially crabbing to the right. As they were on the final segment of the approach with the tailwind turning into a headwind they would have had to start transitioning into a straight alignment instead of a crab to the right. Maybe as they were straightening they thought lights on the Grand Central Parkway was the runway lights and that's why they continued below DA to get to that 100 feet above TDZE. This is all assuming they were still in clouds and/or low visibility. Eventually, they would have broken out and saw that they needed to go around immediately.
It seems like a stretch chair reviewing this in hindsight but I'm trying to work off of the assumption that these were very capable pilots who could have fallen for the tricks of an illusion. You would think that as they approached DA they would be looking for the runway environment and no longer looking at their instruments where typically the closer you get the less reliable the instrument becomes at that distance anyway. Otherwise they would have seen that massive deviation from the localizer. Even if they weren't lining up for the GCP the PF may have stopped or hesitated mistaking it for the approach into runway 4.
You can bet your ass that the landing lights burned right into the tower windows. You can hear it in the “GO AROUND…” instructions!
@@xplayman I think it is also important to differentiate DA vs MDA. You cannot descend below MDA without the runway environment in sight. With decision alt on the other hand you proceed on a descent path all the way to minimums and execute the missed approach if runway elements are not in sight upon reaching those minimums. This means you inevitably go below the DA as it takes a few seconds for spool-up time to arrest the descent and begin a climb after initiating the missed.
In simple terms, for MDA you level off before you reach your minimums, whereas for DA you maintain your descent rate all the way to the minimums.
Side note: I intentionally left out the fact that you can descend to 100ft if you have the approach lighting system in sight for simplicity and you already covered it well.
Just a quick clarification. "NA" means not authorized. Not available is abbreviated "N/A" which is a subtle but important distinction.
Beat me to it 👍
As a LGA based pilot for Delta Airlines for 20+ years, I’ve done this exact approach dozens of times, and maybe even hundreds of times. When considering the METAR winds, keep in mind that these are SURFACE WINDS. It is entirely possible that you could experience a tailwind at altitude, and then have the wind shift as you fly the approach. Since we know there is wind shear involved, there is a good chance the winds aloft on, say, a 5 Mille final, COULD HAVE BEEN A TAILWIND!!! These conditions at LGA airport are not for the faint-of-heart, and definitely not for inexperienced pilots!!
Bingo.
So, what are you saying ?
So LGA is a senior Delta pilot base😂
@@joetheairbusguy1813there are senior pilots in every base. What’s your point?
C’mon, Captain… why aren’t you mentioning Delta 191 in Dallas?
Must be disheartening to see your plane lined up for the landing and then decide to divert to an airport that's a solid 3 hour train ride away. Then again, better than diverting to the tower.
But we all know that airport towers are just giant roosting boxes for the endangered 737 MAX.
I've heard the view from the tower is rather breath taking 😂
I wonder why they didn’t decide to divert after JetBlue reported windshear in the East Elmhurst area. Severe windshear could have sent the plane right into Astoria Boulevard, just short of the airport
If Southwest crashes into KSQL tower, does that mean it's a mid air because that grumpy ATC "flies the tower".
@@joshilini2 I would class that as CFIT, Controlled flight into Tower 🗼
20:10 Just a note there on minimums, ILS approach Minimums are DAs or Decision Altitudes. Meaning at, in this case, 283', you decide whether to land or not. If the decision is no (cause you can't see the runway) you initiate a go-around. The time between that decision to go-around and actually getting the aircraft climbing means that an at-DA go-around WILL go below that DA. The aircraft has downward momentum that has to be reversed into a climb. This is legal, expected, and normal for precision approaches. Non-precision approaches will have MDA's or Minimum Descent Altitudes that are not, unless the runway environment is in sight, allowed to be breached, meaning that a go-around on a non-precision approach must be done at or before the MDA.
That's also what the note is referencing at 2:32 by the way, the decision altitude. They're basically saying "Hey, we know that you might be continuing past the DA in some circumstances, just know that standard obstacle clearances are not met!" Usually the DA has protection down to a certain amount even lower than the DA itself, but in rare cases (like this) something voids that.
You took up two paragraphs.... and said nothing ... go back down in your mother's basement , have a chocolate bar
Insane that that hotel was even allowed to be bult and nobody realized it would pose a big problem for a very busy airport until too late.
La Guardia, New York State - corrupt as heck! Trump and his buddies just bribe lawmakers whenever they need that pesky red tape removed and a hotel built.
surprised it's not been torn down. Given how busy the airport is and the incremental risk this poses...
I'm sure money changed hands for folks to overlook that inconvenient fact.
@@andrewfidel2220 100%
@@andrewfidel2220 as I stated earlier.....Highlights what happens when the local govt. and bureaucrat's are more worried about the taxes or kickbacks they can collect from an establishment 'in this case new hotel' then the approach environment to an airport and its navaids and are so shortsighted to not do a study or just plain ignore such a thing due to $$. But due to lobbying are all against building or limiting infrastructure because it may impact some trivial impact to the sea shore, waterways, etc. to build elseware because some crabs or wildlife may be impacted according to some environmentalists. If the plane crashes the media can just blame it on the airline or procedure and not all the red tape that could prevented it to begin with.
From the final approach fix onwards, you need to hand fly the ILS RWY 4 approach. Currently both localizer and glide slope are fully functional for RWY 4. The other day I was landing on RWY 10C in Chicago O'Hare and for the longest portion of the approach we had close to 50 knots tailwind. But the winds at the runway were completely different. To mitigate to that we lowered the landing gear about 7 miles from the FAF, so we could have a stable approach as tower requested 170 knots until FAF. By the time we reached FAF we had the airplane fully configured for landing. Immediately behind us a 737 went around as did a 777. They were probably too fast (unstable) due to the strong tailwind outside the FAF.
You still have FD guidance or you have to fly it in raw data?
Indeed, that's why I said they learned from the first attempt. Definitely needed to configure earlier. We did a "non-standard gear down" before any flaps at 11DME a few weeks ago because of a 40-knot tailwind, and it was impossible to slow down to speed for flaps (no limitation on gear extension)
@@Arcadiez yes, you still have everything but you have to hand fly inside the FAF. It's been like that forever for ILS 4 into LGA.
What is the reasoning behind hand flying it? Faster reaction time if there is a problem? Its like having a warning label that says 'fly the ils art your own risk, be ready to pull up at an instant' 😂
@@rotorfib8719nope. There's a lot of interference as you approach the runway. There's a very busy highway with cars, trucks, and trains plus buildings in close proximity to the threshold makes the localizer and particularly the glide slope jump up and down. Plus other aircraft in close proximity to the ILS critical area.
This is a really really good breakdown of an almost horrific accident. Would love to see more of these for other incidents in the future. As always your content is incredible, keep up the great work!
Thank you so, so much!
It is actually full of assumptions that may be completely wrong. A lot of assumptions
@@stevenzucchi tail wind on the approach, and the presence of wind shear, were PIREPs. What part specifically do you disagree with? Or do you just disagree with the discussion in general? I am just a dork GA pilot working on an instrument rating, and I don't remember how the lateral guidance works, but Victor talks about the impact of the hotel to the accuracy of the glideslope, but they deviated laterally which would be a failure to follow the localizer. What about the human side? Who was PF? How many hours/how much experience do they have? Any issues in their check rides? The fact that they deviated so drastically from the lateral guidance before they figured it out kind of indicates BOTH a failure on the part of the PF to fly the approach correctly, and, a failure of the PM to monitor/back up the PF.
@@thekill2509 See how you came to a conclusion! that is my issue. Pilots always jump to conclusions without having all the facts. Does Victor work for the FAA or NTSB? Then he doesn't know exactly what cased this deviation! Could you be right? possibly. I learned early in my aviation career that when mishaps or accidents happen, never jump to conclusions right away. There are so many times that a fact comes out later that changes the whole perception. Could it have been the pilot flying's error not tracking the loc? maybe. Could it have been the pilot monitoring not calling a go around in time? possibly. Could there have been a plane or vehicle parked in the ILS critical zone? possibly. Could there have been a flock of birds that the pilots tried to avoid? possibly Could there have been sever horizontal wind sheer or a microburst? possibly Could there have been problems with the actual instruments in the cockpit? possibly Could the controller have freaked out and it wasn't as close as it seemed? possibly I can go on and on...learn early in your career not to jump to conclusions. Also, as a new pilot, it's no big deal to go around when you are unstable. Every event you read about, learn from it so you don't make the same mistakes. Also, sometimes pilots do everything right and the world works against them. Good luck in your training!
LaGuardia remains the second circle of hell
Man that was close. Thanks for this clarification Victor. Before this I didn't know you correct ADS-B reported pressure altitude to actual altitude using altimeter setting for the time. Great to know. I certainly hope there aren't more of these potentially uninvestigated incidents.
Yeah, we added the feature years ago when it was weirs to have ATC clearing an aircraft to 4000 feet, and have them shoing 3800 or 4200 on the radar. Very unrealistic. Wish FlightRadar and the rest of the webs corrected for pressure as well.
@@VASAviationThat would take a heck of a lot of processing for FlightAware to do, though. They show the whole world in near real time, after all.
@@VASAviationall the flightlevel altitudes use standard pressure and that is mostly what those services provide locations for, not detailed analysis of the data. Frankly from a data consistency standpoint I don't want them changing the raw equipment reported values. Its conceiveable that the adsb data could be corrected by the craft, but If I were an investigator I would want independent data so I could determine if instrumentation was malfunctioning.
man, as soon as I finished watching the original Vasaviation's ATC video of this situation I started typing Blancolirio... Victor and Juan make a great team
I flew the B-757 for United into and out of KLGA for 15 years. This was the most challenging airport ever!! Even though the runways are 7,000 feet long, that 7,000 feet went by so fast on landing and by the time I got stopped, I was near the end. I always had a tight grip on the control wheel landing at LGA and it was never fun. But I LOVED the challenge of operating a big airplane into this airport.
miss seeing the 757 be a regular sight at LGA. its wild to hear that in 757 it was tricky, let alone a 767 (AC use to have a flight down 1-2 times a week!, DL and AA might have snuck one in every once in a while) and that L1011's and DC10's and A300's were able to operate in and out, albeit at severely reduced loads.
Really enjoyed this thorough breakdown, especially the 3D flightpath really put into perspective the near-severity of this incident. Would love to see more like this in the future, thank you Victor!
Thanks for the support
Wow, this is even worse than I thought.
Would love to see an NTSB report about this.
With the task saturation, on a second approach attempt in weather I'd make good odds they broke through the minimums and only realized it just about the same time the tower did.
Outstanding coverage of this event!
On it! Thanks Victor!
Very nice explanation, VAS! 👍
Thanks for the support
Fantastic video. Very scary situation. Glad everyone is ok.
Goosebumps….for sure. Excellent explanation of what is transpiring to be a very serious incident. Thank you Victor.
To be honest I really prefer your voice in your videos, this review video was so refreshing and I think it adds quite a bit of character to your content!
Really? Thanks a lot for that. Should even try with a camera maybe haha
As someone who knows nothing about radars or being a pilot, this was my favorite video of yours. Was great to hear you explain some things, and i enjoy the personal touch of narration@@VASAviation
@@myusernameisthisduhglad it was helpful for you! Hope you understand the following videos better now
Why haven't we seen this "incident" covered by the National news??? Seems like VERY close call!!!
@@VASAviation I'd rather hear your voice, sinus congestion and all, instead of some horrid computer generated voice narration. Keep up the good work and don't sweat the stuff you can't control
Brilliant breakdown of the events. Thank you Victor!!! Very well done.
Very well explained, thank you!
Great work! Thank you
Loved this analysis style video. Thanks Victor!
Thanks, glad you liked it!
Fantastic Explanation! As a frequent flier to/from LGA, this was presented with great data!
Thank you very much, Peter.
Oh hi, first time hearing your voice! Thanks for your awesome and reliable videos. Now time to listen to this.
GREAT debrief! Thanks!
Great job Victor. As always. 🎸
This is a really interesting video. Thanks for sharing
Victor Great video. Thank You
Thank you for the explanation. Very useful - at least for me, a non-pilot.
(audio note: a pop filter might be useful to get rid of the plosives / pop from 'p' sounds / breathing noise. No idea how good they are, but some are less than $10.)
Thanks again!
Yeah, I used my medium flight simmer quality mic which has one on it but still. Definitely need to improve my equipment or the way I record voice.
Dropping the lower frequencies would help too
@@VASAviationyou always present great, accurate information. Don’t worry about mic-pop. Your time should be spent on content. 🎸
@@VASAviation Yes, please address the audio issues. Contrary to @artrogers3985's remark, content is useless if it's painful for the listener. Buy an inexpensive pop screen. You can even take a sock and a wire coat-hanger and make one for free. 🙂
@@VASAviation
By flight simmer mic, do you mean a headset mounted one?
If you're going to keep speaking in videos (please do), I suggest something like the Blue Yeti series. As far as proper microphones go, they're quite reasonably priced.
You may also not need a pop filter if you simply move the microphone away from your mouth. Having it below or off to one side can make a huge difference as the air movement no longer goes directly into the microphone.
I know that some approaches in the US can say autopilot is not authorized typically due to some obstacle, terrain, or other types of interference. Despite being born and raised New Yorker, I never knew that ILS 4 at LGA was ever impacted by that little 3-story hotel. Guess they should have drawn an ILS critical area marking for the local streets too. 😆
Wanted to edit to add that I have lived under the approach for runway 4 from birth through my early 20s. The 3D export into Google Earth to see when they started climbing was shocking. They did not start climbing until just before the Grand Central Parkway. I can easily visualize how close of a disaster that was but as cloudy as that day was they would have never seen it coming.
Highlights what happens when the local govt. and bureaucrat's are more worried about the taxes or kickbacks they can collect from an establishment 'in this case new hotel' then the approach environment to an airport and its navaids and are so shortsighted to not do a study or just plain ignore such a thing due to $$. But due to lobbying are all against building or limiting infrastructure because it may impact some trivial impact to the sea shore, waterways, etc. to build elseware because some crabs or wildlife may be impacted according to some environmentalists. If the plane crashes the media can just blame it on the airline or procedure and not all the red tape that could prevented it to begin with.
It's a relatively recent problem in the grand scheme of things. 15 years?
Really good comprehensive breakdown, you should do more of these
Pilot monitoring (PM) should have called out any deviation from the localizer, however if PM was looking outside trying to find the runway, then it's up to the Pilot Flying (PF) to stay concentrated on the Localizer and Glide Slope. It looks like the instrument should have shown a full left scale LOC deflection by the time the tower told them to go around, this LOC deflection should result in an automatic missed approach. Were they botth looking outside? It takes just a few seconds distraction with a strong side-wind to go off course.
Thanks for the review!
Thanks for this insight, Victor. I appreciate the time and effort you had to put into this.
I used to work with a retired Continental pilot, who told me landing at LGA was like landing on the carriers he used to in an earlier life.
Fantastic analysis given the quality and limitations of the available data. Thanks.
Great video Victor!
Thank you
Love this in depth explanation.
Thank you for watching
Great analysis!
Great explanation Victor! I look forward to any additional details (or questions) Juan may be able to provide.
Really nice break down. I would like to see more of them.
Thank you for all the good information on this incident. Excellent job on all your videos - nice to hear your voice!
Everybody in that tower probably needed new pants.
Cue the "Airplane!" movie jokes in 3, 2, ... 🤣
The hotel interfering with the ILS and them flying past the control tower are not the biggest issues. The scariest thing here is that they reached 275 feet pressure altitude according to ADS-B on the second approach over a crowded neighborhood. Correcting for the LGA altimeter setting, that means they got down to 135 feet MSL. The street elevation at that point is 27 feet. So they were 108 feet above street level (or at least their static port was - maybe their wheels were lower). They flew right by a church that has a cross on it at least 60 feet above ground.
Love the videos-this one particularly interesting. However just for quick clarification - “NA” on the approach plate stands for Not Authorized. Guidance is still available and the autopilot will most definitely fly it if you allow it so it’s available, just not authorized.
Yeah, Not Authorized, sorry!! I don't know why I said "available" when I replied like 20 times yesterday that it is "mandatory" haha
I wonder if there’s any public webcams or security cameras that were close enough to record the approach and go around despite the low visibility.
I have tried but found nothing.
The winds were challenging all day. It wasn't so much wind shear or a micro burst. The biggest issue was the winds at altitude. If I remember right the wind at 3k was 180@58 and at 2k 190@42 for a majority of the afternoon. It didn't turn into a headwind until about 1k thats why the ground speeds were so high at 1.6k.
Wow, that's crazy. Where do you get that info at?
PIREPS.
I worked that day
@@VASAviationI can talk more on a non public forum
@@VASAviationThe radiosonde launched from Upton NY at 00z also corroborates this: north/northeast winds extended less than 3000 feet above ground level, shifting to southwesterly winds higher up. No microburst here, just strong low-level jet dynamics with the strengthening low pressure system.
Having flown this many times and been a standards instructor, the AP must be off by DNNIS (the FAF).
18:30
Getting down to tower altitude is already frightening on its own, but that Queens neighborhood under the flightpath is easily 50-100 MSL. Those folks probably had the best and worst plane-spotting experience of their lives.
Great job, VASolirio!
As a German, I am surprised about two factors:
a) A hotel was allowed to be built there - I am not a fan of German bureaucracy around building things taking ages, but here we see an instance why regulation makes sense.
b) Someone wanted to build a hotel there and people would like to sleep there - isn't it hard to impossible to get the rooms, particularly the ones facing the runway, silent? That would be a horror of a stay for me.
It wasn't really in a dangerous spot, but my fiancé and I were visiting Raleigh, North Carolina here in the US and she just grabbed a hotel outside of the city not thinking to check Google Maps or anything. The hotel we ended up getting was about 5,000ft from the end of runway 5L at Raleigh-Durham International Airport, which meant planes landing on that runway flew straight over the hotel. We had a top floor room, and it felt like you were practically looking straight at the planes on approach.
We ended up having to just reach out to the company we booked through and ask to switch to a hotel in the city, because after thinking "surely they wouldn't stick a hotel at the end of a runway without some decent sound proofing" we got to our room and found out...nope. You could hear the planes as they got closer and then you could really hear them as they flew over the top of the hotel. We had been driving for 9 hours already and had more driving around the next day, so we really couldn't handle listening to planes all night instead of getting some sleep.
@@aaronwhite1786 That must have sucked. Even with that distance it was so loud? Wow. What must it be like in this very hotel basically at the airport perimeter? Even with the most noise-proof windows there is only so much noise than can be reduced, and low-frequency vibrations are probably also very hard to reduce.
@@linuxfan91 Yeah, with them flying right over the top of the hotel, you could hear it all as they approached. Outside in the parking lot you could even hear the vortexes from the wingtips dissipating in the air after the planes had passed, which admittedly, was pretty cool.
But even having to drive another 30 minutes, I wasn't mad after standing in the hotel room and realizing just how loud it was going to be the entire night I was sleeping.
great deep dive..thanks
Many forget to factor in that heavy rainfall also reduces visibility from the cockpit. There's an old video of a BBJ landing and having to go around after encountering heavy rain that completely reduced visibility of the runway. Good insight overall.
I always think of Delta 191 when an L1011 crashes, but a LearJet makes it in. Aircraft size can matter for certain things, but not whether your aircraft should be able to land.
Great explanation - on behalf of the non-aviators amongst us, thanks! 👍
Landing runway 4 at LGA if you initially come in from the SW you are at 7000 feet until about 22 miles from the airport. A tailwind is not uncommon until you reach the lower altitudes. It can be difficult to get down and slow to configure for landing if you’re not ready for it. I believe that’s what the pilot was referring to on the first missed approach.
When SWA147 turned for Final on their last approach that almost hit the tower, they turned and lined up 10.3 mi. from the runway on a 036° heading (044° is the RWY4 Approach Coarse 🤔🤔) at an altitude of about 3,000 feet and 206 kts groundspeed.
@@Raiders33 yeah, that sounds right.
Hey Vas, Hope you feel better son Thanks for the content Appreciate it
Around this time of year in NY, with a strong Low Pressure approaching from the West, the winds aloft (above roughly 2000') are North Easterly. However, at the surface, there is a sudden wind shift to South Westerly. Remembering your PPL days, winds aloft flow more parallel to the isobars, where closer to the surface, with all the buildings in the way, they flow more perpendicular to the isobars. That is the cause of the tailwind shifting to headwind during the approach. Also, NY approach likes to keep you fast to the final approach fix, so with the sudden shift of the winds, configuration changes and slowing down can be difficult. Hence, more aircraft go-around. If you don't plan ahead for this, considering this is a 3.14 degree ILS, hand-flown approach, the pilot flying can get behind the aircraft quickly.
Thanks.
The 3d path projection is stunning. (Both in visual effect because this is something else entirely than seeing projections, and in what it meant as an almost accident.)
Really enjoyed this explanation. Didn’t realise quite how hairy a situation it was until you explained in more detail
Thanks for watching!
"Tower, this is SouthWest 147, requesting a flyby."
"Negative, Southwest 147, the pattern is full"
"No, no, Mav, this is not a good idea."
Love to hear the cockpit tape. Actually love to see the flt data recording as well. Did tower report the event to FAA investigators?
You can see the whole video in the link above
That 3d view is terrifying 😬
Does the adsb data include the airplanes altimeter setting? could it have been set to the standard for flying whatever its called when you are really high and all use the same value. (Yes I´m an idiot about terminology but like VASa alot!)
The idea that anyone would only hand-fly an approach once every six months is a scary idea.
@vasaviation This occured to me while i was responding to another post. How old was the METAR compared to the attempted landing time? Even 15 minutes could have drasticly changed visibility and with a 30kt downdraft on the approach I would expect significant localized lowering of the cloud deck probably nowhere close to whereever the automated weather station which generated the METAR is located.
The METAR in the original video shows 231651 UTC, while the video at the time of the second attempt shows what I assume is local time at 170132. So unless I'm mistaken that's roughly 45 minutes old.
A METAR was issued at 1651Z, ten minutes before they went missed the second time. METAR KLGA 231651Z 04016KT 1SM R04/4000VP6000FT +RA BR OVC006 08/06 A2979 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 2 SLP086 P0021 T00780061 $=
Autopilot coupled approach NA. This is why I sometimes request the RNAV(GPS)Y or (RNP)Z. Coupled approaches may be flown with these, albeit higher visibility minimums and DAs.
I suspect quality time with the chief pilot is already scheduled ...
It's much, much more serious than that.
Here is another factor that I haven’t seen anyone mention or consider. Its a 3.14 degree glideslope. This is significant especially when combined with the requirement to hand fly this particular approach. Don’t let the .14 difference from the standard fool you. Better be aware and ready!
NA means NOT AUTHORIZED. N/A means either Not Available or Not Applicable depending on the context. NOT AUTHORIZED means the FAA says it is NOT ALLOWED or ILLEGAL TO BE USED.
Thanks :)
"Southwest 147 Requesting a flyby.” Someone had to say it.
"Negative Southwest 147, the pattern is full." *sips coffee*
I about sprayed my coffee!
American had a similar incident in DFW more than a decade ago. I understand they even did the proper wind shear escape maneuver, so I’m wondering if Sw was doing the same and got blown to the side. I fly the 737 myself, sometimes into LGA.
It’s quite common to have a tailwind in final that shifts prior to landing. Tailwinds in VMC, not associated with downdrafts.
The ILS signals there are also known to oscillate wildly just a little bit above minimums. It's possible that the pilots were simply trusting their instruments too much and weren't keeping a very good glide path because of the lack of solid data, and they didn't notice through the IMC. I mean, the localizer is pretty well known for requiring visual references once in a while to keep it straight on approach. In such heavy storms, those visual realignments aren't possible, and it's possible that they were going on ground lights alone. If you look at the flight path it looks as if they were briefly lined up with a taxiway before they realized and began to climb like hell to get out of there. It also looks like they threw in some yaw to avoid the airport on that 3D flight path on google earth. Scary stuff either way. Lesson really should be to 1) check building permits near airports more closely, 2) maintain ILS trancievers and CHANGE THE PUBLISHED APPROACH IF OBSTACLES APPEAR, and 3) stop clearing ILS approaches in heavy IMC/windy conditions on paths known to be faulty. Especially if the cloud ceiling is just 300 above minimums.
I thought about that yesterday but then I assumed at that point they were already below the OVC layer and having the runway at least. METAR showing surface vis 2NM... too tight.
I might be mistaken, but if she was on the instruments wouldn't the pilot monitoring be the one to say "proceed?" If not, this is still why we have two pilots so both don't make the same mistake. Or maybe she did look out, both of them actually, long enough to lose track of the altitude.
I thought the FAA had to approve any and all constructions that result in potential obstructions via planning prior to any building being constructed within a certain amount of distance from an airport, especially a runway path.
Someone dropped the ball on this project to build that motel in due diligence to test and check for ILS and Navigation equipment obstruction/disruption.
But then again, it IS the FAA who has been of lately and in the recent history dropping the ball on A LOT of things.
According to my source, built in 2009. Flight check conducted 4 years later... what happened in between? Because building needs high cranes... Interesting indeed
@@VASAviationexactly, that check should have been done BEFORE that building went up.
someone fucked up badly ensuring no obstructions or disruptions would occur.
It’s definitely true today. I live near a tiny recreational only airport and the FAA still won’t allow things to be built nearby
Haha yeah, when Trevor Jacobs can fly again and you get grounded for ever having had emotions, there’s an issue haha. That is exaggerating of course, but not too terribly far off 😅
@@thesparkypilot WTF you on about with Trevor Jacobs and Emotions?
I think “Autopilot coupled approach NA” means “not approved,” not “not available.” I think pressing the “APR” button will fly a coupled approach if the localizer and GS signals are present. It’s just that you aren’t supposed to do that.
So ADS-B does not simply repeat what the cockpit altimeter is reading?
Pressing APR will set the FD into the approach mode, not couple the autopilot to the approach. Pilot will hand fly the FD cues
ADS-B reports the uncorrected pressure altitude. That's a lot more reliable than making sure that all aircraft have properly set the correction pressure. If everyone's ADS-B is reporting based on the same uncorrected pressure, then you're sure to know if you're truly on a collision course with another aircraft or not (the primary purpose of ADS-B). Ground stations & controllers can easily compensate for uncorrected altitude to get the true altitude for a particular aircraft.
All the glideslope stuff is fine and well. But the fact that they had deviated SO FAR from the LOC is pretty crazy! Their ILS receiver should have been screaming at them to fly left! They were well into the localizer clearance signal that far off the runway!
unless signal was blocked giving false guidance
Winds were reported on the ground, altitude shows different winds at altitude
DNNIS is the point at which you have to turn autopilot off
It's been a few years since I've flown into LGA, especially into Rwy 4 (I avoid east coast flying like the plague, especially in winter). But it has to be one of the most flaky ILSs out there, the needles really bounce around a lot. It's just a really noisy RF environment and too many obstacles.
ILSs have been around since before (yes, BEFORE) WW2. It's an extremely simple system, and has worked (mostly) well for nearly a century. However, it's high time we move on, in 20 years of flying for food, I've seen my fair share of glitchy ILSs. I wish, here in the USA at least, RNP and LPV approaches were the default. Never had any issues with those, as long as the avionics and the satellites are working, you're fine. You don't have to worry about raccoons, rats, and squirrels getting into an ILS transmitter equipment cabinet and gnawing on the wires, or pidgeon poop, cars, airport mowers, standing rain water etc etc distorting the antenna signals . And even the smallest podunk airport in bumfreak Idaho can have an LPV approach with CAT 1 minima.
I can't remember, does LPV use GPS? Because I know recently GPS spoofing has become a factor there. LGA isn't really where it's happening, but I believe I've read it's enough of a risk to be hurting adoption.
Runway 4 was especially tough as the approach had you on the same level as some of the appartment buildings on final. On short final, I could look into the windows of some of the buildings there. And hand flying is a skill all airline pilots should have or they should not be in the cockoit of a commercial airliner.
The chart reads ILS or LOC approach to runway 4. In your narration you say that this flight was set to both ILS and LOC was engaged. Can you please elaborate on this.
When you fly an ILS, you fly both the LOCalizer and the Glideslope. When you fly a LOC approach, you only have the LOCalizer signal but not the glideslope signal, thus less precisa, thus higher minimums
In the google earth view you should be able to turn on 3d earth which includes buildings to scale. Hot damn that was terrifying.
It doesn't really. Google overlays the picture on lidar data that is mostly only captured at 3m resolution for most of the US. I have encountered significant skew on the alignment of those aircraft captured pictures with ground terrain data. Especially because the imagery is captured at an angle, the ground isn't flat and they attempt to stretch a 2d image over a 3d object built from point data. Then there is the whole problem of if you need to look at the building from an angle different than the picture was capured from where do you set the base and top of the object.
I should clarify. Unless you see clouds in the picture, all of google earth imagry is captured by an aircraft flying below 5000 feet. These planes do not show up on the paid sites because they request data Blocking/removal.
@@RowanHawkins right, but the 3d view is laser scanner/real geometry. Most big cities have full 3d including balconies, fences, roof gables, etc.
The clip showing the aircraft on Google Earth is fabulous. I wonder if the FAA uses something like this in their investigations? Anyway, love the video, all the videos.
There are a lot of things that can cause a plane to deviate from the correct path. Just last night around 6:15 pm local time, 23:15Z, during IMC and icing conditions, the ILS for one of the runways at my local airport, KLNK, was acting up enough for the pilots on approach to start calling up the tower about it. I don't know why the ILS was bein' squirrelly, but it didn't cause any real problems as far as I heard.
I will check on that audio and see if we can find anything
Possibly a "false" localizer signal because of interference on the ground from obstacles?
Quick question, are there any more reasons why an ILS would be required to be flown by hand?
A localizer with an offset might require it, at least toward the end? I can't remember for sure.
YAY! I'm not the only one who uses Microsoft Paint! There's ones of us! There's ones of us!
The easiest app that I had on hand to do the animation haha
@@VASAviation I'm creating my D&D city maps in them. Gimp too much to learn for right now.
Maybe I missed it But why the lateral deviation occured ?
Nice breakdown. You could tell in their voices that both pilots were uncomfortable in that weather. Go arounds in ifr conditions can be pretty disorienting. I fly helicopters though so maybe planes are more chill. 😂
ATC “Go-Around Terrain, TERRAIN, PULL UP”, TOGA, engine spoiling max thrust, pitch nose up 15 degrees, flaps 15, positive rate, gear up, set missed approach altitude.
Missed approach altitude should have been set way earlier
@@VASAviationit’s standard callout for the go-around in case you forgot to set the missed approach altitude at glideslope capture. It’s more to verify what altitude you’re going to while accelerating and cleaning up gear and flaps and ATC asking you questions all at once.
Just a suggestion, can you change the colour of your Mouse Pointer so as it's easier to see and follow. Thanks.
Wind sheer is prevalent in coastal areas.
Unfortunately, out of four airlines I've been at, Southwest has the most lax stabilized approach criteria. At 1000', configured, checklist, V target speed range, not idle, "on appropriate glide path." We have required call outs for deviation. +/- 1 dot CDI by saying "cross track" and then acknowledging and taking corrective action. At previous carriers, that is a required go around. If you're half scale laterally below 1000' on an ILS IIRC, you're going around. Period. Unfortunately, Southwest still somewhat maintains the mentality of "saving an unstable approach."
Stabilized approaches have always been and always will be the bane of the entire airline/aviation world.
Interesting. I wonder if the microburst moved laterally, so instead of tailwind or getting pushed downward, they got a strong side wind.
Yep, that could also be a possibility
@19:30 why are there no 3D buildings within google earth? like the tower... however thanks for this analysis