Hello, friends. I have questions for you today. 1) What do you thing about this situation? Was the pilot right even if there was 1000 feet verticals separation? 2) I'm trying to improve the desight of the videos. Do you like it? Do you like the colors? Do the videos become better? I really Appreciate your answers.
To be honest, this video is shit. You don't have other aircraft displayed, and you have aircraft in wrong positions, making the controller look haphazard in his control instructions. Show the full story.
Thank you. But the positions are correct. Just chek the Flight radar or ADS-B. I do not show the other uninvolved airplanes just to make the situation easier to understand. I didn't want to show the controller from the bad side. There was 1000 feet of vertical separation (mentioned in the description of the situation).
@@YouCanSeeATC Like I'm saying, it dilutes the situation the controllers were in. not having the rest of the traffic paint a different picture than what is being shown here.
Okay, thank you. Will think about that. 1000 of vertical separation in the description means that it was legal and those who are connected with aviation somehow will understand that. And also the sequence was shown from the first aircraft involved till the last one. Have a good day. And appreciate your comment.😎
@@uchinanchuu58 please explain, 'cos obviously you're a lot smarter than myself, HOW did the Pilot 'Screw Up"?? All I heard was a pilot concerned for the safety of his passengers....
@@swanvictor887 1000 feet should be enough separation, don't you think? You can see videos online from crossings over the ocean where they meet in the middle and are only separated by 1000 feet of difference in altitude. If they can do it over there, i think it is safe over here. I am just an armchair pilot, but it seems VFR flights are at .5 altitude, so like 10500 feet. And IFR at 10000 or such. Separation is only 500 when they meet, right? No pro pilot here, just a bit of FSX in the old days. But i don't think the passengers were at any danger with a 1000 feet separation in altitude. If it was only 1000 feet in distance, then yeah, that would not be funny.
It’s a funny thing. I’m a controller and once had an American Airlines pilot ask to be vectored away from going through the wake of an A380. Know what I did? I gave him a heading change. Know what I didn’t do? Act like a petulant child and make the pilot call me after landing.
The questionable clerance was when the controller told Jet Blue to "Descend to 2000 Now". They were better at 3000 ft, since the wake turbulence sinks at about 1000ft/min. This clearance came after the one Jet Blue questioned, which was not a big deal, as planes can see other traffic, and Jet Blue wasn't being vectored through the localizer. By the time the controller really gave them a bad clearance, Jet Blue didn't want to argue back, knowing they'd get a climb and re-vectored back for the approach, upsetting the passengers, possibly making them late, and ruining a possible lunch break for the pilots. Ultimately, the controller was wrong, and could have easily given them a vector to the NE and told them to slow.
@@snowowl1343 Bottom line is that El Al work by trainee ATC was a shitshow, Jetblue made it more complicated and instructor had to step in to fix the mess (double LOC crossing by El Al ending up behind Iberia that was just chilling along). Jet Blue clearance for 2000 now was questionable indeed.
@@snowowl1343 nope. El Al was turning from west to the east. With a northwesterly strong wind El Al would have turned right back into JBU. Both were at 030. JBU descends much quicker than EL Al. Hence the instruction to JBU not El Al. Bunch of experts on here adding their two cents when they have no clue. It’s hysterical
nah it was too much airtime to take up...good pilots know that when multiple planes are being vectored for approaches they shouldnt take up airtime, especially for something routine.
@@Marklar0 goot atc doesn't put the pilot in that position. If ATC has time to get al uppity like that then they aren't too busy to listen to the explanation they asked for.
I absolutely despise the sarcasm in the controller when he tells the pilot "caution wake turbulence, you got 6.7 miles there". Yet flying him underneath a heavy 1000 feet away and no caution. What a jerk. Pilot has ultimate say in the safety of their aircraft. I have respect for this pilot. I have no respect for this controller.
Is it really that much of a problem? We fly between heavies all the time in the hold at LHR with 1000’ between us. I’d understand if it was an A380 but a 78? Really?
@@almac8524 Had I been that JB pilot, and I had never before been instructed to pass below a heavy, I would have erred to the cautious side and requested something else. Don't underestimate the "heavy" nature of a 787. Remember when 757s were new and smaller airplanes following them started falling out of the sky? Boeing never studied the potential wake turbulence generated by the 75. Ultimately it was deemed to be a "heavy".
I think the controller was an ass in this case… pilot didn’t feel it was safe going under the heavy and he is ultimately responsible for the safety of his passengers plane and the innocents
Disagree. Wasn't an "ass".They have a job to do which is deconflict contantly and keep a massive amount of aircraft organized safely. If pilot doesn't think something is safe that's fine. Do what gotta do. but they were within regulations. They aren't there to be all soft and sweet. Talk off line on the hone later to discuss.
Not the first time this ATC guy has made it on one of these videos, I recognized his voice and tone immediately. There was another video a while back where he was getting into with a pilot as well. Sure… NY airspace is nuts, but the attitude is unnecessary… especially after making the pilot have to repeat himself. He was pretty clear the first time. Good call from the pilot!
I thought I recognized his acsent too but I also thought a lot of NY ATC staff sound similar. ....I SPECIFICALLY remember one issue where a Chinese pilot was having trouble understanding him because of the acsent but he kept saying the same thing over and over agin really fast. I had trouble understanding him too and if he had said the same thing just a little slower and clearer then the pilot would have been okay.....He was really stressing the pilot out.
I’m positive I’ve heard this controller before too on at least one other UA-cam posting. Same irritated voice, same intonations, same manner. Just waiting for an opportunity to bite !!
That was fine: he was spacing out the heavies/ getting spacing for everyone/ working the vertical separation...I'm sure the spacing/ lineup is the reason he didn' t want to let JB go too far right. But the JB request was reasonable, could have been made up for with a little more speed on the last vector, and should have been accommodated....unless there is more happening in the traffic we are not seeing.
@@ImionsaeXwb77 How do you know that? The airspace sectorization, all the other traffic in the airspace, the internal facility rules and agreements with adjacent facilities, etc. are not shown. So for all I know, this controller did what he was able to do to make the situation work out.
I've read many of the comments left related to this incident and it looks like the ATC folks will side with the ATC, the pilots with the pilots so I'll share my absolute unqualified opinion as a passenger that no one mentions - in conclusion, what I am reading is: Hey, everyone is still alive so move on type attitude ... So here it is from my unqualified passenger perspective: 1. How did El Al and JBU ended up 'face to face' when both wanted to actually land? ... means flying in the same direction! .... some ATC either gave the incorrect directions or was not paying attention .... 2. Having the El Al flying in circles like a drunkard looking for a parking spot at the mall, then up and down for some good measure in case that was not enough, certain did not make the many passengers on board any calmer, especially after a very long flight from probably Tel Aviv .... but hey, they ended up alive and with a story to tell at the Hannukah table so they should move on with life .... yup, we the passengers have to put-up with everything, 40% increase in ticket price while the airline corporate suits pack more and more seats in order to augment the 'bottom line' (soon, they may start selling 'standing only' tickets too), bad food (if any, even if you pay for it), entitled attitude from some of the flight attendants as we can not make THEM uncomfortable, .... and I can go on and on, but who cares? we the passengers only hear the ATC and the airline 'poor me' stories 3. JBU pilot had a point too to be concerned .... including the change in altitude, make it 3000, no, 2000, no 5000 ... Hey, just because JBU is a smaller fish doesn't mean that it's a yo-yo either .... I wonder how the passengers felt about that up & down 4. the ATC - whomever was last with instructions did untangle these planes and put them in line to land safely, so that was pressure, so Thank you, but it was unnecessary pressure - maybe before taking it out on the pilots, just because they are conveniently right there in the conversation, do some soul searching first to find out who caused the mess in the first place and have a conversation with THAT one .... I know is hard when is one of your own but having two planes facing each other instead of being in line, that is not a normal occurrence nor have they gotten in that position because of the pilots ..... So it's the Holidays and many of us have no other choice but to hup in a plane and go see family, friends, take some time off or close a business deal ... so just because we do not have a choice, please do not take that for granted ... yes, I know that we are just a number of 'souls' on board but we are 'living souls' and let's all stay that way until our official time comes to go to the pearly gates ... Thank you for all the ones that made comments, were very educational and Thank you from a 'just passenger' to all the ones that do their best to keep us as 'living souls' ....
Pilot is in command. He can deviate and tell ATC what he's doing. Approach controller sounds like your typical NYC Wise Guy on the verge of a breakdown.
Kennedy Steve knows what he is doing, and he did not deviate from normal safety practices. If the pilot wanted, he could have accepted 2000ft clearence, but didn't. *Don't be so sensitive.....the NY airspace requires NO B.S controllers, and pilots that can handle reasonably close vectoring.* #ThickerSkin
Some of the worst controllers in the world are in that airspace. You can see by the chaos caused by 4 (four) airplanes being vectored to final in this very case. The controller(s) came unglued - vectoring through final. assigning speeds and altitudes using non-standard verbiage, etc. You just shake your head every time you go there....
I’d hate to be a pilot based out of NY dealing with the constant arrogance and lack of patience. I’ll stick to Boston. They are damn good there and don’t treat you like a murderer for asking for something.
We get the crap kicked out of us in a heavy when we hit another heavies wake bang on. It really sucks. 1000' isn't enough sometimes. If the guy doesn't want it, he doesn't want it. Make it happen. At least somebody was paying attention to try and proactively avoid doing backflips.
@atcdude067 The "minimum" separation is 1000 feet vertical. Sometimes, you have to shoot above the minimums. I know it's hard as ATC that you can't break the laws of physics to your will.
I am about to retire. One thing I hope to have passed on to my F/os, soon to be Captains, is the deconstruction of the current prevailing culture in aviation, according to which, the instructions given by a controller are sacred. As a Captain, if you justifiably feel your plane is under threat, you deviate from ATC instructions in the most safe perceivable way and, then, you explain later, to anyone with the proper authority to question your decision, why you made that decision.
Honestly, it sounds like a successful sortie if you're able to explain later, implying you've landed safely. I'm sure JetBlue's intention was safety first, not being "a lot" for the approach. And if everyone's safer, means I'm less likely to be pulling up to an airport to treat people (First Responder in UK).
If you look where the centerline is, JBU was not in danger of wake turbulence. They were getting an intercept heading right as they went underneath. I'm a controller and sorry but I have had pilots complain dozens of times about wake setups, and they've been wrong about the situation almost every time. Its hard to have an accurate traffic picture from the cockpit when you aren't the one seeing the big picture and turning the planes. I would not recommend deviating for wake without permission in busy airspace, because you are just as likely to make it worse rather than better. Had this JBU pilot said again "request heading away from the heavy wake", they would have gotten something like "expect a turn momentarily" and noone would be annoyed. Instead they falsely decided that they understood the situation and wasted air time insulting the controller.
@@Marklar0 As a controller, assuming you're educated, experienced and trained enough, you can be 99% sure the tracks you've assigned won't result in a wake turbulence incident, but, you see...that 1% of uncertainty?...We're the ones who will have to deal with it, when it becomes a certainty. "Almost" is the operative word, in your reply.
As a passenger I'm not sure the attitude of the controller is helping the captain in their responsibility to keep me safe. Luckily I never have to fly to JFK.
ANC. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If the pilot felt his a/c was in danger he had every right to change course 5 degrees or so then tell the controller afterwards. Controllers need to remember the only danger to them is spilt coffee.
ATCs should never intimidate pilots during the most dangerous phase of a flight.This approach controller's attitude sounds like a guy who is a part of a gang."what're you saying? Come let's settle it outside".
@@southseasflying OK, I see what you're saying... the FAA defines critical phase in that way because it's a time when the pilots should not be doing nonessential activities like having conversations outside of operating the aircraft, for example. But that doesn't mean the pilot was in "the most dangerous phase of a flight" as the guy above insinuated. The plane was straight and level waiting on vectors to the final approach course, so nothing dangerous was happening at all. It's a gross exaggeration.
@@uchinanchuu58 Brother, @southseasflying replied to YOU who was the one that said "not at all in any critical phase" which was factually incorrect, despite your feelings. @southseasflying never mentioned anything related to OP's comment being right or wrong.
I don't know how this played out aftert, but had I been the JB pilot I would have called the number, calmly let the controller berate me on the recorded line, and then requested a full investigation by the FAA.
The controller was not only a jerk, he turned into a bully when he asked him to call. He could have just said, "We cannot accommodate your requst at this time." Instead he chose to be a smart ass and kept on referencing wake turbulence.
I disagree with the bully part for the call. I think it's a great way for controllers and pilots to discuss issues and to find better ways of working with each other.
The number was because the pilot that too much to say and the frequency needs to remain clear. The pilot should have just declared short and sweet a deviation to the desired heading.
In 2017, a CL604 was almost flipped when flying head-to-head 1000ft below an A380. The CL was a write-off due to the excessive g-forces received. Investigation showed that 1000ft vertical separation can be insufficient with modern heavy and super-heavy aircraft. Recommendation was to also use lateral separation for opposing traffic. And to use a minimum horizontal (time) spacing when aircraft follow each other with only 1000ft vertical separation. Traffic crossing each other is not an issue. The size difference between an A320 and a 787 is not that excessive (as it was with the CL604 vs A380) and an A320 would not be flipped. But the wake issue is still there. And a slight lateral deviation could have been easily incorporated here.
Heck even two A380 taking off one after another there is wake turbulence for sure - saw that from an LAX spotter. Just watch the control surfaces - wow!
There is a video on the Smithsonian channel that showed 2) KC 135 tankers take off one behind another in Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia. The take-off spacing was fine. But one slowed down and let the other pass 1000’ above. The wake turbulence upset the trailing tanker about 90 degrees and TORE BOTH ENGINES OFF the left side. It also broke 2/3 of the mounting bolts on the remaining engines. Luckily, one bolt on each engine held and they turned around, went back to base and landed safely.
It’s astounding how many people think that legal means safe. It’s like they smoke and drink because it’s safe since the government says it’s a legal. To say that legal means safe entirely incorrect when it comes to separation minima. Separation minima are to reduce the risk of collisions. They don’t account for wake turbulence. If separation minima accounted for wake turbulence, there would be no need to issue “Caution: wake turbulence”. The pilot was entirely correct and needed to turn toward the wind for a lateral offset. The aircraft didn’t need more vertical separation. The aircraft needed unperturbed air.
Separation minima absolutely account for wake turbulence. That is why we have different separation standards for wake producing aircraft lol. What are you talking about?
I don't blame the pilot - Ex - I almost got flipped once in a CRJ on a 6 mile final into PBI at about 2000 feet AGL - ... not under, but too close to a 757. In 30+ years of flying, it's one of only four times have had that sinking feeling, "butterflies in the stomach". Others - Two near hits below 4000 MSL in C airspace, and windshear below 1000 feet AGL on final. Luckily, that one was in a piston.
@@jkhsdjkhfjkhh3 B752 has a long history of very strong wake turbulence. In fact it got surclassed in the higher wake category (based on airctaft weight) for a time.
A few years back I was piloting an e175 (autopilot engaged) and got turned sideways about 30° by wake from a measley q400. It was so powerful it kicked off the autopilot and gave me multiple ADS probe failure CAS messages. I heard passengers scream and after the flight the FAs told me they thought the masks were about to drop. We landed uneventfully but that was a wake-up call for me. This was all from an aircraft that wasn’t even very large and I’m pretty sure we outweighed. It’s not just 777s having the affect on 172s, it can happen in a lot more situations. Obviously the bigger you are the more rough air you can handle but I damn sure don’t want to be nose to nose 1000ft below the flight path of a heavy that’s just asking for it.
That ATC was an absolute jerk. The pilot is entirely reasonable and professional. That ATC gaslit him with the “that was a lot”. Yes it was and YOU forced hm to explain himself after he made an appropriate request. An angry, negligent ATC. 😡
ATC asked if the pilot wanted 2000, and the pilot replied with a dissertation on why he wants what he wants. A simple "request 2000" would have alleviated a lot of the back and forth and reduced frequency congestion. We are too busy, especially when training, to deal with long winded explanations of pilots being afraid of LEGAL separation. This 1000' vertical separation is legal with *all* types of aircraft in the terminal environment. If you are too afraid to fly a jet underneath a larger jet 1000' below, turn your pilot's license in and change careers.
@@northmaineguy5896 I am sure that DEI hires are frustrating- but if you watch the bad cop videos on UA-cam- the thousands of them showing cops violating citizens rights or beating people up or planting evidence- none of them are DEI hires- so DEI hires are just part of the problem.
You tell the female controller was in training when the voice changed to a male. He was a jerk and for someone who training another controller she will be to.
It was a polite request initially. It was an 11 second clarification communication from start to finish on 1644's part. It was clear and concise. Wake turbulence is valid. It wasn't an idiotic request such as a Type IV anti-ice coating in low humidity and zero chance of precipitation. I love how ATC always threatens the phone number like sending pilots to the principals office but it's ultimately a pilot's call. It's the flight crew and up to 180 pax on the 320. Our safety takes priority over controller's ego. Safety was the concern and I respect any captain or FO who stands up for it. On a flight a couple days ago I was NR with my mom coming into SFO and she asked me what that strange bump of turbulence was right before we landed, she said she thought we did land when she felt it. I explained that few flew through the wake of the aircraft that landed before us and it must have been a larger aircraft.
As a former flight controller I can say that the attitude and comprehension of the JFK controller was way out of line. You never order a pilot as if you are in command. You're a director and advisor, and while I've always chosen to fly out of Kennedy, I've been rethinking that after several views of incidents on channels like this. In the end, the pilot is always the one in control of the situation, he or she is in command of the aircraft and responsible for all the souls on board. Period.
@@kjay5056 That's precisely what I did, and in NYC airspace. I love the jerks who are harping on my choice of words (flight controller vs air traffic controller). What you call it is your business, what I did for over a decade is indisputable. I actually directed traffic in what the FAA chose to consider "uncontrolled airspace" in the East River Corridor from the 34th Street Heliport, which during my years was the busiest heliport in the world. I wrote the flight directives and patterns for all air traffic in and around the corridor (which the FAA chose not to implement until the several fatal accidents early in this century), and the greater part of my time was spent speaking with commercial, military, police and private pilots landing and departing from our location, as well as transiting the area. It's true I never worked ATC, but I did have several ATC folks who did come and sit in on some sessions, and every single one of them said that they could and would never be able to deal with the amount and type of traffic that I had to handle on a daily basis. I know how to speak to pilots, and I know how to deal with stressful and dangerous situations, and my advice is if you can't handle the pressure in a calm and professional manner with perhaps some humor and grace, then find something simpler to do. Too many lives depend on your ability to make things turn out right. I've listened to hundreds of communications over the years, most of which were handled well, but there are others such as this one in question, where bad attitude and lack of understanding put people at risk, and that's just plain wrong. That's my two cents for today.
@@kjay5056 listen to the London/Heathrow controllers. Very busy and limited airspace, calm, collected and polite, way more professional that what one hears on this tape.
Sounds like the ATC girl was training and when the first guy (ATC chimed in)…he took over for her to move through some of the confusion. Which is what a good instructor should do in this case. However, he seemed miffed at the inquiry for deviation and the long explanation. ATC was thinking clearance from conflicting and pilot obviously thinking more strategically. Good airmanship. His request/explanation shouldn’t be admonished especially if the male controller took over for the female controller who herself was having trouble getting basic commands across. Resulting in further explanation likely from a trained ear in the cockpit. Pilot here.
I understand the concern on the cockpit's part. However, had the captain gotten his wish of "a turn to the east" wouldn't he effectively be turning right into the 7-8's wake? It sinks slowly, at an average of about 400 fpm, and gradually fans outward (unless you're flying in a vacuum). Not only that, but unless he was wanting to be re-sequenced entirely, they very likely would have encountered the wake yet again once vectored back towards the airport. Controller was definitely a dick, which was entirely unnecessary.
Wake turbulence from large planes is insane. When I was in the military I experienced an extreme example of this in a Blackhawk when we were on approach and flew straight into the wake of a C-5 Galaxy that had landed almost 10 minutes earlier. It was like being in an elevator and having the bottom fall out. We unexpectedly descended more than 100 feet in just a few seconds.
Yes, the controller did act snarky. Pilots do have a variety of legitimate needs. In my time as a controller, I found it easy to accommodate the pilots' needs virtually every time. That controller did have an attitude for sure. That said, I must add that (unrelated to this incident) controllers have multiple aircraft to deal with and to integrate into a "safe, orderly, and expeditious" flow of traffic. That was in my day the FAA controller's motto. It's not possible for a pilot to be aware of all the aircraft, angles, altitudes, airspeeds, etc., that the controller is trying to merge together into a safe flow of traffic. So a pilot cannot just "deviate" because he wants to. Without intending to, he could violate a nearby aircraft's minimum safe separation from him. Then we could have a dangerous "near miss," not just wake turbulence from another plane. There are factors to consider on BOTH sides of this discussion.
I listen to ATC from all over the USA and New York ATC, center is the most obnoxious and arrogant of all of them ! I know they are under immense stress but you don’t have to be an ass ! I give credit to jbu 1644 for staying professional !
The controller really didn't need to jump to the 'call this number' crap. I've heard this far too often and sometimes I think that company should be on the phone with the pilot.
There is an airline that will remain nameless that has their Chief Pilot return all these requests. If you listen to enough of these "call the tower" comments you'll notice that one airline only gets that request when it's a reportable occurrence.
Every commercial pilot that flies in and out of JFK knows the controllers there to be a-holes. The key is that the pilots tell them they have to be comfortable with the instruction. It's an ego thing with the controller.
“Request 5 degree deviation to the left to avoid wake turbulence from heavy traffic above” would have been faster And ATC should be able to handle these requests without threatening with calling a numbers and things
Nothing wrong with 1000 feet separation buddy. Stop jumping on the bandwagon when you know nothing. It’s JetBlue, probably two ATP Flight Academy graduates; six months ago they were in a piper warrior.
Truly sick... And that the pilot asked and was concerned about SAFTY... The controller should be reprimanded... That the two planes were in conflict...
0 point in calling the number, NYC does not give a shit - Jetblue should have announced pan pan and deviated 5 degrees as needed for safety. Pilots need to be more assertive with regards to controllers.
@@officiallynrgxlr8tr no it’s not. Controllers have no say in pilot licensing. I’m actually in my company’s safety department. We advise our pilots to not call. We will call for them after we’ve spoken with the aircrew.
@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl-v9h No they don’t but that doesn’t mean they can’t snitch. The ATM can refer to FAA QAQC. Probably won’t for this scenario but you shouldn’t duck their calls
They needed to slow the El Al sooner to sequence them, or had them go first and give the JetBlue 5 miles. The B6 was right about the issue with wake. They should have had 2000' or 2 minutes spacing, particularly with a wind shear warning meaning winds were high and wake could be blown around quite a bit.
No such thing as timed separation in TRACON environment, and 1000' is 100% legal, safe, and used across the country. Just because your handle is a callsign doesn't mean you know anything about ATC.
@@N1120A 2 completely different situations, which is showing your ignorance. A380 is classified as a super, which requires further lateral separation than say a B747 or an A339. The A380 vs LJ scenario was at much higher altitude (thinner air mean wake doesn't dissipate as fast) and the aircraft were traveling much faster (while wake is stronger at slower speeds, the speed of the LJ going into non-dissipated wake from the A380 would be very severe) 1000' is perfectly safe, in the terminal environment, underneath heavy jets. You are just wrong.
@A80tracon no, you're completely wrong and made my point in your response. The terminal environment is the WORST place for wake, because the margins for recovery are MUCH lower. I did make a mistake though- it was a Challenger, not a Lear, an even bigger airplane and they were in cruise, which is a far less dangerous place for wake. As you said, wake is far worse when low and slow and a slow heavy is going to be a problem for a medium below it. My guess is you've never flown an airplane and certainly never encountered wake from a larger airplane. I've had wake encounters from both a 747-400 and a 737-800 due to ATC vectoring in a terminal environment and the 737 was actually much worse because it was slower and in a dirty configuration.
Wake turbulence separation requirements, other than those required on departure or on final approach, are usually only applied by ATC if the smaller aircraft is likely to pass LESS THAN 1000ft below/ behind (usually IFR v VFR). Pilot was a little dramatic, but the controllers are also pretty rude. It’s a busy airport, and there’s nothing worse than a pilot causing a distraction.
It’s a fast paced environment for both the pilot and ATC. In this case, that controller is a top notch one meaning its a very complex high stress job keeping everyone in line. He could work on his tone for sure. The pilot was super nice and the ATC guy was a bit of a bully in my eyes. I could be wrong.
For those jumping on the male controller for "giving the pilot a number" @2:15, note the tone of voice and that he said "...I can give you a number to call - we can talk about it after, if you'd like". He didn't demand they call, just that they table it for the moment because there are, you know, lots of planes being juggled. Personal opinion: the PIC should have deviated slightly and advised if they thought it necessary for safety or even to avoid bouncing the pax around.
The pilot didn’t feel it was safe- for a reason- the controller should respect that- does not appear to be a major problem to turn 5-10 degrees east for 1 mile. 1000” separation may not be enough in all situations.
Yeh genius idea. Next time we have 15 AC on frequency we’ll make sure to ask for all of their advice and requests before making every single transmission. “Excuse me sir, are you ok with legal separation today?? Or do you need way more??” 1000’ is the legal separation agreed upon by ALL of the users and we do it literally everyday because we have to. Especially on 4’s and 22’s. Yes there was training in progress here. Yes the pilot called. An amicable conversation was had. If you can’t handle flying in congested airspace don’t. This was not a dangerous situation and this was not an emergency. If it had been an emergency this would have been handled differently. And if you are GA or part-135 and NEED more than standard separation, put it in the remarks section in your flight plan, we’ll have no problem accommodating.
@@PeeBofour4 we understand “standard “ separation but i didnt see 15 AC on the screen nor hear them on frequency- maybe they were- I heard a pilot respectfully ask for what appears to me to be a minor deviation- then I heard a controller get bent out of shape- and then ask for a phone call- it seems like you’re a controller who understands the situation at JFK and may have some special insight- but you’re doing a poor job of explaining why this particular request was so wrongheaded. A professional airline pilot flying for a major airline made this mistake- so the request can’t be as ignorant as you try to make it appear.
Controller was flying El Al in knots, and that wake turbulence stunt was totally unnecessary. Wake turbulence is bad enough at altitude, but at 3000 feet that could have been catastrophic. Controllers need stick time flying aircraft in busy airspace, damnit!
I'm going to trust the FAA's research in determining that 1000' below a heavy is a safe amount of separation over some random guy on the internet. Heavies pass 1000 feet above other aircraft ALL DAY LONG EVERY DAY throughout the world. The pilot had no actual basis for his request.
@@uchinanchuu58the challenger that got flipped by that a380 was flying 1000ft below so, clearly, that separation is not a 100% guarantee that you will avoid sinking wake when you follow it.
@ morganghetti. Yes I do. I used the most extreme example for demonstration purposes. A heavy might not flip a medium class with its wake, but you can still get large uncommanded banking and other flight path deviations. Look up NASA ASRS issue 507. I don’t fault the JetBlue pilot for wanting to avoid potential trouble.
This is rampant every day in the USA and quite frankly most of us are tired of it. It’s partially ATC but really it falls on the airlines cramming 10 lbs of crap into 5lb bags. There’s no room for as much as we’re doing.
Does that arrogant controller not know that a mere 1000 ft of separation is not a lot of airspace flying underneath a B787-9 ???? Doesn't matter if he is a pilot or not. The Jet Blue pilot was absolutely right in questioning that "crappy" HDG vector. In my opinion, the JB pilot should have refused immediately when told the traffic was at his "12 o'clock", instead of waiting later. Still, he was in the right.
@@A321LR In 2017, a CL604 was almost flipped when flying head-to-head 1000ft below an A380. The jet was a complete write-off due to the excessive g-forces received. Investigation revealed that 1000ft altitude separation is sometimes insufficient when flying below a modern heavy or super heavy aircraft. Safety recommendation to ATC was to use additional horizontal separation when two aircraft are following each other - and not to rely on 1000ft vertical separation standard alone. Recommendation was also that ATC avoids head-to-head encounters at 1000ft separation only, by using lateral offsets. The size difference of an A320 to a 787 is not that excessive - but the wake issue is there. A slight lateral deviation could have been easily incorporated here.
@@A321LR Because it has been shown that 1000 feet of separation is only valid with lateral separation as well. Even in JO 7110.126B offers the 1000 foot rule in conjunction with 2500 feet of lateral separation (or appropriate in-trail separation per the chart) during the approach phase of flight. The 1000 foot vertical separation does not apply to aircraft overtaking above or passing directly overhead since it is known (AIM Figure 7-4-4) that the wake will still be present at 1000 foot below the aircraft as an eventuality. This is the whole reason the SLOP (Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure) was developed for oceanic en route - allowing an aircraft to offset to avoid wake from an aircraft 1000 feet above them and ahead of them. So it is a known issue.
This was absolutely ATC’s fault. The pilot’s concern was 100% legit. What hell is going on with these ATC peeps these days- are they answering classifieds in the Pennysaver? And I say this as a native NYC-er
Oddly enough, I never have flown on an a320, I have flown on 787s quite a few times, I looked up the size differences, I would have been concerned too, and I was just an idiot with a PPL that hasn't flown myself in 30 years.
There was no fault on part of ATC. ATC already had the minimum safe amount of vertical separation under the heavy. The pilot just didn't know any better. If my toddler wants to play with a knife, is it my "fault" if I tell him no?
@@Keestral The A380 is way heavier than anything else out there, so the FAA had little to no data on how bad it actually is. They rectified the situation very quickly after that incident by giving controllers lots of extra training and providing new rules and techniques to help the controllers avoid placing aircraft too close to the A380. I was a controller in the FAA when that happened. This video is representative of an entirely different situation.
So the Captain was concerned for the safety of his aircraft and passengers. But the "controller" thought it was ok to disregard his concerns, tell him how to fly his aircraft and then proceed to make a point. Typical NY controllers once again making a name for themselves. It'll take some dead bodies floating in the ocean before these controllers get the hint. Disgusting.
One could say, well these Controllers are very busy and stressed out. But you don't hear this kind of attitude from other controllers at equally busy airports, its always JFK...to you controllers at JFK....YOU ARE A LIABILITY
Even though both planes here are similar size, the challenger 604 and a380 incident from 2017 comes to mind. I wouldn't like being vectored underneath like that either.
The controller is right in what he is using for separation standard. If the pilots don't like it, have their company go to the FAA and prove why it should be changed.
@@kjay5056Yes, but legal does not always equal safe. And if they crash from the wake being that low, the controllers still go home to their own bed that night. 5 degrees would be nothing, and a simple fix. But the NY ATC attitude had to prove himself better, yet he is still not.
@@briankelly5769- no one is going to crash from flying 1000ft below a 787. The cabin will be secure so no one will go flying into the ceiling. Maybe some roll upset and bumps, but nothing horrific. Sure the Captain wants a safe flight but maintaining horizontal separation as well as vertical in congested airspace will be difficult if not impossible.
@@briankelly5769 The "legal" amount came after decades of research to determine what is safe. Have you seen the FAA's presentations on wake turbulence? They clearly know what they're talking about and present this information to newbie controllers at the FAA academy and at follow-on classes for controllers at their permanent duty stations. I should know--I'm a controller who has been through lots of the training.
It might help with self-improvement if sometimes we hear or see ourselves on tape and realize 'Oh my goodness, I came off like such jerk. I've gotta work on this' and we don't get the chance because we're not on tape. But here the ATC guy is and I hope he hears it and takes advantage of it.
Remember back in late 2001, right after the World Trade Center terror strike, when an American A300 had its vertical stabilizer sheered off after encountering wake turbulence from a crossing heavy? Yeah, I bet this pilot does. And before anyone says anything else, yeah - I know the NTSB attributed the failure to the rudder inputs of the pilot but my point remains.
In fairness that was more of pilot error and improper usage of rudder due to lack of training, the wake turbulence wasn’t something that they couldn’t recover from if they followed proper procedure.
@@pokemon4395 "And before anyone says anything else, yeah - I know the NTSB attributed the failure to the rudder inputs of the pilot but my point remains." is pretty much what you said, before you said it. Plus, the best way to avoid replicating this crash is preventing wake turbulence by avoiding the heavy 1000 ft above.
In terms of separation, the controller did what he was supposed to do. But I think how he reacted to the pilot requesting a turn was totally unreasonable
Kudos to the pilot for staying professional. The controller gave them a number because they asked for a different heading over a safety concern! That’s ridiculous! It sounds like Kennedy Steve too who’s usually pretty relaxed.
New York controllers often give you attitude, which I find very unprofessional. I've flown in their airspace for over 30yrs now. The JetBlue pilot had a safety concern that was brushed off by a controller who's response was "that was a lot". From a pilot's perspective "a lot" is having to deal with an aircraft-upset at a low altitude due to poor air traffic management. I would have called the number and given him an earful.
@@kjay5056 your cute, I fly a Bonanza, not a fan of the high wing. Albeit subsidized by the widebody I fly for one of the big three majors. Obviously you don't because those of us in the profession don't troll solicited feedback with a response such as yours.
@brimopm He's Mr Know It all. Everyone qualified is wrong dude is right. Gawd knows he keeps saying it over and again. He's so angry and bitter that I'm starting to believe HE is the ATC ogre involved.
@@brimopm Well, you said you'd call the controller and give him an earful, and I'm sure the controller would've just laughed at you. We put aircraft 1000' below heavies all day long every day because that's the safe amount of separation. If you think you know more than the decades of research the FAA has done on wake turbulence, then just go ahead and enlighten us.
Vectoring and cross the LOC is fine... but many countries have published instrument approach that allows them to extend downwind if you need more time for spacing. If you don't need the time, you vector them to base and final earlier. El Al is just flying all over the place and then somehow got behind the Iberia.
If the JetBlue captain says he's not comfortable with it and is worried about wake turbulance given the minimal spacing, then ATC should consider this and work with him. This type of tuff guy policy at JFK ATC is probably what got all those people killed on AA 587 in Nov 2001. Airbus was behind a much bigger plane and encountered wake turbulence on takeoff.
Wake turbulence is a concern, but not the only one. Each pilot should also be concerned about what happens if the other fails to maintain altitude. How many midairs have happened as a result of aircraft being vectored across one another's paths with minimum separation and one or both pilots deviating beyond minimum? I can think of one fatal incident and one near miss - that's two without even looking it up. I get that not all aircraft are depicted in the graphic but it's hard to imagine it being so crowded that getting into a fight with JBU was a better option than approving a turn to 075 or 085.
What I have doubt about is wake turbulence is a fonction of lift created. It is the strongest at low speed and flaps out, i.e. when on final approach and when taking off and climbing also. It's wouldn't be that stong in the descent phase or level flight. But a legitimate request anyway.
Absolutely. It took more time to berate than it would have to simply solve the issue. I don’t fly for a living, but in my business arguing with customers rarely achieves positive outcomes.
We need more details, please. And if it was 1000' or more below the 787, you should file an ASAP report. Otherwise, there's no basis for changing the separation requirements and I'm going to continue using 1000' day in and day out.
@uchinanchuu58 I filed an ASAP same day. Even got a call from a NASA rep a few weeks later asking for more details. As for the incident, it was on the day of the eclipse earlier this year. ATC had me and my Embraer on a course directly underneath a 787 that was overtaking us. I asked for an offset course and they said they couldn't make that work. We were on a long burn and being held down fairly low, so I was a little concerned with fuel burn. When the 787 was finally ahead of us with safe separation, ATC let us climb to our final. We were way behind it and still got rolled to the left past the 40 degree mark. I called "UPSET", deactivated the autopilot, rolled us back to level and just descended to the next appropriate altitude. At that point, I called ATC and told them we were going to move south of their course and stay at that lower altitude. Took a hit in my fuel, but no one was hurt, so I'll accept that win. I was lucky my flight attendants didn't have the carts out. I guess the big moral of the story here is right now, ATC is putting planes too closely together. If you don't like a clearance, if it seems sketchy or unsafe, and I should have done this on this day, say "Unable". If they don't like it, that's tough. It's their responsibility to help us stay safe, but with the shortage of controllers and the sheer volume of traffic we have, there are going to be fuckups. If they push back, guess what? You owe them no explanation in the air. Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. Tell them to give you a phone number and you can have a conversation on the ground if they really want to know why you aren't comfortable with unsafe instructions.
Annoying how the controller started demanding the pilots to descend and was speaking in a tone as if he was having to repeat himself when everyone was actually replying on the first call. Kept saying “now” and using a tone as if he’s saying “for the 5th heading 070!”😂
At that moment it was absolutely necessary for the Jetblue to descend "now" (!), because the controller had the El Al too close behind the Jetblue. This whole thing was a screw up without any preplanning by the lady before and the controller that gave relief to the lady had to sort it all out. That's why he is a little aggrevated. Although there would have been no problem, allowing the Jetblue to turn 10° to the right and then let him keep 170kts on the final to regain the lost space to the preceeding.
I think changing ATC at that moment was bad timing. Should have waited to clear the problem. The NY/Jersey accent dude was rude. What do you want 2k? But yet on approach JB was advised of wake turbulence. ATC are like traffic cops…know nothing about the streets.
That wasn't "changing ATC"... that was an instructor taking over for the trainee who he was monitoring. When things start going south and you realize that the trainee needs help, you have to step in to keep the situation under control. Remember, there's a whole lot more going on that was not shown in this video.
If those were the complete radar returns there is zero reason for the controller to make a big deal out of a 5 degree turn request. It wasn't a pilot deviation.
Absolutely fair request. Wake turbulence avoidance has been an FAA hot topic of late. Maybe ATC ought to climb onboard and not set crews up for failure.
@@uchinanchuu58: The safe minimum vertical separation from a climbing jet is probably 10,000’. The lower aircraft needs to be separated ½ mile *horizontally* to the windward side beyond the reach of wake vortices.
@@denverbraughler3948 10,000'? Not at all. You're crazy, and ATC would come to a grinding halt if all facilities had to use 10k feet of separation below all climbing jets.
And of course, it’s NY TRACON. I remember an incident with this guy who was giving an American pilot grief because the guy was low on fuel and needed an immediate landing. I think it was AA001 from LAX.
Controller doing his job as he should. Nothing to see here. What is this alluding to? This literally is a normal day at the office. 1,000,feet is not only normal separation.... It's more than needed because it could be 500 with VFR traffic. 787 you say! Cry me a river. We all fly 1,000 feet from a heavy and Supers every day. I do every day over the Atlantic myself... We all do in normal ops coming in to land everyday (JFK, ORD, EWR et al) . Time to put your big boy pants on and call yourself a professional. Oh yes... This is UA-cam. BTW that has nothing to do with being a cowboy, but more about knowing your profession ... Including the 7110. Most here know nothing about the intricates of the air traffic environment or flying professionally. Gooduck; study up. as we all do in aviation. God Speed.
@@A321LR That controller is constantly arguing with everyone. I'm not sure if this is the same controller working the tower but he was ridiculous. ua-cam.com/video/-sQuHnrJu1I/v-deo.html
I don’t think this clip captures enough of the situation. It appears there is a controller in training and the Instructor had to take over. Separation was never lost. Traffic was passed. Wake turbulence cautionaries issued.
The controller was probably surprised by the request since the FAA deems 1000' vertical separation to be a safe amount--it's the minimum required vertical separation when less than 5 nautical miles behind a heavy aircraft. See 7110.65 Paragraph 5-5-4.f.1. Additionally, New York TRACON airspace is very tight and convoluted, so accommodating such a request could possibly cause excessive delays that propagate down the line and negatively affect the arrival sequence. I'm going to say that the controller did nothing wrong and if the pilot truly thought it necessary, he should have exercised emergency authority and turned away, but he might have got a talking to by the FAA afterwards.
Do you not even realise how crazy you sound: "Its In a manual, therefore, its God's Word"- jesus christ man...TRY FLYING AN ACTUAL PLANE AND NOT A MANUAL. FFS!
El Al could have been sequenced in front of the Jetblue and it would have been fine. Poor El Al had to go through the localizer twice. If it was a controller in training, then we can be more accepting of the issue and hope she learns and improves. In the end it all worked out.
@@YouCanSeeATC You did a great job. It's always easy for us to sit behind a screen and have the hindsight these videos provide and that those controllers did not have to sit and judge. It's a whole different thing of actually being there as it is happeniing.
Definitely training in progress, and El Al could not be sequenced ahead because of HAL right there, both needing plenty of spacing of their own. 1000' is the legal minimum, but the controller did completely overreact when the pilot requested something. Big surprise, NY Guy has a fragile ego. 🙄
El Al had to cross the Localizer twice! what's up with that? AFA the altitude deconfliction ... it was too late by then if the timing/radio calls were depicted with the TCAS track accurately. ATC has a tough job, but they forget the pecking order routinely.
I see what the ATC controller did there. He knew Jet Blue would intercept the localizer long before the wake turbulence hit the plane. The wake turbulence took some time to travel the 1000 feet separation downwards.
....and yet the man ACTUALLY Flying the damned plane thought he should put his passengers' safety, first. How many hours flying does the ATC guy have...?
In general, controllers are arrogant. In general, so are pilots. Same situation, I would have requested a deviation - 5 degrees to the right. Its safer, and it wouldn't have screwed the controller's flow.. Win - win. Instead that approach controller decided he was going to teach the JetBlue pilot a lesson, but it isn't a controller's job to teach lessons. I'd love to hear how that call went.
Anyone who has flown a jet in trail of a heavy knows how wake turbulence can get (deal with it at ORD all the time) Pilot was 100% in the right, but in the controllers defense there was obviously a shift change at that moment and he probably got thrown off by B6s request (keep in mind the new controller wasn’t the one that gave those vectors). If it was me a simple “We need heading _______ due to wake immediately” would’ve been better than a long explanation. Either way CA looked after his plane and crew as he should. I’d imagine the phone call was easygoing and something to the effect of “JB: hey don’t vector planes 1000ft under heavies, wake is scary, I did what I needed to do. ATC: I understand. Don’t make super long transmissions just say what you need, this is Nooo Yaawwk”
Not necessarily a shift change. The controllers are assigned specific air space to monitor, and they pass off the control all of the time to the next assigned space.
@@marcd1981you’re right. I guess I should’ve said “controller change”. That was not the primary controller running that sector. Either way, my point remains the same
I say this after having been flying over 30 years. I personally would not have called them. During our short break I would have called my wife, checked on the kids, gotten food and forgot all about it. If they ever got back with me I would have either not answered the phone.....or told them, " sorry I haven't had time to call you yet."
The controller should have just granted the deviation. That’s the most dangerous phase of the flight for flight attendants who are rushing around to secure the cabin. It’s perfectly reasonable for the pilots to mitigate the risk for injuries that happen all the time. The controller demanded more explanation and then threw a fit that he got what he demanded. Really unprofessional
"We have an engine on fire, captain incapacitated, oxygen running low, mayday mayday mayday." "That was a lot, I can give you a number to call, we can talk about it after if you'd like."
Sure, if operating contrary to ATC's clearances is **necessary** for the save operation of the aircraft, the pilot can do whatever he needs to do; however, in this case the controller was absolutely in the right as he had the aircraft separated by a safe amount determined by decades of FAA research on wake turbulence. The only problem here is that the pilot didn't know any better.
Remember it's the Pilot who has Ultimate authority in this situation. There have been massive accidents caused by ATC over the years. The Pilot is responsible for his passengers and his Aircraft.
Hello, friends. I have questions for you today.
1) What do you thing about this situation? Was the pilot right even if there was 1000 feet verticals separation?
2) I'm trying to improve the desight of the videos. Do you like it? Do you like the colors? Do the videos become better?
I really Appreciate your answers.
To be honest, this video is shit. You don't have other aircraft displayed, and you have aircraft in wrong positions, making the controller look haphazard in his control instructions. Show the full story.
Thank you. But the positions are correct. Just chek the Flight radar or ADS-B. I do not show the other uninvolved airplanes just to make the situation easier to understand. I didn't want to show the controller from the bad side. There was 1000 feet of vertical separation (mentioned in the description of the situation).
@@YouCanSeeATC Like I'm saying, it dilutes the situation the controllers were in. not having the rest of the traffic paint a different picture than what is being shown here.
At 210 knots the wake turbulence "may" not be that bad, BUT who would like to find out? Not me!
Okay, thank you. Will think about that. 1000 of vertical separation in the description means that it was legal and those who are connected with aviation somehow will understand that. And also the sequence was shown from the first aircraft involved till the last one. Have a good day. And appreciate your comment.😎
You know what a controller and a pilot have in common?
When the pilot screws up, the pilot dies. When the controller screws up, the pilot dies.
The pilot screwed up but didn't die... interesting.
How original
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@uchinanchuu58 please explain, 'cos obviously you're a lot smarter than myself, HOW did the Pilot 'Screw Up"?? All I heard was a pilot concerned for the safety of his passengers....
@@swanvictor887 1000 feet should be enough separation, don't you think?
You can see videos online from crossings over the ocean where they meet in the middle and are only separated by 1000 feet of difference in altitude.
If they can do it over there, i think it is safe over here.
I am just an armchair pilot, but it seems VFR flights are at .5 altitude, so like 10500 feet. And IFR at 10000 or such.
Separation is only 500 when they meet, right?
No pro pilot here, just a bit of FSX in the old days.
But i don't think the passengers were at any danger with a 1000 feet separation in altitude.
If it was only 1000 feet in distance, then yeah, that would not be funny.
It’s a funny thing.
I’m a controller and once had an American Airlines pilot ask to be vectored away from going through the wake of an A380.
Know what I did? I gave him a heading change.
Know what I didn’t do? Act like a petulant child and make the pilot call me after landing.
if you ask the pilot to explain himself, don't complain that they explained themselves. Gees.
The questionable clerance was when the controller told Jet Blue to "Descend to 2000 Now". They were better at 3000 ft, since the wake turbulence sinks at about 1000ft/min.
This clearance came after the one Jet Blue questioned, which was not a big deal, as planes can see other traffic, and Jet Blue wasn't being vectored through the localizer. By the time the controller really gave them a bad clearance, Jet Blue didn't want to argue back, knowing they'd get a climb and re-vectored back for the approach, upsetting the passengers, possibly making them late, and ruining a possible lunch break for the pilots.
Ultimately, the controller was wrong, and could have easily given them a vector to the NE and told them to slow.
@@snowowl1343 Bottom line is that El Al work by trainee ATC was a shitshow, Jetblue made it more complicated and instructor had to step in to fix the mess (double LOC crossing by El Al ending up behind Iberia that was just chilling along). Jet Blue clearance for 2000 now was questionable indeed.
@@snowowl1343 nope. El Al was turning from west to the east. With a northwesterly strong wind El Al would have turned right back into JBU. Both were at 030. JBU descends much quicker than EL Al. Hence the instruction to JBU not El Al. Bunch of experts on here adding their two cents when they have no clue. It’s hysterical
nah it was too much airtime to take up...good pilots know that when multiple planes are being vectored for approaches they shouldnt take up airtime, especially for something routine.
@@Marklar0 goot atc doesn't put the pilot in that position. If ATC has time to get al uppity like that then they aren't too busy to listen to the explanation they asked for.
I absolutely despise the sarcasm in the controller when he tells the pilot "caution wake turbulence, you got 6.7 miles there". Yet flying him underneath a heavy 1000 feet away and no caution. What a jerk. Pilot has ultimate say in the safety of their aircraft. I have respect for this pilot. I have no respect for this controller.
Is it really that much of a problem? We fly between heavies all the time in the hold at LHR with 1000’ between us. I’d understand if it was an A380 but a 78? Really?
@@almac8524 Had I been that JB pilot, and I had never before been instructed to pass below a heavy, I would have erred to the cautious side and requested something else. Don't underestimate the "heavy" nature of a 787. Remember when 757s were new and smaller airplanes following them started falling out of the sky? Boeing never studied the potential wake turbulence generated by the 75. Ultimately it was deemed to be a "heavy".
I think the controller was an ass in this case… pilot didn’t feel it was safe going under the heavy and he is ultimately responsible for the safety of his passengers plane and the innocents
Oh, will someone think of the innocents!
@@icebluecuda1 weird flex, but ok
Disagree. Wasn't an "ass".They have a job to do which is deconflict contantly and keep a massive amount of aircraft organized safely. If pilot doesn't think something is safe that's fine. Do what gotta do. but they were within regulations. They aren't there to be all soft and sweet. Talk off line on the hone later to discuss.
@@drn13355 I’m sure they did since tower or ground gave them the dreaded number to call!
Arm chair guy ….😩
Not the first time this ATC guy has made it on one of these videos, I recognized his voice and tone immediately. There was another video a while back where he was getting into with a pilot as well. Sure… NY airspace is nuts, but the attitude is unnecessary… especially after making the pilot have to repeat himself. He was pretty clear the first time. Good call from the pilot!
This guy needs an attitude adjustment. Where's Kennedy Steve?? Retired...Loved that guy.
I thought I recognized his acsent too but I also thought a lot of NY ATC staff sound similar. ....I SPECIFICALLY remember one issue where a Chinese pilot was having trouble understanding him because of the acsent but he kept saying the same thing over and over agin really fast. I had trouble understanding him too and if he had said the same thing just a little slower and clearer then the pilot would have been okay.....He was really stressing the pilot out.
I’m positive I’ve heard this controller before too on at least one other UA-cam posting. Same irritated voice, same intonations, same manner. Just waiting for an opportunity to bite !!
I saw another of the ATC videos and it was AI voiced
Yes he is a total dick
The controller had El Al flying all over the place like a drunken snake.
That was fine: he was spacing out the heavies/ getting spacing for everyone/ working the vertical separation...I'm sure the spacing/ lineup is the reason he didn' t want to let JB go too far right. But the JB request was reasonable, could have been made up for with a little more speed on the last vector, and should have been accommodated....unless there is more happening in the traffic we are not seeing.
Controller could have had El Al make a wide left loop to join the localized before going, crossing nose to nose with JB and doing a figure 8
@@ImionsaeXwb77 How do you know that? The airspace sectorization, all the other traffic in the airspace, the internal facility rules and agreements with adjacent facilities, etc. are not shown. So for all I know, this controller did what he was able to do to make the situation work out.
I've read many of the comments left related to this incident and it looks like the ATC folks will side with the ATC, the pilots with the pilots so I'll share my absolute unqualified opinion as a passenger that no one mentions - in conclusion, what I am reading is: Hey, everyone is still alive so move on type attitude ... So here it is from my unqualified passenger perspective:
1. How did El Al and JBU ended up 'face to face' when both wanted to actually land? ... means flying in the same direction! .... some ATC either gave the incorrect directions or was not paying attention ....
2. Having the El Al flying in circles like a drunkard looking for a parking spot at the mall, then up and down for some good measure in case that was not enough, certain did not make the many passengers on board any calmer, especially after a very long flight from probably Tel Aviv .... but hey, they ended up alive and with a story to tell at the Hannukah table so they should move on with life .... yup, we the passengers have to put-up with everything, 40% increase in ticket price while the airline corporate suits pack more and more seats in order to augment the 'bottom line' (soon, they may start selling 'standing only' tickets too), bad food (if any, even if you pay for it), entitled attitude from some of the flight attendants as we can not make THEM uncomfortable, .... and I can go on and on, but who cares? we the passengers only hear the ATC and the airline 'poor me' stories
3. JBU pilot had a point too to be concerned .... including the change in altitude, make it 3000, no, 2000, no 5000 ... Hey, just because JBU is a smaller fish doesn't mean that it's a yo-yo either .... I wonder how the passengers felt about that up & down
4. the ATC - whomever was last with instructions did untangle these planes and put them in line to land safely, so that was pressure, so Thank you, but it was unnecessary pressure - maybe before taking it out on the pilots, just because they are conveniently right there in the conversation, do some soul searching first to find out who caused the mess in the first place and have a conversation with THAT one .... I know is hard when is one of your own but having two planes facing each other instead of being in line, that is not a normal occurrence nor have they gotten in that position because of the pilots .....
So it's the Holidays and many of us have no other choice but to hup in a plane and go see family, friends, take some time off or close a business deal ... so just because we do not have a choice, please do not take that for granted ... yes, I know that we are just a number of 'souls' on board but we are 'living souls' and let's all stay that way until our official time comes to go to the pearly gates ... Thank you for all the ones that made comments, were very educational and Thank you from a 'just passenger' to all the ones that do their best to keep us as 'living souls' ....
Pilot is in command. He can deviate and tell ATC what he's doing. Approach controller sounds like your typical NYC Wise Guy on the verge of a breakdown.
Kennedy Steve knows what he is doing, and he did not deviate from normal safety practices. If the pilot wanted, he could have accepted 2000ft clearence, but didn't. *Don't be so sensitive.....the NY airspace requires NO B.S controllers, and pilots that can handle reasonably close vectoring.* #ThickerSkin
Some of the worst controllers in the world are in that airspace. You can see by the chaos caused by 4 (four) airplanes being vectored to final in this very case. The controller(s) came unglued - vectoring through final. assigning speeds and altitudes using non-standard verbiage, etc. You just shake your head every time you go there....
@@donferrie4070
_"Some of the worst controllers in the world are in that airspace."_
Ah! NYC explains everything .
@@donferrie4070
_"Some of the worst controllers in the world are in that airspace."_
I’d hate to be a pilot based out of NY dealing with the constant arrogance and lack of patience. I’ll stick to Boston. They are damn good there and don’t treat you like a murderer for asking for something.
Hey Evulnation, Gidda Fuqqqq outta here, all right!!! 😂
@@Evulnation they also don’t know how to use speed control. Scary place up there.
Three way call with FAA as to why ATC breeched horizontal separation rules.
@@marksmith8079what are you talking about
@@Jookboks They vectored the plane break lateral separation.
We get the crap kicked out of us in a heavy when we hit another heavies wake bang on. It really sucks. 1000' isn't enough sometimes. If the guy doesn't want it, he doesn't want it. Make it happen. At least somebody was paying attention to try and proactively avoid doing backflips.
@@Shrike200 then start filing reports, because ATC rules are 1000’ below a heavy.
@atcdude067 The "minimum" separation is 1000 feet vertical. Sometimes, you have to shoot above the minimums. I know it's hard as ATC that you can't break the laws of physics to your will.
@@atcdude067 Yeah, for separation. Avoiding wake turbulence is something else you need to be considerate of. No reason for this.
@@Shrike200 why is nobody noticing the 1000ft separation is only in RVSM airspace. This was done in the terminal area 😭
@@briankelly5769 and 2000 feet to recover from ATC stupid and arrogant mistake before hitting the water.
I am about to retire. One thing I hope to have passed on to my F/os, soon to be Captains, is the deconstruction of the current prevailing culture in aviation, according to which, the instructions given by a controller are sacred. As a Captain, if you justifiably feel your plane is under threat, you deviate from ATC instructions in the most safe perceivable way and, then, you explain later, to anyone with the proper authority to question your decision, why you made that decision.
Honestly, it sounds like a successful sortie if you're able to explain later, implying you've landed safely. I'm sure JetBlue's intention was safety first, not being "a lot" for the approach.
And if everyone's safer, means I'm less likely to be pulling up to an airport to treat people (First Responder in UK).
If you look where the centerline is, JBU was not in danger of wake turbulence. They were getting an intercept heading right as they went underneath. I'm a controller and sorry but I have had pilots complain dozens of times about wake setups, and they've been wrong about the situation almost every time. Its hard to have an accurate traffic picture from the cockpit when you aren't the one seeing the big picture and turning the planes.
I would not recommend deviating for wake without permission in busy airspace, because you are just as likely to make it worse rather than better. Had this JBU pilot said again "request heading away from the heavy wake", they would have gotten something like "expect a turn momentarily" and noone would be annoyed. Instead they falsely decided that they understood the situation and wasted air time insulting the controller.
@@Marklar0 As a controller, assuming you're educated, experienced and trained enough, you can be 99% sure the tracks you've assigned won't result in a wake turbulence incident, but, you see...that 1% of uncertainty?...We're the ones who will have to deal with it, when it becomes a certainty. "Almost" is the operative word, in your reply.
@@Marklar0buddy, read your text again, check how you sound from a side. 🤦♂️
As a passenger I'm not sure the attitude of the controller is helping the captain in their responsibility to keep me safe. Luckily I never have to fly to JFK.
ANC. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. If the pilot felt his a/c was in danger he had every right to change course 5 degrees or so then tell the controller afterwards.
Controllers need to remember the only danger to them is spilt coffee.
Surprised the controller didn't say, "call my cousin Vinny about your clearance..."
🤭
"Jetblue, I'll make an offer you can't refuse. Capice?"
@@rudiklein Jetblue to Tower - does the letters FO mean anything to you? 🤣
haha awesome movie
ATCs should never intimidate pilots during the most dangerous phase of a flight.This approach controller's attitude sounds like a guy who is a part of a gang."what're you saying? Come let's settle it outside".
He was in straight, level flight, not at all in any critical phase (for example, final approach, flare/touchdown, takeoff roll, etc.).
@@uchinanchuu58 Critical phase of flight is anything below 10,000 feet, unless that is your cruising altitude.
@@southseasflying OK, I see what you're saying... the FAA defines critical phase in that way because it's a time when the pilots should not be doing nonessential activities like having conversations outside of operating the aircraft, for example. But that doesn't mean the pilot was in "the most dangerous phase of a flight" as the guy above insinuated. The plane was straight and level waiting on vectors to the final approach course, so nothing dangerous was happening at all. It's a gross exaggeration.
@@uchinanchuu58 Brother, @southseasflying replied to YOU who was the one that said "not at all in any critical phase" which was factually incorrect, despite your feelings. @southseasflying never mentioned anything related to OP's comment being right or wrong.
@@Not2Day1024 What???? I replied to him and said that he's right. What are you on about?
Wait what? Jetblue quite rightly does not want to be right underneath a heavy, and HE gets to call a number? Am I missing something here?
No…this is crazy!
I don't know how this played out aftert, but had I been the JB pilot I would have called the number, calmly let the controller berate me on the recorded line, and then requested a full investigation by the FAA.
The controller was not only a jerk, he turned into a bully when he asked him to call. He could have just said, "We cannot accommodate your requst at this time." Instead he chose to be a smart ass and kept on referencing wake turbulence.
I disagree with the bully part for the call. I think it's a great way for controllers and pilots to discuss issues and to find better ways of working with each other.
Pilot got snippy first...listen to the tape again in your mother's basement.
@@kjay5056 what are you, 12 years old?
The number was because the pilot that too much to say and the frequency needs to remain clear. The pilot should have just declared short and sweet a deviation to the desired heading.
ATC can get in trouble for refusing reasonable requests. You can't just say "nah"
In 2017, a CL604 was almost flipped when flying head-to-head 1000ft below an A380. The CL was a write-off due to the excessive g-forces received. Investigation showed that 1000ft vertical separation can be insufficient with modern heavy and super-heavy aircraft. Recommendation was to also use lateral separation for opposing traffic. And to use a minimum horizontal (time) spacing when aircraft follow each other with only 1000ft vertical separation. Traffic crossing each other is not an issue. The size difference between an A320 and a 787 is not that excessive (as it was with the CL604 vs A380) and an A320 would not be flipped. But the wake issue is still there. And a slight lateral deviation could have been easily incorporated here.
Heck even two A380 taking off one after another there is wake turbulence for sure - saw that from an LAX spotter. Just watch the control surfaces - wow!
underneath the heavy. hell no! 🙄
Yeah, like this guy said!
Thought about this too, controller was an asshole and demonstrated immunity just so he could get the results he wanted
There is a video on the Smithsonian channel that showed 2) KC 135 tankers take off one behind another in Operation Desert Storm in Saudi Arabia. The take-off spacing was fine. But one slowed down and let the other pass 1000’ above. The wake turbulence upset the trailing tanker about 90 degrees and TORE BOTH ENGINES OFF the left side. It also broke 2/3 of the mounting bolts on the remaining engines. Luckily, one bolt on each engine held and they turned around, went back to base and landed safely.
It’s astounding how many people think that legal means safe.
It’s like they smoke and drink because it’s safe since the government says it’s a legal.
To say that legal means safe entirely incorrect when it comes to separation minima.
Separation minima are to reduce the risk of collisions. They don’t account for wake turbulence.
If separation minima accounted for wake turbulence, there would be no need to issue “Caution: wake turbulence”.
The pilot was entirely correct and needed to turn toward the wind for a lateral offset.
The aircraft didn’t need more vertical separation. The aircraft needed unperturbed air.
Separation minima absolutely account for wake turbulence. That is why we have different separation standards for wake producing aircraft lol. What are you talking about?
I don't blame the pilot -
Ex -
I almost got flipped once in a CRJ on a 6 mile final into PBI at about 2000 feet AGL -
... not under, but too close to a 757.
In 30+ years of flying,
it's one of only four times have had that sinking feeling, "butterflies in the stomach".
Others -
Two near hits below 4000 MSL in C airspace,
and windshear below 1000 feet AGL on final. Luckily, that one was in a piston.
Thank you 👍
Were you in an A320 or something more like a 172 just wanna compare apples to apples.
@@jkhsdjkhfjkhh3 B752 has a long history of very strong wake turbulence. In fact it got surclassed in the higher wake category (based on airctaft weight) for a time.
A few years back I was piloting an e175 (autopilot engaged) and got turned sideways about 30° by wake from a measley q400. It was so powerful it kicked off the autopilot and gave me multiple ADS probe failure CAS messages. I heard passengers scream and after the flight the FAs told me they thought the masks were about to drop. We landed uneventfully but that was a wake-up call for me. This was all from an aircraft that wasn’t even very large and I’m pretty sure we outweighed. It’s not just 777s having the affect on 172s, it can happen in a lot more situations. Obviously the bigger you are the more rough air you can handle but I damn sure don’t want to be nose to nose 1000ft below the flight path of a heavy that’s just asking for it.
That has nothing to do with this scenario.
That ATC was an absolute jerk. The pilot is entirely reasonable and professional. That ATC gaslit him with the “that was a lot”. Yes it was and YOU forced hm to explain himself after he made an appropriate request. An angry, negligent ATC. 😡
Welcome to JFK and NYC... bleh!
A jerk of note.
ATC asked if the pilot wanted 2000, and the pilot replied with a dissertation on why he wants what he wants. A simple "request 2000" would have alleviated a lot of the back and forth and reduced frequency congestion.
We are too busy, especially when training, to deal with long winded explanations of pilots being afraid of LEGAL separation. This 1000' vertical separation is legal with *all* types of aircraft in the terminal environment. If you are too afraid to fly a jet underneath a larger jet 1000' below, turn your pilot's license in and change careers.
@@northmaineguy5896 I am sure that DEI hires are frustrating- but if you watch the bad cop videos on UA-cam- the thousands of them showing cops violating citizens rights or beating people up or planting evidence- none of them are DEI hires- so DEI hires are just part of the problem.
You tell the female controller was in training when the voice changed to a male. He was a jerk and for someone who training another controller she will be to.
It was a polite request initially. It was an 11 second clarification communication from start to finish on 1644's part. It was clear and concise. Wake turbulence is valid. It wasn't an idiotic request such as a Type IV anti-ice coating in low humidity and zero chance of precipitation. I love how ATC always threatens the phone number like sending pilots to the principals office but it's ultimately a pilot's call. It's the flight crew and up to 180 pax on the 320. Our safety takes priority over controller's ego. Safety was the concern and I respect any captain or FO who stands up for it.
On a flight a couple days ago I was NR with my mom coming into SFO and she asked me what that strange bump of turbulence was right before we landed, she said she thought we did land when she felt it. I explained that few flew through the wake of the aircraft that landed before us and it must have been a larger aircraft.
As a former flight controller I can say that the attitude and comprehension of the JFK controller was way out of line. You never order a pilot as if you are in command. You're a director and advisor, and while I've always chosen to fly out of Kennedy, I've been rethinking that after several views of incidents on channels like this. In the end, the pilot is always the one in control of the situation, he or she is in command of the aircraft and responsible for all the souls on board. Period.
A flight controller? Is that the guy with the glow sticks?
Let me know when you have worked in a busy and limited air space. Everybody here is an expert...amazing!
What's a "flight controller?" Did you mean "air traffic controller?" Cause I've never heard an ATC call himself "flight controller."
@@kjay5056 That's precisely what I did, and in NYC airspace. I love the jerks who are harping on my choice of words (flight controller vs air traffic controller). What you call it is your business, what I did for over a decade is indisputable. I actually directed traffic in what the FAA chose to consider "uncontrolled airspace" in the East River Corridor from the 34th Street Heliport, which during my years was the busiest heliport in the world. I wrote the flight directives and patterns for all air traffic in and around the corridor (which the FAA chose not to implement until the several fatal accidents early in this century), and the greater part of my time was spent speaking with commercial, military, police and private pilots landing and departing from our location, as well as transiting the area. It's true I never worked ATC, but I did have several ATC folks who did come and sit in on some sessions, and every single one of them said that they could and would never be able to deal with the amount and type of traffic that I had to handle on a daily basis. I know how to speak to pilots, and I know how to deal with stressful and dangerous situations, and my advice is if you can't handle the pressure in a calm and professional manner with perhaps some humor and grace, then find something simpler to do. Too many lives depend on your ability to make things turn out right. I've listened to hundreds of communications over the years, most of which were handled well, but there are others such as this one in question, where bad attitude and lack of understanding put people at risk, and that's just plain wrong. That's my two cents for today.
@@kjay5056 listen to the London/Heathrow controllers. Very busy and limited airspace, calm, collected and polite, way more professional that what one hears on this tape.
Sounds like the ATC girl was training and when the first guy (ATC chimed in)…he took over for her to move through some of the confusion. Which is what a good instructor should do in this case.
However, he seemed miffed at the inquiry for deviation and the long explanation. ATC was thinking clearance from conflicting and pilot obviously thinking more strategically. Good airmanship. His request/explanation shouldn’t be admonished especially if the male controller took over for the female controller who herself was having trouble getting basic commands across. Resulting in further explanation likely from a trained ear in the cockpit.
Pilot here.
I understand the concern on the cockpit's part. However, had the captain gotten his wish of "a turn to the east" wouldn't he effectively be turning right into the 7-8's wake? It sinks slowly, at an average of about 400 fpm, and gradually fans outward (unless you're flying in a vacuum).
Not only that, but unless he was wanting to be re-sequenced entirely, they very likely would have encountered the wake yet again once vectored back towards the airport.
Controller was definitely a dick, which was entirely unnecessary.
Pilot: jerk store called, they're out of you.
Geez man! I don’t want to fly nose to nose under a heavy either.
Don’t fly on Long Island
Weak
I agree with the original (concise) comment here but not the 2 replies.
Legal minimum vertical separation is 1000 ft. They had it. Happens thousands of times a day. Rookie JBU captain.
Are you a pilot and do you know the 7110.65 separation standards? Didn't think so.
Wake turbulence from large planes is insane. When I was in the military I experienced an extreme example of this in a Blackhawk when we were on approach and flew straight into the wake of a C-5 Galaxy that had landed almost 10 minutes earlier. It was like being in an elevator and having the bottom fall out. We unexpectedly descended more than 100 feet in just a few seconds.
10 minutes, seriously? That's wild.
The pilot must be listened to, not ignored. Controller needs to be spoken to about this exchange.
Yes, the controller did act snarky. Pilots do have a variety of legitimate needs. In my time as a controller, I found it easy to accommodate the pilots' needs virtually every time. That controller did have an attitude for sure. That said, I must add that (unrelated to this incident) controllers have multiple aircraft to deal with and to integrate into a "safe, orderly, and expeditious" flow of traffic. That was in my day the FAA controller's motto. It's not possible for a pilot to be aware of all the aircraft, angles, altitudes, airspeeds, etc., that the controller is trying to merge together into a safe flow of traffic. So a pilot cannot just "deviate" because he wants to. Without intending to, he could violate a nearby aircraft's minimum safe separation from him. Then we could have a dangerous "near miss," not just wake turbulence from another plane. There are factors to consider on BOTH sides of this discussion.
I listen to ATC from all over the USA and New York ATC, center is the most obnoxious and arrogant of all of them ! I know they are under immense stress but you don’t have to be an ass ! I give credit to jbu 1644 for staying professional !
The controller really didn't need to jump to the 'call this number' crap. I've heard this far too often and sometimes I think that company should be on the phone with the pilot.
You'd think these ATC people would be afraid of exposing their faults in investigations.
There is an airline that will remain nameless that has their Chief Pilot return all these requests. If you listen to enough of these "call the tower" comments you'll notice that one airline only gets that request when it's a reportable occurrence.
What happens when you don't call? I'd call to talk to that guy's manager. The controller can behold my extended middle finger.
@@paulsaulpaul Pilot is under no obligation to call.
@@ZombieKiller1965 I'd love to know which airline....
Reasonable request from Jetblue concerned about the safety for the aircraft.
I love being reminded that retirement is great. Thank you.
Every commercial pilot that flies in and out of JFK knows the controllers there to be a-holes. The key is that the pilots tell them they have to be comfortable with the instruction. It's an ego thing with the controller.
Go back to your video game in your mom's basement. "Every commercial pilot that flies out....blah blah blah"
@@kjay5056 Woo-hoo! We pried the controller in the chat out into the light. How does it feel to know every pilot hates you guys?
@@kjay5056 Well, there is the personality type being called out in this thread!
As a passenger who flies in this airspace, the attitude of these controllers (repeatedly) is discomforting at best.
Somebody get that controller a Snickers bar...
Yeah, dude sounded Huuuuuuungrrryyyyyyyyyy
“Request 5 degree deviation to the left to avoid wake turbulence from heavy traffic above” would have been faster
And ATC should be able to handle these requests without threatening with calling a numbers and things
Yes. The way he said it was kind of an accusation. One has to be diplomatic
@@user-microburst"Diplomatic"... Heh... I thought NYC controllers had a thick skin :)
Had very thing happen to me flying into ORD in a B-737-200 in the 1990’s. Not pleasant to be in wake turbulence. Very scary.
Safety comes first, JetBlue was on top requesting 5 turn what to expect from ATC
Controllers comment right before handing off makes it painfully clear he didn't understand Jet Blue's issue. Pretty widespread issue these days
Nothing wrong with 1000 feet separation buddy. Stop jumping on the bandwagon when you know nothing. It’s JetBlue, probably two ATP Flight Academy graduates; six months ago they were in a piper warrior.
Truly sick... And that the pilot asked and was concerned about SAFTY... The controller should be reprimanded... That the two planes were in conflict...
0 point in calling the number, NYC does not give a shit - Jetblue should have announced pan pan and deviated 5 degrees as needed for safety. Pilots need to be more assertive with regards to controllers.
Right? Never call the number. Call your union rep and your company’s safety department. Explain what happened. Have THEM call the number.
@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl-v9h That's not how that works. It's your license on the line.
@@officiallynrgxlr8tr no it’s not. Controllers have no say in pilot licensing. I’m actually in my company’s safety department. We advise our pilots to not call. We will call for them after we’ve spoken with the aircrew.
@@IlIlIlIlIlIlIlIl-v9h No they don’t but that doesn’t mean they can’t snitch. The ATM can refer to FAA QAQC. Probably won’t for this scenario but you shouldn’t duck their calls
@ let me end it with this: all those calls are recorded. You do not want to call them on your own without your company.
Standard New York Approach. Rude, unprofessional and arrogant.
Multicultural fatigue is why New Yorkers act that way. NYC will feel like flying into Tokyo after Mass Deportation
They needed to slow the El Al sooner to sequence them, or had them go first and give the JetBlue 5 miles. The B6 was right about the issue with wake. They should have had 2000' or 2 minutes spacing, particularly with a wind shear warning meaning winds were high and wake could be blown around quite a bit.
Airports operated like this with little regard to safety, just strict protocol adherence is such an unsafe practice that may end very badly...
No such thing as timed separation in TRACON environment, and 1000' is 100% legal, safe, and used across the country. Just because your handle is a callsign doesn't mean you know anything about ATC.
@A80tracon 1000' directly below a heavy is not safe. Ask the Lear crew that flew below that A380
@@N1120A 2 completely different situations, which is showing your ignorance.
A380 is classified as a super, which requires further lateral separation than say a B747 or an A339. The A380 vs LJ scenario was at much higher altitude (thinner air mean wake doesn't dissipate as fast) and the aircraft were traveling much faster (while wake is stronger at slower speeds, the speed of the LJ going into non-dissipated wake from the A380 would be very severe)
1000' is perfectly safe, in the terminal environment, underneath heavy jets. You are just wrong.
@A80tracon no, you're completely wrong and made my point in your response. The terminal environment is the WORST place for wake, because the margins for recovery are MUCH lower. I did make a mistake though- it was a Challenger, not a Lear, an even bigger airplane and they were in cruise, which is a far less dangerous place for wake. As you said, wake is far worse when low and slow and a slow heavy is going to be a problem for a medium below it. My guess is you've never flown an airplane and certainly never encountered wake from a larger airplane. I've had wake encounters from both a 747-400 and a 737-800 due to ATC vectoring in a terminal environment and the 737 was actually much worse because it was slower and in a dirty configuration.
Wake turbulence separation requirements, other than those required on departure or on final approach, are usually only applied by ATC if the smaller aircraft is likely to pass LESS THAN 1000ft below/ behind (usually IFR v VFR). Pilot was a little dramatic, but the controllers are also pretty rude. It’s a busy airport, and there’s nothing worse than a pilot causing a distraction.
Cocky controller, hope they did call. Glad I was on Jet Blue 1644!
It’s a fast paced environment for both the pilot and ATC. In this case, that controller is a top notch one meaning its a very complex high stress job keeping everyone in line. He could work on his tone for sure. The pilot was super nice and the ATC guy was a bit of a bully in my eyes. I could be wrong.
I would thank the controller for the number and assure him I'll be calling.
For those jumping on the male controller for "giving the pilot a number" @2:15, note the tone of voice and that he said "...I can give you a number to call - we can talk about it after, if you'd like". He didn't demand they call, just that they table it for the moment because there are, you know, lots of planes being juggled. Personal opinion: the PIC should have deviated slightly and advised if they thought it necessary for safety or even to avoid bouncing the pax around.
The pilot didn’t feel it was safe- for a reason- the controller should respect that- does not appear to be a major problem to turn 5-10 degrees east for 1 mile. 1000” separation may not be enough in all situations.
yeah that controller got to ass mode fast
Wrong
Yeh genius idea. Next time we have 15 AC on frequency we’ll make sure to ask for all of their advice and requests before making every single transmission. “Excuse me sir, are you ok with legal separation today?? Or do you need way more??”
1000’ is the legal separation agreed upon by ALL of the users and we do it literally everyday because we have to. Especially on 4’s and 22’s. Yes there was training in progress here. Yes the pilot called. An amicable conversation was had. If you can’t handle flying in congested airspace don’t. This was not a dangerous situation and this was not an emergency. If it had been an emergency this would have been handled differently. And if you are GA or part-135 and NEED more than standard separation, put it in the remarks section in your flight plan, we’ll have no problem accommodating.
@@PeeBofour4 we understand “standard “ separation but i didnt see 15 AC on the screen nor hear them on frequency- maybe they were- I heard a pilot respectfully ask for what appears to me to be a minor deviation- then I heard a controller get bent out of shape- and then ask for a phone call- it seems like you’re a controller who understands the situation at JFK and may have some special insight- but you’re doing a poor job of explaining why this particular request was so wrongheaded. A professional airline pilot flying for a major airline made this mistake- so the request can’t be as ignorant as you try to make it appear.
I don't know which way the wind was moving but I think in most cases, I would have deviated to the West and not the East.
We need Kennedy Steve and Boston John back in our lives.
Controller was flying El Al in knots, and that wake turbulence stunt was totally unnecessary. Wake turbulence is bad enough at altitude, but at 3000 feet that could have been catastrophic. Controllers need stick time flying aircraft in busy airspace, damnit!
I'm going to trust the FAA's research in determining that 1000' below a heavy is a safe amount of separation over some random guy on the internet. Heavies pass 1000 feet above other aircraft ALL DAY LONG EVERY DAY throughout the world. The pilot had no actual basis for his request.
@@uchinanchuu58the challenger that got flipped by that a380 was flying 1000ft below so, clearly, that separation is not a 100% guarantee that you will avoid sinking wake when you follow it.
@@Keestral you realize the 380 is a completely different weight class right?
@ morganghetti. Yes I do. I used the most extreme example for demonstration purposes. A heavy might not flip a medium class with its wake, but you can still get large uncommanded banking and other flight path deviations. Look up NASA ASRS issue 507. I don’t fault the JetBlue pilot for wanting to avoid potential trouble.
@@uchinanchuu58 Your attitude to safety...is terrifying.
This is rampant every day in the USA and quite frankly most of us are tired of it. It’s partially ATC but really it falls on the airlines cramming 10 lbs of crap into 5lb bags. There’s no room for as much as we’re doing.
Does that arrogant controller not know that a mere 1000 ft of separation is not a lot of airspace flying underneath a B787-9 ???? Doesn't matter if he is a pilot or not. The Jet Blue pilot was absolutely right in questioning that "crappy" HDG vector. In my opinion, the JB pilot should have refused immediately when told the traffic was at his "12 o'clock", instead of waiting later. Still, he was in the right.
1000ft is all that is needed
You obviously no nothing about atc or ifr separation.
1,000.feet is standard. Why make new standard? Real question.
@@A321LR In 2017, a CL604 was almost flipped when flying head-to-head 1000ft below an A380. The jet was a complete write-off due to the excessive g-forces received. Investigation revealed that 1000ft altitude separation is sometimes insufficient when flying below a modern heavy or super heavy aircraft. Safety recommendation to ATC was to use additional horizontal separation when two aircraft are following each other - and not to rely on 1000ft vertical separation standard alone. Recommendation was also that ATC avoids head-to-head encounters at 1000ft separation only, by using lateral offsets. The size difference of an A320 to a 787 is not that excessive - but the wake issue is there. A slight lateral deviation could have been easily incorporated here.
@@A321LR Because it has been shown that 1000 feet of separation is only valid with lateral separation as well. Even in JO 7110.126B offers the 1000 foot rule in conjunction with 2500 feet of lateral separation (or appropriate in-trail separation per the chart) during the approach phase of flight. The 1000 foot vertical separation does not apply to aircraft overtaking above or passing directly overhead since it is known (AIM Figure 7-4-4) that the wake will still be present at 1000 foot below the aircraft as an eventuality. This is the whole reason the SLOP (Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure) was developed for oceanic en route - allowing an aircraft to offset to avoid wake from an aircraft 1000 feet above them and ahead of them. So it is a known issue.
Controller could’ve been calling a NTSB investigator.
They've let the Jetblue deviate the 5 degrees to get them out from under that 787 considering how low the pattern is.
Got the number! ATC's gonna have some 'splainin' to do!
This was absolutely ATC’s fault. The pilot’s concern was 100% legit. What hell is going on with these ATC peeps these days- are they answering classifieds in the Pennysaver? And I say this as a native NYC-er
Oddly enough, I never have flown on an a320, I have flown on 787s quite a few times, I looked up the size differences, I would have been concerned too, and I was just an idiot with a PPL that hasn't flown myself in 30 years.
What exactly was ATC's fault? no incident happened, it was a disagreement.
There was no fault on part of ATC. ATC already had the minimum safe amount of vertical separation under the heavy. The pilot just didn't know any better. If my toddler wants to play with a knife, is it my "fault" if I tell him no?
The Challenger 604 that got bent by an Emirates A380 was also flying 1000ft below the heavy. I do not fault JetBlue for wanting to be cautious.
@@Keestral The A380 is way heavier than anything else out there, so the FAA had little to no data on how bad it actually is. They rectified the situation very quickly after that incident by giving controllers lots of extra training and providing new rules and techniques to help the controllers avoid placing aircraft too close to the A380. I was a controller in the FAA when that happened. This video is representative of an entirely different situation.
So the Captain was concerned for the safety of his aircraft and passengers. But the "controller" thought it was ok to disregard his concerns, tell him how to fly his aircraft and then proceed to make a point. Typical NY controllers once again making a name for themselves. It'll take some dead bodies floating in the ocean before these controllers get the hint. Disgusting.
You fly into NY expect to following the regulations. They will make sure you do.
One could say, well these Controllers are very busy and stressed out. But you don't hear this kind of attitude from other controllers at equally busy airports, its always JFK...to you controllers at JFK....YOU ARE A LIABILITY
L'm driving more and more. Well done presentation
Even though both planes here are similar size, the challenger 604 and a380 incident from 2017 comes to mind. I wouldn't like being vectored underneath like that either.
The controller is right in what he is using for separation standard. If the pilots don't like it, have their company go to the FAA and prove why it should be changed.
@@kjay5056Yes, but legal does not always equal safe. And if they crash from the wake being that low, the controllers still go home to their own bed that night.
5 degrees would be nothing, and a simple fix. But the NY ATC attitude had to prove himself better, yet he is still not.
@@briankelly5769- no one is going to crash from flying 1000ft below a 787. The cabin will be secure so no one will go flying into the ceiling. Maybe some roll upset and bumps, but nothing horrific. Sure the Captain wants a safe flight but maintaining horizontal separation as well as vertical in congested airspace will be difficult if not impossible.
@@briankelly5769 The "legal" amount came after decades of research to determine what is safe. Have you seen the FAA's presentations on wake turbulence? They clearly know what they're talking about and present this information to newbie controllers at the FAA academy and at follow-on classes for controllers at their permanent duty stations. I should know--I'm a controller who has been through lots of the training.
A321 and 787 similar in size???
Let us not forget to be kind 🙏
Cartoonish NYC attitude has no place in any safety-oriented situation and I say this as a NYer
I could never be a controller. The pressure must be huge.
I was waiting on the EL AL pilot to tell ATC that his weapons are ready.
🤣🤣🤣👍
It might help with self-improvement if sometimes we hear or see ourselves on tape and realize 'Oh my goodness, I came off like such jerk. I've gotta work on this' and we don't get the chance because we're not on tape. But here the ATC guy is and I hope he hears it and takes advantage of it.
Remember back in late 2001, right after the World Trade Center terror strike, when an American A300 had its vertical stabilizer sheered off after encountering wake turbulence from a crossing heavy? Yeah, I bet this pilot does. And before anyone says anything else, yeah - I know the NTSB attributed the failure to the rudder inputs of the pilot but my point remains.
In fairness that was more of pilot error and improper usage of rudder due to lack of training, the wake turbulence wasn’t something that they couldn’t recover from if they followed proper procedure.
@@pokemon4395 Like I said...........
@@pokemon4395 "And before anyone says anything else, yeah - I know the NTSB attributed the failure to the rudder inputs of the pilot but my point remains." is pretty much what you said, before you said it. Plus, the best way to avoid replicating this crash is preventing wake turbulence by avoiding the heavy 1000 ft above.
@@marklupus Wake turbulence didn't rip that rudder off. Try again.
@@mgoblue0970 Why don't you "try again" and read my whole response?
What the hell is it with some of you people?
THANKS FOR IT
In terms of separation, the controller did what he was supposed to do. But I think how he reacted to the pilot requesting a turn was totally unreasonable
Kudos to the pilot for staying professional. The controller gave them a number because they asked for a different heading over a safety concern! That’s ridiculous! It sounds like Kennedy Steve too who’s usually pretty relaxed.
New York controllers often give you attitude, which I find very unprofessional. I've flown in their airspace for over 30yrs now. The JetBlue pilot had a safety concern that was brushed off by a controller who's response was "that was a lot". From a pilot's perspective "a lot" is having to deal with an aircraft-upset at a low altitude due to poor air traffic management. I would have called the number and given him an earful.
@@kjay5056 your cute, I fly a Bonanza, not a fan of the high wing. Albeit subsidized by the widebody I fly for one of the big three majors. Obviously you don't because those of us in the profession don't troll solicited feedback with a response such as yours.
@brimopm He's Mr Know It all. Everyone qualified is wrong dude is right. Gawd knows he keeps saying it over and again. He's so angry and bitter that I'm starting to believe HE is the ATC ogre involved.
@@brimopm The controller had the mandatory safe amount of wake turbulence separation. You're not the expert you think you are.
@@uchinanchuu58 you are right, I'm an idiot
@@brimopm Well, you said you'd call the controller and give him an earful, and I'm sure the controller would've just laughed at you. We put aircraft 1000' below heavies all day long every day because that's the safe amount of separation. If you think you know more than the decades of research the FAA has done on wake turbulence, then just go ahead and enlighten us.
Vectoring and cross the LOC is fine... but many countries have published instrument approach that allows them to extend downwind if you need more time for spacing. If you don't need the time, you vector them to base and final earlier. El Al is just flying all over the place and then somehow got behind the Iberia.
If the JetBlue captain says he's not comfortable with it and is worried about wake turbulance given the minimal spacing, then ATC should consider this and work with him. This type of tuff guy policy at JFK ATC is probably what got all those people killed on AA 587 in Nov 2001. Airbus was behind a much bigger plane and encountered wake turbulence on takeoff.
It was a contributing factor. Airplane crashed because the pilot reacted and the Scarebus was poorly designed and broke apart
@ - Agreed, but he over reacted to the wake turbulence from the plane that had taken off prior.
when he offered 1000 more feet where was the jetblue going to go? they were already low?
Wake turbulence is a concern, but not the only one. Each pilot should also be concerned about what happens if the other fails to maintain altitude. How many midairs have happened as a result of aircraft being vectored across one another's paths with minimum separation and one or both pilots deviating beyond minimum? I can think of one fatal incident and one near miss - that's two without even looking it up. I get that not all aircraft are depicted in the graphic but it's hard to imagine it being so crowded that getting into a fight with JBU was a better option than approving a turn to 075 or 085.
What I have doubt about is wake turbulence is a fonction of lift created. It is the strongest at low speed and flaps out, i.e. when on final approach and when taking off and climbing also. It's wouldn't be that stong in the descent phase or level flight. But a legitimate request anyway.
Absolutely. It took more time to berate than it would have to simply solve the issue. I don’t fly for a living, but in my business arguing with customers rarely achieves positive outcomes.
No need for a phone call on that one. The controller needs to stay off the coffee
I've been waked by a 787, it's no fun.
We need more details, please. And if it was 1000' or more below the 787, you should file an ASAP report. Otherwise, there's no basis for changing the separation requirements and I'm going to continue using 1000' day in and day out.
@uchinanchuu58 I filed an ASAP same day. Even got a call from a NASA rep a few weeks later asking for more details.
As for the incident, it was on the day of the eclipse earlier this year. ATC had me and my Embraer on a course directly underneath a 787 that was overtaking us. I asked for an offset course and they said they couldn't make that work. We were on a long burn and being held down fairly low, so I was a little concerned with fuel burn.
When the 787 was finally ahead of us with safe separation, ATC let us climb to our final. We were way behind it and still got rolled to the left past the 40 degree mark. I called "UPSET", deactivated the autopilot, rolled us back to level and just descended to the next appropriate altitude. At that point, I called ATC and told them we were going to move south of their course and stay at that lower altitude. Took a hit in my fuel, but no one was hurt, so I'll accept that win. I was lucky my flight attendants didn't have the carts out.
I guess the big moral of the story here is right now, ATC is putting planes too closely together. If you don't like a clearance, if it seems sketchy or unsafe, and I should have done this on this day, say "Unable". If they don't like it, that's tough. It's their responsibility to help us stay safe, but with the shortage of controllers and the sheer volume of traffic we have, there are going to be fuckups. If they push back, guess what? You owe them no explanation in the air.
Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.
Tell them to give you a phone number and you can have a conversation on the ground if they really want to know why you aren't comfortable with unsafe instructions.
That controller was no Kennedy Steve. Yikes!
Annoying how the controller started demanding the pilots to descend and was speaking in a tone as if he was having to repeat himself when everyone was actually replying on the first call. Kept saying “now” and using a tone as if he’s saying “for the 5th heading 070!”😂
At that moment it was absolutely necessary for the Jetblue to descend "now" (!), because the controller had the El Al too close behind the Jetblue. This whole thing was a screw up without any preplanning by the lady before and the controller that gave relief to the lady had to sort it all out. That's why he is a little aggrevated. Although there would have been no problem, allowing the Jetblue to turn 10° to the right and then let him keep 170kts on the final to regain the lost space to the preceeding.
Those in authority frequently look to pass off their mistakes to someone else.
I think changing ATC at that moment was bad timing. Should have waited to clear the problem. The NY/Jersey accent dude was rude. What do you want 2k? But yet on approach JB was advised of wake turbulence. ATC are like traffic cops…know nothing about the streets.
That wasn't "changing ATC"... that was an instructor taking over for the trainee who he was monitoring. When things start going south and you realize that the trainee needs help, you have to step in to keep the situation under control. Remember, there's a whole lot more going on that was not shown in this video.
If those were the complete radar returns there is zero reason for the controller to make a big deal out of a 5 degree turn request. It wasn't a pilot deviation.
Absolutely fair request.
Wake turbulence avoidance has been an FAA hot topic of late. Maybe ATC ought to climb onboard and not set crews up for failure.
So, since you're the expert, what is the minimum safe separation below a heavy aircraft?
@@uchinanchuu58:
The safe minimum vertical separation from a climbing jet is probably 10,000’.
The lower aircraft needs to be separated ½ mile *horizontally* to the windward side beyond the reach of wake vortices.
@@denverbraughler3948 10,000'? Not at all. You're crazy, and ATC would come to a grinding halt if all facilities had to use 10k feet of separation below all climbing jets.
Controller: "explain yourself"
Pilot: *explains*
Controller: 😡😡😡
And of course, it’s NY TRACON.
I remember an incident with this guy who was giving an American pilot grief because the guy was low on fuel and needed an immediate landing. I think it was AA001 from LAX.
Is that the nasty A380Tracon posting in these comments? No wonder he's so angry.
Controller doing his job as he should. Nothing to see here. What is this alluding to? This literally is a normal day at the office. 1,000,feet is not only normal separation.... It's more than needed because it could be 500 with VFR traffic.
787 you say! Cry me a river. We all fly 1,000 feet from a heavy and Supers every day. I do every day over the Atlantic myself... We all do in normal ops coming in to land everyday (JFK, ORD, EWR et al) . Time to put your big boy pants on and call yourself a professional. Oh yes... This is UA-cam. BTW that has nothing to do with being a cowboy, but more about knowing your profession ... Including the 7110. Most here know nothing about the intricates of the air traffic environment or flying professionally.
Gooduck; study up. as we all do in aviation. God Speed.
@@A321LR That controller is constantly arguing with everyone.
I'm not sure if this is the same controller working the tower but he was ridiculous.
ua-cam.com/video/-sQuHnrJu1I/v-deo.html
I would have asked the same question . I haven’t flown under a heavy before and wake turbulence is a thing.
I don’t think this clip captures enough of the situation. It appears there is a controller in training and the Instructor had to take over.
Separation was never lost. Traffic was passed. Wake turbulence cautionaries issued.
Finally someone who gets it. Everybody with the negative comments must all be "professional controllers" speaking from experience.
The controller was probably surprised by the request since the FAA deems 1000' vertical separation to be a safe amount--it's the minimum required vertical separation when less than 5 nautical miles behind a heavy aircraft. See 7110.65 Paragraph 5-5-4.f.1. Additionally, New York TRACON airspace is very tight and convoluted, so accommodating such a request could possibly cause excessive delays that propagate down the line and negatively affect the arrival sequence. I'm going to say that the controller did nothing wrong and if the pilot truly thought it necessary, he should have exercised emergency authority and turned away, but he might have got a talking to by the FAA afterwards.
Do you not even realise how crazy you sound: "Its In a manual, therefore, its God's Word"- jesus christ man...TRY FLYING AN ACTUAL PLANE AND NOT A MANUAL. FFS!
El Al could have been sequenced in front of the Jetblue and it would have been fine. Poor El Al had to go through the localizer twice. If it was a controller in training, then we can be more accepting of the issue and hope she learns and improves. In the end it all worked out.
👍👍👍 I tried to show all involved aircraft, but there were more airplanes. Probably they were a factor.
@@YouCanSeeATC You did a great job. It's always easy for us to sit behind a screen and have the hindsight these videos provide and that those controllers did not have to sit and judge. It's a whole different thing of actually being there as it is happeniing.
@gambinante "Poor El Al had to go through the localizer twice"...lmao what is that a couple extra button presses?
Definitely training in progress, and El Al could not be sequenced ahead because of HAL right there, both needing plenty of spacing of their own. 1000' is the legal minimum, but the controller did completely overreact when the pilot requested something. Big surprise, NY Guy has a fragile ego. 🙄
El Al had to cross the Localizer twice! what's up with that?
AFA the altitude deconfliction ... it was too late by then if the timing/radio calls were depicted with the TCAS track accurately.
ATC has a tough job, but they forget the pecking order routinely.
I see what the ATC controller did there. He knew Jet Blue would intercept the localizer long before the wake turbulence hit the plane. The wake turbulence took some time to travel the 1000 feet separation downwards.
....and yet the man ACTUALLY Flying the damned plane thought he should put his passengers' safety, first. How many hours flying does the ATC guy have...?
In general, controllers are arrogant. In general, so are pilots. Same situation, I would have requested a deviation - 5 degrees to the right. Its safer, and it wouldn't have screwed the controller's flow.. Win - win. Instead that approach controller decided he was going to teach the JetBlue pilot a lesson, but it isn't a controller's job to teach lessons. I'd love to hear how that call went.
Anyone who has flown a jet in trail of a heavy knows how wake turbulence can get (deal with it at ORD all the time)
Pilot was 100% in the right, but in the controllers defense there was obviously a shift change at that moment and he probably got thrown off by B6s request (keep in mind the new controller wasn’t the one that gave those vectors). If it was me a simple “We need heading _______ due to wake immediately” would’ve been better than a long explanation.
Either way CA looked after his plane and crew as he should. I’d imagine the phone call was easygoing and something to the effect of “JB: hey don’t vector planes 1000ft under heavies, wake is scary, I did what I needed to do. ATC: I understand. Don’t make super long transmissions just say what you need, this is Nooo Yaawwk”
B6
@ rookie mistake. Haha thanks
Not necessarily a shift change. The controllers are assigned specific air space to monitor, and they pass off the control all of the time to the next assigned space.
@@marcd1981you’re right. I guess I should’ve said “controller change”. That was not the primary controller running that sector. Either way, my point remains the same
As a lifelong New Yorker, that would be Noo Yawk. The “r” is not pronounced. We’re actually very nice people, just a little impatient.
I say this after having been flying over 30 years. I personally would not have called them. During our short break I would have called my wife, checked on the kids, gotten food and forgot all about it.
If they ever got back with me I would have either not answered the phone.....or told them, " sorry I haven't had time to call you yet."
The controller should have just granted the deviation. That’s the most dangerous phase of the flight for flight attendants who are rushing around to secure the cabin. It’s perfectly reasonable for the pilots to mitigate the risk for injuries that happen all the time. The controller demanded more explanation and then threw a fit that he got what he demanded. Really unprofessional
Rushing around to secure the cabin at 3000 feet? LOL In other news...1000 vertical is standard separation between IFR acft up to FL290.
"We have an engine on fire, captain incapacitated, oxygen running low, mayday mayday mayday."
"That was a lot, I can give you a number to call, we can talk about it after if you'd like."
The pilot-in-command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft.
Sure, if operating contrary to ATC's clearances is **necessary** for the save operation of the aircraft, the pilot can do whatever he needs to do; however, in this case the controller was absolutely in the right as he had the aircraft separated by a safe amount determined by decades of FAA research on wake turbulence. The only problem here is that the pilot didn't know any better.
I've identified the problem here: the NY attitude.
ATC is not going to be on that plane as it crashes into the ocean in a fiery hot ball
that wasn't the concern. The concern is for the idiot passengers in the back who are not fastened seatbelts.
Flair for the dramatic, much?
@@happycanayjian1582 ...but not wrong though, is he?
Remember it's the Pilot who has Ultimate authority in this situation. There have been massive accidents caused by ATC over the years. The Pilot is responsible for his passengers and his Aircraft.