The short version is that the Captain applied reverse thrust before the nose wheel touched down. The left engine initially went into full reverse faster than the right engine, causing the aircraft to start veering left (no nose wheel steering to counteract this with the nose still in the air). The Captain also applied much more reverse thrust than recommended, reaching an EPR of roughly 2.0 on a landing where a target reverse thrust of 1.3 EPR is the recommended value. The aircraft also experienced "rudder blanking" due to the excessive EPR, which caused the rudder to have reduced effect. During the landing the First Officer can be heard on the CVR saying: "out of reverse", "come out of reverse", "*come out of reverse*!". The FO stated that he suspected rudder blanking.
To the people saying the ATC was "flustered," the reason he keeps asking people to repeat is because there was a lot of fog and he could not visually see what happened. He did a good job handling the situation.
I’m amazed that major airports don’t have live video feeds along the runways so tower oper. can actually see what is happening on the runways at all times.
Generally the tower controllers at major airports don't need video feeds because they have large windows that they can look out and observe the runways directly.
Actually watching and understanding the video (particularly the reports of RVR and braking conditions) would quickly reveal that the conditions at La Guardia that day were clearly hard IMC. If they're reporting braking action they've either got heavy rain or, more likely for the time of year in New York, snow. If they're reporting RVR then visibility is already guaranteed less than a mile, and given the two RVRs were different by 2000 ft it was probably rapidly changing just over the length of the runway. Of course the Tower controller would be able to see if the weather is good. That's why the tower controllers have glass windows and aren't put in a bunker. This guy obviously couldn't, and was relying on pilot reports to tell whether aircraft successfully vacated. Cameras, for the exact same reasons, probably wouldn't help much either.
@@juliocamacho8354 - The visibility that day was only 4,500 feet. That's why the LaGuardia tower couldn't see what happened to the plane. You do realize that video cameras also can't see through fog, right?
They got into action as soon as they knew what happened. I don't know why people are giving them a hard time. They didn't know what had happened at first and they didn't want to assume the worst because everything was ok just a second ago. I think we can all agree when I say this could have been a lot worse and it's not like ATC just left them out there and told them hate to be you right now.
Just for some context, the Pilot-in-Charge basically drew the reverse thrusters back too far and too early, meaning they lost control of the rudder (along with icy conditions) causing them to skid off uncontrollably
@@mwash5779 the MD-80 has bucket reversers mounted on the tail. From what I read, it seems that there is an EPR (engine pressure ratio) limitation on the amount of reverse thrust that can be used on a contaminated runway. This is most applicable to aircraft with tail-mounted engines since the use of more reverse thrust would cause more of an airflow disturbance upstream of the rudder; making the rudder way less effective. And of course, a contaminated runway is when the rudder is needed the most to maintain center-line since the braking action/nose wheel steering is diminished.
@@mwash5779 TR's were activated before the nose wheel touched down, the left engine initially went into full reverse faster than the right engine, causing the aircraft to start veering left (no nose wheel steering to counteract this with the nose still in the air). The Captain also applied much more reverse thrust than recommended, reaching an EPR of roughly 2.0 on a landing where a target reverse thrust of 1.3 EPR is the recommended value. The aircraft also experienced "rudder blanking" due to the excessive EPR, which caused the rudder to have reduced effect.
Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 was a scheduled Delta Air Lines domestic passenger flight between Atlanta and New York's LaGuardia Airport. On March 5, 2015, the McDonnell Douglas MD-88 (not MD-80) aircraft veered off the runway shortly after landing at LaGuardia Airport in New York City. The plane ran up the seawall berm and struck the perimeter fence, sliding along it for approximately 940 feet (290 m) before coming to rest with the nose of the aircraft hanging over the berm above Flushing Bay. There were no fatalities, although 24 people suffered minor injuries. The aircraft was seriously damaged. The final report by the NTSB found the probable cause of the accident was the pilot's "inability to maintain directional control of the airplane due to his application of excessive reverse thrust, which degraded the effectiveness of the rudder in controlling the airplane’s heading."
The firefighter commander ordered the airport closed twice and still the ATC does not get it. That guy has difficulty with sudden changes in his environment. That is pretty serious when you want to be an ATC.
Just seemed, yeah reluctant to make such a big move. But the reality is, you can't be taking off and landing planes when your emergency crews are already in use.
Yes, he was over his head quick and it didn't sound like any supers were stepping up to take control. I avoid La Guardia at all costs. Worst airport in the US.
I'm not familiar with La Guardia but as an ATC I can tell you that we can have a lot of trouble receiving communications from ground vehicles. If the diesel engine's running, the vehicle's moving, and the guy(s) driving it have a window open it can be the next thing to impossible. Even at full noise, e.g. take-off, a cockpit is a relatively quiet environment so transmissions come through much more cleanly. Ground vehicles not so much. That being said, I'm not familiar with this airport or this particular situation. All I'm saying is sometimes it can be hard to hear transmissions from ground vehicles.
Yeah, remember the water main break there that kept one terminal down for a few days. I think that was last fall. I was forced to fly through there on a connection last winter, and just knew I was gonna have to take the f'g shuttle in freezing cold weather. Then you have to walk up a steep flight of stairs to get to the next terminal. I know it was built during the prop plane days, but this is the largest metro city in the US. No excuse for the cluster that is La Guardia, and I place a lot of blame on unions for the mess.
@@yaimavol haha, yep. Funny story, our crew room wifi went down and it was going to take the njny port authorities 2 months to get union IT guys out to fix it. We climbed through the ceiling and reset the router ourselves.
Just a note - "TUG -1" is actually TRUCK - 1 - not from crash rescue Afct push tugs are either for regular acft (TUF) or heavy acft (Super Tug). Once out of the gate/alleyway they mmmove with the permission of GND control
This channel gets nearly every transcription wrong from the recordings. It's very frustrating to see so may words misheard. "He seems to go to 13" is "Red Team go to 13"
In the early 2010s I worked a job at my local major airport, we took lunch every day at 12, and I can remember hearing Delta 1999 cleared for takeoff every day.
The aircraft touched down at 11:02 am with the main landing gear close to the runway centerline. The MD-88 veered off the left side of the runway shortly after touchdown, about 3,000 feet (910 m) from the approach end of the runway, on a heading approximately 10 degrees left of the runway heading. The MD-88 skidded left across the snowy airfield until about 4,100 feet (1,200 m) from the approach end of the runway, when the aircraft ran up the berm and the left wing struck the airport perimeter fence. It then was forced back onto a heading parallel with runway 13, and continued sliding in this direction for another 900 feet (270 m) along the perimeter fence, before coming to rest about 5,000 feet (1,500 m) from the approach end of runway 13, with the nose of the aircraft hanging over the berm. The left wing of the aircraft destroyed approximately 940 feet (290 m) of airport perimeter fence. The aircraft sustained significant structural damage. There was major damage to the left wing's leading edge, leading edge slats, trailing edge flaps, and spoilers. The left wing fuel tank was breached near the outboard end of the outboard flaps. The front radome and weather radar were heavily damaged, and damage to the underside of the fuselage extended from the front of the aircraft all the way back to the left front passenger door. The nose landing gear well and the main electronics bay also were damaged. Delta subsequently declared the aircraft a hull loss, making the accident the 37th hull loss of a McDonnell Douglas MD-80.
Airline crews are some impressive people, whether they’re working in the cockpit or the cabins. But the airport ground crews and ATCs are no less impressive. All of these incredibly complex systems involved in commercial flight-and each component of those systems are also complex systems, among them human beings-and this is going on across the world 24/7. Given all of this, it’s still a remarkably safe way to travel, far, far safer than the drive you have to take to _get_ to the airport. Thank you to all those involved. You’re the anonymous heroes who save people and planes every day by simply doing your jobs well.
Not a complaint, just an observation... the firefighter in me just couldn't let it go... it is NOT Tug1 that is talking to the tower... it is TRUCK 1... as in fire department truck. Very likely from the LaGuardia crash crew. Just thought I would point that out. Otherwise an awesome capture of a real event in real time.
I did not get it before I found this comment. Thanks. So, now it makes sense: "Truck1 and company" is probably a number of fire vehicles. But "Tug1 and company" did not make much sense - why should a group of tugs go to the scene of the accident?
Trinity - 1. I didn’t whine about anything! That *wasn’t* the first time he complained abt the translation and if someone’s unhappy abt something and keeps coming back to complain, *that’s* whining! 2. There are ways of approaching the matter. The OP who started the thread about the captions was decent in the delivery of his feedback and actually *helped* the situation by politely correcting the translation; this guy just whined. AGAIN. 3. Apart from ppl with hearing impairment, *everyone* has access to the same audio. The guy who owns this channel provides a free service and English is his second language. The audio is also sometimes rubbish so there are going to be mistakes. If the mistakes piss someone off, don’t read the captions and just listen - whining repeatedly isn’t going to help the situation.
The tower didn't pass on to the other aircraft that the airport was closed. You would think he would do that. He had no contact with the crashed aircraft and was not aware or did not investigate what happened to it. The car on the ground was the one closing runways and informing of the crash. The tower guy seemed a bit lost.
The car on the ground does not get to make the call as to whether or not the airport is closed. He can advise, but that call is made in the tower. And it had not been made.
@@laceybarkley5739 Cars are normally numbered in order of importance. Car 1 is likely gonna be the airport manager/boss, head of ops, or like the fire chief or some other very important high up position who likely does have the authority to close the airport. He didn't ask the tower. He told the tower. This would indicate he's got the power to do so. Different airports work differently.
I have to agree how a md80 runs off runway into embankment and no one noticed for that long is confusing. Is the tower not able to see that part of runway?
Tim Howard conditions were extremely low visibility with a low ceiling that day, meaning the tower could not see clearly, which is why car 100 on the ground team often are their eyes during high traffic & inclement weather
@@timhoward7852 Tim, the RVR was reported as 4500 feet. Notice where the Tower is located, and their distance from the crash site. Also, the Tower is 240 feet above the ground, making the slant-range visibility even more difficult to see the airplane.
Just based on what you're hearing isn't everything that happened in the world of that Tower controller at the time. They know a lot more than you think they do, regardless of how it sounds. Also, @WeedWhacker2010 and @Zac Young were correct that it takes time to notice, and that visual check of a landing aircraft may not have been a priority at the time, as spotting crashed aircraft is not the primary function of a Tower Controller. Also, you need to understand all that the Tower Controller was telling approaching/departing aircraft. It would give you clues as to whether or not the Tower could even see the event. Tower Controller and Ground Controllers perform different functions. In this clip, we hear both Tower Traffic and Ground Traffic. There are multiple ways for you to communicate with each of those controllers to pass necessary information. Just because information was passed doesn't mean that you'll hear it on frequency. Most of that information will be kept off frequency, specifically so that "Tower" and "Ground" can direct traffic. Directing traffic is their primary function. The frequencies you're hearing are specifically to direct traffic, not pass other information not relevant to direction of traffic on airport taxiways ("Ground"), or direct approaching air traffic or holding departing traffict ("Tower"). Give ATC a break. They have a more difficult job than you think. After you've walked a mile in their shoes, maybe then people can lay credence to your comment.
It sounds like he couldn't see the runway, fog or some such. Was giving advice to landing aircraft on previous landed aircraft. Would have been relying on his radar screen. Delta 1086 would have appeared to have stopped on the runway from his perspective, while he's cleared the other Delta (1999?) in. Not sure how the ground car knew there was a problem before him though
The ATCS reported rollout RVR of 3500- meaning the accident location ( if the location in the video is correct) was not visible from the tower. It’s also worth noting the RVR is about 15’ off the ground- visibility from the tower to surface is often worse.
Cause of the accident was the pilot's "inability to maintain directional control of the airplane due to his application of excessive reverse thrust, which degraded the effectiveness of the rudder in controlling the airplane’s heading.
But if it was already on the ground and slowing, the rudder wouldn't have any effectiveness at slower speeds. Was maybe one of the engines thrusting harder than the other and it forced the plane to yaw?
@@blackhatter011 I didn't read the official report on the accident, so I'm assuming the thrust on one engine didn't drop below the other, the steering wheel didn't suddenly shift, or there wasn't an unexpected crosswind.
Can we all also understand that this incident is used for teaching A LOT. There was a slow evacuation, pilot error on landing, Slow response by emergency, and many communication failures. While everyone did their best, this made it a lot safer
@@Briggie if you listened closely, one plane needed to get de-iced again. NJ/NY area can have some pretty bad snow storms that can really mess with visibility.
+Eric Francis Thank you very much Eric! I really appreciate your words. That's exactly why I do this. Not only entertainment but also learning something else about aviation :D
Here comes the youtube comment section that has worked as ATC for 40+ years, knows this airport in and out, is well versed in every situation possible and knows regulations that they can site it in their sleep.
@Rata 4U Consider it from another perspective. Car 100's driver spots a crashed airliner off the runway, gets a shocked look, and blurts out an emphatic "Runway 13 is CLOSED!!" As in, there's major shit happening here, everybody STOP! Due to the poor audio quality and the chaotic nature of the event, ATC doesn't get the urgency of the statement. "Runway 13 is closed?" As in, he doesn't get it. A bit later, he doesn't get it again. "Runway 13 is closed?" ATC seemed rather slow on the uptake to me during this incident. He had plenty of indications that an airport-closing event was afoot. "Delta 1086 . . . Delta 1086 . . . Delta 1086 . . . " Helllooooo! Anybody home?
For EVERYONE complaining about the captions. 1. The uploader doesn't have to put them there. He did a lot of work. He could leave you to the joys of UA-cam's auto-caption. Show a little appreciation. 2. You understood what was being said? Yes? So what's your problem? 3. Suppose for a moment the uploader isn't a native English speaker. Ask yourselves how well you could caption garbled radio traffic in another language?
Really like this channel. I want to be an air traffic controller when I'm older and love to listen to the communication between the pilot and air traffic controller especially in these situations.
Good luck to you on following your dream of becoming an air traffic controller. Keep working hard in school, be responsible in college and maybe even take some flight lessons. The career of an air traffic controller is very rewarding financially, you will earn your pay, that's for sure. It's also a career where good, hard working individuals have job security:)
Hi there, just wanted to check in on you really quick. Are you still into aviation and ATC trying to follow your dreams? :-) We live in very strange times with covid and stuff. I sincerely hope you're doing well. Keep following your dreams, wish you all the best!
A couple of transcription comments: 1:07, "Wind Check" is almost certainly not DAL2319. Voice sounds much more like DAL1086 (on approach) 3:08, LGA Tower says "Number 1 for the field." (not "it's you") 3:12 "Braking action reported good..." 4:37 I believe car 100 says "Tower... Red Team to go onto 13" 5:40 "Delta 1999 I'll have the uh... climb instructions.. correction, the go around instructions for you, just a moment." 8:23 "I will have further for you shortly." Tug 1 should be "Truck 1" everywhere 8:45 - 8:55 (2 calls) "Truck 1 and company..." there are other errors in the Truck 1/Ground interactions... 9:24 "...on the embankment" (not "on the uh, bank rim.")
There must have been heavy fog as it was obvious there was a lot of confusion at first given the time it took for everyone to figure out what happened, particularly Tower.
The thing with emergencies is they are clusters from the moment it goes south. Now 17 minutes is plenty of time to get out. Tower likely couldn't reach them because normally VHF1 antenna is on the belly of the plane. So once they went off it's in the mud.
Unless there was a puddle of fuel where the exit slide would have been. In such a case I guess it would have been safer to let firefighters prepare for a safe passenger exit procedure first.
Usually they blast the plane with anti-inflammatory foam if there's even a drop of fuel leaking before they'll let passengers off. Then they'd have to get passenger buses in place because as I understand this was NYC in the winter during bad conditions. Too cold to have everyone waiting outside.
09:12 reads "Tug1 - He was talked 13 but we don't [...]" - i believe this might be... "We were told 13, but we don't see anything down there" - Great channel keep it up!
atcdude067 - here’s an idea: instead of repeatedly b^tching and moaning about the captions, why don’t you simply listen to the ATC audio and stop looking at the captions. Or here’s another tip: why don’t you just buy yourself a radio, and hope you don’t miss all the emergencies that VAS kindly provides. That would be a win for everyone, because we wouldn’t be forced to have to see your whiny comments.
I say we give the person creating this channel for us a break. I spent six years transcribing short videos for Deaf congregants at m church. It is a really tough job, trying to keep up with what a speaker is saying, and that's when the audio is clear and is at a normal conversational pace. Our host is transcribing audio that is usually low quality, often hurried, and features an ever-changing array of people with some regional accents who talk over one another. These transmissions are also laden with acronyms and jargon; even for someone well-versed in aviation that is almost like another language. After doing transcription myself for a while, I had the opportunity to watch a trained professional transcriber do the job. Amazing! No wonder they are so well paid. Seriously, the only language-related thing I've ever seen that is more impressive is ASL interpreting (and especially ASL interpreting for a blind Deaf person). For our host, who is doing a tough job for free, I say ye, "Huzzah!"
In all of my time paying attention to aviation, I don't recall the last time Runway 13 was used as the landing runway at LGA. In other words, does Runway 4 at LaGuardia not have an ILS system? (Normally with winds from the east, Runway 4 would be the arrival runway and Runway 13 would be the departure runway, rather than the reverse.)
To me it seems odd that they dont have SOP's for declaring field emergencies at La Guardia. When the BA 777 crashed at the end of the runway at heathrow, the controller running tower declared an emergency and had a very specific call out of the details, location and gave emergency vehicles instructions. It took the car dude like 5 goes to get to the part where he said they'd crashed. Seems like time lost and risky to other aircraft.
I'm guessing no ASDE at the airport but thats crazy how if it wasn't for ground vehicles the tower didn't know what happened, and where's the communication between local and ground control? I can't say I have any idea about emergency procedures at LGA but it seemed sloppy the response.. but then again it was extremely bad weather so....
I assume just low vis, made it so he couldn't see the plane. I'm surprised no planes on the ground relayed the information though as im sure there were planes taxiing that saw it.
All the departures were taxiing from the terminal to RY04. Departing aircraft would have never been near the runway excursion, nor would they have even faced it. The previous arriving aircraft is not in this video, so it's safe to assume he was already clear of the area as well. So there's no one to see it. As for where the communication between local and ground are, that's not happening on the radio, so the ATC feed that recorded this could not have heard it. Likewise any communication between the tower (any position) and the airport operations or emergency services.
At the time he says that he's almost at the threshold of 13. The plane was nearly at the end of 13 and the tower couldn't see it, so I'm assuming the visibility was poor and he just couldn't see it from that distance
quigly pigly And laugh at what he heard? Maybe English isn’t his first language. Try and listen to this type of conversation in a foreign language and see how “perfect” you are :)
Airport is operated by NY Port Authority, not FAA/ATC. Port Authority employee closed the airport. Tower controller tried his best, but got no response form aircraft. Pilots had their hands full trying to save lives.
Perhaps I'm missing something but would it not have been much more clear if Car 100 said that an aircraft had crashed before stating that the runway was closed. People seem to be blaming the tower but I think the confusion was reasonable given the cryptic messages from Car 100.
Here are a few things to note. Car 100 actually said "Red Team to go to Runway 13." TUG1 was supposed to be Truck one from the Port Authority Police Department which is trained in ARFF in New York Airports.
Pretty crazy that tower isn't able to see both runways, including the crashed plane. I would have expected tower to take control of the situation, but tower did almost nothing. :O
Love your channel! Perhaps a stupid question... why do the trucks tell the tower that the runway/airport is closed, instead of "we need to close the runway/airport" -- because it is not in effect closed until the tower stops clearing for arrivals and departures? Thanks!
+Tanya J Hello Tanya! Thanks for the comments. Those trucks are Airport Authorities or Airport Operations and have even more authority than the Control Tower. So, if they want to close the airport, Tower has to.
As I read in a comment here, why did the left side reverse thrust take effect more quickly than the right? Was that pilot or design flaw? (granted that reverse thrust was applied too early and too much) Just wondering about the apparent imbalance
Agree, this is an atrocious display of emergency call etiquette. Totally out of control, no comms, no detail,, no direction, no control totally an example of what not to do
+atcdude067 you must have missed the part where John Doe explained that what you her on this channel is NOT what people in ATC facitilies hear, because the audio in these videos is taken from LiveATC.net, which uses receivers set up by amateurs in suboptimal locations, a far cry from the quality you'd expect in actual ATC receivers.
atcdude067 :: I realize your comments are a year old. But you would be surprised with what us "amateurs" actually have in place. I am an amateur radio extra class operator with an antenna farm on my roof located at 6300 feet ASL above Southern California. I can pretty much assure you that with an amateur radio that receives the aircraft band and a West Mountain Radio Clear Speech DSP I can hear just as well as ATC. That includes ADS-B. The primary difference between ATC is that they have remote high/low elevation sites for transmit/receive. You have aircraft that are transmitting at 12.5 watts or 25 watts. At the altitudes they fly that is generally plenty because otherwise they can out talk their range and be picked up by other towers many, many miles away on the same frequency. But I can assure you that even though I'm 90 miles away from LAX I hear ground control just fine. I can actually hear aircraft on the tarmac. My point is is that you don't know what the "amateurs" as you call us have. You don't know that I have commercial aviation antennas fed with hard-line but even using the standard disc cone antenna said with lmr400 I have outstanding coverage. Pythagoras Theorem. I can easily hear aircraft more than 300 miles away at altitude. Unless you can do better than the person that transcribed the audio it's probably best that you not diminish his capabilities.
Question: isn't Tower normally positioned in such a way as to have a clear view of the runways? I'm surprised that the controller didn't see the plane go off the runway and had to be told by the car that the airport was closed.
ATC couldn't see the crash (it was snowing), and Car 100 didn't mention what had happened until a few transmissions in (leaving ATC confused). Car 100 assumed tower would be talking to plane, but plane wasn't (or couldn't?) communicating with anyone. Car 100 should have noted the confusion in ATCs voice, and properly reported the incident right after the first communication. Once ATC understood what was happening, he dealt with it (although we didn't hear all he did, since some was either on other frequencies and/or over phones).
Question from an aviation non-expert: is audio quality as bad as this in practice and if so, isn't it hard to catch all the numbers as they're speaking this fast?
Yes the audio is always like this but remember to pilots the numbers and calls make sense and it is easier to hear numbers when you already know what they mean. To someone that is just listening in to these conversations a lot of it is meaningless and so harder to hear without the added context
The audio quality isn't as bad as this in practice. This audio is picked up from some enthusiast's antenna, which isn't in a place that gives great reception.
My god! You people complaining about the captions, shut up! He gets it! Maybe English isn't his first language. Just open your ears, who cares!? It's a UA-cam video, not closed captions for a TV program.
I honestly believe CAR100 could have been more clear from the very beginning. By stating "13 is closed" that does not give enough information to the tower. If CAR100 started with, "Tower, CAR100, There is an aircraft off of runway 13, we need fire rescue, runway is closed" Tower would have got it immediately.
+uscgswimmer1 He is giving the critical piece of information telling the tower controller to stop all landings and take-offs. Emergency vehicles will be crossing both runways and of course the arrival runway is blocked. Ground control manages traffic on the ground.
Why is the Car-100 driver at no point saying: "Aircraft veered off runway 13, send emergency services..." But no.... "Request crossing this and that...."
Nuck Chorris - Car 100 can call for emergency services directly. - It doesn't need to call the tower. - It only needed the tower to ask for clearance for crossing runways. - and to inform that the runway is closed. - Car 100 was also making calls to ground for authorization to move on the taxiway, but that is not in this recording. - This recording is from a scanner, therefore you are only hearing some of the tower channels and not all channels.
It seems that a lot of people are blasting everyone on comms. The major problem as that the flight crew of the downed plane failed to communicate. . I don't know if there were any injuries with any of the crew, but there have got to be back up on back up between the aircraft and tower or ground crew including cell phones. If there's no communication with the aircraft, and the ATC doesn't have a visual on it, it's kind of hard to know what to do other than keep other aircraft clear which the did. Remember that in most cases crash truck are dispatched by the tower, and cannot go on the field without clearance from the tower.
Is there any protocol if an aircraft does not respond after multiple calls from tower? I feel like after six calls for response after around 45 seconds to a minute after a supposed landing is a bit too long to not realize something is wrong. Feels like the tower should have asked for a check (from another tower or somewhere else. Maybe even radar or something idk) or something after the third call that went silent.
There’s only so much when you can do when you’re the local controller and can’t physically see the aircraft in question or have them on radar. They sort of just expect that you’re either doing something particularly intensive on final/landing roll or have gone to ground without permission and the ground controller can yell at you when you come up with them. Plus, no one had said anything to the local controller about this accident, despite the fact that I’m like 99% sure the ground guy knew because you can hear him go “holy shit!” at 3:15
What is odd is the Car 100 did not tell the controller that a plane had left the runway; he just arbitrailly closed the runway without explanation. It took four calls to clarify this. My understanding is that only the tower controller can actually close a runway so it is an arrogation of power to do this by the runway inspector. And the Call out of CFR was delayed.
No the tower controller can neither control the open or close of a runway, it is always airport management that decides this. If there is an obstruction on the runway the controller can and must stop any movement on them, but that is his limit. Some of the confusion on both the freq and in the remarks here is that while car 100 saw the accident the tower did not as they were literally in the clouds.
flyingmythbuster It's my understanding that an emergency response vehicle can close a runway when emergency warrants. Sometimes there is no time to lose in getting permission from higher-ups or other departments. Also, they can "Close first, Explain later" when time is of the essence. And time is always of the essence when dealing with active runways!
gomphrena: This was not an emergency response vehicle as he indicated he had no communications with the fire hall. It was an airport inspection vehicle. He requested that the emergency response be activated which is usually done through the tower through special circuits and buttons. Once the controller understood the exact nature of the problem he issued go around instructions to the two inbounds and probably initiated the emergency response. It was this lack of clarity that puzzled the controller and delayed all his responses.
VASAviation is better than Ambien (not saying your videos are boring, just relaxing and interesting!) to help you sleep. And you don't hold press conferences you don't remember this way! :)
Why no information in the description? This was not up to par with your usual videos. Question: why couldn't the tower see the 31 approach end with the plane off the runway? Too many questions on this one.
I’m just getting into this kind of stuff. The truck said the airport was closed, but couldn’t they have kept it open? Just have planes land and takeoff from runway 22? Or is it a procedure to shutdown the whole airport when a plane is crashed and leaking fuel?
Seemed everyone was confused and very poor communications. I'm surprised no commas with the crashed aircraft crew either! I'm guessing the vis was poor and ATC couldn’t visually see what had happened?
Not completely relevant but I still don't understand why in the US you can be cleared to land when the runway isn't even clear. When the MD80 came off the runway, Delta 1999 that was on final was still cleared to land - until the controller told him to go around. Doesn't it make more sense that you would wait for the runway to definitely be clear before you clear an aircraft to land?
+John Dennis No, because then you'd have to space out the aircraft even more than they already are. Aircraft are cleared to land when they are already at the proper spacing for the arrivals.
Matt Pouy Why would you need increased spacing? If the margin between an aircraft vacating the runway and the next arrival landing is so slim you can't fit in a landing clearance, your spacing is not good enough. Heathrow is a great example of why your argument makes no sense - they squeeze arrivals in as close as possible but they still don't issue landing clearances until the runway is clear.
+Matt Pouy ... I agree with John. I never understood that either. You can have both airplanes sequenced for landing, only the first one is cleared for landing, you hold the landing clearance for the second one until the first one vacated the runway.
The situation that day was handled better than what you guys hear on that ATC frequency.. Emergency vehicles were already at the plane getting the passengers off. Btw it was literally a snow storm out that day. Tower had zero visual of the runway in all directions
They weren't already getting passengers off... they didn't start evacuations until 17 minutes after the runoff. Plane either couldn't or wasn't talking to anyone.
+Kamer Oudste These recordings didn't come from the tower, they came from someone else's receiver. So, just because we can hear clearly, doesn't mean the tower can. Just look at some other videos on this channel, there are several times the tower could hear things that weren't picked up on the recording.
What? These recordings come from several miles away from the airport in people's homes. The Tower will always hear comms better than we can with these recordings.
Thristle Lilium No, that's not always true. First, given the size of the airport, a receiver in somebody's house can easily be closer to the transmitter than the tower. Second, even if the tower *is* closer, with all the vagaries of radio transmission, that's no guarantee of clearer reception. So, no, the tower won't *always* hear better.
In addition to all that, the controllers are very busy, and they are receiving communication from sources other than the frequencies recorded here. Also, having a ground vehicle tell him that a runway is closed because of a plane crash that he cannot see is the last thing a controller is expecting to hear. He needs to be absolutely sure he heard correctly, no room for misunderstanding.
I know I'm late on this, but where you have "Tug 1", that's incorrect. Theu are saying "Truck 1" hes not a tow vehicle, he's a fire vehicle. Usually those are ladder trucks, but I assume airports have their own codes, normal pumpers are usually referred to as "Engine X"
Tell me again how giving landing clearance before preceding aircraft is clear of the runway is a good idea :/ And to have an aircraft departing from crossing runway after the arrival is cleared to land? wtf? What does being "cleared to land" mean then? "I think by the time you touch the ground you there probably should be no one on the runway, and hopefully all departures would have already crossed your runway"?
Generally the clear to land clearance would be given to aircraft maybe 6 or 7 miles out or further, so there is plenty of time in between to get an aircraft that is holding short to take off or crossing runway or giving clearance to another aircraft in sequence on a 6 or 7 mile final. It's just something that the ATC must keep in mind and direct them so that when the cleared aircraft is landing no aircraft is interrupting
+muic4880 i understand that, what bothers me is that it doesn't really mean "you're cleared to land now" but rather "watch out for everything, you will be cleared to land by the time you get to threshold". Why wouldn't you wait and give the clearance when it's meaningful?
***** Well, when given cleared to land, you are the only aircraft to cleared to land on that runway no matter what, unless there is an emergency declare by other aircraft. And don't forget, the pilot will be hand flying the plane when they on landing, and there is plenty of stuff to prepare for landing like before landing checklist, approach briefing and such. So its best to give the pilot time to set up everything so they don't have to sweat it while close to the landing. In the meantime the tower need to keep traffic going at the airport or they will get jam up. Also, while the pilot need to watch out for traffic, the ATC will advise them on anything they need to watch out or go around if the landing can't be made, that's the ATC's job. So its not without reasons why they do that.
![[REAL ATC] Brickyard SUFFERS TRIM RUNAWAY | CONTROL ISSUES at Atlanta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzoEsM0L2CM/mqdefault.jpg)
Anyone else on a marathon of these videos?
Boy do i binge watch that stuff for days now :D
Yup this and infinite flight on my phone lol
Erik Walker i clearly have no life. I’ve been watching for days.
I’m addicted. I so need therapy! 😏
Just can’t stop!
The short version is that the Captain applied reverse thrust before the nose wheel touched down. The left engine initially went into full reverse faster than the right engine, causing the aircraft to start veering left (no nose wheel steering to counteract this with the nose still in the air). The Captain also applied much more reverse thrust than recommended, reaching an EPR of roughly 2.0 on a landing where a target reverse thrust of 1.3 EPR is the recommended value. The aircraft also experienced "rudder blanking" due to the excessive EPR, which caused the rudder to have reduced effect.
During the landing the First Officer can be heard on the CVR saying: "out of reverse", "come out of reverse", "*come out of reverse*!". The FO stated that he suspected rudder blanking.
Source on that? Would be interested to see it. Cheers!
Is everybody died?
@Graxster
Good info, thank you.
@Zena Puma
There were no fatalities.
24 people suffered minor injuries.
I'm a complete amateur, but I love aircraft. Love to fly, TSA not so much, lol. I would love to be an observer at MCO. Is that possible?
Car 100 did a hell of a job instantly recognizing the situation and communicating the urgency of it
Ive watched about four of these and can officially add atc to list of jobs I don’t ever wanna do
Every one I watch makes me regret not going after aviation. I'd even be happy in ATC.
@@bbbbbbb51 As someone on a binge of these videos considering getting into aviation... to quote the great Leonardo DiCaprio... I concur!
4979 : Tower ? Is the airport closed ?
Twr : Stand by
4979 : Pretty sure I've my answer now
To the people saying the ATC was "flustered," the reason he keeps asking people to repeat is because there was a lot of fog and he could not visually see what happened. He did a good job handling the situation.
I was wondering about that. It was obvious that he couldn't see it.
That explains why he didn't close it himself
@Skytivity does the ATC voice sound like the ATC who talked to Sully?
@@fastkarr8256 Absolutely not.
@@sludge4125 did to me, sludge. Maybe it’s just the NY accent.
I’m amazed that major airports don’t have live video feeds along the runways so tower oper. can actually see what is happening on the runways at all times.
Generally the tower controllers at major airports don't need video feeds because they have large windows that they can look out and observe the runways directly.
@@NathanGracie-Raitt didn't work in this case.
Actually watching and understanding the video (particularly the reports of RVR and braking conditions) would quickly reveal that the conditions at La Guardia that day were clearly hard IMC. If they're reporting braking action they've either got heavy rain or, more likely for the time of year in New York, snow. If they're reporting RVR then visibility is already guaranteed less than a mile, and given the two RVRs were different by 2000 ft it was probably rapidly changing just over the length of the runway.
Of course the Tower controller would be able to see if the weather is good. That's why the tower controllers have glass windows and aren't put in a bunker. This guy obviously couldn't, and was relying on pilot reports to tell whether aircraft successfully vacated. Cameras, for the exact same reasons, probably wouldn't help much either.
@@juliocamacho8354 - The visibility that day was only 4,500 feet. That's why the LaGuardia tower couldn't see what happened to the plane. You do realize that video cameras also can't see through fog, right?
@@puma.will.pounce7590 Kinda depends on the camera doesn't it :)
They got into action as soon as they knew what happened. I don't know why people are giving them a hard time. They didn't know what had happened at first and they didn't want to assume the worst because everything was ok just a second ago. I think we can all agree when I say this could have been a lot worse and it's not like ATC just left them out there and told them hate to be you right now.
Just for some context, the Pilot-in-Charge basically drew the reverse thrusters back too far and too early, meaning they lost control of the rudder (along with icy conditions) causing them to skid off uncontrollably
I have never heard of to far on the thrust reverses, on the 80 they are open or closed…
@@mwash5779 the MD-80 has bucket reversers mounted on the tail.
From what I read, it seems that there is an EPR (engine pressure ratio) limitation on the amount of reverse thrust that can be used on a contaminated runway.
This is most applicable to aircraft with tail-mounted engines since the use of more reverse thrust would cause more of an airflow disturbance upstream of the rudder; making the rudder way less effective.
And of course, a contaminated runway is when the rudder is needed the most to maintain center-line since the braking action/nose wheel steering is diminished.
@@mwash5779 TR's were activated before the nose wheel touched down, the left engine initially went into full reverse faster than the right engine, causing the aircraft to start veering left (no nose wheel steering to counteract this with the nose still in the air). The Captain also applied much more reverse thrust than recommended, reaching an EPR of roughly 2.0 on a landing where a target reverse thrust of 1.3 EPR is the recommended value. The aircraft also experienced "rudder blanking" due to the excessive EPR, which caused the rudder to have reduced effect.
Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 was a scheduled Delta Air Lines domestic passenger flight between Atlanta and New York's LaGuardia Airport. On March 5, 2015, the McDonnell Douglas MD-88 (not MD-80) aircraft veered off the runway shortly after landing at LaGuardia Airport in New York City. The plane ran up the seawall berm and struck the perimeter fence, sliding along it for approximately 940 feet (290 m) before coming to rest with the nose of the aircraft hanging over the berm above Flushing Bay. There were no fatalities, although 24 people suffered minor injuries. The aircraft was seriously damaged. The final report by the NTSB found the probable cause of the accident was the pilot's "inability to maintain directional control of the airplane due to his application of excessive reverse thrust, which degraded the effectiveness of the rudder in controlling the airplane’s heading."
The firefighter commander ordered the airport closed twice and still the ATC does not get it. That guy has difficulty with sudden changes in his environment. That is pretty serious when you want to be an ATC.
Agreed
Just seemed, yeah reluctant to make such a big move. But the reality is, you can't be taking off and landing planes when your emergency crews are already in use.
Yes, he was over his head quick and it didn't sound like any supers were stepping up to take control. I avoid La Guardia at all costs. Worst airport in the US.
I'm not familiar with La Guardia but as an ATC I can tell you that we can have a lot of trouble receiving communications from ground vehicles. If the diesel engine's running, the vehicle's moving, and the guy(s) driving it have a window open it can be the next thing to impossible. Even at full noise, e.g. take-off, a cockpit is a relatively quiet environment so transmissions come through much more cleanly. Ground vehicles not so much.
That being said, I'm not familiar with this airport or this particular situation. All I'm saying is sometimes it can be hard to hear transmissions from ground vehicles.
I'm no expert. Just my opinion. I thought the chaotic radio chatter threw ATC off his game. Not that he wasn't up to the task.
Literally everything goes wrong at LaGuardia
Yeah, remember the water main break there that kept one terminal down for a few days. I think that was last fall. I was forced to fly through there on a connection last winter, and just knew I was gonna have to take the f'g shuttle in freezing cold weather. Then you have to walk up a steep flight of stairs to get to the next terminal. I know it was built during the prop plane days, but this is the largest metro city in the US. No excuse for the cluster that is La Guardia, and I place a lot of blame on unions for the mess.
@@yaimavol haha, yep. Funny story, our crew room wifi went down and it was going to take the njny port authorities 2 months to get union IT guys out to fix it. We climbed through the ceiling and reset the router ourselves.
Just a note - "TUG -1" is actually TRUCK - 1 - not from crash rescue Afct push tugs are either for regular acft (TUF) or heavy acft (Super Tug). Once out of the gate/alleyway they mmmove with the permission of GND control
CDDAR. 😎
It's not a tugboat? That's just awful.
Robb Hodges Lol I wondered wtf is an aircraft tug doing there...
This channel gets nearly every transcription wrong from the recordings. It's very frustrating to see so may words misheard. "He seems to go to 13" is "Red Team go to 13"
Only know of Vegas: ua-cam.com/video/Jv1kmuFOhWk/v-deo.html
Horror movie stuff.
In the early 2010s I worked a job at my local major airport, we took lunch every day at 12, and I can remember hearing Delta 1999 cleared for takeoff every day.
The aircraft touched down at 11:02 am with the main landing gear close to the runway centerline. The MD-88 veered off the left side of the runway shortly after touchdown, about 3,000 feet (910 m) from the approach end of the runway, on a heading approximately 10 degrees left of the runway heading. The MD-88 skidded left across the snowy airfield until about 4,100 feet (1,200 m) from the approach end of the runway, when the aircraft ran up the berm and the left wing struck the airport perimeter fence. It then was forced back onto a heading parallel with runway 13, and continued sliding in this direction for another 900 feet (270 m) along the perimeter fence, before coming to rest about 5,000 feet (1,500 m) from the approach end of runway 13, with the nose of the aircraft hanging over the berm. The left wing of the aircraft destroyed approximately 940 feet (290 m) of airport perimeter fence. The aircraft sustained significant structural damage. There was major damage to the left wing's leading edge, leading edge slats, trailing edge flaps, and spoilers. The left wing fuel tank was breached near the outboard end of the outboard flaps. The front radome and weather radar were heavily damaged, and damage to the underside of the fuselage extended from the front of the aircraft all the way back to the left front passenger door. The nose landing gear well and the main electronics bay also were damaged. Delta subsequently declared the aircraft a hull loss, making the accident the 37th hull loss of a McDonnell Douglas MD-80.
did poeple die?
@@pepega5560 No
Always amazed how it goes to chaos immediately between ground and tower units like they don't believe what each other is seeing/saying.
Airline crews are some impressive people, whether they’re working in the cockpit or the cabins. But the airport ground crews and ATCs are no less impressive. All of these incredibly complex systems involved in commercial flight-and each component of those systems are also complex systems, among them human beings-and this is going on across the world 24/7. Given all of this, it’s still a remarkably safe way to travel, far, far safer than the drive you have to take to _get_ to the airport. Thank you to all those involved. You’re the anonymous heroes who save people and planes every day by simply doing your jobs well.
Love how you show the airport so we can actually see what’s happening
Not a complaint, just an observation... the firefighter in me just couldn't let it go... it is NOT Tug1 that is talking to the tower... it is TRUCK 1... as in fire department truck. Very likely from the LaGuardia crash crew. Just thought I would point that out. Otherwise an awesome capture of a real event in real time.
Thanks for the correction. That was bugging me as well.
atcdude067 - you’re more than welcome to whine somewhere else if you’re not happy here.
moponi - Lol!! The irony!
I did not get it before I found this comment. Thanks.
So, now it makes sense: "Truck1 and company" is probably a number of fire vehicles. But "Tug1 and company" did not make much sense - why should a group of tugs go to the scene of the accident?
Trinity - 1. I didn’t whine about anything! That *wasn’t* the first time he complained abt the translation and if someone’s unhappy abt something and keeps coming back to complain, *that’s* whining! 2. There are ways of approaching the matter. The OP who started the thread about the captions was decent in the delivery of his feedback and actually *helped* the situation by politely correcting the translation; this guy just whined. AGAIN. 3. Apart from ppl with hearing impairment, *everyone* has access to the same audio. The guy who owns this channel provides a free service and English is his second language. The audio is also sometimes rubbish so there are going to be mistakes. If the mistakes piss someone off, don’t read the captions and just listen - whining repeatedly isn’t going to help the situation.
You can hear a guy say "Holy shit" very faintly at 3:15 when they see the crash.
Superb catch.
The tower didn't pass on to the other aircraft that the airport was closed. You would think he would do that. He had no contact with the crashed aircraft and was not aware or did not investigate what happened to it. The car on the ground was the one closing runways and informing of the crash. The tower guy seemed a bit lost.
The car on the ground does not get to make the call as to whether or not the airport is closed. He can advise, but that call is made in the tower. And it had not been made.
We probably don't have all parts of the communications, at about 8:09 tower confirms to ASQ4979 that the airpport is closed.
@@laceybarkley5739 Cars are normally numbered in order of importance. Car 1 is likely gonna be the airport manager/boss, head of ops, or like the fire chief or some other very important high up position who likely does have the authority to close the airport. He didn't ask the tower. He told the tower. This would indicate he's got the power to do so. Different airports work differently.
oyvey you vote for trump by any chance?
@@proto12qs I wish I was an American to vote for trump
new favorite channel
+okkcomputer Thank you!!!
Ur a moron!
okkcompute
@@Swindy1794 Porsche 987, Tower, request to change your callsign in order to call anyone a moron
Why does the guy in the tower sound like he just can't believe what he heard and has to ask for a repeat of everything told to him?
No, he simply did Not copy what car 100 said. Communication on ground is often very interrupted.
To ensure accuracy between transmissions. The Tenerife disaster is an example of why that is necessary.
also, can't he see from the tower? la guardia has such a small land area you can easily see the whole airport from the tower.
@@Lucas-pe6fg If the map in the video is correct, the terminal is between the tower and the crash site. Probably obstructed sightlines.
@@johnpalmer3848 been to LGA many times. it is a tiny (landwise) airport and the tower is VERY tall
I've listened to an awful lot of these and there is way too much confusion for such a major airport. Controller is lost.
LaGuardia in a nutshell
I have to agree how a md80 runs off runway into embankment and no one noticed for that long is confusing. Is the tower not able to see that part of runway?
Tim Howard conditions were extremely low visibility with a low ceiling that day, meaning the tower could not see clearly, which is why car 100 on the ground team often are their eyes during high traffic & inclement weather
@@timhoward7852 Tim, the RVR was reported as 4500 feet. Notice where the Tower is located, and their distance from the crash site. Also, the Tower is 240 feet above the ground, making the slant-range visibility even more difficult to see the airplane.
Just based on what you're hearing isn't everything that happened in the world of that Tower controller at the time. They know a lot more than you think they do, regardless of how it sounds. Also, @WeedWhacker2010 and @Zac Young were correct that it takes time to notice, and that visual check of a landing aircraft may not have been a priority at the time, as spotting crashed aircraft is not the primary function of a Tower Controller.
Also, you need to understand all that the Tower Controller was telling approaching/departing aircraft. It would give you clues as to whether or not the Tower could even see the event.
Tower Controller and Ground Controllers perform different functions. In this clip, we hear both Tower Traffic and Ground Traffic. There are multiple ways for you to communicate with each of those controllers to pass necessary information. Just because information was passed doesn't mean that you'll hear it on frequency. Most of that information will be kept off frequency, specifically so that "Tower" and "Ground" can direct traffic. Directing traffic is their primary function.
The frequencies you're hearing are specifically to direct traffic, not pass other information not relevant to direction of traffic on airport taxiways ("Ground"), or direct approaching air traffic or holding departing traffict ("Tower").
Give ATC a break. They have a more difficult job than you think. After you've walked a mile in their shoes, maybe then people can lay credence to your comment.
Car 100 seems to be the only one with a handle on the situation, ATC flustered
Absolutely!
ATC not as professional as others.
It sounds like he couldn't see the runway, fog or some such. Was giving advice to landing aircraft on previous landed aircraft.
Would have been relying on his radar screen.
Delta 1086 would have appeared to have stopped on the runway from his perspective, while he's cleared the other Delta (1999?) in.
Not sure how the ground car knew there was a problem before him though
The ATCS reported rollout RVR of 3500- meaning the accident location ( if the location in the video is correct) was not visible from the tower. It’s also worth noting the RVR is about 15’ off the ground- visibility from the tower to surface is often worse.
I’d say there’s a lot going on in the tower at that time wouldn’t call him unprofessional
Cause of the accident was the pilot's "inability to maintain directional control of the airplane due to his application of excessive reverse thrust, which degraded the effectiveness of the rudder in controlling the airplane’s heading.
But if it was already on the ground and slowing, the rudder wouldn't have any effectiveness at slower speeds. Was maybe one of the engines thrusting harder than the other and it forced the plane to yaw?
@@EVAUnit4A giggity
@@EVAUnit4A due to his application of excessive reverse thrust, which DEGRADED the effectiveness of the rudder
@@blackhatter011
I didn't read the official report on the accident, so I'm assuming the thrust on one engine didn't drop below the other, the steering wheel didn't suddenly shift, or there wasn't an unexpected crosswind.
So it’s basically pilot error?
Can we all also understand that this incident is used for teaching A LOT.
There was a slow evacuation, pilot error on landing, Slow response by emergency, and many communication failures.
While everyone did their best, this made it a lot safer
What a confused airport.
R.C. Collins u should see Newark it’s a whole diffrent planet
Doesn’t make them look good at all does it. Are they not trained for emergencies?
You don't even know the half of it.
Are the sight lines that bad there? Tower couldn’t see the aircraft off the runway themselves?
@@Briggie if you listened closely, one plane needed to get de-iced again. NJ/NY area can have some pretty bad snow storms that can really mess with visibility.
You really do a great job on these, and I enjoy your channel.
+Eric Francis Thank you very much Eric! I really appreciate your words. That's exactly why I do this. Not only entertainment but also learning something else about aviation :D
Nice video! I like the way you annotate the chart in real time so we can see what is going on during the communications.
I almost like the ATC transcripts in real time versus how they're edited now. The time in between calls adds to the suspense.
This entire audio is an exercise in how NOT to handle an emergency situation. No one is communicating anything meaningful and mass confusion reigns.
@Brandon BP No one got injured though?
@Brandon BP Who were they?
@@junkonakamura3441 There were no deaths or significant injuries.
What do you expect from this airport?
@Brandon BP 132 souls, 24 minor injuries, 0 deaths. where did you get that from?
Here comes the youtube comment section that has worked as ATC for 40+ years, knows this airport in and out, is well versed in every situation possible and knows regulations that they can site it in their sleep.
You might be surprised
so people involved in avaiation dont watch youtube videos! that be a dissapointment to this channel and the hundreds of others on here
Nallid best comment of the week right here... haha
Keyboard Man
@Rata 4U Consider it from another perspective. Car 100's driver spots a crashed airliner off the runway, gets a shocked look, and blurts out an emphatic "Runway 13 is CLOSED!!" As in, there's major shit happening here, everybody STOP! Due to the poor audio quality and the chaotic nature of the event, ATC doesn't get the urgency of the statement. "Runway 13 is closed?" As in, he doesn't get it. A bit later, he doesn't get it again. "Runway 13 is closed?" ATC seemed rather slow on the uptake to me during this incident. He had plenty of indications that an airport-closing event was afoot. "Delta 1086 . . . Delta 1086 . . . Delta 1086 . . . " Helllooooo! Anybody home?
For EVERYONE complaining about the captions. 1. The uploader doesn't have to put them there. He did a lot of work. He could leave you to the joys of UA-cam's auto-caption. Show a little appreciation. 2. You understood what was being said? Yes? So what's your problem? 3. Suppose for a moment the uploader isn't a native English speaker. Ask yourselves how well you could caption garbled radio traffic in another language?
Thanks for your support!
Really like this channel. I want to be an air traffic controller when I'm older and love to listen to the communication between the pilot and air traffic controller especially in these situations.
Good luck to you on following your dream of becoming an air traffic controller. Keep working hard in school, be responsible in college and maybe even take some flight lessons. The career of an air traffic controller is very rewarding financially, you will earn your pay, that's for sure. It's also a career where good, hard working individuals have job security:)
Hi there, just wanted to check in on you really quick. Are you still into aviation and ATC trying to follow your dreams? :-)
We live in very strange times with covid and stuff. I sincerely hope you're doing well. Keep following your dreams, wish you all the best!
Hey Dylan did you ever become an air traffic controller?
A couple of transcription comments:
1:07, "Wind Check" is almost certainly not DAL2319. Voice sounds much more like DAL1086 (on approach)
3:08, LGA Tower says "Number 1 for the field." (not "it's you")
3:12 "Braking action reported good..."
4:37 I believe car 100 says "Tower... Red Team to go onto 13"
5:40 "Delta 1999 I'll have the uh... climb instructions.. correction, the go around instructions for you, just a moment."
8:23 "I will have further for you shortly."
Tug 1 should be "Truck 1" everywhere
8:45 - 8:55 (2 calls) "Truck 1 and company..."
there are other errors in the Truck 1/Ground interactions...
9:24 "...on the embankment" (not "on the uh, bank rim.")
svyt Thank you very much, friend! :)
svyt Also at 07:45 - "...we *understand* the airport is closed"
+VASAviation - How come did they take so long to start the evacuation?
@@biarosini2579 There were good reasons. It was not negligence.
There must have been heavy fog as it was obvious there was a lot of confusion at first given the time it took for everyone to figure out what happened, particularly Tower.
Tower could not see the incident.
'um bank rim' was how you heard "embankment?
English is not his first language, give him a break
@@MrQuestionyourself How do you turn annotations on?
The plane wasn't evacuated for more than 17 minutes after the crash even though firefighters told the crew that there was a fuel leak
It did look pretty darn cold outside....
The thing with emergencies is they are clusters from the moment it goes south. Now 17 minutes is plenty of time to get out.
Tower likely couldn't reach them because normally VHF1 antenna is on the belly of the plane. So once they went off it's in the mud.
Unless there was a puddle of fuel where the exit slide would have been. In such a case I guess it would have been safer to let firefighters prepare for a safe passenger exit procedure first.
Usually they blast the plane with anti-inflammatory foam if there's even a drop of fuel leaking before they'll let passengers off. Then they'd have to get passenger buses in place because as I understand this was NYC in the winter during bad conditions. Too cold to have everyone waiting outside.
ikr i fell for it too
09:12 reads "Tug1 - He was talked 13 but we don't [...]" - i believe this might be... "We were told 13, but we don't see anything down there" - Great channel keep it up!
atcdude067 youre so cool dude
atcdude067 five, actually. You get a gold star for effort
people who can....do, people who cant,....armchair quaterback! Give it a rest kid!
atcdude067 - here’s an idea: instead of repeatedly b^tching and moaning about the captions, why don’t you simply listen to the ATC audio and stop looking at the captions. Or here’s another tip: why don’t you just buy yourself a radio, and hope you don’t miss all the emergencies that VAS kindly provides. That would be a win for everyone, because we wouldn’t be forced to have to see your whiny comments.
I say we give the person creating this channel for us a break. I spent six years transcribing short videos for Deaf congregants at m church. It is a really tough job, trying to keep up with what a speaker is saying, and that's when the audio is clear and is at a normal conversational pace. Our host is transcribing audio that is usually low quality, often hurried, and features an ever-changing array of people with some regional accents who talk over one another. These transmissions are also laden with acronyms and jargon; even for someone well-versed in aviation that is almost like another language. After doing transcription myself for a while, I had the opportunity to watch a trained professional transcriber do the job. Amazing! No wonder they are so well paid. Seriously, the only language-related thing I've ever seen that is more impressive is ASL interpreting (and especially ASL interpreting for a blind Deaf person).
For our host, who is doing a tough job for free, I say ye, "Huzzah!"
In all of my time paying attention to aviation, I don't recall the last time Runway 13 was used as the landing runway at LGA. In other words, does Runway 4 at LaGuardia not have an ILS system? (Normally with winds from the east, Runway 4 would be the arrival runway and Runway 13 would be the departure runway, rather than the reverse.)
OMG! God bless these dedicated professionals on the ground who serve in the interest of the safety of the flying public.
To me it seems odd that they dont have SOP's for declaring field emergencies at La Guardia. When the BA 777 crashed at the end of the runway at heathrow, the controller running tower declared an emergency and had a very specific call out of the details, location and gave emergency vehicles instructions. It took the car dude like 5 goes to get to the part where he said they'd crashed. Seems like time lost and risky to other aircraft.
I'm guessing no ASDE at the airport but thats crazy how if it wasn't for ground vehicles the tower didn't know what happened, and where's the communication between local and ground control? I can't say I have any idea about emergency procedures at LGA but it seemed sloppy the response.. but then again it was extremely bad weather so....
I assume just low vis, made it so he couldn't see the plane. I'm surprised no planes on the ground relayed the information though as im sure there were planes taxiing that saw it.
All the departures were taxiing from the terminal to RY04. Departing aircraft would have never been near the runway excursion, nor would they have even faced it. The previous arriving aircraft is not in this video, so it's safe to assume he was already clear of the area as well. So there's no one to see it.
As for where the communication between local and ground are, that's not happening on the radio, so the ATC feed that recorded this could not have heard it. Likewise any communication between the tower (any position) and the airport operations or emergency services.
Mr_ATC it was really bad weather and vis was very low they couldn’t see anything
Im hearing "Truck 1" as in ladder truck one...
At 9:13 Truck 1 said "We were told 13 but we didn't see anything down there."
It was pro visibility and the plane was landing on 13 so he could not see to the end of the rwy most likely.
At the time he says that he's almost at the threshold of 13. The plane was nearly at the end of 13 and the tower couldn't see it, so I'm assuming the visibility was poor and he just couldn't see it from that distance
Some times I like to pause the video to uncover what you thought they said, and laugh at what you hear sometimes. ;-P Great work man, keep it up.
quigly pigly And laugh at what he heard? Maybe English isn’t his first language. Try and listen to this type of conversation in a foreign language and see how “perfect” you are :)
Airport is operated by NY Port Authority, not FAA/ATC. Port Authority employee closed the airport.
Tower controller tried his best, but got no response form aircraft. Pilots had their hands full trying to save lives.
Car100 is the hero we needed.
nope lol. poor communication
Great to see you back. Beautiful night footage!
Perhaps I'm missing something but would it not have been much more clear if Car 100 said that an aircraft had crashed before stating that the runway was closed. People seem to be blaming the tower but I think the confusion was reasonable given the cryptic messages from Car 100.
“Cryptic Message”
“Runway closed”…. How can it be “cryptic”???? ‘Runway’ = place where things with wings leap into sky… ‘closed’ = ‘GEE, NOT OPEN?’
Here are a few things to note.
Car 100 actually said "Red Team to go to Runway 13."
TUG1 was supposed to be Truck one from the Port Authority Police Department which is trained in ARFF in New York Airports.
7:46 is "We understand the airport is closed", not "we are [...] the airport is closed"
Its Truck 1 not Tug 1, I guess its the airport Fire Chief..
Great Videos.
Great video as always but correct me if I'm wrong, it sounds more like "Truck 1" as opposed to "Tug 1".
+Timothy Hickey You're not the first that comment that. He definitely says TRUCK 1 :D
+Timothy Hickey Truck 1 is a fire truck...
I like how car 100 takes over by force going from the ground control to the head of the airport in seconds.
How long did they take to react?! OMG
The guy identified in the captions as "TUG1" is actually saying "Truck 1" the call sign for the lead crash equipment at LGA.
Pretty crazy that tower isn't able to see both runways, including the crashed plane. I would have expected tower to take control of the situation, but tower did almost nothing. :O
The visibility was so low that tower couldnt see the runways from where they are at.
Love your channel! Perhaps a stupid question... why do the trucks tell the tower that the runway/airport is closed, instead of "we need to close the runway/airport" -- because it is not in effect closed until the tower stops clearing for arrivals and departures? Thanks!
+Tanya J Hello Tanya! Thanks for the comments. Those trucks are Airport Authorities or Airport Operations and have even more authority than the Control Tower. So, if they want to close the airport, Tower has to.
He literally says truck loud and clear
VASAviation:OH HE MUST BE SAYING TUG!
Correct
VASAviation - wrong, truck1=airport fire truck
Exactly
VASAviation - so then why the fuck u call him tug
There is seriously something wrong with you spazzing out like you did over a wrong word.
This could use some more accurate subtitles of the audio. A lot of errors in it, but its still excellent.
I assume "we got a 3-4" means an aircraft has gone off the runway?
Yes, it means an Aeroplane Incident.
As I read in a comment here, why did the left side reverse thrust take effect more quickly than the right? Was that pilot or design flaw? (granted that reverse thrust was applied too early and too much) Just wondering about the apparent imbalance
Agree, this is an atrocious display of emergency call etiquette. Totally out of control, no comms, no detail,, no direction, no control totally an example of what not to do
Also of transcription
Is VAS another Kennedy Steve? I recognize that guy's voice. No nonsense get it done type. Love it.
It's Truck1 not Tug1
+atcdude067 you must have missed the part where John Doe explained that what you her on this channel is NOT what people in ATC facitilies hear, because the audio in these videos is taken from LiveATC.net, which uses receivers set up by amateurs in suboptimal locations, a far cry from the quality you'd expect in actual ATC receivers.
atcdude067 :: I realize your comments are a year old. But you would be surprised with what us "amateurs" actually have in place.
I am an amateur radio extra class operator with an antenna farm on my roof located at 6300 feet ASL above Southern California. I can pretty much assure you that with an amateur radio that receives the aircraft band and a West Mountain Radio Clear Speech DSP I can hear just as well as ATC. That includes ADS-B. The primary difference between ATC is that they have remote high/low elevation sites for transmit/receive.
You have aircraft that are transmitting at 12.5 watts or 25 watts. At the altitudes they fly that is generally plenty because otherwise they can out talk their range and be picked up by other towers many, many miles away on the same frequency. But I can assure you that even though I'm 90 miles away from LAX I hear ground control just fine. I can actually hear aircraft on the tarmac.
My point is is that you don't know what the "amateurs" as you call us have. You don't know that I have commercial aviation antennas fed with hard-line but even using the standard disc cone antenna said with lmr400 I have outstanding coverage. Pythagoras Theorem. I can easily hear aircraft more than 300 miles away at altitude.
Unless you can do better than the person that transcribed the audio it's probably best that you not diminish his capabilities.
Question: isn't Tower normally positioned in such a way as to have a clear view of the runways? I'm surprised that the controller didn't see the plane go off the runway and had to be told by the car that the airport was closed.
cellardoor70 weather. Weather weather weather. Tower probably had no visual contact with anything on the ground.
The heavy fog prevented the ATC from seeing anything that was going on in a distance.
It makes me laugh thinking about the pilots on Delta 2522 at 5:27 just tuning in and not knowing whats going on...
True... 2522 is like "Hey Guys! I'm here" ... ATC: "Go away" lol
was an MD-88, but great channel, I just discovered this. Subbed.
They serve Sullenburgers in the McDonald's in La Guardia airport
Can I get those in a combo?
@@dalethelander3781 of course you can. It's the Sullenburger/Yusupov Menu
The drink it comes with is called The Husdon.
@@luckygamer05it's like Fiji Water, but instead it's from the Hudson
Are they made from bird strike left overs?
Wow thank god for car 100. Put him in ATC please. How was EVERYONE so confused and bad at their jobs?
ATC couldn't see the crash (it was snowing), and Car 100 didn't mention what had happened until a few transmissions in (leaving ATC confused). Car 100 assumed tower would be talking to plane, but plane wasn't (or couldn't?) communicating with anyone. Car 100 should have noted the confusion in ATCs voice, and properly reported the incident right after the first communication. Once ATC understood what was happening, he dealt with it (although we didn't hear all he did, since some was either on other frequencies and/or over phones).
Question from an aviation non-expert: is audio quality as bad as this in practice and if so, isn't it hard to catch all the numbers as they're speaking this fast?
Yes the audio is always like this but remember to pilots the numbers and calls make sense and it is easier to hear numbers when you already know what they mean. To someone that is just listening in to these conversations a lot of it is meaningless and so harder to hear without the added context
Sometimes higher up it sounds better
The audio quality isn't as bad as this in practice. This audio is picked up from some enthusiast's antenna, which isn't in a place that gives great reception.
I know this is an older video, but I miss the little graphics showing where all of the emergency vehicles are located on the field.
Tug1 sounds an awful lot like "truck1" to me
My god! You people complaining about the captions, shut up! He gets it! Maybe English isn't his first language. Just open your ears, who cares!? It's a UA-cam video, not closed captions for a TV program.
I honestly believe CAR100 could have been more clear from the very beginning. By stating "13 is closed" that does not give enough information to the tower. If CAR100 started with, "Tower, CAR100, There is an aircraft off of runway 13, we need fire rescue, runway is closed" Tower would have got it immediately.
+uscgswimmer1 He is giving the critical piece of information telling the tower controller to stop all landings and take-offs. Emergency vehicles will be crossing both runways and of course the arrival runway is blocked. Ground control manages traffic on the ground.
+uscgswimmer1 The priority is to stop it happening to another aircraft then roll firetrucks.
Subscribed. Great animations!
Why is the Car-100 driver at no point saying:
"Aircraft veered off runway 13, send emergency services..."
But no....
"Request crossing this and that...."
Nuck Chorris - Car 100 can call for emergency services directly. - It doesn't need to call the tower. - It only needed the tower to ask for clearance for crossing runways. - and to inform that the runway is closed. - Car 100 was also making calls to ground for authorization to move on the taxiway, but that is not in this recording. - This recording is from a scanner, therefore you are only hearing some of the tower channels and not all channels.
It seems that a lot of people are blasting everyone on comms. The major problem as that the flight crew of the downed plane failed to communicate. . I don't know if there were any injuries with any of the crew, but there have got to be back up on back up between the aircraft and tower or ground crew including cell phones. If there's no communication with the aircraft, and the ATC doesn't have a visual on it, it's kind of hard to know what to do other than keep other aircraft clear which the did. Remember that in most cases crash truck are dispatched by the tower, and cannot go on the field without clearance from the tower.
ATC's first day?
Maybe..
And LAST day
Is there any protocol if an aircraft does not respond after multiple calls from tower? I feel like after six calls for response after around 45 seconds to a minute after a supposed landing is a bit too long to not realize something is wrong. Feels like the tower should have asked for a check (from another tower or somewhere else. Maybe even radar or something idk) or something after the third call that went silent.
There’s only so much when you can do when you’re the local controller and can’t physically see the aircraft in question or have them on radar. They sort of just expect that you’re either doing something particularly intensive on final/landing roll or have gone to ground without permission and the ground controller can yell at you when you come up with them. Plus, no one had said anything to the local controller about this accident, despite the fact that I’m like 99% sure the ground guy knew because you can hear him go “holy shit!” at 3:15
What is odd is the Car 100 did not tell the controller that a plane had left the runway; he just arbitrailly closed the runway without explanation. It took four calls to clarify this. My understanding is that only the tower controller can actually close a runway so it is an arrogation of power to do this by the runway inspector. And the Call out of CFR was delayed.
No the tower controller can neither control the open or close of a runway, it is always airport management that decides this. If there is an obstruction on the runway the controller can and must stop any movement on them, but that is his limit. Some of the confusion on both the freq and in the remarks here is that while car 100 saw the accident the tower did not as they were literally in the clouds.
flyingmythbuster Umm wrong!!!
flyingmythbuster It's my understanding that an emergency response vehicle can close a runway when emergency warrants. Sometimes there is no time to lose in getting permission from higher-ups or other departments. Also, they can "Close first, Explain later" when time is of the essence. And time is always of the essence when dealing with active runways!
gomphrena: This was not an emergency response vehicle as he indicated he had no communications with the fire hall. It was an airport inspection vehicle. He requested that the emergency response be activated which is usually done through the tower through special circuits and buttons. Once the controller understood the exact nature of the problem he issued go around instructions to the two inbounds and probably initiated the emergency response. It was this lack of clarity that puzzled the controller and delayed all his responses.
flyingmythbuster Understood. Thanks for the clarification.
VASAviation is better than Ambien (not saying your videos are boring, just relaxing and interesting!) to help you sleep. And you don't hold press conferences you don't remember this way! :)
So, was anyone hurt or did they all get off safely?
no serious injuries, everyone was fine
Why have a NTSB when you have youtube comments? Not sure what's worse: that crash, or this comment section.
love the videos but yall need to work on your captions lol
Why no information in the description? This was not up to par with your usual videos. Question: why couldn't the tower see the 31 approach end with the plane off the runway? Too many questions on this one.
Car 100 seems to be the only one with their shit together. Maybe he should have been in the tower instead of Controller Clueless.
agreed
I’m just getting into this kind of stuff. The truck said the airport was closed, but couldn’t they have kept it open? Just have planes land and takeoff from runway 22? Or is it a procedure to shutdown the whole airport when a plane is crashed and leaking fuel?
Notice many vehicles are to be moved from all sides of the airport to assist at the crash site so better have every aircraft stopped and shut down.
Listening to this (which is painful), I’m wondering if there is a supervisor in the tower.
Seemed everyone was confused and very poor communications. I'm surprised no commas with the crashed aircraft crew either! I'm guessing the vis was poor and ATC couldn’t visually see what had happened?
Not completely relevant but I still don't understand why in the US you can be cleared to land when the runway isn't even clear. When the MD80 came off the runway, Delta 1999 that was on final was still cleared to land - until the controller told him to go around. Doesn't it make more sense that you would wait for the runway to definitely be clear before you clear an aircraft to land?
+John Dennis No, because then you'd have to space out the aircraft even more than they already are. Aircraft are cleared to land when they are already at the proper spacing for the arrivals.
Matt Pouy Why would you need increased spacing? If the margin between an aircraft vacating the runway and the next arrival landing is so slim you can't fit in a landing clearance, your spacing is not good enough. Heathrow is a great example of why your argument makes no sense - they squeeze arrivals in as close as possible but they still don't issue landing clearances until the runway is clear.
+Matt Pouy ... I agree with John. I never understood that either. You can have both airplanes sequenced for landing, only the first one is cleared for landing, you hold the landing clearance for the second one until the first one vacated the runway.
+John Dennis ... Not only that. A plane was cleared for take-off on RWY 4 when the accident plane was on final for RWY 13 and already cleared to land.
+John Dennis +Matt Pouy +adb012 So, how many of you are a certified ATC?
The situation that day was handled better than what you guys hear on that ATC frequency.. Emergency vehicles were already at the plane getting the passengers off. Btw it was literally a snow storm out that day. Tower had zero visual of the runway in all directions
They weren't already getting passengers off... they didn't start evacuations until 17 minutes after the runoff. Plane either couldn't or wasn't talking to anyone.
I have to say the ATC was all over the place, it's like they've never dealt an emergency before or even trained for it.
staff are trained to deal with emergencies using Simulations so they know how to deal with it.
Tip put the flight number in the subject or description radio traffic talking to different Delta jets that way keep track of the one that crashed
Negative.
Those tower guys really don't listen, do they? Car 100 told him 5 times 13 was closed before he got it.
+Kamer Oudste These recordings didn't come from the tower, they came from someone else's receiver. So, just because we can hear clearly, doesn't mean the tower can. Just look at some other videos on this channel, there are several times the tower could hear things that weren't picked up on the recording.
What? These recordings come from several miles away from the airport in people's homes. The Tower will always hear comms better than we can with these recordings.
Thristle Lilium No, that's not always true. First, given the size of the airport, a receiver in somebody's house can easily be closer to the transmitter than the tower. Second, even if the tower *is* closer, with all the vagaries of radio transmission, that's no guarantee of clearer reception.
So, no, the tower won't *always* hear better.
In addition to all that, the controllers are very busy, and they are receiving communication from sources other than the frequencies recorded here. Also, having a ground vehicle tell him that a runway is closed because of a plane crash that he cannot see is the last thing a controller is expecting to hear. He needs to be absolutely sure he heard correctly, no room for misunderstanding.
HiddenWindshield
Wrong, in all cases. Yes they will. You are dead wrong.
I know I'm late on this, but where you have "Tug 1", that's incorrect. Theu are saying "Truck 1" hes not a tow vehicle, he's a fire vehicle. Usually those are ladder trucks, but I assume airports have their own codes, normal pumpers are usually referred to as "Engine X"
Tell me again how giving landing clearance before preceding aircraft is clear of the runway is a good idea :/ And to have an aircraft departing from crossing runway after the arrival is cleared to land? wtf? What does being "cleared to land" mean then? "I think by the time you touch the ground you there probably should be no one on the runway, and hopefully all departures would have already crossed your runway"?
Generally the clear to land clearance would be given to aircraft maybe 6 or 7 miles out or further, so there is plenty of time in between to get an aircraft that is holding short to take off or crossing runway or giving clearance to another aircraft in sequence on a 6 or 7 mile final. It's just something that the ATC must keep in mind and direct them so that when the cleared aircraft is landing no aircraft is interrupting
+muic4880 i understand that, what bothers me is that it doesn't really mean "you're cleared to land now" but rather "watch out for everything, you will be cleared to land by the time you get to threshold". Why wouldn't you wait and give the clearance when it's meaningful?
***** Well, when given cleared to land, you are the only aircraft to cleared to land on that runway no matter what, unless there is an emergency declare by other aircraft.
And don't forget, the pilot will be hand flying the plane when they on landing, and there is plenty of stuff to prepare for landing like before landing checklist, approach briefing and such. So its best to give the pilot time to set up everything so they don't have to sweat it while close to the landing.
In the meantime the tower need to keep traffic going at the airport or they will get jam up. Also, while the pilot need to watch out for traffic, the ATC will advise them on anything they need to watch out or go around if the landing can't be made, that's the ATC's job. So its not without reasons why they do that.
+muic4880 maybe it's so weird to me because here in Europe it's something no ATCo would ever do :)
+Łukasz Szyper it's standard practice in all ATC
So many of the captions/subtitles are wrong.