*ATIS may have created a bit of a confusion but the ATC instructed 31R and after a few exchanges we all assume AHY101 pilots understood the change of a runway to 31R. But apparently they were still established on 31L. What happened here? Let me know your opinions!* Sorry for my "confussions" though :(
At 2:59, ATC should have instructed "cancel approach clearance" and then "turn right 040". The pilot thought he was being vectored to the new runway. Also, to "spin" is not proper phraseology, especially for non native English speakers.
@The UA-cam Critic The instruction was pretty clear to me (sim flyer and student pilot). If ATC tells you to turn 040 you do that, if you dont understand ATCs instruction you ask them, just flying along as if nothing happened is definetly not an option. I think we can expect commercial long range pilots to have a decent understanding of the english language, if these pilots are unable to understand anything thats even slightly outside of standard phraseology they should probably get some language training before flying international again.
With my 30 years old experience as a controller all I can add to this is that the controller made 2 small mistakes. When he realized the pilot was lined up on the wrong localizer and made the decision to turn him out the correct thing to do was assign the heading. Not get into a discussion at that moment as to what runway he was supposed to be on, nor tell him at that moment he was vectoring for that approach. "Fly heading 040 vectors sequencing" was all that was needed. After he was well clear of the localizer he could have given a new heading with added emphasis on the correct approach... "turn right heading 090 vectors ils 31R". I would also note, that while I'm not, nor ever have been certified at JFK, it looked as if he could have fixed it with a simple "turn 20 degrees right intercept ILS 31RIGHT". Assigning a heading for an approach that intends to take the aircraft through the approach requires notification that the vector is to go through that approach as per the ATP. That is something I have done hundreds of times. "Fly heading 270 vectors through the localizer, expect ils RNY 22r".
FullThrottle because you can’t tell a pilot to turn to a heading while he’s established or cleared for the approach. That’s why these these pilots kept telling him but we are on the approach. They thought he was vectoring them to 35R while they were established which is very confusing. All he had to say was cancel approach clearance turn 040. ESPECIALLY for pilots that only know how to say hello and goodbye In English
Agreed. Just imagine what would have been crossed in the minds of pilots from south east Asian countries whose native language are not English. Except singaporeans. Only 1 out of 10 SEA countries use English as primary language.
Colin Potter I mean he got them in there - I’m sure he determined there was enough space and no conflicts to keep teaching English lessons, which ended up working out.
@@Dfpijgyt564s65sgt ATCO is at total fault here, from the starting point that he didn't listen to Azal's readback of the approach clearance, where they read back 31L. Then he didn't use standard phraseology. Other's may be able to understand with zero problem, but I think that it is a winning bet to say that the Azal crew are not native English speakers. ICAO standard phraseology is there for a reason. I also don't understand why Azal wasn't allowed to sidestep to 31R... In any case they all understood each other in the end all landed safely that is what matters.
New York controllers just don’t use standard phraseology. If had just said “cancel approach clearance, turn right heading 040”, none of this would have happened.
The controller gave this pilot the turn and new runway 4 times and the pilot repeated the instructions back. Yet the pilot did not comply. WTF! IF The pilot did not understand he should had said so. OVER
Why didn't the approach controller say to Azal that the approach clearance is canceled before telling them to deviate, as they were already "established" on an ILS approach? Not very good communications between the controllers regarding the ATIS information.
Boodieman72 I believe the Azal pilot confirmed 31R when the controller first announced it. ATC likely assumed the pilot understood based on his confirming reply.
Boodieman72 this is exactly what I was thinking. The controller simply saying turn right heading 040 could easily be taken as vectors to final without the "Cancel approach clearance" before it.
Dropping his "expect 31R" as Azal was still on course for the 31s and hadn't started turning didn't help either. Sometimes they seem to forget they are talking to foreign pilots.
Non standard phraseology from US ATC yet again. If an aircraft doesn’t respond as instructed then clarity is required NOT shouting.i would very much like to see how the controller would cope in Azerbaijan after a 9 hour flight?
In my opinon you have to look at this situation from the perspective of AHY101. They received Romeo, planning for 31L - were cleared for 31R, misread it and were corrected. After a while they established on 31R, thinking that the 040° heading given should be a switching heading from 31L to 31R. I would sure question the heading aswell as I'm responsible for terrain clearance as soon as I'm established on the localizer. And with no "cancel approach clearance" or "discontinue approach" or at least something similar ESPECIALLY in this situation confusion is preprogrammed. I don't blame anybody here but it is just *BEYOND ME* how controllers in the USA can't stick to proper phraseology. This is so dangerous - especially when dealing with non-native speakers. And you can't take the _"difficult traffic situation"_ and the _"crowded airpsace in NY"_ as an excuse. Take a look at London. Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, LCY and so on and so forth - considerably more traffic in a very small portion of airspace. Planes put like pearls on a chain the whole day at LHR. At least the same amount of "exotic" carriers. And why are they having much less problems with these? Becuase they scrupulously stick to a phraeseology which has been invented to limit room for misunderstandings. Which has been invented to make the life of non-native english speakers easier. And most importantly which has been invented to limit the risk of something going wrong - the only connection between pilot and controller beeing verbal communication. Similar incident with the EVA Air video at LAX which is also on this channel. Telling an insecure non-native pilot heading straight to the north on heading 360° to "turn southbound now". And the turn direction? Shall I turn left or right? Am I free to choose? And then, when you are insecurely stammering the readbacks to meaningless instructions you get hit by the gracious attitude of US-american controllers. I'm sorry but - what is this?! Unbelievable.
No matter how confusing or contradicting information the ATC gives in non-standard phraselogy, the pilot should Always obey the latest. Only if the instructions are contradicting in the same transmission (like "turn North heading 180") then the pilot can question it. Even if AHY101 was established on the localizer, the pilot should know how to override it (usually by pulling out the heading knob or pressing the "Heading select" button) and if flight director is refusing to obey the pilot's command, the pilot should disable FD by pressing the flight director button to the light extinguishes. Also when the pilot knows about the runway change, the pilot should also cancel the 31L approach in FADEC and set runway to 31R and then rearm the approach by pressing Confirm Approach.
@@sebastiannielsen But the "latest" instruction didn't contradict their approach clearance. They were still far enough from the airport that they could've briefly turned to heading 40 and then re-intercepted the localizer immediately afterward. Controllers usually give pilots a final turn just before the approach so they may have interpreted that way. The controller should have explicitly canceled their approach clearance, especially given the language barrier.
@@icemachine79 It did, he was very clear that he was still intercepting the wrong localizer, and he was needed to go a turn-around to restablish. I listened in and it was super clear. It was the pilot who couldn't interpret the instructions correctly, thus a pilot deviation. If the ATC don't say "Turn right heading 040 until established on the 31R localizer", you should override your FD and go heading 040. Doing a "Go around" is a safer option than landing/continuing approach, and thus in any doubt, interpret the instructions as the "worst case".
@@sebastiannielsen No, the non-standard "I need to spin you" comment came later. The controller simply said "turn right 040" and then added to the confusion by saying "expect 31R". The controller had already cleared them for the approach to 31R _after_ correcting them about 31L and they were still far enough away that a turn to 040 could be misinterpreted as a final interception turn. There were mistakes on both sides, but the controller could have avoided ALL of this by simply telling the pilots to cancel their approach. Basically, if you're going to be pedantic about what the pilots didn't hear then you should equally (or more) pedantic about what the controller didn't say, especially considering these were non-native English speakers.
In the military, soldiers are drilled on specific phrases so that they will perform requested actions in times where limited mental capabilities are in effect. Airlines and manufacturers present similar tasks in the various checklists. If the ATCs are not using the pre-programmed language to get the desired results, they have nobody else to blame when they don't get the desired results. Due to language barriers and the ATIS confusion, using the correct commands becomes paramount to getting the pilots to perform the desired actions.
If you listen to some of the Kennedy Steve recordings where Kennedy Steve complains about the ramp controllers, to the point of calling the ramp situation a "gong show", you'll hear some similar exasperation.
Are US controllers the rudest in the (modern) world? Most other parts of the world the controllers don’t get into self aggrandisement or condescending tactics like we hear on US airport radio. A simple “ILF clearance cancelled, let me take you round again” is clearly too complicated
I wouldn't say that about US controllers in general but having worked there myself (in the city, not the airport) New Yorkers are not the most patient and understanding bunch of people on the planet. The obvious and quick rise in temper from the controller was all too familiar when combined with that accent.
yeme I take your word on that since I’m African raised and European based. I did flight school in Florida though, and that’s as far as my personal experience goes. I would think that harassing/abusing or confusing pilots is contrary to what the controller is supposed to be doing and potentially dangerous. Regardless of their personal opinions as to the capabilities of the pilot on the receiving end, controllers should be working to remove stress and not increase it
On first reading/listening I missed the double "approach in use: ILS.... " So I understood: Approach in use: ILS 31L. Then a landing clearance for 31R is unusual, but not unheard of: Follow ILS31L and then side-step to 31R. I think that in that frame-of-mind the reaction of the pilots is more "reasonable". They thought they were being helped with the side-step instead of told to discontinue the approach. That's in my mind at least a possible explanation of why they didn't break off the approach when first instructed.
Bit of everything. But the instruction for the 040 turn should have immediately been "Azal 101 cancel approach clearance, turn right heading 040". I think Azal's assumption was that they were being given a right turn so as to line up in sequence for 31R, hence why they didn't actually follow it because they thought this was the turn being given for 31R localiser (and that 040 was not a necessary turn to achieve that, 330 would have been plenty), rather than the fact that they'd been resequenced.
HornetGamer exactly that is my understanding. But later, azal was definitely little bit pissed of on that guy so they trolled him back pretty nicely with thise readbacks haha
This isn't right--the approach clearance wasn't canceled. He's being given new vectors to final, so he has an amended approach clearance. That's what "spin" means. It may have helped to just say "new vectors to final; turn right 040"
ATC said until established 31R, pilot reads back 31L. ATC tried several times to correct him bc he was lined up for the incorrect runway. So he decided it was best to pull them out of the flow to make sure he got the correct runway. Nothing wrong with that. Plus the pilot was told several times to turn right heading 040. ATC is definitely not at fault here. Even tho I would have said cancel approach clearance.
Richard Dalrymple atc was at fault too. He was using bad terminology. You can’t just say turn 040 if you’re on the ILS about to land. Especially to pilots than can only say hello and good bye in English. Listening to the conversation the pilots were thinking something else completely because of the limited English, while ATC was expecting them something else
@@essel23fly ATC should have said " cancel approach clearance". And yes you actually can say turn right heading 040, bc they were not established on the approach. Nothing wrong with that other then he should have said the upon mentioned. Bad phraseology isnt the end of the world and yes it can cause misunderstandings etc. Have you ever flown into N90's airspace? Their airspace is probably the most complex airspace in the world and sometimes you short cut words bc you get extremely busy. Still not saying what he did was right, its just not the end of the world. This still does not negate the fact that the pilots ignored a turn several times. Would you still blame ATC if they saw them line up for the wrong runway and did nothing? Would if he just let that pilot continue even after he said he was est on 31R LOC and something happened bc they still had 31L programmed? I bet that a lot of people would still blame ATC and say something like he should have caught them lining up for the wrong runway. Yes, ATC should have said cancel approach clearance and then given the heading. I would have done the exact same thing. I would have pulled them out and set them back up for the approach to make sure they were set-up correctly.
Richard Dalrymple look... you can’t just say turn heading 040 to a crew that is well into the approach. You have to say cancel approach. And they were already established, they were about to land. That was the whole confusion. When ATC said that, the pilots did not understand that he was basically telling them the approach was over and they were going around. The pilots thought 040 was to line up on the correct runway WHILE they were established, that’s where the confusion was. Of course the pilots should have asked what in the world ATC was doing but also ATC made a few mistakes too and he had major attitude.
Exactly. I often criticize foreign controllers for their failure to use proper terminology when it is a contributory factor to an incident. American controllers don't get a pass either.
@@ARUTHLESSASIAN He was cleared for the 31R approach but confused it for 31L. While the pilots were technically at fault, all the controller had to do was cancel their approach clearance to make it clear that they should discontinue the approach to 31L.
@@icemachine79 He was never cleared, a clearance isn't effective until the pilot has read back the clearance correctly, which he did not. So, if you look at it from a legal perspective there was not need to say anything related to cancelling anything. This incident is just the fact that the pilot either lacked in English or had some Human Factors kicked in
@@ARUTHLESSASIAN You're missing the point here. Nobody is arguing the legal technicalities. But it was obvious that the pilot _thought_ he was cleared, therefore the controller's most effective response to the situation would have been to immediately "cancel" that "clearance" verbally to avoid any ambiguity caused by the language barrier. Being able to quickly adapt to unexpected situations is one reason why ATC is run by humans rather than computers. Sometimes the rulebook is insufficient.
I think at the end there the controller knew he'd not been clear enough when he tried to turn him 040 and was a little frustrated with himself more than anything. "Cancel approach clearance" (as others have said) was the terminology needed here. Can totally understand why the pilots were so confused. That said we're all human and these things happen to the best of us.
Singapore, it kinda depends on the day/staff. They're never too bad. Never flown to HK. New Delhi and Bengaluru are my favorite. Those ladies are overly calm even when people mess up. Think it has to do with the very formal way English is taught in some "commonwealth" nations
ATC and pilots were just ignoring each other.... - You are established on 31L so turn 040 - But we are established on 31R now - Turn right 040 - Confirm 31R? - **ignores** - ... - Why are you not turning 040?!
You missed a couple lines. ATC also kept talking about 31R which was just muddying the situation for an obvious non-native English speaker. Should have just left it at 040 and worked out the runway assignment later.
@@givmi_more_w9251 You realize that a final turn is often given to intercept the localizer just before an approach, right? The pilots probably interpreted it that way. All the controller had to say was "cancel approach clearance" and there wouldn't have been a problem.
Not confusing at all. ATIS maybe but they still completely failed to follow controller instructions endlessly AFTER ATIS info was clarified. They were clearly a clusterfuck in the cockpit and had no idea what was going on while tower was giving them instructions. Would hate to see this crew doing a slam dunk into a busy airport at night near minimums with crappy weather.
@@mikecahill19 _"The crew then read back 31R and still managed to establish on the wrong localizer."_ Then they confirmed the right turn 040 and still managed to ignore it four times in a row. What the heck was going on in that cockpit?
If you listen carefully not only did Azal get the ATIS that said 31L, at 0:22 were told to expect ILS 31L,. Later they were cleared for the approach for 31R. In hindsight (since I'm not going 200 knots flying an airplane) Azal should've questioned controller immediately stating they were told to expect 31L. Mitigate the issue. Controller should've canceled approach clearance then provided the vector. The pilot may have assumed the vector was just to sidestep them to 31R. Think controller more at fault here than the pilot, but pilot should've been more assertive.
I'm not a pilot or a controller so I'm sure others have better informed opinions than me, but just as a layperson I don't think I would want to be a passenger on any plane flying in to JFK if this is the standard of ATC communication they consider acceptable. Even leaving aside what seemed to me to be specific procedural failures, the inability of the controller to adequately handle his own emotions can only serve to raise the level of stress in the cockpit at a time when the pilots are already trying to deal with an inherently confusing situation. That in itself has potential to lead to a hazardous situation. One of the interesting things about liveatc is that it allows us to hear and compare controllers from many different places. This 'tone of castigation' the controller showed here doesn't exactly seem uncommon at JFK. Yet I think anyone who has spent time listening to say Shannon or Sydney would not expect a similar situation to be handled in the same way there.
In my opinion the tone does not affect air safety as much (I am aware it might cause stress and thus distract the pilots a bit) but the uncommon terminology I've heard by US ATC really worries me. Also the speed at which some ATC speak. They assume all pilots are used to both and sooner or later that is going to kill people.
One of the things that MOST impresses me as a layperson about most of these ATC recordings, especially in emergency and near miss situations, is how calm and collected most pilots and controllers sound, even when they are really stressed and under a ton of pressure. Obvious emotions and stress are unavoidable at times, but they are contagious, just as I become more stressed when I sense that my manager or colleagues in the office are showing their stress. It may not have been officially wrong, and I can understand it, as everyone is only human, but in hindsight I would argue that if the ATC would have taken a deep breath and switched to "patient teacher" mode from "stressed firefighter" mode, it probably wouldn't have hurt, and may well have helped. We've heard that happen in other JFK recordings, where ATC makes an obvious and concsious choice to speak more slowly, enunciate better, and use simpler, more precise phraseology when they encounter language challenges or confusion with foreign pilots.
As an actual pilot, I can tell you that feeling unsafe because of this type of communication is absurd. Separation was maintained at all times. The controller knew what he was looking at and doing a great job at it. However, safety culture is huge and you are right, in a less extreme way, that it could be looked at from the perspective of task saturation and other principles for improvements in the future.
I am far more worried about pilots who seem not able to understand the most easy instructions and just parrot what they hear from ATC. As for the somewhat unprofessional attitude, I agree, still, all the other pilots (also foreign ones) were perfectly able to comply with and understand his instructions. Being a non-native speaker is no excuse for that.
Yeah, that "I'm gonna need it" after the Delta pilot wishes him good luck kind of tells the poor guy had had it... Must be quite a challenge to be a controller at JFK.
@@@malahammer Well, yeah... JFK controllers are not known for their bottomless patience. Having said that, if we're gonna make an unprofessionalism contest, I think the Azerbaijan pilots take the cake by a long shot. Granted, the ATIS was wrong, but you can't just ignore crystal clear ATC commands several times in a row and expect people at ATC center to be happy with you, can you?
@@javiercaselli Couldn't disagree more. What was the crystal clear ATC command? They were told to expect 31L, then got cleared for 31R without any announcement of the change. ATC misspeaks these things all the time and pilots assume that what they were told to expect is what's happening UNLESS they are specifically told that their runway has been reassigned. Then, AZA confirms 31R and works to establish on it when ATC tells them to turn right 040. Once you are cleared for the approach you shouldn't be getting any more vectors so wtf is this? Is ATC trying to "help" him get onto the ILS? Is he turning him away? Under IFR the controller has to give a reason for any deviations in case they lose communications ("for traffic", "for spacing" etc). The controller was unprofessional and had very bad radio phraseology. He should have "cancelled their approach clearance" and then turned them to bring them around, not "spin" them. Spin is a very bad word in aviation. As far as I can hear the AZA pilot was confused by contradicting information he was getting and zero explanation from ATC. He wasn't ignoring the command, the command was unclear.
@@drfaustus72 "Turn right 040" sounds to you like it has any sort of ambiguity? As I said, it's true that the ATIS was wrong, so I can understand the confusion the first time the command was issued, and I'll give you the second time as well... But any further than that? C'on! Ok, maybe "crystal clear" was an exaggeration, maybe they should've cancelled approach clearance, but the command was crystal clear, a basic heading vector out of "Listening to ATC 101".
@@javiercaselli It has ambiguity in the context because he doesn't know for what reason he is being turned. He is cleared for the approach; so, if he is being turned to intercept the 31R Loc and he already is intercepting the Loc, then the pilot might well assume that the command is superfluous. In fact, he replies (after the first command): "Right heading 040. And for runway 31R". So, he is clearly under the impression that ATC is "helping" him to get onto the Loc, which makes total sense. Then ATC says that he is going to "spin" him because he is established on the wrong runway (which might or might not be true - most likely he is tracking parallel because they weren't ready for 31R). What does spin mean to a non-English speaker? In aviation it means a very bad situation, but as far as directional...? The pilot can still assume that ATC is trying to get him onto the Loc. And he even says "Now we're turning to the right for 31R". Then he reports "established" on the Loc and in his eyes there is no reason to be brought around. ATC rather stoically keeps repeating "Turn heading 040"... all he has to say is "Cancel Approach Clearance". AZA pilot asks to confirm ILS 31R (as in: do you want me to land or what else?". ATC IGNORES him. In my eyes the Heading 040 command was confusing, not crystal clear. As PIC you have an obligation to crosscheck ATC commands against your own situational awareness and safety. You were cleared for ILS31R; you're established on ILS31R; ATC has been confused and runways have been changed; ATC is not giving you expected instructions (either "cancel clearance" or "contact tower"); you've asked for clarification; you've been clear about what you are doing; ATC is ignoring you... I think it's a mistake to look at ATC as god-like. It's a team effort and the Approach dude didn't want to pass the ball.
ATC was unprofessional where azal was more proactive and trying to solve the confusion. The question is: was azal really still established on 31L or did they move to 31R after the new clearance?
They heard expect 31R, and used their eyes to see that they had visual separation from other aircraft and a clear sequence into 31R. Controller seemed like he was being a dick when he wanted them to do a 360, howeverhe could have assumed they needed to punch in some numbers into their flight manager computer (fmc) or was following some sort of precautionary procedure unique to JFK. Rather than ask if the pilot could sidestep from 31L to 31R (SFO does this all the time) he just assumed unable and tried to vector the aircraft and also said "expect 31R" as in to give the pilots time to prepare for a different runway. The pilots interpreted this as turn right 040 and then intercept the path to 31R (heading 310). The magic words "cancel approach" would have cleared all of the confusion. Mark my words there will be a crash at JFK due do communication breakdown between ATC and foreign pilots. Not SFO, LAX, ATL or any other US airport.
JFK_APP is at fault here with respect to pulling AHY101 off the approach. ATC must cancel the approach clearance. He gave the approach clearance earlier, that's why AHY was confused when ATC said to "turn right heading 040." ATC should have said, "cancel approach clearance - turn right heading 040 for re-squencing to runway 31R." Not, "I am going to spin you."
Seems that Azal knew they were cleared for 31R, but established on 31L by mistake. When they were told by ATC to turn right heading 040, and cleared for 31R approach, they interpreted the command as a heading to side-step to the 31R approach instead, therefore their confusion. Luckily there wasn't another aircraft on 31R approach. So the pilots made an mistake, but I agree with some of the comments saying the ATC should have said cancel approach clearance.
"When they were told by ATC to turn right heading 040, and cleared for 31R approach, they interpreted the command as a heading to side-step to the 31R approach instead" That's exactly what I assumed happened.
That seems as good a summary as there is. I'm not a pilot, but I think "sidestepping" on short final might be a no-no, though. Intercepting the wrong localizer and switching to another that late seems like it could needlessly introduce hazards into a critical phase of flight. In my opinion, if the pilots were flying "by the book," they probably ought to have proactively initiated a go-around, but not wanting to be re-sequenced is understandable.
Side stepping isn't necessarily an issue as it's up to the PIC to determine if they can fly that approach. In this case, they were far enough out to review the approach plate to verify its within their limitations (unless they fly here so often that they have it memorized). If they didn't feel comfortable with it, they could turn to 040 and state unable, request vectors for 31R full approach.
At 0:25, ATC gave the pilots the assigned runway, 31L multiple times. Then ATC goes ahead and changes it at the very last second to 31R with the visibility being as low as it was thinking it’s that easy to change a runway. This whole thing was a big error on ATC’s part. And plus using in proper terminology doesn’t help as well. IDK why New York approach has a habit of doing that and can’t their act straight when it comes to these issues.
"changes it at the very last second" When the change was made the aircraft hadn't even intercepted the 31L localizer, they were about 6 or 7 miles out and therefore had enough time. I agree that Approach should have cancelled the clearance when he turned the aircraft out of traffic. But then again, if the pilots didn't understand the instructions given by ATC they should have asked about it and not read them back without complying to them.
I think this cofusion is responsible for the atc controller. He should have said Azal to "cancel approach clearance" immidiaty. And why he ignored Azal when they asked him "confirm 31R?" . This is one of the worst atc records I've ever heard.
ATC could have saved himself a lot New York attitude and confusion by stating "cancel approach clearance" and give a heading. but that is ATC in New York for you...
"I'm going to spin you"? What's with the slang over ATC? Why does the controller not use clear professional English and expect the foreign pilots to understand what he means? Not too hard to say "execute missed approach" or "cancel ILS clearance" or simply "go around". Also, I can imagine how pilots with lesser English skills can get on your nerves, but you ought to show the way and BE CLEAR.
Flying into the US requires at least a level 5 English proficiency, which is equivalent to being an advanced speaker, one level below native. I do agree, though, aviation requires standard ICAO English phraseology to avoid confusion.
@@abifaiq9645 You can have no problems in most communications, and still not know what spin is referring to here. I for one still don't quite understand what exactly it means.
Maybe he realized that the Azal pilot was not understanding him so he tried to word it in a different way that he maybe could understand. The ATC was clearly stressed out of his comfort zone.
Dunno how accurate the radar track is but if you look closely, AHY started off on the 31L localiser but by the second or third time the controller instructed right 040, they had slipped right and established on the 31R localiser instead. Also, the pilots may have misinterpreted the vector as "turn 40 degrees to the right, to establish on the 31R localiser", which if the radar track is accurate is exactly what they did.
When a pilot (especially one for whom English is not his native language) fails to follow an ATC's instructions, either he's bat-shit crazy or he just doesn't understand what he is supposed to do. A rephrasing of the instructions, step-by-step, using only recognized phrasing, is in order. This takes patience, time and focus from the ATC, and if he's juggling a lot of traffic, it may be difficult to do. I know I couldn't multitask as well as they do!
I'm pretty sure Leonardo Da Vinci invented aviation before the Yanks discovered America. But hey, you might mean that the Indians invented aviation, right?! (Yes, I know, Leonardo didn't operate an aircraft in real life, but his ideas were valid.) And just to be really picky... It was the Chinese who invented aviation 2000 years ago. 😉
"Notice to airmen: Runway 13L / 31R closed. Alien life probably exists and it's not friendly. AI will kill us all. I'm checking out now. Goodbye and good luck."
Remember folks that the ATC must maintain separation of the aircraft, both vertically and horizontally. If the controller cancels Azal 101 clearance then he will have to perform a go around and re-enter the pattern. He had them fly a orbit to insert them back into the landing queue without disturbing the approach of the aircraft. Azal 101 was refusing to follow ATC instructions to turn and not accepting the vectors. That is not acceptable unless there is an emergency or a TCAS alert.
Tbf for the Azal, “i’m gonna spin ya” is not proper FAA terminology, so even though approach said to cancel approach clearance, it probably isn’t clear for the average non-native english speaker to understand that “spinning” means he’s just going to make him do a 360 and get him back centered on the ILS approach.
my opinion: this was a mess and I feel bad for Azal but also just turn right heading 040 if that’s what the man says? it was odd how long he took to follow through with instructions
The controller should have specifically stated “Approach clearance canceled. Fly (heading), maintain (altitude)” his phraseology was terrible. All the back and for could have happened after Azal was off the final. That being said the pilot was clearly confused. All the more reason to make it perfectly clear you’re canceling the approach clearance. In which case those words need to be said.
ATC should've specified the approach was cancelled. Azal should've confirmed if they were still cleared the approach after a repeat of the heading requirement.
This was a language issue. I really feel for people who don't have English as their first language & cannot articulate themselves well & think as fast as a native speaker.
It’s funny that most of these negative comments are towards the ATC, where the comments are based on an enthusiasts point of view talking about phraseology because he said “spin”.... Just to add he was never cleared for 31L, he said “EXPECT 31L”, so the fact that people are saying he should’ve said “cancel approach clearance”, what was there to cancel?? Note that CLEARED and EXPECT are two very different things children. So, from a student pilot POV currently reading CPL law I can safely say that it’s the pilots fault. Firstly, he read back the controllers instructions, which means he understood the instructions even thought by the sounds of it l he didn’t, which is really bad (pretty sure I don’t have to explain why). Secondly, you should always listen to ATC, the only time you deviate from ATC is if your TCAS, ACAS, etc. come on or if you feel it’s unsafe as PIC. So, I can safely bet that 98% of the people blaming ATC is most likely an enthusiasts.
ATC was cavalier here. He should have said, "cancel approach clearance; turn right heading 040 - vector resequence" Instead, he just kept saying, "turn right heading 040 - you're lined up with 31L"
This is proper funny, you can hear the frustration in the ATC but..... he did use some incorrect terms and this obviously added to the confusion. Worth a listen though....
Certainly there was some language difficulty between approach and AZAL. However, it is understandable (to a degree) that the pilot was confused and/or hesitant to land on 31R in conflict with the ATIS notice to airmen. ATC should keep his frustrations out of his communications and help the pilot resolve his confusion. That's his job. On the other hand, Azal pilot should have turned right immediately on command--that's on him.
This is a very succinct way to put it. I agree with you... I'm a bit inclined to blame ATC more than the pilot on this one, but as a layperson I'm on the understanding that when ATC issues an instruction, pilots should generally follow the instruction first and ask why later, with the exceptions being TCAS alerts and obvious visual hazards.
I think he could make sense of the instructions and was trying to understand them. I'm not sure if any paper cover this; you are supposed to readback clearances but you should also understand them at the same time. Or you would just readback something you have no idea it it is correct or not. I can totally relate to this situation, NOT giving the readback immediately if I don't understand them fully.
i was sure ATC gave vectors for a side step to 31R. Even after the "hdg 090" i haven't realized that the controller's intention was to vector him to another approach. "I'm gonna spin you" (!?!???)
To be fair to the pilots, once they were switched over to NY APP from CTR, they were cleared for 31L and it was confirmed with the current ATIS. At that point, pilots will enter in all the data needed to set up the approach into their computers. It wasn't until he was on base with Final APP, that the runway changed on them. Not too big of a deal to sidestep for a visual in VFR conditions, but for a heavy on an ILS, it may be a bit more difficult. That last controller was a bit perturbed about the whole situation/communication, but I don't think he knew at that point about their initial 31L clearance.
That's right. CTR didn't, but NY APP (ROBER or CAMRN) would have. However, they would've been switched from there to NY APP FINAL for final sequencing and intercept. My point is, these two controllers were not on the same page with runways and total blame shouldn't be put on the pilots.
@theroseera - Very true. The initial Approach controllers do tell them which runway to expect. The reason being, especially with ILS approaches and/or IFR conditions, the pilots have more to do in the ways of inputting data into their computers and setting up for the approach. The fact is, the pilots should've been more up front with confirming their expectant runway assignment and the both ATCs should've been on the same page.
And numerous pilots when switching from approach to the JFK local controller will ask for 31L if they have been lined up for the right side to shorten taxi time once on the ground so having a change to the parallel on final is not a difficult task. Usually they are denied due to large volume of departures but not always. The change in voice from Azal just showed first voice did not understand and second person took over speaking to ATC.
for Azal issue : AND why finishing sentences with "over" ????? - "over" is use to terminate an opened discussion on a certain frequency. "over" tells you won't speak again. That's nonsense and Azal reply :"ILS 31r over, Azal 101" - that mean he didn't understand that word !
Statuquo No, that is incorrect. "Over", signifies that you have finished your statement, and are now waiting for a reply. "Out", signifies i have finished the statement, no reply required.
This controller is extremely ineffective. Make it clear that he is not cleared the approach. He’s a non-native English speaker after a long flight and ATC is using nonstandard phraseology and never canceled his previous approach clearance. I find JFK controllers to be the rudest, most arrogant, and frequently the least standardized controllers in the US, which is a shame considering how many international crews they interact with. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’ve got 30 years with my airline and the only standing bid I have every month is to avoid JFK.
ryabow A NOTAM, is a Notice to Airmen. It is message, sent out to all civil and military airports worldwide. Information such as runway closures, construction on runways, or near taxiways, equipment failures that affect navigation or communication. You name it, if it can pose a danger to aviation, you will see it on a NOTAM.
how was the captain to know who was right the ATC or the warning message that runway was closed. For all he knew someone could have hijacked the signal/atc and giving false information. In this situaltion landing clearence should have been cancelled and go around ordered
![[REAL ATC] Canada's PRIME MINISTER Justin Trudeau FLAPS ISSUE](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qUgl4eaBqYw/mqdefault.jpg)
*ATIS may have created a bit of a confusion but the ATC instructed 31R and after a few exchanges we all assume AHY101 pilots understood the change of a runway to 31R. But apparently they were still established on 31L. What happened here? Let me know your opinions!*
Sorry for my "confussions" though :(
How does this established work? Does the ground computer lock on a specific aircraft or does the plane computer lock on a specific runway?
Lol that's almost comical.. someone misconfigured the ATIS
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrument_landing_system#Localizer
I think that pilot is going to get a number to call....
@hkgoldensosad That was my thought exactly. At some point, the approach was FUBAR and should have been cancelled and reset.
At 2:59, ATC should have instructed "cancel approach clearance" and then "turn right 040". The pilot thought he was being vectored to the new runway. Also, to "spin" is not proper phraseology, especially for non native English speakers.
Albert exactly
Exactly. JFK controllers are the worst. And I’m a pilot who’s flown in there.
@The UA-cam Critic The instruction was pretty clear to me (sim flyer and student pilot). If ATC tells you to turn 040 you do that, if you dont understand ATCs instruction you ask them, just flying along as if nothing happened is definetly not an option.
I think we can expect commercial long range pilots to have a decent understanding of the english language, if these pilots are unable to understand anything thats even slightly outside of standard phraseology they should probably get some language training before flying international again.
With my 30 years old experience as a controller all I can add to this is that the controller made 2 small mistakes. When he realized the pilot was lined up on the wrong localizer and made the decision to turn him out the correct thing to do was assign the heading. Not get into a discussion at that moment as to what runway he was supposed to be on, nor tell him at that moment he was vectoring for that approach. "Fly heading 040 vectors sequencing" was all that was needed. After he was well clear of the localizer he could have given a new heading with added emphasis on the correct approach... "turn right heading 090 vectors ils 31R".
I would also note, that while I'm not, nor ever have been certified at JFK, it looked as if he could have fixed it with a simple "turn 20 degrees right intercept ILS 31RIGHT".
Assigning a heading for an approach that intends to take the aircraft through the approach requires notification that the vector is to go through that approach as per the ATP. That is something I have done hundreds of times. "Fly heading 270 vectors through the localizer, expect ils RNY 22r".
FullThrottle because you can’t tell a pilot to turn to a heading while he’s established or cleared for the approach. That’s why these these pilots kept telling him but we are on the approach. They thought he was vectoring them to 35R while they were established which is very confusing. All he had to say was cancel approach clearance turn 040. ESPECIALLY for pilots that only know how to say hello and goodbye In English
"I'm going to spin you." Hmm. For some reason I can't find that phrase in the Pilot/Controller Glossary...
John Opalko And you never will!
He may have been a train dispatcher before being an ATC. Very common phrase used on the LIRR
That's "great" for non-native English speakers. Standard phraseology exists for a reason.
Agreed. Just imagine what would have been crossed in the minds of pilots from south east Asian countries whose native language are not English. Except singaporeans. Only 1 out of 10 SEA countries use English as primary language.
Lim Alex You are right but Azerbaijan is a middle eastern country!
Air Canada would have just landed.
On the taxiway
Hard_at_it The ol' Harrison Ford Maneuver
lolyea
Not if they wanted to have a career in aviation again.
@tie oneon which ones? The ones about ignoring ATC?
Cancel approach clearance. Is that so hard to say?
It seems to be very hard for this controller.
Colin Potter I mean he got them in there - I’m sure he determined there was enough space and no conflicts to keep teaching English lessons, which ended up working out.
Why were all of the other pilots able to understand this change except the one guy? Doesn’t sound like it’s the atc fault here
@@Dfpijgyt564s65sgt how many other pilots received a non standard instruction? There are standards and recommended procedures for a reason.
@@Dfpijgyt564s65sgt ATCO is at total fault here, from the starting point that he didn't listen to Azal's readback of the approach clearance, where they read back 31L. Then he didn't use standard phraseology. Other's may be able to understand with zero problem, but I think that it is a winning bet to say that the Azal crew are not native English speakers. ICAO standard phraseology is there for a reason. I also don't understand why Azal wasn't allowed to sidestep to 31R... In any case they all understood each other in the end all landed safely that is what matters.
OMG just cancel his approach clearance, vector him far enough and clear him again for 31R already.
right!!!!!! that's what i said
DO IT ALREADY!!!!
New York controllers just don’t use standard phraseology. If had just said “cancel approach clearance, turn right heading 040”, none of this would have happened.
The controller gave this pilot the turn and new runway 4 times and the pilot repeated the instructions back. Yet the pilot did not comply. WTF! IF The pilot did not understand he should had said so. OVER
Why didn't the approach controller say to Azal that the approach clearance is canceled before telling them to deviate, as they were already "established" on an ILS approach? Not very good communications between the controllers regarding the ATIS information.
Boodieman72 I believe the Azal pilot confirmed 31R when the controller first announced it. ATC likely assumed the pilot understood based on his confirming reply.
Boodieman72 this is exactly what I was thinking. The controller simply saying turn right heading 040 could easily be taken as vectors to final without the "Cancel approach clearance" before it.
Dropping his "expect 31R" as Azal was still on course for the 31s and hadn't started turning didn't help either. Sometimes they seem to forget they are talking to foreign pilots.
Regardless of the reason. He was asked to Turn 040....4 times....before he made the turn.
Mike Doggers exactly. Just do as your told.
You spin me right round, baby
Right round like a record, baby
Right round round round
It's like something out of the movie Airplane. "No, 31 Left has always been for landing", "Listen Azal, don't start up with your 31 Left shit again, "
Now that's funny!
John Michaelson aren’t you often commenting in Wolfe’s videos?
@@aquaticllamas28 Yes I do, have been for a couple years.
Hahahahaha!
The controller could have avoided all the problem with Azal 101 by saying 3 simple words: cancel approach clearance.
Non standard phraseology from US ATC yet again. If an aircraft doesn’t respond as instructed then clarity is required NOT shouting.i would very much like to see how the controller would cope in Azerbaijan after a 9 hour flight?
Captain Al maybe more thank 9 captain
In my opinon you have to look at this situation from the perspective of AHY101. They received Romeo, planning for 31L - were cleared for 31R, misread it and were corrected. After a while they established on 31R, thinking that the 040° heading given should be a switching heading from 31L to 31R. I would sure question the heading aswell as I'm responsible for terrain clearance as soon as I'm established on the localizer. And with no "cancel approach clearance" or "discontinue approach" or at least something similar ESPECIALLY in this situation confusion is preprogrammed.
I don't blame anybody here but it is just *BEYOND ME* how controllers in the USA can't stick to proper phraseology. This is so dangerous - especially when dealing with non-native speakers. And you can't take the _"difficult traffic situation"_ and the _"crowded airpsace in NY"_ as an excuse.
Take a look at London.
Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, Stansted, LCY and so on and so forth - considerably more traffic in a very small portion of airspace. Planes put like pearls on a chain the whole day at LHR. At least the same amount of "exotic" carriers. And why are they having much less problems with these? Becuase they scrupulously stick to a phraeseology which has been invented to limit room for misunderstandings. Which has been invented to make the life of non-native english speakers easier. And most importantly which has been invented to limit the risk of something going wrong - the only connection between pilot and controller beeing verbal communication.
Similar incident with the EVA Air video at LAX which is also on this channel. Telling an insecure non-native pilot heading straight to the north on heading 360° to "turn southbound now". And the turn direction? Shall I turn left or right? Am I free to choose?
And then, when you are insecurely stammering the readbacks to meaningless instructions you get hit by the gracious attitude of US-american controllers. I'm sorry but - what is this?!
Unbelievable.
No matter how confusing or contradicting information the ATC gives in non-standard phraselogy, the pilot should Always obey the latest. Only if the instructions are contradicting in the same transmission (like "turn North heading 180") then the pilot can question it. Even if AHY101 was established on the localizer, the pilot should know how to override it (usually by pulling out the heading knob or pressing the "Heading select" button) and if flight director is refusing to obey the pilot's command, the pilot should disable FD by pressing the flight director button to the light extinguishes. Also when the pilot knows about the runway change, the pilot should also cancel the 31L approach in FADEC and set runway to 31R and then rearm the approach by pressing Confirm Approach.
@@sebastiannielsen But the "latest" instruction didn't contradict their approach clearance. They were still far enough from the airport that they could've briefly turned to heading 40 and then re-intercepted the localizer immediately afterward. Controllers usually give pilots a final turn just before the approach so they may have interpreted that way. The controller should have explicitly canceled their approach clearance, especially given the language barrier.
@@icemachine79 It did, he was very clear that he was still intercepting the wrong localizer, and he was needed to go a turn-around to restablish. I listened in and it was super clear. It was the pilot who couldn't interpret the instructions correctly, thus a pilot deviation. If the ATC don't say "Turn right heading 040 until established on the 31R localizer", you should override your FD and go heading 040. Doing a "Go around" is a safer option than landing/continuing approach, and thus in any doubt, interpret the instructions as the "worst case".
@@sebastiannielsen No, the non-standard "I need to spin you" comment came later. The controller simply said "turn right 040" and then added to the confusion by saying "expect 31R". The controller had already cleared them for the approach to 31R _after_ correcting them about 31L and they were still far enough away that a turn to 040 could be misinterpreted as a final interception turn. There were mistakes on both sides, but the controller could have avoided ALL of this by simply telling the pilots to cancel their approach. Basically, if you're going to be pedantic about what the pilots didn't hear then you should equally (or more) pedantic about what the controller didn't say, especially considering these were non-native English speakers.
In the military, soldiers are drilled on specific phrases so that they will perform requested actions in times where limited mental capabilities are in effect. Airlines and manufacturers present similar tasks in the various checklists. If the ATCs are not using the pre-programmed language to get the desired results, they have nobody else to blame when they don't get the desired results. Due to language barriers and the ATIS confusion, using the correct commands becomes paramount to getting the pilots to perform the desired actions.
This controller could use some training on standard phraseology. It would fix most of the confusion he creates
I’ve never heard an ATC sound so defeated like this lol
If you listen to some of the Kennedy Steve recordings where Kennedy Steve complains about the ramp controllers, to the point of calling the ramp situation a "gong show", you'll hear some similar exasperation.
That’s JFK ATC for you lol
Hey Mark!
I’m surprised, ppl bitch about saying over, why is Steve saying over repeatedly?
Are US controllers the rudest in the (modern) world? Most other parts of the world the controllers don’t get into self aggrandisement or condescending tactics like we hear on US airport radio. A simple “ILF clearance cancelled, let me take you round again” is clearly too complicated
I wouldn't say that about US controllers in general but having worked there myself (in the city, not the airport) New Yorkers are not the most patient and understanding bunch of people on the planet. The obvious and quick rise in temper from the controller was all too familiar when combined with that accent.
yeme I take your word on that since I’m African raised and European based. I did flight school in Florida though, and that’s as far as my personal experience goes. I would think that harassing/abusing or confusing pilots is contrary to what the controller is supposed to be doing and potentially dangerous. Regardless of their personal opinions as to the capabilities of the pilot on the receiving end, controllers should be working to remove stress and not increase it
I imagine that the controller was imagining a fireball and mass casualties from disobeying ATC instructions. That would cause me to raise my voice.
This is New York, they are the rudest everything in the world. Don't group all Americans in there... but yes, us Americans can be pretty damn rude.
This channel just keeps highlighting the importance of proper aviation english and phraeseology. Learn it! Use it! Be safe!
On first reading/listening I missed the double "approach in use: ILS.... " So I understood: Approach in use: ILS 31L. Then a landing clearance for 31R is unusual, but not unheard of: Follow ILS31L and then side-step to 31R. I think that in that frame-of-mind the reaction of the pilots is more "reasonable". They thought they were being helped with the side-step instead of told to discontinue the approach. That's in my mind at least a possible explanation of why they didn't break off the approach when first instructed.
Bit of everything. But the instruction for the 040 turn should have immediately been "Azal 101 cancel approach clearance, turn right heading 040". I think Azal's assumption was that they were being given a right turn so as to line up in sequence for 31R, hence why they didn't actually follow it because they thought this was the turn being given for 31R localiser (and that 040 was not a necessary turn to achieve that, 330 would have been plenty), rather than the fact that they'd been resequenced.
HornetGamer exactly that is my understanding. But later, azal was definitely little bit pissed of on that guy so they trolled him back pretty nicely with thise readbacks haha
This isn't right--the approach clearance wasn't canceled. He's being given new vectors to final, so he has an amended approach clearance. That's what "spin" means. It may have helped to just say "new vectors to final; turn right 040"
At 2:07 he was instructed until established on the localizer and at 3:20 the pilot stated he was established. I think the controller is at fault.
ATC said until established 31R, pilot reads back 31L. ATC tried several times to correct him bc he was lined up for the incorrect runway. So he decided it was best to pull them out of the flow to make sure he got the correct runway. Nothing wrong with that. Plus the pilot was told several times to turn right heading 040. ATC is definitely not at fault here. Even tho I would have said cancel approach clearance.
Richard Dalrymple atc was at fault too. He was using bad terminology. You can’t just say turn 040 if you’re on the ILS about to land. Especially to pilots than can only say hello and good bye in English. Listening to the conversation the pilots were thinking something else completely because of the limited English, while ATC was expecting them something else
“Cancel approach clearence” “turn right whatever”. Problem solved.
@@essel23fly ATC should have said " cancel approach clearance". And yes you actually can say turn right heading 040, bc they were not established on the approach. Nothing wrong with that other then he should have said the upon mentioned. Bad phraseology isnt the end of the world and yes it can cause misunderstandings etc. Have you ever flown into N90's airspace? Their airspace is probably the most complex airspace in the world and sometimes you short cut words bc you get extremely busy. Still not saying what he did was right, its just not the end of the world. This still does not negate the fact that the pilots ignored a turn several times. Would you still blame ATC if they saw them line up for the wrong runway and did nothing? Would if he just let that pilot continue even after he said he was est on 31R LOC and something happened bc they still had 31L programmed? I bet that a lot of people would still blame ATC and say something like he should have caught them lining up for the wrong runway. Yes, ATC should have said cancel approach clearance and then given the heading. I would have done the exact same thing. I would have pulled them out and set them back up for the approach to make sure they were set-up correctly.
Richard Dalrymple look... you can’t just say turn heading 040 to a crew that is well into the approach. You have to say cancel approach. And they were already established, they were about to land. That was the whole confusion. When ATC said that, the pilots did not understand that he was basically telling them the approach was over and they were going around. The pilots thought 040 was to line up on the correct runway WHILE they were established, that’s where the confusion was. Of course the pilots should have asked what in the world ATC was doing but also ATC made a few mistakes too and he had major attitude.
"Cancel ILS Clearance"
Exactly. I often criticize foreign controllers for their failure to use proper terminology when it is a contributory factor to an incident. American controllers don't get a pass either.
Laban Johnson ummm he was never cleared
@@ARUTHLESSASIAN He was cleared for the 31R approach but confused it for 31L. While the pilots were technically at fault, all the controller had to do was cancel their approach clearance to make it clear that they should discontinue the approach to 31L.
@@icemachine79 He was never cleared, a clearance isn't effective until the pilot has read back the clearance correctly, which he did not. So, if you look at it from a legal perspective there was not need to say anything related to cancelling anything. This incident is just the fact that the pilot either lacked in English or had some Human Factors kicked in
@@ARUTHLESSASIAN You're missing the point here. Nobody is arguing the legal technicalities. But it was obvious that the pilot _thought_ he was cleared, therefore the controller's most effective response to the situation would have been to immediately "cancel" that "clearance" verbally to avoid any ambiguity caused by the language barrier. Being able to quickly adapt to unexpected situations is one reason why ATC is run by humans rather than computers. Sometimes the rulebook is insufficient.
I think at the end there the controller knew he'd not been clear enough when he tried to turn him 040 and was a little frustrated with himself more than anything. "Cancel approach clearance" (as others have said) was the terminology needed here. Can totally understand why the pilots were so confused. That said we're all human and these things happen to the best of us.
Clearest ATC that i find is in Hong Kong, Singapore and London/UK using standard Phraseology.
Hong Kong and Singapore aren't even in the realm of clearest except when they have expat ATCs on duty.
From what I've heard Aussies seem pretty relaxed and clear when talking.
Singapore, it kinda depends on the day/staff. They're never too bad. Never flown to HK. New Delhi and Bengaluru are my favorite. Those ladies are overly calm even when people mess up. Think it has to do with the very formal way English is taught in some "commonwealth" nations
ATC and pilots were just ignoring each other....
- You are established on 31L so turn 040
- But we are established on 31R now
- Turn right 040
- Confirm 31R?
- **ignores**
- ...
- Why are you not turning 040?!
"Turn right 090 EXPEDITE!"
You missed a couple lines. ATC also kept talking about 31R which was just muddying the situation for an obvious non-native English speaker. Should have just left it at 040 and worked out the runway assignment later.
@@ZachFichtler Since when is being a non-native English speaker an excuse for not complying with ATC instructions?
@@givmi_more_w9251 The controller was not giving clear, concise directions. Even a native English speaker could have misunderstood.
@@givmi_more_w9251 You realize that a final turn is often given to intercept the localizer just before an approach, right? The pilots probably interpreted it that way. All the controller had to say was "cancel approach clearance" and there wouldn't have been a problem.
Poor Azal, ATC kept confusing them. :D
Though need better readback enforcement from ATC.
NetAndyCz i think, azal did troll the atc on purpose really well 😂
Not confusing at all. ATIS maybe but they still completely failed to follow controller instructions endlessly AFTER ATIS info was clarified. They were clearly a clusterfuck in the cockpit and had no idea what was going on while tower was giving them instructions. Would hate to see this crew doing a slam dunk into a busy airport at night near minimums with crappy weather.
Alex Thomas I doubt any professional would pull that stunt.
@@mikecahill19 _"The crew then read back 31R and still managed to establish on the wrong localizer."_ Then they confirmed the right turn 040 and still managed to ignore it four times in a row. What the heck was going on in that cockpit?
@@Justin.Franks Exactly. But I still had to laugh when controller was like "just turn 090, eastbound" with that undertone "go fuck yourselves" XD
If you listen carefully not only did Azal get the ATIS that said 31L, at 0:22 were told to expect ILS 31L,. Later they were cleared for the approach for 31R. In hindsight (since I'm not going 200 knots flying an airplane) Azal should've questioned controller immediately stating they were told to expect 31L. Mitigate the issue. Controller should've canceled approach clearance then provided the vector. The pilot may have assumed the vector was just to sidestep them to 31R. Think controller more at fault here than the pilot, but pilot should've been more assertive.
I would have given the azil after the wilco on the Romeo delta
I did 4 facepalms so hard I think my face is red now.
JFK is in a hard airspace ok. But this communication breakdown is unacceptable.
Well for a Kennedy controller he was actually fairly calm. Listening to Kennedy ATC makes me wonder how anyone lands safe there sometimes.
I'm not a pilot or a controller so I'm sure others have better informed opinions than me, but just as a layperson I don't think I would want to be a passenger on any plane flying in to JFK if this is the standard of ATC communication they consider acceptable. Even leaving aside what seemed to me to be specific procedural failures, the inability of the controller to adequately handle his own emotions can only serve to raise the level of stress in the cockpit at a time when the pilots are already trying to deal with an inherently confusing situation. That in itself has potential to lead to a hazardous situation.
One of the interesting things about liveatc is that it allows us to hear and compare controllers from many different places. This 'tone of castigation' the controller showed here doesn't exactly seem uncommon at JFK. Yet I think anyone who has spent time listening to say Shannon or Sydney would not expect a similar situation to be handled in the same way there.
In my opinion the tone does not affect air safety as much (I am aware it might cause stress and thus distract the pilots a bit) but the uncommon terminology I've heard by US ATC really worries me. Also the speed at which some ATC speak. They assume all pilots are used to both and sooner or later that is going to kill people.
Agree. And to use the word "spin" in an explanation is a huge no-no in aviation. Spin means something completely different.
One of the things that MOST impresses me as a layperson about most of these ATC recordings, especially in emergency and near miss situations, is how calm and collected most pilots and controllers sound, even when they are really stressed and under a ton of pressure.
Obvious emotions and stress are unavoidable at times, but they are contagious, just as I become more stressed when I sense that my manager or colleagues in the office are showing their stress.
It may not have been officially wrong, and I can understand it, as everyone is only human, but in hindsight I would argue that if the ATC would have taken a deep breath and switched to "patient teacher" mode from "stressed firefighter" mode, it probably wouldn't have hurt, and may well have helped.
We've heard that happen in other JFK recordings, where ATC makes an obvious and concsious choice to speak more slowly, enunciate better, and use simpler, more precise phraseology when they encounter language challenges or confusion with foreign pilots.
As an actual pilot, I can tell you that feeling unsafe because of this type of communication is absurd. Separation was maintained at all times. The controller knew what he was looking at and doing a great job at it. However, safety culture is huge and you are right, in a less extreme way, that it could be looked at from the perspective of task saturation and other principles for improvements in the future.
I am far more worried about pilots who seem not able to understand the most easy instructions and just parrot what they hear from ATC. As for the somewhat unprofessional attitude, I agree, still, all the other pilots (also foreign ones) were perfectly able to comply with and understand his instructions. Being a non-native speaker is no excuse for that.
ATC sounds so done with Azal.
Yeah, that "I'm gonna need it" after the Delta pilot wishes him good luck kind of tells the poor guy had had it... Must be quite a challenge to be a controller at JFK.
@@@malahammer Well, yeah... JFK controllers are not known for their bottomless patience. Having said that, if we're gonna make an unprofessionalism contest, I think the Azerbaijan pilots take the cake by a long shot. Granted, the ATIS was wrong, but you can't just ignore crystal clear ATC commands several times in a row and expect people at ATC center to be happy with you, can you?
@@javiercaselli Couldn't disagree more. What was the crystal clear ATC command? They were told to expect 31L, then got cleared for 31R without any announcement of the change. ATC misspeaks these things all the time and pilots assume that what they were told to expect is what's happening UNLESS they are specifically told that their runway has been reassigned.
Then, AZA confirms 31R and works to establish on it when ATC tells them to turn right 040. Once you are cleared for the approach you shouldn't be getting any more vectors so wtf is this? Is ATC trying to "help" him get onto the ILS? Is he turning him away? Under IFR the controller has to give a reason for any deviations in case they lose communications ("for traffic", "for spacing" etc).
The controller was unprofessional and had very bad radio phraseology. He should have "cancelled their approach clearance" and then turned them to bring them around, not "spin" them. Spin is a very bad word in aviation.
As far as I can hear the AZA pilot was confused by contradicting information he was getting and zero explanation from ATC. He wasn't ignoring the command, the command was unclear.
@@drfaustus72 "Turn right 040" sounds to you like it has any sort of ambiguity? As I said, it's true that the ATIS was wrong, so I can understand the confusion the first time the command was issued, and I'll give you the second time as well... But any further than that? C'on!
Ok, maybe "crystal clear" was an exaggeration, maybe they should've cancelled approach clearance, but the command was crystal clear, a basic heading vector out of "Listening to ATC 101".
@@javiercaselli It has ambiguity in the context because he doesn't know for what reason he is being turned. He is cleared for the approach; so, if he is being turned to intercept the 31R Loc and he already is intercepting the Loc, then the pilot might well assume that the command is superfluous. In fact, he replies (after the first command): "Right heading 040. And for runway 31R". So, he is clearly under the impression that ATC is "helping" him to get onto the Loc, which makes total sense.
Then ATC says that he is going to "spin" him because he is established on the wrong runway (which might or might not be true - most likely he is tracking parallel because they weren't ready for 31R). What does spin mean to a non-English speaker? In aviation it means a very bad situation, but as far as directional...? The pilot can still assume that ATC is trying to get him onto the Loc. And he even says "Now we're turning to the right for 31R".
Then he reports "established" on the Loc and in his eyes there is no reason to be brought around. ATC rather stoically keeps repeating "Turn heading 040"... all he has to say is "Cancel Approach Clearance". AZA pilot asks to confirm ILS 31R (as in: do you want me to land or what else?". ATC IGNORES him.
In my eyes the Heading 040 command was confusing, not crystal clear. As PIC you have an obligation to crosscheck ATC commands against your own situational awareness and safety. You were cleared for ILS31R; you're established on ILS31R; ATC has been confused and runways have been changed; ATC is not giving you expected instructions (either "cancel clearance" or "contact tower"); you've asked for clarification; you've been clear about what you are doing; ATC is ignoring you...
I think it's a mistake to look at ATC as god-like. It's a team effort and the Approach dude didn't want to pass the ball.
ATC was unprofessional where azal was more proactive and trying to solve the confusion. The question is: was azal really still established on 31L or did they move to 31R after the new clearance?
They heard expect 31R, and used their eyes to see that they had visual separation from other aircraft and a clear sequence into 31R. Controller seemed like he was being a dick when he wanted them to do a 360, howeverhe could have assumed they needed to punch in some numbers into their flight manager computer (fmc) or was following some sort of precautionary procedure unique to JFK. Rather than ask if the pilot could sidestep from 31L to 31R (SFO does this all the time) he just assumed unable and tried to vector the aircraft and also said "expect 31R" as in to give the pilots time to prepare for a different runway. The pilots interpreted this as turn right 040 and then intercept the path to 31R (heading 310). The magic words "cancel approach" would have cleared all of the confusion. Mark my words there will be a crash at JFK due do communication breakdown between ATC and foreign pilots. Not SFO, LAX, ATL or any other US airport.
*Ryanair would just change the Runway’s name temporarily*
_Bob McCoy you should ask O’Leary for a job as Ryanair’s social media manager
What's that based on?
@@albertonex19 He's just trying to be funny given the generally poor service reputation of Ryanair. He does this on every video.
For an extra fee they'd file the airport for the temporary runway number change.
Passengers charged airport atis screw up fee
JFK_APP is at fault here with respect to pulling AHY101 off the approach. ATC must cancel the approach clearance. He gave the approach clearance earlier, that's why AHY was confused when ATC said to "turn right heading 040." ATC should have said, "cancel approach clearance - turn right heading 040 for re-squencing to runway 31R." Not, "I am going to spin you."
Seems that Azal knew they were cleared for 31R, but established on 31L by mistake. When they were told by ATC to turn right heading 040, and cleared for 31R approach, they interpreted the command as a heading to side-step to the 31R approach instead, therefore their confusion. Luckily there wasn't another aircraft on 31R approach. So the pilots made an mistake, but I agree with some of the comments saying the ATC should have said cancel approach clearance.
"When they were told by ATC to turn right heading 040, and cleared for 31R approach, they interpreted the command as a heading to side-step to the 31R approach instead"
That's exactly what I assumed happened.
That seems as good a summary as there is. I'm not a pilot, but I think "sidestepping" on short final might be a no-no, though. Intercepting the wrong localizer and switching to another that late seems like it could needlessly introduce hazards into a critical phase of flight. In my opinion, if the pilots were flying "by the book," they probably ought to have proactively initiated a go-around, but not wanting to be re-sequenced is understandable.
Side stepping isn't necessarily an issue as it's up to the PIC to determine if they can fly that approach. In this case, they were far enough out to review the approach plate to verify its within their limitations (unless they fly here so often that they have it memorized). If they didn't feel comfortable with it, they could turn to 040 and state unable, request vectors for 31R full approach.
tl;dr it wasn't a stabilized approach so they should have asked to be vectored for the approach again
Artisan Auto Body Had they passed the FAF?, if not, a sidestep is not a problem.
4:18 now that was a quick readback LOL
New York Controllers 🙄 always have to cause a fight when it's not necessary
Delta: "Over to tower, good luck"
ATC: *"Yeah, I need it"*
ATC always gets upset with me when I do spins in a controlled airspace.
At 0:25, ATC gave the pilots the assigned runway, 31L multiple times. Then ATC goes ahead and changes it at the very last second to 31R with the visibility being as low as it was thinking it’s that easy to change a runway. This whole thing was a big error on ATC’s part. And plus using in proper terminology doesn’t help as well. IDK why New York approach has a habit of doing that and can’t their act straight when it comes to these issues.
"changes it at the very last second"
When the change was made the aircraft hadn't even intercepted the 31L localizer, they were about 6 or 7 miles out and therefore had enough time.
I agree that Approach should have cancelled the clearance when he turned the aircraft out of traffic. But then again, if the pilots didn't understand the instructions given by ATC they should have asked about it and not read them back without complying to them.
I think this cofusion is responsible for the atc controller. He should have said Azal to "cancel approach clearance" immidiaty. And why he ignored Azal when they asked him "confirm 31R?" . This is one of the worst atc records I've ever heard.
Delta - good luck!
ATC- I need it
The ATC is a prepotent one. the error is from the ATC for not checking the ATIS correctly.
Imagine if Air China, JAL, Asiana, and Korean Air were the ones approaching.
Carnage?
Air China has a history of using pilots that have trouble understanding English. Not sure about the others.
Well, imagine if there would be a controller at JFK using proper ICAO phraseology which works perfectly fine all over the world except the USA...
Well actually if you watch the video closely, there was JAL on the approach and he understood the rwy change immediately
King Manalang NANI?? IMPOSSIBRU!
ATC could have saved himself a lot New York attitude and confusion by stating "cancel approach clearance" and give a heading. but that is ATC in New York for you...
"I'm going to spin you"? What's with the slang over ATC? Why does the controller not use clear professional English and expect the foreign pilots to understand what he means? Not too hard to say "execute missed approach" or "cancel ILS clearance" or simply "go around". Also, I can imagine how pilots with lesser English skills can get on your nerves, but you ought to show the way and BE CLEAR.
If u have poor English skills simply don't fly to USA!
Flying into the US requires at least a level 5 English proficiency, which is equivalent to being an advanced speaker, one level below native. I do agree, though, aviation requires standard ICAO English phraseology to avoid confusion.
@@abifaiq9645 You can have no problems in most communications, and still not know what spin is referring to here. I for one still don't quite understand what exactly it means.
Maybe he realized that the Azal pilot was not understanding him so he tried to word it in a different way that he maybe could understand. The ATC was clearly stressed out of his comfort zone.
Doesn’t take much to piss off a New York controller
Or any New Yorker.
Captain Maggie would have told AZAL “Follow me and do exactly what I do” and it would have been perfectly clear.
Man, I can feel that exasperation in his voice!
Dunno how accurate the radar track is but if you look closely, AHY started off on the 31L localiser but by the second or third time the controller instructed right 040, they had slipped right and established on the 31R localiser instead. Also, the pilots may have misinterpreted the vector as "turn 40 degrees to the right, to establish on the 31R localiser", which if the radar track is accurate is exactly what they did.
Poor ATC communication, poor Azal comprehension, and a silly technical glitch, lucky that nothing bad came out of this situation.
Arguably one of the most unprofessional controllers I've heard, especially when dealing with non-native speakers.
Why does the ATIS sound like the old NOAA weather radio voice
Rumor has it Azal 101 still hasn't turned to heading 040...
When a pilot (especially one for whom English is not his native language) fails to follow an ATC's instructions, either he's bat-shit crazy or he just doesn't understand what he is supposed to do. A rephrasing of the instructions, step-by-step, using only recognized phrasing, is in order. This takes patience, time and focus from the ATC, and if he's juggling a lot of traffic, it may be difficult to do. I know I couldn't multitask as well as they do!
Yanks invented aviation so they don’t need to follow standard phraseology.
Standard phraseology is whatever we say it is...'Merika #1.
If they didn't we'd be using metric units for height, distance and velocity, like we do for spacecraft.
I'm pretty sure Leonardo Da Vinci invented aviation before the Yanks discovered America. But hey, you might mean that the Indians invented aviation, right?! (Yes, I know, Leonardo didn't operate an aircraft in real life, but his ideas were valid.) And just to be really picky... It was the Chinese who invented aviation 2000 years ago. 😉
If the would have updated the ATIS sooner, this madness wouldn't have happened.
Why do they have Stephen Hawking reading the ATIS? It's like 1970's speak spell. Technology has moved along.
"Notice to airmen: Runway 13L / 31R closed. Alien life probably exists and it's not friendly. AI will kill us all. I'm checking out now. Goodbye and good luck."
It's like HAL9000 with half its boards pulled out.
It’s not too hard to day “approach canceled”, right?
If I was Azal I would have told him he needs to relax.
was he too close to side step and visual to 31R?
Poor ATC work. Cancel ILS clearance.
Cancel Approach Clearence
Remember folks that the ATC must maintain separation of the aircraft, both vertically and horizontally. If the controller cancels Azal 101 clearance then he will have to perform a go around and re-enter the pattern. He had them fly a orbit to insert them back into the landing queue without disturbing the approach of the aircraft. Azal 101 was refusing to follow ATC instructions to turn and not accepting the vectors. That is not acceptable unless there is an emergency or a TCAS alert.
Tbf for the Azal, “i’m gonna spin ya” is not proper FAA terminology, so even though approach said to cancel approach clearance, it probably isn’t clear for the average non-native english speaker to understand that “spinning” means he’s just going to make him do a 360 and get him back centered on the ILS approach.
my opinion: this was a mess and I feel bad for Azal but also just turn right heading 040 if that’s what the man says? it was odd how long he took to follow through with instructions
they were cleared for ILS approach, it can't be both, either ILS or vectors
The controller should have specifically stated “Approach clearance canceled. Fly (heading), maintain (altitude)” his phraseology was terrible. All the back and for could have happened after Azal was off the final. That being said the pilot was clearly confused. All the more reason to make it perfectly clear you’re canceling the approach clearance. In which case those words need to be said.
I'm not an expert but even ATC confused me. First you send Azal to 31R, then you tell them to turn. Huh? That didn't even make sense to me.
If Kennedy Steve was still there this wouldn’t be an issue.
ATC should've specified the approach was cancelled. Azal should've confirmed if they were still cleared the approach after a repeat of the heading requirement.
We don't care, we don't have to, position and hold.
The controller needs good luck to keep his job
At 6:23 ATC said "7 miles from ZULAB"
Good catch
Oh boy, that was kind of messy to order the AHY101 for expecting the ILS 31R.
This was a language issue. I really feel for people who don't have English as their first language & cannot articulate themselves well & think as fast as a native speaker.
It’s funny that most of these negative comments are towards the ATC, where the comments are based on an enthusiasts point of view talking about phraseology because he said “spin”.... Just to add he was never cleared for 31L, he said “EXPECT 31L”, so the fact that people are saying he should’ve said “cancel approach clearance”, what was there to cancel?? Note that CLEARED and EXPECT are two very different things children. So, from a student pilot POV currently reading CPL law I can safely say that it’s the pilots fault. Firstly, he read back the controllers instructions, which means he understood the instructions even thought by the sounds of it l he didn’t, which is really bad (pretty sure I don’t have to explain why). Secondly, you should always listen to ATC, the only time you deviate from ATC is if your TCAS, ACAS, etc. come on or if you feel it’s unsafe as PIC. So, I can safely bet that 98% of the people blaming ATC is most likely an enthusiasts.
ATC was cavalier here. He should have said, "cancel approach clearance; turn right heading 040 - vector resequence" Instead, he just kept saying, "turn right heading 040 - you're lined up with 31L"
ATIS was not clear and ATC did less than stellar job (though with so many flights who could blame them)
I just looked up at the sky..Azal 101 is still circling on 040. 😂
Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
Azal was not to blame here. ATC was confusing, disrespectful and impatient.
R3D yea. Turn right to 040. Ok. Doesn’t turn. Give me a break.
Omg I cant stand how slow that ATIS was
You would hope that the pilots listening are writing it down. What's the rush?
@@douggale5962 sometime, when you fly, it can get very tight and a fast atis does same time. If you miss anything, just relisten to it
This is proper funny, you can hear the frustration in the ATC but..... he did use some incorrect terms and this obviously added to the confusion. Worth a listen though....
Certainly there was some language difficulty between approach and AZAL. However, it is understandable (to a degree) that the pilot was confused and/or hesitant to land on 31R in conflict with the ATIS notice to airmen. ATC should keep his frustrations out of his communications and help the pilot resolve his confusion. That's his job. On the other hand, Azal pilot should have turned right immediately on command--that's on him.
This is a very succinct way to put it.
I agree with you... I'm a bit inclined to blame ATC more than the pilot on this one, but as a layperson I'm on the understanding that when ATC issues an instruction, pilots should generally follow the instruction first and ask why later, with the exceptions being TCAS alerts and obvious visual hazards.
Many times AHY101 did not read back instructions, ATC was also partly to blame
I think he could make sense of the instructions and was trying to understand them. I'm not sure if any paper cover this; you are supposed to readback clearances but you should also understand them at the same time. Or you would just readback something you have no idea it it is correct or not. I can totally relate to this situation, NOT giving the readback immediately if I don't understand them fully.
"Good Luck"-"Yeah, I need it"
no, you need better controlling and the sentence "[callsign] cancel approach clearance [instruction of your choice]"
i was sure ATC gave vectors for a side step to 31R. Even after the "hdg 090" i haven't realized that the controller's intention was to vector him to another approach. "I'm gonna spin you" (!?!???)
Gustavo Pilati A suggestion for a sidestep approach, never entered the controllers mind!
To be fair to the pilots, once they were switched over to NY APP from CTR, they were cleared for 31L and it was confirmed with the current ATIS. At that point, pilots will enter in all the data needed to set up the approach into their computers. It wasn't until he was on base with Final APP, that the runway changed on them. Not too big of a deal to sidestep for a visual in VFR conditions, but for a heavy on an ILS, it may be a bit more difficult. That last controller was a bit perturbed about the whole situation/communication, but I don't think he knew at that point about their initial 31L clearance.
Mike Fuquay CTR doesn’t clear approaches.
That's right. CTR didn't, but NY APP (ROBER or CAMRN) would have. However, they would've been switched from there to NY APP FINAL for final sequencing and intercept. My point is, these two controllers were not on the same page with runways and total blame shouldn't be put on the pilots.
@theroseera - Very true. The initial Approach controllers do tell them which runway to expect. The reason being, especially with ILS approaches and/or IFR conditions, the pilots have more to do in the ways of inputting data into their computers and setting up for the approach. The fact is, the pilots should've been more up front with confirming their expectant runway assignment and the both ATCs should've been on the same page.
And numerous pilots when switching from approach to the JFK local controller will ask for 31L if they have been lined up for the right side to shorten taxi time once on the ground so having a change to the parallel on final is not a difficult task. Usually they are denied due to large volume of departures but not always. The change in voice from Azal just showed first voice did not understand and second person took over speaking to ATC.
The controller sounded very relieved when he handed him off to Tower.
for Azal issue : AND why finishing sentences with "over" ????? - "over" is use to terminate an opened discussion on a certain frequency. "over" tells you won't speak again. That's nonsense and Azal reply :"ILS 31r over, Azal 101" - that mean he didn't understand that word !
Statuquo No, that is incorrect. "Over", signifies that you have finished your statement, and are now waiting for a reply. "Out", signifies i have finished the statement, no reply required.
Heading 040° is 90° different to localizer course. So it was clearly NOT a heading to intercept.
I'm not a pilot but the ATC getting angry really doesn't seem to be helping the situation..
Homeboy supposed to say "cancel approach clearance." I like to stick up for my controllers but he was in the wrong this time
I don't like the new Kennedy Steve. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is after a 13-hour flight and English is not his native language, give the pilot a break.
Azal should have told him to mark the tapes.
This controller is extremely ineffective. Make it clear that he is not cleared the approach. He’s a non-native English speaker after a long flight and ATC is using nonstandard phraseology and never canceled his previous approach clearance.
I find JFK controllers to be the rudest, most arrogant, and frequently the least standardized controllers in the US, which is a shame considering how many international crews they interact with. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I’ve got 30 years with my airline and the only standing bid I have every month is to avoid JFK.
*raises hand*
sorry for asking what is probably an obvious thing to most of the viewer base, but what is a NOTAM?
ryabow [Notice to Airmen] (an incidental alert)
ryabow A NOTAM, is a Notice to Airmen. It is message, sent out to all civil and military airports worldwide. Information such as runway closures, construction on runways, or near taxiways, equipment failures that affect navigation or communication. You name it, if it can pose a danger to aviation, you will see it on a NOTAM.
how was the captain to know who was right the ATC or the warning message that runway was closed. For all he knew someone could have hijacked the signal/atc and giving false information. In this situaltion landing clearence should have been cancelled and go around ordered
Just fly east...
He sounds so defeated lol
The tower was right. however, it is confusing hearing the difference between 31R and 13L, specially for non-english mother toungue pilots.
Air China would of been cleared to the ramp
Just go full afterburners and takeoff on the taxiway!