Kennedy Controller reprimands Kuwait pilot on Approach. Real ATC Audio

[@Johnny-Michael]

"...but your readback with your full callsign is mandatory for us" * still doesn't use call sign*

[@jaapstam4681]

Pilot: "Will do" Narrator: But he still didn't

[@johndonovan7018]

yeah he doesnt care. he doesnt care about the go around or anything else. oil money cause perpetual happiness.

[@mandalorianmanic9525]

I am with tower on this one, at a busy airport it's super important to be clear with ATC. Don't shortchange your calls, it's not ATC's job to memorize your voice and *hope* the right person read back. Use your callsign, ATC is here to keep you and everyone else alive. Pilot also proved he *could* read back clearly when he annunciated himself clearly, so he was just being lazy with his readbacks.

[@tvsjr1]

Not just important... in this case, it's the law: "Pilot-applied visual separation between aircraft is achieved when the controller has instructed the pilot to maintain visual separation and the pilot acknowledges with their call sign or when the controller has approved pilot-initiated visual separation. " FAA Order JO 7110.65, para 7-2-1. No proper acknowledgement with callsign, no pilot-applied visual separation.

[@armandolasa3717]

Which means pilot need not accept the visual separation if on an instrument approach

[@katanapilot1977]

As an European pilot I still don't get it why one receives a landing clearance if there is still another aircraft on short final. And Tower should have given the Kuwaiti minimum clean a lot earlier.

[@Rhinozherous]

ATC is 100% correct on this. Pilots have to do what they are supposed to do. Propper use of radio communications is basics.

[@FasterLower]

Agreed, propper use of radio communications is essential. Why do many US pilots and ATC not do it? Correct (ICAO) phraseology is "afirm" not "afirmative", Frequencies won [one] two three dayceemal [decimal] four five not twentythree fourty five not two three point four five either.

[@MARKPlaygroundT]

At the end it sounds like this pilot gave up and headed back to Kuwait 😂

[@lynndale4718]

"And in the future i don't mean to give you a hard time...." Who didn't use a call sign this time?

[@efoxxok7478]

Yes but he also didn’t give a clearance on that transmission either.

[@bpmunroe]

“Will do.” Doesn’t do.

[@BlackBarney]

I didn’t realize you could get a go around just as punishment

[@tvsjr1]

Not a punishment. He was already gaining on the A330 (as indicated by ATC's request to reduce to minimum approach speed). ATC instructed to maintain visual separation but this was never properly acknowledged. So, rather than violate minimum spacing (which could get the controller in trouble), he sent the aircraft around for resequencing. 7110.65AA, para 7-2-1 has a note specifically stating: "Pilot-applied visual separation between aircraft is achieved when the controller has instructed the pilot to maintain visual separation and the pilot acknowledges with their call sign or when the controller has approved pilot-initiated visual separation. " No proper acknowledgement with callsign, no pilot-applied visual separation. Kuwaiti owns this 110% - JFK is not the place to be shortcutting the rules.

[@BlackBarney]

@@tvsjr1 Thanks for the explanation! It just seems clear, to me, that ATC understood that Kuwaiti acknowledged visual separation. So the important part is done, the only missing thing is proper protocol. So i feel like ATC has two choices: 1) admonish pilot on frequency or 2) possible pilot deviation and take down a number. But 3) doing a go-around just seems like an unmeasured response that is being 100% used as a punishment and 0% used as a safety measure since visual separation was clearly acknowledged by Kuwaiti.

[@tvsjr1]

@@BlackBarney except it isn't clear by the rules I cited. And if a crash occurred, the controller would be at fault. Assumptions (and remember the definition of ass-u-me) are often one of the first holes in the Swiss cheese model. When dealing with life or death situations, you cannot assume.

[@tahliahere2362]

⁠@@BlackBarneybecause ATC never got him to say (for the tape recording) that it was indeed the Kuwait flight that is taking over the responsibility of maintaining visual separation from the controller. I’d say the pilot will definitely get a number to call but in the meantime the ATC has no evidence that he is going to maintain visual separation so he had no choice but to send him around. 100% agree with controller.

[@michaelhall9138]

Doesn’t matter what we know, it only matters what’s on the tape. I would have cleared him for a visual approach to follow the A330. The controller did the only thing he could without a proper read back.

[@dhouse-d5l]

Im not ATC but I can easily imagine the criticality of that situation, then you have a pilot whos messing with ya.... Im with atc 100%

[@tomwilliam5118]

At least this pilot spoke English rather well better than some that come from overseas

[@6yjjk]

Thumbnail: TOO strict.

[@TheATCAudio]

Thank you! Corrected:)

[@6yjjk]

@@TheATCAudio Nicely done :)

[@CaptainSwoop]

The controller was correct. Non compliance must not be tolerated. The insidious creep of laxity is not acceptable in this business.

[@semaex]

That's a funny comment considering we're talking about the US, which (from an EASA point of view) is the non-standard-phraseology wild west.

[@johndonovan7018]

doesnt sound like the kuwaiti gave any shits about any of that lol..

[@_dude..]

*too

[@bigguy7353]

"to" strict, huh? Is English a second language for you?

[@megadavis5377]

Actually, no one but those in the cockpit of that airplane knows what was going on at the time nor what the stress level was. The pilot may have been dealing with much more important issues than vocabulary in a foreign language.

[@santstravels]

so he can just ignore SOPs because he is stressed?

[@ConstantlyDamaged]

Absolutely. If they were so overwhelmed that neither pilot could communicate succinctly, they should have hit TOGA and asked for a holding pattern so they could sort that out.

[@graemecox6502]

Try flying in China.

[@billfly2186]

ATC knew which aircraft was responding. Aircraft in front was clear. That go around cost thousands of dollars and could have put passengers in danger. Ridiculous punishment.

[@mohrk]

And who would be to blame if he didn’t insist on the rules? The pilot? “I no understand”

[@gavinsingh4450]

Danger? You're delusional!!!

[@billfly2186]

@@gavinsingh4450 It says " could have".

[@VictorHahn]

Absolutely, there was no operational reason for this go around. The controller was punishing the pilot, and that's as unprofessional as it is unacceptable.

[@gavinsingh4450]

@@VictorHahn There was a reason! He didn't know if his instructions were being received, and if so, by the correct aircraft!!!