Pilot CUTS IN FRONT OF Airline Aircraft | Close Call at Rochester

[@mattfender]

Thought he was almost getting away without a number to call 😂

[@JackFliesGA]

lol she had no break in tone, rock steady and ice cold. They all in the tower and the flight deck shaking their heads though!

[@mattfender]

😂😂 Didn’t clog up the airwaves berating the 172 pilot at least!

[@jackielinde7568]

My understanding is that takeoffs and landings are the part of flight with the highest workload, so ATC generally doesn't want to add the, "we got a phone number to call" to that. They could have had ground give the guy the number if he landed there, and I do believe he told this towner what his ultimate destination is. So, it's not like he's getting away.

[@KennethAGrimm]

​@@jackielinde7568 Correct. Also, ATC seemed to have foreknowledge of where 43Q would go after the touch-and-go option. N7043Q has been owned by current owner less than a year, and looking at FlightAware, the flight patterns are consistent with student pilot training and/or solo practice. So ATC seems to know this aircraft well, and knows better than to "rattle" this particular pilot until the hard part is completed.

[@trinity72gp]

😂Right! 😊I had to delete my comment!

[@firepilot109]

I liked the controller handled business 1st then after everything was as it should be handed out the PPD....that way no extra stress or radio chatter during critical phases.

[@BouillaBased]

When ATC is pointing out traffic to you, it's not so you know who to get in front of.

[@tommaxwell429]

She said, "You are following...." Last I checked, that means behind, not in front of. But what do I know in this age of language butchering.

[@antonyerick5596]

​@@tommaxwell429 he followed in minus tempo

[@ljfinger]

@@BouillaBased Blue Angel number 1 has arrived.

[@LXDX70]

@@tommaxwell429 She did not say "you are following." She said "Traffic TO FOLLOW is 11 o'clock 5 miles opposite direction..." (emphasis mine).

[@tommaxwell429]

@@LXDX70 You're right! My apologies.....it means the same thing!

[@ljfinger]

What the heck was that? Traffic on my left? Okay, I'll turn left in front of him.

[@09shadowjet]

🤣🤣🤣

[@repatch43]

Clearly lacked situational awareness, probably wasn't paying attention to what other traffic there was and therefore just ignored the comment about traffic. Not good at all.

[@AviationJeremy]

“I go now! Good luck everybody else!”

[@phildernerjr]

Unless it was cut off, he didn't do a proper read back either. This is why that's important.

[@nicklarson2571]

@@AviationJeremy One of the best 5 second Family Guy clips out there

[@KurtVW]

43Q: "Imma slip on outta here, thanks for your help and gnite!" "Hold up cowboy, gotta number for ya..."

[@WillyGrippo]

"And we'll be departing the pattern" "Sure, and here's your lovely parting gift, advise when ready to copy"

[@roge0]

Rochester, Minnesota, not Rochester, New York, for anyone curious.

[@Crosbie85]

@@jmax8692🤡

[@drforjc]

@@jmax8692 I found it relevant

[@roge0]

@@jmax8692 No one asked if jmax8692 was curious. And it's plenty relevant -- the video title and description doesn't make it clear where this happened. There are 22 Rochesters in the United States alone and Rochester, MN isn't the largest.

[@ModusOperandi]

Our motto is "No, the other Rochester"

[@kennythewolf]

@@jmax8692 your comment is irrelevant. It is good to know which airport an incident happened at.

[@benoithudson7235]

I’m liking this controller who prefers to cancel a landing rather than cut things razor tight.

[@bradsuhr7538]

RST is an ATC training facility. It in turn is a great place to fly in and out of as a student because its not uncommon that the controllers are as afraid to be on the radio as the students 😂

[@bridamy]

the controller didn't cancel the pilot did. The controller actually messed up by telling the smaller plane that the jet would follow. that's definitely what triggered the small plane to think oh I'm cleared to land and number 1.

[@benoithudson7235]

@@bridamy : I heard the controller clear as day cancel the landing clearance. I heard her clear as day tell 43Q to follow the Embraer, whereas he cut it off instead.

[@sonickunckle]

@@bridamy Oh, so you were the pilot of Skyhawk 43Q, no wonder you chose to cut off the Embraer when the ATC was actually telling you to watch it out instead, your reading and hearing abilities are plain horrible.

[@bridamy]

@@benoithudson7235 lol well it wasn't clear enough. Traffic to follow number 2 would have been better. the controller messed up by not being more precise and the pilot messed up by assuming rather then clarifying. Both could use a refresher.

[@tHe0nLyNeXuS]

Very calm controller. Absolutely fabulous.

[@TormodSteinsholt]

Calm voice, but did mess up the next two radio calls in that critical time, tho. I assume that the PPD plane wasn't supposed to be on a 030 heading (either way she didn't clarify when prompted) and the call sign of the landing plane.

[@shajiehussain1130]

You can hear the TCAS Traffic Advisory on the Envoy and even the warning from the controller's radar in the background during the cancellation of landing clearance

[@lukew5602]

Departing the area didn’t get him out of that call after all! 😂

[@pyme495]

🤣

[@WilhelmvonFahrvergnugen]

2:55 back to Dodge, my work here is done...

[@jackielinde7568]

Not so fast! I got a number for you to call.

[@mblumber]

most people are trying to get out of Dodge

[@RogerAlan]

“How much bank angle I need to cut in front of regional jet? 60 degrees? Ok, I turn now. Good luck everybody else.” N7043Q, probably

[@DustinDawind]

Lol, nice Family Guy reference.

[@ScumBagInFL]

He could've also been watching Madagascar as those animals are so funny they can make you turn without looking

[@flywithwilliam2113]

Many people in the comments are saying that the phraseology is confusing because ATC doesn't say "number two". I disagree. The instructions are extremely clear to pilots, and this is very common. ATC did a great job noticing early and keeping the two airplanes out of conflict. ATC first instructs extend downwind, then gives the traffic that she intends the Cessna to follow. Only once the Cessna reports the traffic in sight or there is no potential conflict would they then say something like "Base turn approved, follow the Embraer, Runway 31 cleared to land, number two." Until then, the Cessna should be extending downwind per their readback.

[@jonathantack]

This

[@johnny56700]

Agreed, ATC didn't tell them to turn base for the RWY. So they shouldn't have done that, but glad to see that it didn't get worse.

[@Alchemy-yr3sw]

I agree "number two" is not necessary and that ATC did an excellent job. But I genuinely feel the transmission "traffic to follow" is poor phraseology. In one context it could mean "traffic you are to follow" and in another "traffic to follow you." In this context, it's obvious the regional jet on final is not going to be sequenced after the Skyhawk. Since the context is obvious - the jet is going to close on the prop plane very shortly - the words "to follow" convey no information, serve no purpose, and should not have been spoken. "Traffic" would have conveyed the same information without risking the Cessna trying to interpret sequencing, and motivating them to make their own base turn. I think we agree (?) ATC meant, "I am going to call your base to follow the regional jet." She is trying to be informative about what is about to happen. But that's a lot of information not present in "traffic to follow." And, in trying to be informative, she is relaying information subject to misinterpretation. The Cessna bears responsibility for turning base without unambiguous instruction to turn, and for lacking situational awareness to realize a base turn to sequence before the jet makes no sense. ATC did an excellent job here, keeping an eye on a student pilot (?) and managing the conflict, bringing up the Dreaded Phone Number only after the danger was passed. This tape ought to be held up as an example of how ATC should predict, identify, and de-escalate conflicts long before they turn into serious incidents. It demonstrates everything an ATC ought to strive for. But I still think "traffic to follow" should not be used by ATC and "traffic on final" or just "traffic" is much better phraseology.

[@Mcjoebuilder]

Agree 100%. It's hard to follow if you jump in front.

[@aparfeno]

It's not confusing for a pilot. Why would you be told that some other traffic is following you? There are few situations when you may be told to keep speed up on final or expedite clearing the runway due to close traffic on final, but phraseology for that is very different. Either way, you are not expected to visuall identify traffic BEHIND you. Also, "traffic to follow" can be given not just for final. For example you can be on a extended dogleg and will hear "number 2 to the airport, traffic to follow is XXX"

[@jonathantack]

Controller is as chill as they come. While there was a misunderstanding, the controller made sure that the converging traffic situation didn’t escalate. Comments point fault at Tower and the pilot, and the proper burden of fault is on the pilot. If he 1) lost situation awareness of the other traffic or 2) was in doubt of his clearance, then he should speak up and ask “do you mean…?” Probably a student pilot , task saturated enough to lose SA and figure he’s complying with what he believes the controller says. The outcome of this is hopefully that the student expands his awareness envelope , is courageous to admit when he lacks the whole picture, and digs into VASAviation to become more fluent in phraseology .

[@jonathantack4699]

www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-114B.pdf

[@wagnertenor]

Golden rule of aviation: Never turn until the other aircraft is off your wing.

[@chrisschack9716]

And if you're faster, not quite then.

[@debonaviation]

Which wing 😂

[@TiagoSeiler]

"Traffic to follow" means you follow them, not the other way around.

[@instant_mint]

Excellent work by the controller, prioritizing in an urgent situation

[@ausieking]

3:43 that time of voice says “damn I thought I got away with it too” 💀

[@lastdance2099]

No need for a number to call, just telegram ahead to Marshall Dillon in Dodge, he'll set the fella straight.

[@craig7350]

43Q "we'll be leaving the pattern after this touch and go" Sure, they wanted to get the hell out of there.

[@JohnDoe-wg2hn]

Id like to take a moment to chuckle at the "17 years experience CFI" guy that deletes his comment after realizing how absurd it was.

[@rogue8853]

I fly out of RST and she’s fantastic

[@bradmarcum2927]

Outstanding controller.

[@JGraham63]

Sounded so pleasant. Thought he got away with it and then she hit him with the number to call 😂

[@thegreat_I_am]

The Envoy pilot understood that the clearance cancellation was for him, but he’d rather crash the plane than respond to an incorrect call sign.

[@rudiklein]

This is the kind of pilot who would make a turn in his car in front of oncoming traffic at an intersection.

[@JacobBaron]

Controller caught it early enough that had the pilot made a tight 360 this had been waved off. The two planes got close enough she'll have to explain it in a review so there's got to be a deviation. At a busy training airport you see this a half dozen times a day. It's easy to get confused, and some days there humidity is too high for static wicks to keep the radio clear.

[@KennethAGrimm]

"training airport" - Yes, a glance at FlightAware confirms.

[@keefgtp]

If your radios aren't clear from 5 miles away then your radios are shit and need replaced. That's unsafe.

[@VictoryAviation]

I’ve been flying 200+ hours a month for several months now. I fly roughly a 12 state area. I have zero static wicks on my plane. The only issues I’ve ever had with being heard are when all my windows are open and I’m not careful to stay out of the wind blowing in. That’s it.

[@JacobBaron]

@@VictoryAviation our field has giant radio towers within 5 miles. On humid days the tower frequency gets bleed over from the Spanish station. This week was really hard to hear clearly, saw this happen to several pilots in one morning.

[@VictoryAviation]

@@JacobBaron What does it have to do with static wicks though?

[@m_swizzy22]

I guess the guy isn’t very used to holding, extending downwinds, he did kinda not listen to the ATC instruction, if I did that where I train I’d be getting a number to call without much wait 😂 I was once on a VFR flight and was cleared by ATC for the approach but I looked around and saw an A320 coming in so I offered to ATC that I’ll get out of the way, I don’t see a point in a jet having to reduce speed for a small prop, was thanked to by the A320 crew as I seen them come in for the approach, after all they are the guys flying with a schedule! Hoping to one day fly that same A320neo, in near future.

[@grayrabbit2211]

We had a real grumpy controller at the field I trained at. BUT it made for a great training environment. You also learned to use "unable" with him.

[@KennethAGrimm]

A bit of research on N7043Q makes it very likely ATC already knew there was a student on the controls.

[@PaulTomblin]

@@KennethAGrimm Skyhawk making a dumb mistake pretty much says "student at the controls" without having to look it up.

[@KennethAGrimm]

@@PaulTomblin Yes, correct, that was my first reaction. But I've been nuked from orbit so many times on KZbin aviation comments that I wanted to have all my ducks in a row before typing. 😇

[@davecrupel2817]

Did you find out the tail number? Maybe one day you can fly on it!

[@epapa737]

The pause with only reading back the call sign is prime "uhhh what did they say?" With a failure to ask for clarification

[@TheGospelQuartetParadise]

ATC is not there to watch tv; they are watching radar scopes.

[@thomasdalton1508]

I'm guessing he's used to much smaller airports, probably without towers, and was there practicing landing at bigger airports. He's clearly not quite ready to be doing that without an instructor sat next to him.

[@WestAirAviation]

I see stuff like this often with good pilots who are rusty. Flight training is so expensive most students at my FBO fly once every week or two. It's just not enough time to really get good at multi tasking checklists, rules, memory items, communication, and stick and rudder. The name of the game is to stay proficient, not just legal. We had a guy 2 months ago break a 172N on landing - 300 hour pilot with the hours spread over a decade. This isn't a hobby for the middle class, and for those who are aspiring to fly airliners, get the finances up front and fly multiple times a week. Anything less increases your chance to end up on VASAviation.

[@Alchemy-yr3sw]

As a middle class, middle-aged hobbyist, I agree 100%. I gave up flight training as soon as I realized I was pursuing my PPL not to be in the air, but to use an aircraft to travel. (Had I continued, I surely would have died of get-there-itis.) My wife was absolutely ecstatic at me dropping my flight training. We both hope to die in very boring ways.

[@Logan_S1211]

Scary stuff…

[@AxmihaMeuSaco]

"Clear to land" is becoming something like "CRLAN".

[@mitchellh5869]

Absolute top notch controller, heck yeah!

[@nathanlau3275]

The pilot did acknowledge the "extend downwind" instruction from the tower, but I did not hear a correct read back after the tower instructed him to follow the traffic coming from the opposite direction. All we heard was a partial "030 Quebec" before he began his base turn. Did the radios just miss the communication? I'm puzzled if the pilot misunderstood that he was to wait until the traffic passed him before he started his base turn.

[@semperfidelis8386]

wish we could get KROC online nice and clear like this is.

[@chrisc161]

That was very dangerous

[@jmk5638]

That "possible pilot deviation" line came as a surprise to me. Considering how calm the controller was, I thought he was getting away with it.

[@Hondaridr58]

Good controller.

[@perfectscotty]

RST, That’s where I live. Great controllers.

[@blizzue]

poor RJ guy forgot what a simple landing clearance sounds like lol

[@fluxfaze]

On approach to land during the first jetliner ride of my life from Houston to OKC in summer of 1967, our pilot had to suddenly bank hard away from a WWII-era plane so close I saw its pilot through its front windshield. Scared the shit out of me, but it angered my father more than anything else I had ever witnessed before then. Now I understand why.

[@bd5289]

Good on controller...let him finish his work and then stress him with the number... OR... She was messing with him and he thought he was gonna get away with it! LOL

[@phildernerjr]

I was waiting for when ATC was going to mention the deviation...professional and patient to wait until he had landed and was turning off the runway.

[@lisanadinebaker5179]

He did a touch and go

[@Doc_GME]

I don’t see the deviation. She said traffic 11 aclock to follow. She meant 43q should follow the traffic but I think I read that as traffic will follow him. Her wording was poor. Should have been “traffic at your 11 o’clock. Follow that traffic. “

[@MKwan82]

If you don’t have traffic in sight, fly the same heading and say no contact instead of guessing. When in doubt, ask if you can turn base. It’s better to sound childish then to take a deviation

[@pcpolice7937]

Humble Pie

[@matrixtc6077]

Does the pilot drive like he flies?

[@taupehat]

I thought everybody (including the 172 pilot, excepting his obvious screw-up) handled this with a great deal of professionalism. The Envoy pilot was clearly irritated but kept it to himself. Good job all around. Except for the guy in the Cessna, but he got his number to call.

[@challenger2ultralightadventure]

Most likely a student pilot not able to keep up with the task loading.

[@Jump-2-the-moon]

I think he heard it as turn 11 o’ clock? There was a lot of noise going on in the cockpit there, sounds like it was cognitive overload.

[@devilchild12323]

Why cancel landing clearance ? They’re vfr. Dei is killing atc

[@whiteandnerdytuba]

Giving multiple aircraft clear to land seems stupid

[@Peter-sv4mk]

You can really tell who is and isn’t a pilot in the comments on this one… it’s super clear what the controller wants and they did a great job but of course there’s still people who’ve never said a word on frequency complaining about phraseology that gets used every day and that everyone understands.

[@floatinflyinandfishing]

a pilot here, and I can tell you that it was a bit unclear, yes I understood her instruction but I am on the ground chilling in bed not in a busy phase of flight, possibly a student or low time person...so yes her phraseology could have contributed

[@JohnDoe-wg2hn]

Extend down wind. The rest you didnt even need to hear. ​@floatinflyinandfishing

[@Dudeisthere]

Is it clear? "To follow" could mean you follow them or they follow you, that isnt 100% clear.

[@JohnDoe-wg2hn]

​@Dudeisthere no it doesn't. That's just a silly comment to even make. To follow means to follow. Maybe make an argument for will follow but that's absurd to think

[@Dudeisthere]

@@JohnDoe-wg2hn "Traffic to follow" can either mean traffic for you to follow or traffic to follow you. As far as i know its not standard phraseology, and its ambigous. A "number 2" added to this instruction wouldve made things more clear.

[@JSFGuy]

Deleted comments?

[@benoithudson7235]

Always. KZbin deletes comments using an unknown algorithm nobody can quite figure out.

[@silmarian]

KZbin frequently memory holes comments all on its own for seemingly random reasons

[@JSFGuy]

​@@silmarianIt was 3 on this video alone, now I got a hate speech warning I don't even know what for

[@VASAviation]

Not me

[@soccerguy2433]

@@JSFGuy you know why

[@noahlobene5384]

what state is this in?

[@roge0]

Minnesota. The second largest Rochester after Rochester, NY. It's where the Mayo Clinic is located, which is largely why KRST has a decent amount of commercial flights.

[@alexclement7221]

@@roge0 Yes, Rochester NY has gone through some hard times in the last decade. For a while, we were the leading city of the Mayo sandwich.....

[@padagrad64]

Why would he do that? 🤯The controller should've asked for full readback.

[@thud9797]

43Q, what a dummy. 🤐

[@rallyden]

When a GA guy responds like the way 43Q did, you can suspect that message was not received and assume that he’s going to cut in front of traffic. Envoy should sent him the bill for the go around.

[@pbrenneman5]

Excellent job by the controller in calmly fixing the problem. I wonder if “Extend downwind I’ll call your base” would have worked better to eliminate the back and forth about establishing visual separation and eliminating the possibility of this type of scenario from occurring in the first place

[@frdml01]

It might have been clearer to the Cessna if she had said he was number two behind the one on final. I can imagine the Cessna might have been confused and though he was expected to follow in to land behind the departing aircraft.

[@LeonPapst-r6o]

„continue through final heading 030“ ??? Honestly, I do not get it. And the traffic to follow instruction should have been read back, right?

[@wadesaxton6079]

She observed the Cessna had already started or turned base. The quickest way to regain separation and get the Cessna out of the way was for the Cessna to continue straight across and then keep going away from the final.

[@coma13794]

"through final" means that the 030 heading will take them across the final approach course. As the other reply said, it would've been the quickest way to get them out of trouble given that they were already on the base at the time the issue was instruction was issued. They did, of course, something completely different, though.

[@2Phast4Rocket]

Cesssna getting out to dodge

[@Towert7]

"Opps!"

[@knagl]

What's an "opps"?

[@Blue_Camera_Cat]

Bruh where's yo head at?

[@mikkomalinen2641]

"Traffic is eleven o'clock five miles opposite direction" "LEEROY JENKINS!"

[@Neodarkmatter]

While the pilot messed up I think the ATC needs to clear up her verbiage a bit. Needs to give better and clear instructions.

[@Mark-pp7jy]

Totally agree! She speaks like it's a competition about speed!

[@brettstowell4029]

Informing ATC you are a "Student Pilot" on initial contact (which I'm assuming was the case given the context) is the correct procedure to let them know you need extra attention and consideration.

[@Airtraffic101]

ATC is there to direct traffic. Not hold your fucking hand.

[@marklupus]

While the pilot should have understood the sequence with her "traffic to follow" instructions, I think much of the confusion would have been eliminated if she were to have told him he's number #2 behind the Embraer on a five mile final. Still doesn't explain the inexplicable reason he chose to turn his base when not knowing where the other traffic was. It's of course possible, he just didn't compute the presence of the Embraer at all.

[@Peter-sv4mk]

She’s speaking perfectly clearly and at a reasonable pace.

[@andrasbagyuj1540]

It would have been useful if the controller adds "I'll call your base turn".

[@jmax8692]

Unnecessary, it would be useful for the pilot to actually LISTEN instead of living in his own world

[@VASAviation]

Can't pilots look out and follow precedent traffic? We don't need ATC to call our base when our sequence is so clear

[@flythebus]

It would have been useful for the PIC to maintain situational awareness in the pattern.

[@jackielinde7568]

It would have been helpful, but it's still up to the pilot to maintain visual separation. And I'm guessing an E170 should be big enough to spot. I don't know if he was task saturated, had "Get 'er there"-itis, or thought the warning of traffic was for the earlier plane he passed. But this was all on him.

[@rjhornsby]

43Q should have stayed on the downwind, communicated that they did not have the traffic in sight, or ask for the base turn. In some cases where things are busy, the controller will tell a small plane to turn base to get them between two other landing a/c. Here, with only two a/c in the pattern it’s not busy so she reasonably expects 43Q, as per her instruction, to see the big-ish airplane on final coming more or less straight at them and follow behind it. White airplanes can be hard to see against a bright sky. If you can’t see the traffic, be a pilot in command and communicate.

[@TheJerseyAviator]

TCAS was about to RA

[@alexc5449]

"Traffic to follow" can be ambiguous. "You're number 2 behind..." is clear as day. Pilot also didn't readback correctly and didn't ask for clarification if he was confused. This is a pilot and controller error.

[@connormcclintock6562]

That's what I was thinking too. "To follow" could imply they're following you. Possibly could have been avoided if the controller said number 2 or pass behind or even "I'll call your base" after that extended downwind call

[@AnonyMous-jf4lc]

precisely the comment I made above. Nonstandard communication causes accidents.

[@coma13794]

It's not ambiguous at all. If they intended to make the Skyhawk #1, they would've asked for a short approach, or direct to the numbers and wouldn't have given the specific detail on where the airliner was. When they say "traffic to follow," it means they are calling traffic for YOU to follow, that's why they're saying exactly where it is. There was no reason at all that Skyhawk should've turned base in light of the traffic call that was made from ATC. If they thought it was ambiguous, they should've sought clarification. There isn't a world in which they think they're #1 for the runway with any good reason.

[@alexc5449]

@@coma13794 "Traffic to follow" could mean traffic to follow you or traffic you follow. It's ambiguous.

[@Jdog7117]

@@alexc5449 There is no reason ATC would tell you to look for traffic that is going to follow you. Not only that, most of the time you are only going to be able to see such traffic until after the point it would be safe to turn inside of them. Regardless of that possible misunderstanding, ATC said to extend downwind. That means you aren't cleared to turn until they say so.

[@cfairfull8030]

The controller definitely is not at fault but she should have said “number 2” and not given the heading she gave. In fact, it should’ve been the reciprocal. The cessna, at its current position and speed was basically travelling right at the Embraer.

[@Peter-sv4mk]

@@cfairfull8030 that heading made perfect sense. They were already going that way, expediting across the final would have been the quickest way for them to get out of Envoy’s way. Having to make a 180 would take longer than continuing across the final.

[@panda4247]

"traffic to follow is 11 o'clock, 5 miles..." --> ATC apparently meant "you have to follow that traffic" --> 43Q probably understood it as "traffic is about to come and follow you" (maybe he though, 5 miles is far enough, so that might have contributed to this and cause a confirmation bias). Unfortunately we don't hear what exactly he read back. maybe instructions like "extend downwind" would have helped. Or "traffic at 11 o'clock on 5 miles final, confirm visual and then follow them" (which sound sketchy anyway - at what distance should 43Q follow them? maybe that caused him to think that 4062 will follow him instead...)

[@Jdog7117]

"Extend downwind" is literally the first thing she said to him.

[@VASAviation]

She literally said "extend downwind"

[@panda4247]

yes, but that was a different instruction a moment ago. Meanwhile she communicated with another aircraft. MAYBE he understood the new instruction as a new instruction overriding the previous instruction, not amending it. IDK, I'm just guessing. I am not saying that she screwed up big time... I'm just saying that perhaps he misunderstood the instruction (or rather, the sequence of instructions...) First rule of communication (I mean outside aviation) is that the person conveying the message is responsible for it being understood and you can always make the extra step to be clear.

[@Jdog7117]

@@panda4247 No. That is not how it works. If they tell you to extend downwind, or tell you to maintain an altitude or a heading, you do that command until they clear you from that restriction one way or another (safety issues notwithstanding). Nothing she said could reasonably be confused with clearing him to turn. It's certainly possible he misunderstood what she said, but her instructions were normal and clear, so if he did misunderstand it is 100% his fault. If he didn't understand one of the commands, he should have requested she say it again.

[@Zaephyrs]

Initially I was thinking like the other commenters, until I saw your (@panda4247 's) post. Then I realized I was approaching the incident with experience knowing the routine, verbiage, and what to expect -- not as student/low time pilot. Here I think you have hit on a very good explanation of the miscommunication, as 43Q does not seem to be trying to 'beat Envoy' or acting entitled. While the error was 43Q's and the controller was giving standard instructions, both could have done better and there is nothing wrong with suggesting ATC could've been more explicit. The more experienced you are, the better positioned you are to practice Defensive Aviation. Sometimes it's not enough to be right, you have to prepare for the other person to be wrong. The controller was on top of 43Q's premature base turn and may have been preparing for the unexpected out of a student. And while we can say that 43Q should've have known what to expect and how to comply with the ATC instructions given, a "43Q you're number two behind Envoy 4062" might have prevented the situation altogether. In an aviation incident or accident there are the things that went wrong, were missed, assumed, or could've been done better and the determining of fault for those. While these are often conflated they are two different parts of the analysis. Thanks @panda4247 for your contribution to the first part.

[@hatpeach1]

Love that I can watch these now and understand the story. There really needs to be a "KZbin Pilot" certificate. I'd frame mine proudly.

[@troyjollimore4100]

To his credit, 43Q sounded rather sheepish afterwards. Sounded like radio issues, though.

[@AnonyMous-jf4lc]

ATC didn't make it really clear who was following who, at least with what we have here in audio. "traffic to follow" can mean it's traffic that is going to follow you or that you should follow. Usually they say "(callsign) you're number 2 behind the Embraer on (position), runway 31 cleared to land". You repeat back, "number 2 behind the embraer, cleared to land 31 (callsign)". Nonstandard communication causes issues.

[@dkoleary88]

I agree. It wasn't clear what the plan was to the c172 pilot. Even without a cleared to land instruction, ATC could've been more clear with "you'll be number 2, following the embraer on 5 mile final.. ". Having said that, she did first instruct him to "extend downwind" and never gave an explicit base turn call, so ultimately the fault is with the c172 pilot.

[@KennethAGrimm]

Good point.

[@Jdog7117]

ATC told them "Extend downwind", which is a standard communication meaning "you aren't cleared to turn until I say so". When they give you that instruction and then tell you to look for traffic, they almost always are saying you are following that traffic. Regardless of that though, even if you know you are following the traffic, you still can't turn unless they say so. They may try to get some departures out in between or have some other reason to delay your turn.

[@AnonyMous-jf4lc]

@@dkoleary88 this is still iffy. ATC didn't say "I'll call your base". I imagine the 172 thought the jet was going to follow them, so they needed to hurry up. I think it's a 50/50 split of ATC and the pilot here. ATC didn't give standard instructions, which is their job to do. The 172 didn't ask for clarification and just acted on what they thought to do. Neither one did the right thing in my opinion. In the end, I will agree that the pilot might bear a little more because safe operation takes all precedence and being unsure is being unsafe.

[@dkoleary88]

@@Jdog7117 Which is why I said the fault is ultimately with the cessna pilot. Another point is: we don't know what his readback was after the "traffic to follow" instruction, so ATC could be at fault also if the cessna pilot readback incorrectly and ATC didn't notice. In any case, my point is that ATC could've been clearer with "you're number 2"/"you'll be following.." type of call.

[@sknokaze]

It's a class C airspace, I thought that he have to had ADS-B to operate within this airspace. Which should display all traffics around you.

[@VASAviation]

Only if you have the equipment

[@USCGCoasttoast]

These guys must not know two items(jets) can not occupy the same space at the same time.

[@jordanjayd]

She didn't say "traffic to follow" clear at all. I remember being a new pilot and if something wasn't said clearly I just had such a hard time understanding what was being asked of me. Was never an issue with controllers that have good radios and speak clearly though. Once you're seasoned with more flying you can make it out but I feel like ATC should make a much bigger effort to speak clearly when a pilot sounds inexperienced or they're a student.

[@pesto12601]

why did she cancel landing clearance for 4062? she already turned 43Q out of the way and it wasn't like she maneuvered 4062 to the right or anything... screwed 4062 over and they weren't even at fault.

[@rickansell661]

My reading was the trigger was the uncertainty from 43Q after they had been turned away. At that point she decided that safety required that both aircraft do nothing unexpected and 43Q had shown that they were capable of doing unexpected things and then sown further doubt in her mind about their experience and competence. She may have been wrong in her assessment of 43Q but, given distance between the aircraft and therefore the time available to take action, she wasn't wrong in her actions. When uncertain opt for certainty, neither 4062 or 43Q were placed at risk by her cancellation and 4062 was only marginally delayed.

[@Jdog7117]

She didn't know for sure where 43Q would go, and it was right in front of the glide slope. She wanted 4062 to stay up high so as not to descend into 43Q, and they can't still be cleared to land while she does that. It's 100% the right move. Sometimes in the interest of safety people wanting to land are forced to go around for things not their fault. Once the threat was cleared, she gave them a chance to continue the approach, but they were not in a position to be able to do that so they went around.

[@Peter-sv4mk]

@@pesto12601 Because 43Q was not behaving predictably. Better to stop the Envoy’s descent and leave some vertical separation in place.

[@thomasdalton1508]

She hadn't turned 43Q out of the way. She had told 43Q to fly straight through final on 030, which would have got them out of the way, but they didn't understand and read back 330 (which is practically runway heading). It was clear at that point that 43Q wasn't going to get out of the way fast enough, so Envoy had to stop their descent. There was no need to turn Envoy - they could fly over the top of 43Q (from the radar, it looks like they would be only 300 feet above, which is too close, but she may have had slightly different numbers).

[@the3rdid485]

ATC was way too calm. Be more direct and five directions. "Stop f**king turning into traffic" instead of "oh, It looks like you're turning base?" Still she did a great job paying attention and desling eith the issue after it arose.

[@billfly2186]

ATC was a little complacent. She should have been firmer with the 172 pilot. No sense of urgency from her. I sensed Envoy was pissed.

[@AshKast]

What would that have achieved? She still gave the 172 a number to call. She kept everyone safe.

[@bradsuhr7538]

I was working the ramp when it went around on that turn and the FO on the walk around was just dumbfounded.

[@JackFliesGA]

She handled it perfectly. Freaking out helps no one.

[@redbird444]

Controller should have cautioned the Skyhawk pilot on wake turbulence from the Embraer or spaced him out farther. Clearly, the Skyhawk pilot wasn’t particularly knowledgeable about what he was doing.

[@milesaharrison]

Very confusing video... Why didn't ATC tell ENY4062 just to go around. So much time wasted (callsign confusion aside). Why 'cancel approach clearance' and give them some direct instructions to get out of harms way? You can hear the TCAS TA in the background of ENY4062's readback. To me, a standard missed approach would have been far more appropriate given what the C172 did.

[@michaelocyoung]

Bet on the ground he drives a BMW.

[@Danzinger2010]

Or a Nissan Altima. Plenty of those things out here that drive like that (unless the pilot is one of the McNeilus brothers).

[@alexclement7221]

Nah, anybody who drives a BMW would have at LEAST a Beechcraft....

[@TheHikingHoosier]

Maybe when she said “traffic to follow” he thought she was saying the traffic was to follow him? 🤷‍♂️

[@chrisschack9716]

If so, he was worse at comms than we thought ... that's NEVER what's meant and he should know that.

[@tommaxwell429]

Kind of embarrassing that the vast majority of these videos are US based. Do we just have that many more pilots or are we just worse at flying aircraft? Maybe our ATC just sucks compared to the rest of the world. Maybe we just have more ATC monitoring stations, so we catch more screwups. I don't know, just seems all of this stuff happens in the US.

[@MikeGranby]

The majority of airplanes in the air at any point in time are in the USA, and few other countries have the mix of GA and airline traffic that we do, nor the LiveATC coverage to provide the feeds.

[@tpmarkham]

Actually, I have found very few international live ATC feeds. So they may be happening, but we don't hear about them.

[@lupo_aim]

@@tpmarkhamIn Europe, big international airports usually do whatever they can to keep small VFR pilots as far away as possible with riduculouslxy high fees for ATC service (approach fee), landing fee, handling fee etc. Also they will just deny your request if you are not based on that airport.

[@bsmith1164]

Trust me, it happens in Canada too! The last tower I worked at had a big mix of types and every week there was someone screwing up like this. The most amazing incidents are the pilots who read back a hold short instruction and then proceed to cross a big yellow hold line and line up seconds later. Happens a crazy amount.

[@tommaxwell429]

@@lupo_aim I would say that is true for the Class B airspaces in the US as well. Below, that, I think ATC will do their best to accommodate you until you piss them off or an emergency is in progress.

[@floatinflyinandfishing]

her phraseology may have contributed to this a bit, she should have said number two behind blah blah blah at your 11

[@R3APERxG1RLX]

Maybe it's just me, but her eloquation seemed terrible when she spoke quickly. It was nonsensical to me. :/

[@troyjollimore4100]

I used to have an issue with ATC as well. Still do, but it’s much better when you can predict what they’re going to say.

[@goaliemedic37]

At what point does the FAA stop these "option" and "touch and go" practice landings for GA aircraft and student pilots at busy, commercial airports where jets full of dozens or hundreds of passengers are placed in danger by their actions?

[@VASAviation]

This is not a busy airport AT ALL!!

[@I_Evo]

But Rochester Mi isn't a busy commercial airport (approximately a dozen scheduled arrivals per day) and probably couldn't survive without the income from GA aircraft and the ancillary services that come with it. And I'm sure there are many many regional airports in the same category.

[@markhamstra1083]

@@I_EvoMI is Michigan. You want MN.

[@JackFliesGA]

Normally skyhawk pilots don’t want to die and will never cut off a jet? I’ve seen class D airports with parallel runways busier than this. Perfectly manageable when pilot has some common sense.

[@alexclement7221]

@@markhamstra1083 ...neither of which has even 1/10th the traffic of Rochester, NY...

[@augustomartins9516]

I think all this could have been avoided by ATC, but of course the Cessna was wrong

[@redkrawler]

Cringe Just a Touch and Go? F C172

[@kevinlawlor412]

Terrible vocal fry.

[@JackFliesGA]

Wrong.

[@LieseFury]

weird how any time someone's complaining about vocal fry, it's only when the speaker is a woman. nobody seems to get this angry at male vocal fry.

[@GOOBENsticks]

@@LieseFury ATC videos seem to lure in a bigoted community for some reason. Any gray area in who is at fault will for sure have a highly liked comment blaming it on a perceived minority involved.

[@dannylim3318]

First

[@JSFGuy]

Grade, Pick me?

[@RaptorTwoFour]

No one cares, kid

[@MikeB0001]

You want a participation trophy?🏆

[@JSFGuy]

@@MikeB0001 Good chance will never reply. They don't even watch the video just seeking attention. Nothing like arrested development.

[@alexclement7221]

Go away kid, you're bothering us....