I agree 110%

Speaking as a Brit, saying "we'll discuss that later" means we are thinking of disembowelling the person we're speaking to.

@@geckolocator My guess is that she would have stabbed him if she's a true New Yorker.

Matt Ferguson Too right 😂🙏🏻

@@geckolocator It means that to EVERYONE BUT Americans.

Mike Doggers The issue is that they cancelled approach for the wrong aircraft. 15K had right of way, 1AJ should’ve been asked to move instead. That’s what the guys had a problem with. Procedure wasn’t followed here and spacing was clearly an issue. 180kt at 5 DME is flying low and fast - the controller would’ve been well aware of this and asked for it anyway, that just isn’t reasonable.

@@BIGDROC99 Because, from my limited understanding, the BA aircraft cannot achieve what is classed as a stabilised approach using the parameters set out by the controller. Being the lower aircraft, BA should have been allowed to continue and the aircraft *behind* go around for traffic and resequence.

That’s what I thought 🙈

Mike Doggers that’s not safety. She did that to punish them. Take the aircraft behind out of sequence.

Up the "daily business" ya mean! Come on folks, bigger fish to fly in this world. What about that Gretta????

Yeah, it is always the FOREIGN pilots that seem to have the problems. Never seen any pilots on carriers from the *United States* have any issue whatsoever at JFK, in these videos! If you cannot handle the "heat" in America, then don't fly here! End of story! Just because your training is not to the high standards of the US, don't take it out on our controllers!

OK, honestly, I think you old timers (from places like UK, Europe, etc.) are great pilots. I suppose my reference to the "loser pilots" that you guys produce, are the _CURRENT GENERATION_ of 250-hour ignoramuses that you guys like to stuff in the right seats of your big jets, mostly at places like Ryanair, EasyJet and so on!!

@@747-pilot Steady on there cowboy, I operate out of the likes of many major European airports and the guys who struggle to follow basic procedures and cause the most havoc are the American carriers. I love how you have the audacity to label it is the "high standards of the US", because as a matter of fact I operate for a very reputable European airline whom has zero fatalities and after returning from the US where I did my basic training the first thing we were all told by our instructor who happens to be an ex Concorde Captain was to forget everything we were taught in the US because it is all incorrect. This is exactly what I hate about American pilots and controllers, they are amongst the least competent, most unsafe yet they have the biggest God like ego and it is that exact attitude which gets people killed, the statistcs are written everywhere go look them up. Like I said, a bunch of cowboys who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an aircraft. Rant over.

@@747-pilot Interesting. So you yankees consider an A319 to be a big jet? That's very interesting indeed...

​@@karlosbricks2413 Not just that, apparently they consider anything with more than 9 seats a big jet because they need 1500 hours before they can even touch it... They also think flying a Cessna 152 around the circuit for 1500 hours makes them God like pilots -.-

Ninedaysjane has nothing to do with sex, I feel the same way about the incident between the Aer Lingus pilot and NYC controller, which is another VASAviation

@Falcon pilots are extraordinarily well trained professionals >flying airplanes

we only hear the really bad ones on youtube etc. If you look around you'll hear controllers literally saving pilots lives too

@Falcon You do understand that she is asking for something that was not possible for the pilot to do? Or do you have 0 clue about flying a commercial aircraft, but decided to just comment your opinion anyway?

@Falcon clearly youre not a pilot and dont udnerstand regulations. As a pilot i can tell you that there is FAA flight requirements per plane and this one has a 160 on 5 so he declared he cant do 180 which is correct and her terrible attitude caussed this incident.

Steffan Dawe so.... He can fly 160 but can’t bump it up to 180??? Mind you he’s only being asked to give the extra 20 until a 5 mile final. If you can’t lose 20 knots and stabilize in 4 miles so your stabilized before 1000ft you might need to try harder. Also he was unreasonably slow way out compared to every one else.

It was a SPEEDBIRD pilot. They are never correct. He was holding up the pattern, as they usually do. She wanted a bit more speed out of him and he could easily accommodate. Of course, she could have waited 30 seconds for him to complete the config in order to reach the 180 kts. Probably tired of Brits. It's easy for that to happen.

Andy Taylor the POH for BA in the 747 states you are t able to stabilise the approach and continue unless at 160kts. He is the pilot he has right of way. It’s insufficient planning by ATC. The Speedbird (British or not) did nothing wrong in this instance. Bit arrogant of you to say such things about British pilots

@@andytaylor1588 I assume you have experience in flying the 747?

@@jordan4541 stabilized on virtually any transport category aircraft is 1000 AGL. Ref speed on a 747 is already quite close to 160, there's no reason he needed to be snippy about things, and I believe someone else took over the radios for him (it sounded like) after the cancelled approach

To be fair, he said he can't and offered an alternative, controller ignored that and insisted on 180 until 5

Unable .... will now always be the magic aviation word

That's Sully word

There is another word AA002 uses, Emergency.

My favorite part is after the clearance got cancelled the pilot asked what was the reason for it? And she says I just needed you to maintain 160 for 3 more miles which is exactly what he was doing to begin with 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Sure thing, mum.

Because the pilot is wasting time explaining unnecessary things to a professional ATC as if she doesn't know how an airline works. He got all huffy at her for doing her job.

@@babababad he got annoyed at her for not following procedure and he thought she took him out just to spite him which is probably true. She needed him to slow down but he had company operational limits to follow. He's flying the plane so she should've done her job and adjusted the speed of traffic behind him accordingly

@@ajk6656 ATC canceled approach clearance long after the pilot had abandoned professionalism to waste everyone's time with an unnecessary lecture. All he had to do was supply ATC with sufficient information for her to control separation, instead he goes off about what kind of aircraft he's got as if ATC doesn't already know.

@@babababad I agree he took up the channel explaining why he was pissed off which is not very professional, but at first he told her what he couldn't do and what he could do. Her response disregarded that completely with a bad attitude which set him off. Instead of asking him to do something he just told her he can't do, she should have adjusted the traffic accordingly. It's not like he was going so slow that it was unreasonable to slow the traffic behind him

@@ajk6656 Also the pilot needs to tell her he is going to file a report

APS - Pictures that was my problem. The sarcasm was unprofessional, unnecessary, and unwarranted. The pilot said everything but the exact word “unable”. It’s clear that his explanation was communicating “unable”. When a pilot (or controller) uses that word - or words to that effect in this case - it means there’s a good reason, usually safety related. I hope the controller here gets pulled from the tower, made to listen to the tape, explain why she acted that way (so she can be introspective), and be warned that if it happens again she’s looking for another line of work. A bad day and a bad attitude are different things. One is temporary, and the other will get someone hurt.

@@rjhornsby "the pilot said everything" is the exact problem...ATC requested aircraft to slow to a speed within criteria and he came back with some pedantic, patronizing explanation. ATC's subsequent reaction wasn't constructive but perhaps understandable given the uncooperative pilot.

Rick Hornsby of course she is, shes a woman.

@@babababad How is "I can't do that mam" pedantic or patronizing? He is basically saying he is unable to comply. You can't threaten the pilot or start bitching, especially if you are incompetent at your job, like this so called ATC. Thanks god I don't have people like this in my station.

@@babababad The other way around. ATC requested a higher speed than SOP

Buddy! Where are you an air traffic controller at because obviously you haven't worked real traffic? The 7110.65 spells out that vectoring is used to get spacing and speed is used to maintain it! When you work high volume traffic the front of the gap is just as important as the back of the gap! You HAVE to control the speeds because having too much space i.e. pilot is flying too slow, is just as bad to the operation as too little space!

Strange, i always thought ATC was just allergic to pilots and helped them go out of the airspace as safely as possible.

Think it is important to say that there are many good controllers and also a few bad ones. At least in the UK there is also the problem that there is more and more a driver for cost saving meaning that they are understaffed ... shouldn't be the case at JFK though

@@56independent42 The sooner I get rid of them, the sooner I can go back to discussing the chow run. Bogdan, airports with any real volume require speed control in order to maintain arrival rates and consistent spacing. There's a whole section on speed control in the 7110.65, I'd recommend you read it sometime, lots of very interesting stuff in there.

Where do you work, we use speed control everywhere, 10 knots at 60 miles may save a sequence of 6!

Lol, "Speedird 15K Heavy approach clearence canceled, when able give me a number of your manager to copy" :D

Naw, Speedbird is infamous for holding up flow.

Golden 👌 lol

They all think they are celebrities now because of channels like this one.

100% has the “Karen” voice 😂

And ATC is right to keep planes separated. Would be interesting if this was further resolved and if either or both parties would have done something different?

Indeed

@@phapnui so she should've increase separation behind him, not by sending him out... It's should be FIFO structure as much as possible. I understand that would require slight more workload for her but that's her job.

kabaddiify yes, my instructor told me not to be afraid to say no to atc

@@masflow09 It is illegal not to follow ATC instructions and any pilot found not doing so can be prosecuted for endagerment of an aircraft which carries a pridon term of life in prison, at the very least the pilots licence would be permanently revoked.

Why is revectoring punishment. If the speed restriction was necessary , how could she accept unable without taking some action. Speed restrictions are to keep planes from running into eachother either in the air or the runway. Other airports maybe she could have adjusted the other planes but the airplanes are spaced with little wiggle room there

She didn't get laid for quite a time, I guess, that makes women do thing like she did right there... Get laid often and avoid conflicts like that.

But it wasnt a speed restriction, she wanted him to fly faster. Then it should have been the one behind that should have slowed down?

wewk584 I’m not too sure but I’m pretty sure the plane in front with the lower altitude has the right of way and the plane behind him should be the one asked to slow down or revectored.

@@ninedaysjane2466 has nothing to do with her being a women - would have said the same thing about a man

he would mess up the whole sequence, so ya. F off limey

ATC: "Okay, do this" BA: "I don't wanna" ATC: "Fine, then don't"

Im sorry, but that controller is a bit(h. Pilot nearly got mad but was able to stay fairly cool. Punishing a pilot and flight because they couldn't keep speed up? Lame and possibly dangerous. Although, I AM surprised the 747 couldn't do 180kts for a couple minutes. If it really couldn't, then it was an even MORE unreasonable request from ATC with a petty outcome.

Karen has found her way in to atc...

@@endokrin7897 It isn't that the 747 couldn't do that speed it is that it needs to be under that speed to make the approach

LOL!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I hope the controller has to pay for the go around fuel.

I hope the controller gets arrested and tared and feathered

@@pluto8404 sometimes I wish shit like that was legal

@@justanotheraviator2357 arresting people? Legal? Are you mad?

@@HupfderFloh different situations. Not like this!

The pilot had a attitude the virgin Atlantic flight which comes from the same place had no problem following the ATC instructions.

The people that work at Kennedy are all assholes from Long Island.

@@patrickmorrissey3084 All of them? Sounds more like you're one of them. Calling everyone an asshole just because they're from a place is something an asshole would say :)

No seriously, my uncle and cousins are in L.I. I'm there all the time. Assholes thru and thru😂

I think its just america in general its A culture of me first fck you its mine, i come first etc.

Typical New Yorker.

160 or GREATER is what she stated at first. He was holding up the line.

Technically the pilot was correct, but man,what an attitude

130kt ground speed. Considering the winds even at 2000ft can be quite strong (in the UK anyway), the BA 747 could very well be flying anywhere between 150 to even 170kts indicated so when he offered 160kts (indicated, not GS like shown on scope) or greater, at least to me, it would sound like he was happy to speed up a lil/keep the same speed to keep the controller happy but not any faster.

I hope she gets fired.

rude? bitchy is the word. she vectored the guy that flew cross atlantic just to make her point.

Ajit Sidhu I think it's still possible. At 5 dme you're at 1700ft. If you're at 180kts at this altitude with the gear down it's quiet easy to be stabilised at 1000ft. In some airlines it's even 500ft in VMC conditions. Now of course it depends on the plane. I don't fly the 747 but I think it loses speed really quickly.

@@noah9130 The 747 actually doesn't lose speed as fast as you might think. Though it's heavy and large, it glides really well.

always great to have input from the professionals, thanks!

Ajit, this reinforces my earlier observation that controllers are typically not pilots and don't know squat about the operational limitations of the aircraft under their direction. The controller cancelling his clearance was just her ego overriding her better judgement and professionalism. A call to the tower post flight would absolutely be appropriate, and from the sound of it was likely the pilot's intention.

Yes..... 1,000 ft AGL "Gates" upon being configured are SOP at the Airlines (usually worlwide). The key is to be more vigilant, self aware of your environment, and a anticipate the ensuing slam dunk. Preparation means everything on sequence, descents, speed, and where you're at in that sequence on "all" approaches. Be Safe out there.

"Penalty vectors"? Geeezus, man, are we back to the Middle Ages of flying? Flying is about sticking to rules, regulations, procedures, performances, techniques, etcetera. Can you show me ONE publication mentioning the existence of "penalty vectors"? Please!

@@francescocandian2708 I think he's referring to getting a phone number from ATC sir

@@francescocandian2708 One example is the "Penalty Box" at ORD. It actually used to be printed on the airport diagram "Penalty Box". If you didn't get to the runway fast enough or took excessive time to run checklists ORD Ground would send you to the Box and you'd be penalized and have them replay something back like "SKW5020 you are number 23 for the active". So yes ATC does do things like this. Theyre most not vindictive but this does exist.

@@JohnGalt289 Thanks. Honestly, I had never heard of that, yet I believe you. But of course, I do not buy this s***. Can the solution to high traffic be better Flight Deck performance? Partly, and ONLY to a certain extent. But higher performance means higher standards and in turn this implies different TRAINING standards. The "penalty box" solution is disrispectful, unless the assumption is that for some reason a given crew is WILLINGLY taking longer than required to perform their duties. Which, btw seems to be the ATC controller's attitude, and in my opinion EXACTLY what irritates the crew. If, on the other hand, it is recognized I am doing my best as a pilot, yet my performance is sub-standard, we should either consider changing my performance or changing the standards. In both cases the solution is not an idiotic "penalty box". This is a "Third World", "Banana Republic", "Medieval" approach, "your problem"-style approach. Guess what, when I'm crashing on your kindergarden it's OUR problem...!

@@francescocandian2708 I partly agree that solutions for super busy airspaces need to be training for both flight crew and ATC but I really was just saying that the FAA/ATC does do things like make you wait or give you bad sequencing for little things like this.

so you assume it was a punishment, not because she had other 5 planes behind coming at a faster speed and has to maintain a minimum separation. Ok, sure.

@@vanessaruiz4705 According to protocol the aircraft behind should go around. Not the one in front.

@@vanessaruiz4705 you revel in your ignorance huh?

@@pubudusenanayake6724 yeah sure, scroll down and tell the same thing to the pilots that are used to operate in that airspace and said that this is how it's always done there. Dont reply only to me because you want to start some childish gender battle. Bye. Silenced. Dont bother to reply.

@@vanessaruiz4705 Gender battle? What are you on about? Anyway, controller was acting against protocol. The FACT that you are ignorant about that, and revel in your ignorance has nothing to do with your gender, or mine.

elk hunter the bad attitude is the problem. No one should work as Atc with those kind of attitude. Btw the request was against Faa and ICAO rules.

@@omerozgur1126 Yup. The request wasn't the problem. The shitty lecture and incoherent procedure after being told unable is.

@@omerozgur1126 Pretty much what I was saying. The controller got huffy. The pilot handled it well. Best time to discuss this is once the aircraft is on the ground.

If it's routine, then things aren't being set right, now are they?

Looks like an ATC training issue to me. Train the controllers to understand what the pilots need and accommodate accordingly. Doesn’t seem like a difficult change to make.

this is not jfk tower. this is the tracon. N90

Richard Dalrymple Thanks for mentioning this Richard...I think I actually said something about calling the tower supervisor once at the gate and shut down and I misspoke. I can't readily find that right now or I'd edit it but I appreciate you making that clear. What I should have said was that I'd get the number for the facility and call their supervisor to discuss it. Best Regards and thanks for the prompt.

😅

"Kennedy Ground, Honda Accord with information Golf, request taxi for departure to the west..."

Hell, I don't think I even want to fly into JFK on Microsoft flight simulator!!!

FAA ATC order says, "Do not assign speed adjustment to aircraft: ... 4. Inside the final approach fix on final or a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway." For the trailing aircraft. There are instructions to account for spacing compression during speed changes. Standard procedure is to assign arriving jet aircraft below 10,000msl a speed not less than 210kts and 170kts within 20nm of the runway threshold.(The aircraft can be allowed to fly slower, but should not be required to fly slower. ie "maintain 170kts or slower" is acceptable) The wording of the FAA rules indicates this is a best practice not a not a hard rule, as it is followed by "Lower speeds may be assigned when operationally advantageous." 'When operationally advantageous' is FAA speak for special conditions that can not be handled with the common recommended methods. That is the exception provides a substantial gain in efficiency or safety, as an example maybe an airport is near a mountain and normal speeds cause approach problems.

Given the pilot saying "I don't believe that is FAA approved procedure but we'll discuss that later", I suspect either she accepted that she was at fault on the phone (or possibly he did), or such a report was filed.

​@@Person01234 Even if he had contacted the facility on the ground he would not have spoken to the controller. He would have spoken to whoever was working the desk and fielding phone calls for that area, most likely an FAA operations supervisor. Given that no one appeared to actually violate any rules here apart from getting their panties in a twist, all that would likely come of it is a discussion between the controller and her supervisor.

@@BlackOpSource This is wrong in every way.

@@Person01234 I've been controlling air traffic professionally for the last ten years, but do tell.

For what?

@@user-wl6bw3jl4n Did you even watch the video?

Chris V improper procedure, unprofessionalism, forcing excessive use of the channel by giving shitty instructions and not listening when the pilot mentioned that’s not protocol and the parameters of the plane cannot do what she is asking.

@@Boodieman72 I did. What's the complaint? ATC did what she felt would continue the flow of inbound flights. The BA pilot promulgated that he was not going to comply with her instructions due to stabilization criteria per company policy. She instructs him to break off the approach and vectors him around for another approach - nothing illegal nor unsafe. I don't see how submitting a complaint would change anything. Enlighten me please as I am keen to learn.

@@mrjjman2010 👌

180kts to a 5 mile final is a legal and safe speed assignment. If the pilot needs something slower all he has to do is ask with enough time for the controller to plan for their request. This pilot didn’t.

@@SpicyFaceActualNO it is not... Totally illegal. 180 to 5 DME. . That is actually speed control to 3.6 miles from touchdown. . Your obviously don't understand and are obviously no pilot... You know nothing about the dynamics and energy management of a B747-400. And never will from your armchair m

@@daftvader4218 I said 180 to a five mile final is a legal speed. And you said it isn’t. Here’s my source from the 7110.65. You’re wrong. You’ve lost all credibility. Game over. ATC is only allowed to “assign speeds to “the final approach fix (which is usually 5/6 mile final) or to a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.” -7110.65 5-7-1

Surly if thats the case, what she should of done is got NAX1AJ to either match BAW15K speed or less to keep the spacing. Or set one of the aircraft up on the other parallel runway.

@@pdxpilot06 Did you even think about your post for 2 seconds? It's less safe to send the aircraft further into their approach around than the one less far into the approach. Which is why the FAA safety regulations give the lower aircraft the right of way. Which is why, as everyone is saying, if there was an issue with following traffic, the plane behind should have been the one sent around.

women

lolbot no. Not “women”. That could have quite easily been the same with a male.

@@springbok4015 but it's more likely with a women

Rob Potato but it was a woman who did it lol

Have to admit she seemed very spiteful.

seoceancrosser Yes they are but more specifically JFK is infinitely worse than LGA (or EWR). That's why JFK is the only airport I bid to avoid every single month. The only way you'll find me there is on a reroute. I did it a ton when I was junior, now I'd be happy never to have to see that place again. The worst.

Michael Gordon Fair enough. Why does have so many of them working as Air Traffic Controllers?

New yorkers bunch of cockwads

ramjet2977 Where I work as well. FOQA monitors everything and if you land from an unstable approach you will be getting a phone call to explain yourself.

@@HEDGE1011 Don't know if you are ramjet2977 are familiar with this www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pilot-in-near-miss-found-dead-in-car-1561147.html It's a harsh reminder of the need to fly to the airline OPs Manual

Jonathan and Speedbird clearly slowed down earlier than normal. Causing an accordion effect behind him. Not that hard to just bump the power up, give an extra 20 and just as easy to lose that 20 inside a 5 mile final as asked.

Wade Saxton Again I ask for your operational knowledge and experience on the -400 to make this statement. Signed, A guy with a B-747-4 type rating and loads of applicable experience

if he cant go as fast as needed for whatever reason, it is easier to pull him out, than it is to correct the speed of the other 5 planes behind him.

Wade Saxton are you the same goof commenting on all the other comments trying to rebut actual pilots with your non existent knowledge? I like watching these videos but at no time do I think I’m an actual pilot or have the expertise of one. Get off the internet, wade.

@@mrjjman2010 there are at least 4 "actual pilots" here that agree with the ATC, given this particular airspace. So it's not only one person.

180 to 5 out is pretty standard. Atc can give you a speed assignment to the final approach fix or 5 miles from the end of the runway, whichever comes first. I’ve never had an issue slowing even in a loaded 321.

@@glishskiii But this Speedbird was not an A321.

Lars Henningsson yea I’m aware. Not saying it was

glishskiii what’re the weight differences and the stabilization criteria differences between the planes? I mean that’s cool but if they’re different on a different plane.. then how is that relevant?

@@glishskiii standard for what aircraft/airline?

You can’t just slow down an airplane because then you slow down the one behind them and so on it becomes a mess. You have to sequence them back through either the BA or the Norwegian. Weather she was right or wrong about which one she pulled out is up to you I’m just explaining there’s more to it than just slowing down.

@@Phx737swa She literally told the one behind to speed up straight after telling BA to do so so she could've not had the plane behind increase it's speed. You also can't have aircraft coming in in an unstable way. To expect that( especially when you've been told that would be consequence by the pilot flying) is totally unreasonable imho

C2K she had him maintain the faster speed that needed to keep the flow going. This flow number you have is from the time you depart they are betting on you coming in at a certain time. And 5 miles out is still more than enough especially at 2000. I haven’t seen the approach plate but they are probably just intercepting. But you’re correct if that they didn’t feel comfortable accepting it then they don’t have to and she had to re sequence someone and it just ended up being them. You’d find the same thing at ORD LAX any of the big Bravos. It’s all just keeping the flow going

@@C2K777 TBH I think it's going to bite one of them in the ass at some point. More than enough accidents have already happened when pilots take clearances they really shouldn't... An overshoot at LGA isn't a hard scenario to picture.

timmohthee is it this one kzfaq.info/get/bejne/o8xjq8ubvdKYZWg.html

Well, you're leaving out a whole lotta things there. The Cirrus was taken out of sequence in that instance several times and given several runway changes. The controller was critized for making things very complicated and confusing with a single pilot at the controls. One go around is easily trained for, but three+runway changes, flaps in and out in a small but fast airplane? It can easily stress a single pilot, especially after a long flight. Of course, you're right if ATC had just followed FIFO it probably would have been fine...

Yes, there were many, many factors that went into the crash - the pilot’s inexperience, her refusal to speak assertively and accept ATC instructions without question, conflicting and confusing commands from ATC, the list goes on and on. I only mention the sequencing because it’s what applies to the video. Of the many things that the ATC was criticized for by the NTSB, making the Cirrus go-around because it was flying too slowly for the planes behind it directly applied to this video.

Airwipe yes

@@drfaustus72 ...and even more particularly if you are taking zolpadem and flying illegally being out of date for the BFR.

LMAO.......

Anthony 1976 actually it was the pilot that showed worst manners

Olasek Thanks for being corrected, silly me. Obviously you’re a 747 pilot with massive experience flying the airplane into JFK 👍💪

Anthony 1976 and what exactly makes you think that judging who qualifies for McDonalds drive-thru requires 747 experience?

Olasek Because a Big Mac isn’t as important as 300 tonne machine containing hundreds of people, with a bad attitude controller running the drive-thru.

agreed. Making a 747 do a go around just to stroke her ego is a huge waste of time, money and fuel

I have read elsewhere that she was fired.

I wish I was a pilot so I understood all this :D

@@knndyskful It's fairly simple. Big heavy plane takes a long time to slow down. Must be at final approach speed and plane configured for landing by 1000 feet to go.

SenorCrazylegs I also fly into there with a major carrier and have done so for 29 years: I couldn't agree more! I'm normally senior enough to avoid it now, and it's the only destination I avoid every single month. JFK has the rudest, most aggressive, totally non-standard controllers of anywhere I've ever been, and I've been a lot of places. Terrible facilities, awful airport design, rushed taxi clearances, petulant, spiteful ATC. Just the absolute worst. I actually bid to get Christmas off after bidding no trips that touch Kennedy. It's a national embarrassment and I feel especially bad for our foreign colleagues who are bullied by controllers because their first language isn't English. Hey JFK: you're a disgrace!

@@HEDGE1011 new york city is more like a third world country than a part of the US...

Worth remembering, too, that this isn't a pilot only used to working out of small regional airports and unfamiliar with the demands of a busy airport. BA work out of Heathrow, so are very aware of traffic separation constraints. SOP are written with that in mind. Working ATC in these locations must be frustrating and difficult, but controllers need to cope with what is practicable and accept that they are not the ones flying the plane. The pilot actually explained to her why he was unable to comply; she might have been surprised but it was something she had to work around.

I agree! It’s amazing how LGA or JFK still have “climbs.” That you get vectored on. The SIDS ans STARs are so 1970s It’s 2019. How about some RNAV procedures that can decrease the workload and have pilots fly more predictable. It’s so weird seeing charts without preassigned routings or very limited rnav routings

@@warden330 Yep, this is a BA747 pilot and I would imagine the captain based on his RT - this is a guy who will have many hours in and out of busy international airports. Very poor controlling and a blatant punishment go around - reminds of when they vectored a Ryanair aircraft into a continuous hold and basically wouldn't let him leave.

cookiemonster Welcome to New York! This is why pilots hate dealing with NYC and JFK in particular.

@@ninedaysjane2466 If it was a male controller and a female pilot you wouldn't say he's sexist. But everytime there's a woman in the wrong and men point that out apparently they are sexist...

If you listen to many TRACONs you will hear speed restrictions almost always given right around approach clearance. They're also usually published on the approach plates.

She was negligent.

@@ownage2214 Can you give me an example of an approach plate with a speed restriction?

@@greensagan I have one, the RNAV Z 06L (and 06R) at PGUM. 210 knots or slower at RASPE, and at or below 4,500 feet. I think the approach gets lower minima (partially) by restricting the energy the aircraft can carry crossing the IAF; the similar RNAV Y doesn't have these restrictions.

She made a mistake, the pilot told her it was outside of his ability to do safely, so they had the aircraft go around and reworked the busy sequence to better fit the needed parameters. If the only thing you screwed up was the one plane, and you were informed, just pull out the one thing you screwed up and rework it. Don't rework the next 5 aircraft . It seems like if this was a mistake on the ATC part, it was the safer of the mistakes they could have made.

​@@MetalSmith Aviation right of way rules state that the lower aircraft on approach has the right of way, and you cannot descend below and overtake to gain the right of way. The Speedbird had the right of way, and the following traffic should've been the one to slow their approach speed for the Speedbird or go-around if unable. Generally speaking, all aircraft being overtaken have the right of way and you cannot overtake an aircraft on final. ATC was in the wrong 100%

Wait, I heard the controller say she wanted him to go 180 (or faster). The pilot is the one who said he has to go 160.

I think they were both right. Pilots should always say unable if unable. And its dangerous to let approaching planes get too close to each other.

@@krubokrobu You do know that it's not easy to just keep going up and down in speed when dissenting a commercial aircraft right?

That was a lot of words to say unable, maybe she give him a go-around to give him more time to express himself.

Warning???? She should be sacked due to incompetence!

He's like twelve miles out.

@@MrMowky Yes and in 7 miles time they will be 5 miles out

180 knots itself is the highest speed limit for maximum flap settings (flaps 30) of Boeing 747-400, if I know correctly.

The SpeedBird was asked to do 160 yes due to the traffic behind him but in my opinion he kinda deserved landing approach canceled since he just could of went 170. also if he’s flown into jfk before why is it now he as an issue. hope this helps lad.

She had her sequence built and BAW would destroy it maintaining slower than 180 knots.

@@PolarPenguin526 160 was the max he could go with the current flap setting and probably also gear down. The controller should have slowed the norwegian behind him or made them go around. 180 is quite and high approach speed for a 747, and 170 would still be too fast for the configuration he had, so he would have to pull up the flaps and the gear which means he wouldn't have enough time to reconfigure after.

so not reducing speed would have affected separation distances which could have caused others to go around had speedbird landed? so does that mean it was easier for speedbirds clearance to be cancelled and for speedbird to be re vectored for a second approach? please correct me if i am wrong.

@@PolarPenguin526 "could of went" ???

I bet she's the kind of person who can get a raise just by looking at her boss...

@@assreductionist8575 probably is the boss...

Might be piss poor planning but if she can't make the sequence work then she has to break someone out. She is not a 747 pilot and working some of the busiest airspace in the world. This is not her first rodeo.

And yet the title is still structured to make it sound as though the pilot is in the wrong, I'm smelling a little anti-British bias. Or just clever clickbait.

As an old glider pilot, no one ever told me to go around because I wasn't doing the speed they wanted me to.

@@harryfaber lol

Basically because the controller was in the wrong. If you look at just the regs. The lower and slower airplane has right of way over a faster, higher airplane. The first one in sequence should've been given priority as he was already stabilized for the approach unless the trailing aircraft had declared an emergency.

No, it's NOT "essentially unanimous". ATC is managing the ENTIRE airspace, and has thousands of lives relying on her and ALL the aircraft working together. Speedbird decided that HE was more important that all the other aircraft, and she didn't have time to play games and explain everything. I suspect that in a pissing contest, she's going to come out on top.

Or logic apparently. “I need you to take the stairs up to the second floor” “But I’m on a unicycle” “You can’t come here anymore, bye”

😂

Concorde doesn't fly anymore

@@cliveramsbotty6077 Oh really? /s

@@cliveramsbotty6077 Just as well really. With this ATC it would be like "Maintain 180 knots" "We can't do that, our engine is on fire, we need an emergency landing" "Cancel approach, take a turn in the hold for disobeying my orders"

Care to share some of your worst experiences?

Yes, do tell.

Attitude of entitlement, I'd say...

Agreed, except Kennedy Steve, he was great lol

What you’re suggesting here is illegal and incorrect. The pilot is the one who messed up in this scenario. Controllers are allowed to assign speeds to the final approach fix or a 5 mile final. She didn’t break any rules here by assigning a speed. And the speed she assigned is a common speed for turbojet aircraft on final. If the pilot isn’t able to comply, that’s fine, he can say unable. But to continue the approach as you’re suggesting and saying it’s everyone else’s problem like you’re the only airplane in the sky is a dangerous attitude to have. If a controller cancels your approach and re sequences you because you can’t fly the speeds they need, you have to comply unless there’s an emergency. I would expect someone who’s been flying for 15 years to know this. Unless you’re a GA pilot who doesn’t fly into controlled airspace..

@@SpicyFaceActual This is a sequencing issue. Which means she just needs to slow down the guy behind. Different airlines have different stability criteria at 1,000 ft, which is the issue with BA in this case. This idea that the pilot needs to accommodate the sequencing of the controller at all cost is not true. This is a final approach. It is not a clearance by ATC, it’s a request. So it can be declined with the famous “unable”

@@DanielSanchez-nj2oj It’s not a sequencing issue. Controllers plan their spacing and sequencing based on known aircraft performance and winds / compression that day. This guy didn’t tell anyone that he wanted to slow to ridiculously slow speeds, ridiculously far out until after he was cleared for the approach. How can they plan for that? ATC assigns speeds, headings, and altitudes to set the sequence into busy airports. The rulebook states that ATC can assign speeds to “the final approach fix (which is usually 5/6 mile final) or to a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.” -7110.65 5-7-1 At most busy class B airports in the US you’ll see “230 or greater to 20 mile final” “210 or greater to 10” and “180 or greater to 5”. After 5 is when most aircraft will configure to their final approach speed (the speed that they land at). Obviously this isn’t set in stone. Weather, compression and other factors can effect the speeds on final. And yes, You’re right, a pilot can say unable if they’re assigned a speed they can’t do. The reason doesn’t even matter at that point. I would never argued against that. Here’s the problem, and the reason I’m saying the pilot is at fault here… Pilots know well in advance what their final approach speed is going to be. The weight and balance, winds, weather all change with every flight, so they have to figure it out in advance. This pilot knew that he wanted “needed” to be 160kts on a 12 mile final (which is usually a 210 speed by the way) way before he got there. ATC is assuming he’ll be normal speeds. (180 to 5) like all the other jet aircraft that have landed that hour. Probably including a few 747s that have taken those speeds no problem. So they build a hole with enough space planning on speedbird flying normal speeds. The pilot waits until he’s on final, and cleared to say “oh by the way.. I need to slow down early today”. The controller says that’s not going to work… we need you to go faster for another 3 miles or so at least. That’s when the pilot talks down to the controller and offers a lecture about “I fly a big airplane…” like he’s the only airplane in the sky. And she hasn’t talked to 100 other big airplanes that can all do the speeds she requesting in the last few hours. It’s condescending and rude. And he didn’t answer her question. I won’t claim her response to be the height of professionalism, but he was met with the attitude he gave. She resequenced him because 160 won’t work with the traffic behind, and she had to fix the problem. It wasn’t a punishment, it was a fix. Had the pilot given ATC a heads up and told them in advance (before turning final and being cleared for the approach) that he needed to slow down early on final, they would have built a bigger hole and the pilot wouldn’t have had to be broken off and re sequenced. And before someone else says “he was number one on final and had priority, or she should have broken off / slowed the aircraft behind” No. it doesn’t work like that. It’s not as easy to just slow the aircraft behind to 160 as well. Because then you have to slow the airplane behind them, then the one behind them… and they aren’t flying at 180kts they’re flying at 210.. and 230 a few after that, and 250 a few after that. You can’t just slow one, you have to slow them all. Next thing you know you’re assigning 210kts to aircraft that are still at 17,000ft and that sucks. So you have to fix that by stopping descends and delay vectoring multiple aircraft all over the place to crate more space on the final. That’s it’s own safety issue. It’s way easier to break out 1 aircraft than it is to delay vector 20. And she’s not required to break out a particular aircraft on final. Just like the pilots are the final authority of their aircraft, controllers are responsible for setting the arrival sequence and maintaining safety and efficiency for ALL the aircraft in their airspace. She can break out whoever she wants on final to make the safest most efficient plan. Nowhere in our rulebook says “you have to let the aircraft ahead land” there is no right of way in controlled airspace. She probably could have broken out the aircraft behind to create some space. But why spin the aircraft that can do the speeds you need? They haven’t done anything wrong, and there’s people on that aircraft too… or do they not matter? So to tally it up, the pilot was at fault for being broken off and resequenced because he didn’t give a heads up that he wanted / needed to slow down way earlier than normal on final. And the attitude was initiated by the pilot with his condescending lecture on flying 747s that didn’t give the controller any information she actually needed and just congested the frequency. The controller fixed the pilots mistake and resequenced him into a spot that works better for the speeds he can do.

@@SpicyFaceActual To be fair I did not realise he wanted to do 160 kts at 12 miles, which is a joke really, I thought he was closer than that . I see what you mean. I actually didn't know that the AIP in most US airports specify minimum speeds on final. Here in Europe we have the opposite. Max speed at 12nm , max speed at 6nm etc I get BA are special with their criteria which is annoying, but you are right he should have just told them in advance if they are not gonna comply with their AIP of final speeds. We don't have that problem here like I said because most airports have max speeds on final, so an ATC request to speed up would be the unsual thing, hence why it would be a request. Unless you are going into Gatwick or Heathrow which obviously want 160 to 4nm.

@@DanielSanchez-nj2oj There’s definitely an expectation bias at play here. The pilot wanted to use European speeds and techniques in American airspace. Then proceeded to lecture the controller for calling him out on it. That’s not how this works… “when I’m Rome… you fly the final like the other Romans”. Or something like that… right? While I won’t defend her snappy remarks as a great example of professionalism, I think this guy was asking for it. And I think there’s a lot of people in these comments who assume she’s wrong because of her attitude, and not what is actually happening in this scenario.

There's no such thing as a virgin pilot

this

It’s not her fault that he wants to slam on the brakes to ridiculously slow speeds while they’re still 12 miles out. The pilot should have told her that he needed special handling with enough to to plan for it. Instead he acts like he’s the only plane in the sky and can do whatever he wants without consequence to other traffic in busy airspace. The pilot messed up here.

@@SpicyFaceActual You don't fly..

@@SpicyFaceActual You're so off the mark it's comical.

@@goodshipkaraboudjan Your sense of humor is off… “Tell me you don’t fly jets into US class B airspace without telling me…. “ 98% of the comments here. Most of you have no idea how the ATC system works in busy US airspace. They’re applying VFR pattern best practices that they’re using in a Cessna at untowered airports, or experience flying in other countries that aren’t as busy as most US class B airports. If you’re siding with the pilots here you have no experience whatsoever or any actual understanding of what’s going on and you’re just picking the person who sounds mean and assuming they’re wrong. Or you fly internationally at airports that usually aren’t as busy and use ICAO rules and have a different way of controlling the finals and you’re trying to apply that to the US system. I guess it adds up that most in the comments won’t have any practical knowledge on this. There’s only 12000 or so actual controllers in the US, and of those a small hand full of us that work finals into a busy class B airport. There’s a bigger handful of pilots but still a small percent that actually fly heavies into busy US bravo airspace… Here’s what’s actually happening and why the pilot (and most of the comments here) are wrong.. ATC assigns speeds, headings, and altitudes to set the sequence into busy airports. The rulebook states that ATC can assign speeds to “the final approach fix (which is usually 5/6 mile final) or to a point 5 miles from the runway, whichever is closer to the runway.” -7110.65 5-7-1 At most busy class B airports in the US you’ll see “230 or greater to 20 mile final” “210 or greater to 10” and “180 or greater to 5”. After 5 is when most aircraft will configure to their final approach speed. Obviously this isn’t set in stone. Weather, compression and other factors can effect the speeds on final. Her request is by no means unsafe or unreasonable. His request to slow to 160kts on a 12 mile final however is unreasonable without prior coordination. But even if we don’t look at that part of it and assume the pilot needs slower speeds than standard for whatever reason…He’s still wrong. Any pilot can absolutely say unable if they’re assigned a speed they can’t do or they think they won’t meet their stabilized approach criteria… The reason doesn’t even matter at that point. The problem here is this pilot is acting like he’s the only airplane in the sky. Pilots know well in advance what their final approach speed is going to be. The weight and balance, winds, weather all change with every flight, so they have to figure it out in advance. This pilot knew that he wanted “needed” to be 160kts on a 12 mile final (which is usually a 230/210 speed by the way) way before he got there. ATC is assuming he’ll be normal speeds. (180 to 5) like all the other jet aircraft that have landed that hour. Probably including a few 747s that have taken those speeds no problem. So they build a hole with enough space planning on speedbird flying normal speeds. The pilot waits until he’s on final and cleared to say “oh by the way.. I need to slow down early today”. The controller says that’s not going to work… we need you to go faster for another 3 miles or so at least. That’s when the pilot talks down to the controller and offers a lecture about “I fly a big airplane…” like he’s the only airplane in the sky, and she hasn’t talked to 100 other big airplanes that can all do the speeds she’s requesting in the last few hours. It’s condescending and rude. And he didn’t answer her question. She resequenced him because 160 won’t work with the traffic behind, and she had to fix the problem and put him in a spot that works. She’s under no obligation to let him continue his approach just because he’s number 1. The controller gets to decide what the safest most efficient plan for all her traffic is, and execute that. Slowing everyone behind often isn’t a very good solution. Stopping descent profiles and delay vectoring multiple aircraft introduces more risk than re sequencing one aircraft. Had the pilot given ATC a heads up and told them in advance (before turning final and being cleared for the approach) that he needed to slow down early on final, they would have built a bigger hole and the pilot wouldn’t have had to be broken off and re sequenced. It’s not ATCs fault they assumed he’d fly normal speeds on final.. he never coordinated anything else. So to tally it up the pilot was at fault for being broken off and resequenced because he didn’t give a heads up that he wanted / needed to slow down way earlier than normal on final. This leaves ATC no outs when he wants to slam on the breaks at the front of the line like he’s the only airplane in the sky… Jerk move #1. And the attitude was initiated by the pilot with his condescending lecture on flying 747s that didn’t give the controller any information she actually needed, didn’t answer her question when she’s trying to work around his poor planning, and just congested the frequency. Jerk move #2. The controller fixed the pilots mistake and resequenced him into a spot that works better for the speeds he can do. Where he then makes up a rule about having priority which is also wrong. Jerk move #3. The pilot was being a jerk, and it cost his airline money and his passengers to be late potentially impacting to their connecting flights.

Sanjay H Don't apologize when you're correct!

this isnt JFK, this is new york tracon. big difference in the two.

@@ayrshire1418 OK gotcha ... she'd fit right in at JFK though!

Richard Dalrymple Technically I realize you're correct Richard, but I'm also going to wave the nonsense flag on this one. I've flown into all three NYC airports for over 29 years now, and the handling in and out of JFK as well as the handling on the ground there is BY FAR the worst in the US. I sense that you have a parochial interest in this matter and if so I'm sure you're a nice guy, but much of the industry detests and disrespects your colleagues. That's the truth.

Crikey!! I thought that was supposed to be Athens.

That is amazing to know. Your father retired flying which one?

​@@shaanemillat He retired on the 777. He flew 747-200s/300 as First Officer then became Captain on the L1011 TriStar out of Kai Tak then became a Check and Training Captain on the A330-300 and A340-200/300/600. My family had to live in Toulouse for a while while they airline sent training captains to learn the Airbus and write the training curriculum. The -600s came much later though and didn't last long in service. He then transferred to the same role on the 747-400/400F and was one of the people who managed for the introduction of the -400BCF which CX launched. In his last years he retired from Check and Training and became a standard Captain on the 747-8F then latter took up the 777 before retiring which I'm fairly certain he also flew into JFK as they took over the route from the 747.

@@goodshipkaraboudjan that is a really rich history, I must say! Your father is so fortunate. Wishing him glorious and happy retirement. 😃

Maybe Number 2 was Airforce 1.

The moment she started talking in the video I knew she would be the one to blame... I wasn't wrong

Peter Toth I fundamentally agree with your position and think the controller was rude and inept (but it is JFK, so I didn't expect much), but a 360 would have likely conflicted the trailing aircraft with the following aircraft. As I've said elsewhere, I would have simply stated that I was unable to do 180K, told her what the fastest I could do was, and if I got sent around called the ATC facility manager after we were safely parked at the gate and shut down. That's just me.

Do a 360? LOL!

Not a mistake. A sin.