And the #2 item was "Turn it off and on again". Which apparently worked.

I think the technical term is re-cycle the landing gear.

Have you tired monkeying with it?

Yep , that’s on the checklist in my aircraft. Trust me when the gear doesn’t come down you “jiggle” everything in the aircraft 😂

Sounds like it was the mechanical release switch, as he said he was going to try to blow them down. But you don't hit that switch on your initial approach.

Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit amphetamines

A classic movie@@Ass_Burgers_Syndrome

@@dantespeak138 love it!!

Haha!

Extremely

Didn’t help that the captain was a prick.

Unbelievable

co pilot, pilot, approach and departure, tower and others murmuring

It sounded like they might have switched during the emergency after the go-around. My guess from the calls is that the woman was FO and PF at the beginning, then the Captain took over after the go-around. After that point, the woman was doing the standard radio calls including readbacks and such, so I'm guessing she was PM at that point. That or they really need to work on their CRM.

It was picture perfect! All the fuel in the world...souls...maybe... wants to not make mistakes... and gives no fucks about "hey my computer thinks you are going to die" ...what more could anyone ask for?! /s

Yep

Agreed 💯

All pilots have bad days, and I would say ATC wasn't any better this day.

Comment some more that you didn't like that pilot 😂​@@giapacella6771

Lady seemed very calm and capable

Due to my knowledge the transponder transmitts the altitude always based on standard atmosphere, 29.92 inch (1013.25 hPa). I think that the pilot went a bit below the glide path for a moment to reduce (kill) the speed when back on glide path. Could be done while in VFR conditions.

Mode c transmits altitude based on an assumed 2992 setting. Doesn't matter what you've dialed in, then it's corrected on the ground at the radar facility using the local altimeter setting to avoid errors like that

I ment VMC conditions, not VFR.

If the rate of descent is too high it will trigger an altitude alert in the tower. The rate was too high just prior to glide slope intercept

​@@liamgill6427which makes sense since the pilot did say "you have me on a shuttle landing"

Yeah, I had wondered if it was a LJ certified for solo (they exist, IIRC).

I'm new to all this but find it fascinating. Could you explain why this would happen? Was something missed somewhere?

Maybe coming in short at 3000 had them on a steep descent which led to an overshoot? It's said to be hardest to regain a glideslope from above it.

@@pgbrandon His approach wasn't stable, and he should have went around. Lot of things off about this whole exchange. I'm not sure that guy has ever flown a plane before. They aren't supposed to be switching between pilot flying and monitoring like that. Only one person is supposed to be on the radio. My guess is he pulled the wrong lever for the landing gear and had to fly away from the airport to get a cell signal to check google on his phone.

'what are those mountain goats doing up in these clouds?!'

To be fair to him, he has spent hours in a small aircraft with a woman, on women's day of all days, and probably never got the final word in any of their conversations. No wonder he was tired.

@@Republic3D😂

The REAL story here is why some fat-ass nobody feels like he needs to add a comment implying some horrible conspiracy or secret when all it is is a pilot that clearly has a malfunctioning switch that eventually worked. It will be repaired by maintenance after landing. Simmer down, Princess. Everything is fine.

No, I have to believe that he was not happy climbing to 3,000 feet and then being held there. In hindsight, he should have kept the "emergency priority', declined the 3,000 foot assignment, and told Approach he was maintaining 2,000, and that he was going to land on 4L

@@Republic3D you are so very cringe

I posted the same thing and got scolded for it. Is be crabby and narcissistic on the checklist?

When a pilot finds virtual waypoint CRABY .....

Wow, that's a very cool story! Talks about thinking outside the box. I like it, thanks for sharing!

It is weird he makes a comment like that but receives a "low altitude alert" from ATC. On a visual approach to get a warning like that I would think that would have been a busted altitude on glideslope.

He’s right though, it was ignorant for them to push him up to 3000 on downwind (with gear down) then turn him inside 6 miles while holding 3000. Aside from his general “life sucks” disposition, his only fail here is not telling them he’d like to stay at 2000, or then accepting the early turn for visual 4L later, one or the other is fine, but not both. His final was roughly 9.4%, certainly much steeper early on as he’s diving for the G/S. Hope he didn’t have passengers, probably scared the scat out of them.. I hope he’s a better mentor for the FO than he sounds and never acts exasperated with her. LJ25/31/35’s are no place for bad attitudes or “figure it out yourself” teaching followed by scolding.

@@dash8465 That's what it sounded like to me also, I remember hearing descriptions of what it was like to land a space shuttle. A flying brick coming in fast and steep at the last possible moment.

Yup - it's his plane. If he thought 3000 was too high he should've spoken up sooner: "Requesting lower altitude due to unepxceted configuration" , or something along those lines. The controller was used to doing it one way. Plus, I would've keept it emergency in case the gear folded on the runway - in that case it'd be nice to have a fire truck ready. @@dash8465

It was my impression that they had a CRJ9 coming in on the parallel (who I guess they never saw), which he would have crossed to get to 4L, so I was guessing that they were keeping him above the 4R glideslope bringing them around to 4L. The other option would have been to take them way out and back again, which I'm sure he also would have complained about.

He was right to be upset. They climbed him to 3000ft for no reason. It's all water out there, then they turned him in super close to the runway making him high and close to get down to the correct altitude. No, he was right to be agitated with that there was no reason for them to do that since he was an emergency. He should have responded with "Unable" to keep himself lower.

@@ImpendingJoker Sure.. If they wanted to get new careers. Having a busted gear does not give you a high horse to ride on when it comes to what altitude you want. The higher the better in order to figure shit out. If the gear has had issues previously and then all of a sudden is fixed.. It is NOT fixed. It is just different. I don't see why they would not be able to climb. Unless you think they use their gear as secondary wings. All water does not equate to "open air". Tell me how I am wrong please.

​@@RetroGamingSwedenAltitude is critical for a safe landing. Pilots don't require certain altitude because they are spoiled brats but because they know what is safe for their aircraft. The standard approach altitude at JFK and most airports is 2000 precisely for safety reasons. 3000 is also used at times, but I've only seen that done for ILS approaches. I'm sure that ATC didn't do this on purpose, but they did set them up for an unstable approach and it is not a crime for the pilot to express his concern.

I think he was annoyed they climbed him to 3000. He was already stressed. But then again, he cancelled emergency, so it's his fault. Had he stayed emergency, he could have done whatever he wanted.

ATC brought them in close with the 110 heading, and they were also high after they were told to climb to 3000.

Can't blame the captain for being annoyed, 3000 feet and 6 miles is just a bit above a 3 degree glideslope.

The “Climb and maintain 3000” instruction didn’t make sense. It’s too high even for visual, of no necessity for other traffic. The captain may well be upset.

He was told to climb to 3000 feet for no apparent reason too close on final. It forced a steeper than usual approach. A bit senseless. 🙂

As a non-pilot, I didn’t understand the subtleties of that comment. Care to explain?

@@OlsenTheWonderDogthe Space Shuttle had very poor aerodynamics. It landed with a very high descent rate...meaning it lost a lot of altitude per unit of range. So if a pilot said he was landing like the Space Shuttle it meant he had a high descent rate per unit of distance to the airport.

@@kd5byb Thanks for the clarification. I didn’t correlate the reference to shuttle as meaning the Space Shuttle, I thought he was making a reference to a “shuttle” service aircraft - a puddle hopper between cities…I really didn’t comprehend the comment. Thanks.

@@OlsenTheWonderDogNo worries!!! Glad I could I could help! :)

@@OlsenTheWonderDog it's also glided in without engine power after deorbiting (so it's going at such a high speed that I cannot even fathom to google the exact number, I think it's 14,000-something in some unit of speed, but I could be wrong) and flying halfway around the earth (maybe completely around earth a few times). Navigation is interesting. In older versions of X-Plane (flight simulator), you could fly this thing in from space and simulate a shuttle landing. They let you start your flight from the edge of the atmosphere in that sim. You can find a youtube video of someone gliding it in from start to finish. At least, you could years ago when I watched it. In X-Plane, you can even pull the parachute on the runway. I own this version of the Sim (it was either 10 or 11, I have both and 12). I was unable to ever pull this off. But I did enjoy doing short approaches with it and pulling the drogue shoot. I could be wrong about some or all of that, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am.

5 click-baits and a random channel sub for absolution.

They didn't make him, they asked him and he said yes.

Yup - he's the pilot.@@alan_davis

​@@alan_davis Wdym? He agreed to a visual approach, not to loosing 3000 in 6 miles.

@@alan_davis exactly 👍 the “shuttle” approach was on the pilot NOT atc.

@@alan_davis Even visually a stabilized approach is about a 3° descent toward the runway, the ILS is also set for 3° all the way down. So at 6 miles out and a 3° descent, he should be at 1,625 feet. They had him at 3,000 which is nearly double. So the new angle would be 5.41° which is a pretty fast descent rate. Probably a good idea that they tuned in the ILS anyway to catch that glide slope.

Noticed the same. This is the second medivac flight recently where the pilots seemed a bit less ready to handle things calmly. You’d hope that the folks hiring for a medivac service would be looking at top pilots.

​@@philr6829 Why would you expect that? Kalitta, like most charter operators, offers less money and worse working conditions for the crew, not to mention flying an absolutely ancient airplane with high crew workload. For most pilots these kinds of positions are decidedly less desirable than airline flying or even a better charter/bizjet job.

Can you honestly say that you understand and know exactly what this pilot was dealing with while flying that aircraft? I don't think you have a clue about aviation, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to judge.

@@andreea007don’t really need to know a bit about aviation to be able to listen to someone unable to mentally cope with a very basic issue. This is a professional, well strike that, commercial pilot. They put the lives of their crew, passengers, people in other planes, and on the ground at risk every flight. The event was a simple one.

@@philr6829 He's operating a Medevac. And I don't think that warning ATC that they've set you up to an unstable approach is a failure to cope. There's a reason FAA regulations mention a 30 degree intercept angle. A bad pilot would have totally butched that landing.

Nerves. Also, the same hydraulic system that operates the gear also operates the flaps, etc. Performing a "slam dunk" landing is fun in a Cessna, less so in a jet, and even less so when you aren't 100% confident the systems you need (gear, flaps, spoilers and wheel brakes in a Lear 35) are working.

I suspect he’s a relatively inexperienced pilots (flying these little lears around is sort of entry level commercial flying) and maybe got overwhelmed and didn’t do a great job at stress management- or even CRM. It’s not even clear if the male or female is the captain, I’m guessing the male is but then he shouldn’t have been all over the radio. Very poor CRM all around and I feel bad for the female pilot, must have have been very uncomfortable.

It's hard to tell in the video, exact position of Kalitta. But Kalitta said he was on glide slope. Looking at the approach plate AROKE is 2000' at 11 miles and KRSTL 1500' at 5 miles. So it would appear they (the controller) kinda messed up by keeping Kalitta high. Just because he was cleared "Visual" doesn't mean Kalitta can't fly the ILS. Pilot was not being a jerk, he was "Flying" the plane. And you have to take into account the gear could still collapse on touch down...Flight isn't over till you shut down the engines.

ATC cleared them quite late for the descent. The only way they could land in those conditions was by performing a quick descent. That quick descent triggered the ATC low attitude alert, even though the plane was on the glide slope (no low attitude). It was the ATC instructions that triggered that false alarm.

I agree completely there is no room for unprofessional conduct but it does make me wonder what kind of flights, situations, etc this medevac pilot was dealing with in the days prior. This sort of thing is usually considered in a NTSB report if there's a critical incident but I wonder if there's another way to get this information. I think it's useful to figure out why this pilot was distressed rather than target them as a bad guy, like some of the other commenters on this video are doing.

Visual approaches are faster and easier to slot and land. Jfk is a busy airport.

The call sign included medivac so time was of the essence. A visual meant they could turn towards the runway, an ILS/RNAV would mean continuing to fly further away to give proper turns towards the FAC. Given they had just burned a lot of time I think they made the right decision. Why they were kept at 3000kft I have no idea, but if he was in a visual line that he could have done S turns to give himself more time. Truthfully he sounded task saturated and overwhelmed. Easy for me to say though, in safely on the ground in my layover hotel.

@@ljwithnok2615Except that they're landing a CRJ on the parallel 4R as they were coming in. I wonder if they had to do the 3000 feet to hop over the 4R approach. Never cancel an emergency... use it to get yourself on the ground. Nothing in that aircraft cockpit was "Normal" after the go around with no gear. So saying "everything's normal" was a lie. Sure seems weird how it played out.

You don't know much about aviation, do you? Forcing a plane with landing gear issues to a slamed landing is anything but helpful...

@@andreea007No I don't, why didn't the pilot maintain the emergency and fly lower, or maintain altitude and fly a longer approach.? Like I said I don't know but it appears other traffic in the pattern is why he was directed from 2000-3000.

@@L8nitedave There could be any number of reasons. Only the pilot knows for sure and since we weren't there, it wouldn't be wise to assume anything about the pilot's skills or his personality based on a few minutes recording. I'll speculate a bit regarding the answer for some of your questions. Longer approach at that altitude - they had their gear down, so not the proper configuration to fly at high altitudes. Maintain emergency - that might be a poor judgement or it could be related to his company procedures, or it could even be that he learnt that there was no real issue (maybe the FO just pressed the wrong button and the Capitan didn't want to shame her on radio, but didn't want to drag responders on a false emergency either - again, speculatting in order to show that it can be any number of reasons and that it's impossible for us to presume we know for sure what happened)

@@andreea007 so, you assumed there was still something wrong with the gear or that the ATC hadn't already planned to do a different approach? Is that what you assumed "wasn't helpful" without being there?

@@L8nitedave If you are reffering to my initial comment, that was no assumption. The info ATC had: a plane who had experienced landing gear issues was about to land. ATC course of action: forcing them to land in some rather unfavorable conditions for an aircraft with landing gear problems. So no assumptions there, just facts. What I did initially miss was the traffic landing on 4R, which explains why they cleared them so late for the approach. It would have been safer to warn the pilots in advance. Even the FO seemed confused about being cleared only 6 miles away.

I guess I watched a different video. I didn't see any of that here.

Not an emergency aircraft at that time.

He decided to cancel the emergency which I think was a bit premature, especially in Kennedy airspace. There’s not much wiggle room there to be changing up your status in the air.

Makes it make sense, he took Kalitta at 3000 over the top of an aircraft at 2000, then cleared the approach once on LOC ... but still a nasty way to do it!

@@chrisschack9716 Kalitta was never on the localizer…never told to track it, I believe. And, once cleared from an altitude way above norms(in a sleek Learjet), gives the pilot little room to correct down to a normal descent rate(i.e. S turns). Just wasn’t a good look for ATC, imo.

@@alan_davis So, your point is that sloppy, potentially dangerous service from ATC is ok at that point?

That's presumably a required callout from ATC.

Believing that the pilot was on the glide slope, as he said, I think that the Tower controller was warned because of the descent rate the pilot had to do to catch the glide slope. The altitude that Approach kept the aircraft at before clearing them for the visual approach is nearly double the altitude the aircraft should have been at for a stable 3° angle approach. My guess is that the computer was buzzing at the controller because it calculated that the descent rate the pilot had to use to get on the glide slope was so fast that it predicted he was heading for the Earth before the runway. That's why the pilot was groaning about the altitude and approach clearance in the first place.

Good point. Perhaps she was pilot monitoring and didn't know how to deploy the gear so he made an ass of her and that's why they kept switching flying/monitoring (so that he could declare in a emergency and demonstrate that she didn't pull the lever after sarcastically getting out the checklist) - the cockpit got heated after that and that explains all the stress in the voice. Perhaps.

The description says a Learjet 35 and that this was a medical flight. So not a 727.

It was a learjet 35

Kalitta is a great airline. They usually fly 747s, this was a Learjet 35. A 727 would have been cool to see.

A B727 crew wouldn’t “blow the gear down” as the Kalitta crew mentioned on the air, and avoided. Manual extension on a B727 is by cranking the gear down, by the F/E

@@Republic3D Two separate airlines. Not sure what exactly their corporate relationship is but the small stuff and the heavies are different call signs, fleets, etc.

Maybe if pilot state that he declare emergency already then they no need to say mayday or pan pan.

@@oscarkiloecho6269 Yes, while "Mayday Mayday Mayday" is the preferred way to declare an emergency, just saying that you're "declaring an emergency" is also acceptable in the U.S. The only people who complain much about that are KZfaq comment sections.

Looks like they did accidentally.