I have worked in the middle east, and those pilots will pass the blame for their mistakes with ballistic speed!
@zumzum011001
7 ай бұрын
What a comment. Generic with zero proof.
@rubenvillanueva8635
7 ай бұрын
@@zumzum011001 you had to be there!
@conorscully7008
7 ай бұрын
They all do.
@os9706
7 ай бұрын
no mistakes here, just misunderstanding and everything was fine
@Givemeproofkid
7 ай бұрын
@@rubenvillanueva8635 Indeed i was there and it is not true
@curtisrobinson9283
7 ай бұрын
At 1:17 and 1:23 ATC cleared for ILS approach
@YouCanSeeATC
7 ай бұрын
👍👍👍
@jugheadjones5458
7 ай бұрын
Seems they WERE cleared for the approach, and cleared to land but executed missed approach. Then, though they were asked the reason, and gave a short, acceptable answer, proceeded with a lengthy response, thereby clogging up communications. Someone must’ve peed in his cornflakes that morning,
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
@@jugheadjones5458 I heard cleared for ILS approach and visual, never heard ATC say cleared for landing. I believe the pilot did what any responsible pilot would do by going around if they weren't certain they were cleared for a landing. Coast Guard pilot in Japan assumed he was cleared to enter the runway and wait, and that assumption turned out to be fatal.
@Cadence-qt2ux
7 ай бұрын
@@jaredjones6292 Coast Guard pilot in Japan was told to HOLD short and not enter
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
@@Cadence-qt2ux I understand that, however, my point is that when he was interviewed he said he was positive he was cleared to enter. Misunderstood the directive and assumed he was correct right up until the end. The pilot in this instance wasn't sure about being cleared to land, so he did what any responsible pilot would do by being safe, rather than sorry. At 1:58 we have the creator saying they don't understand why the tower couldn't be heard on the frequency given. Wonder why. Then the creator tells us we will be able to understand what was being said from the response of the pilot. Did we make the correct assumption?
@Klink330
7 ай бұрын
Well, yes. They didn’t hear it or absorb it, in the same way that they didn’t absorb three clearances for the approach.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
And youre basing that on what? Comms that were cut. Or assumption? Either way youre talking b.s. son.
@Klink330
6 ай бұрын
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i well, pops, I’m basing that on listening to the audio in the video (as you could well do too). At 1:14, they’re cleared for the ILS and are asked to report when visual. At 1:34, after they report visual, they’re cleared for the independent visual approach, which they acknowledge. At 2:00, they are heard to report “clear to land”, pause, “Qatari 908”, pause, “going around”. At that point, the radar trace indicates that they are at 1000ft. This is the altitude at which QR must be stable. Unless their procedures have changed recently, their stable approach criteria do not include a landing clearance (ie, that can come later). So they knew they were cleared for the approach, they acknowledged a landing clearance, they advised ATC that they were not stable. Then, after they were established in the missed approach, they banged on about the other things. Don’t be so condescending either…
@bks252
7 ай бұрын
The pilots can perform a missed approach anytime they don’t feel comfortable and they have every right to do that. Having said that, as someone else mentioned, these guys will throw the blame on anyone else with lightning speed. I have worked with them and trained them and they take no responsibility for anything.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
They were questioned twice for the reason. They did not need to give 1 answer to the gas lighting babies in the tower. They gave 2 answers. The atc can chew on them and try and twist those answers now. But will they learn from them? We will see.
@silentservant_
6 ай бұрын
True. But they were cleared lol
@maikjustus2003
7 ай бұрын
My assumption: the complete approach was to high. From the recording we do not know why. But the controller adviced him to not interrupt the decent.Most likely he was still above the glidescope at 1000ft and therefore he performed the go around. As he blamed the controller for having him not released for the visual approach (but he read that back correctly a few moments ago), I assume the wrong approach was caused by the pilot...
@lars.1975
7 ай бұрын
Are you intoxicated 💀
@JohnSmith-zi9or
7 ай бұрын
Controllers don't care about your ailtitude unless there is conflicting traffic. Their job is not to make sure you aren't too high for the approach. LOL ... They screwed up and were unstable. So they went around. No big deal ... except in KZitem land.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
You know what they say about assume? Read the first 3 letters mug.
@YouTube.TOM.A
7 ай бұрын
Cleared for the independent visual approach and cleared to land are two different things. [ for those who mentioned ] When given altitude changes as an approaching aircraft, it is important to calculate if you are on-profile on not. It's easier to correct deviations in altitude, further out than on short final.
@jort93z
7 ай бұрын
Of course it is different things. But the pilot claimed weren't cleared to approach, not that they weren't cleared for landing. You don't need a landing clearance to descent further than 1000 feet. At many airports in europe it is common for you to get your landing clearance at only 500 feet AGL. I guess most airline pilots would descent to 200-ish feet until going around because of no landing clearance. But then again, they said they didn't have an approach clearance, not that they didn't have a landing clearance.
@YouTube.TOM.A
7 ай бұрын
@@jort93z clearance to LAND normally come from the tower, they were on approach control frequency.
@jort93z
7 ай бұрын
No, they were not on appraoch control frequency. approach handed them off to tower, but tower was not recorded, as stated in the video... Why are you talking about clearance to land anyway? Pilots complained about not getting an approach clearance. They didn't need a landing clearance yet. Why does landing clearance matter? @@KZitem.TOM.A
@bks252
7 ай бұрын
@@jort93z but their whole argument doesn’t make sense. They had already executed the approach down to being frequency changed to the tower. It was a little late at that point to worry about the approach clearance. They should have asked for clarification on that well before being handed off to tower. If tower clears then to land then they should be far enough on the approach to have the runway in sight. I believe they were switched to visual anyway. They were screwed up like a soup sandwich but as I said before, they do have the right to declare a missed approach at any point if THEY feel they should without any repercussions.
@jort93z
7 ай бұрын
"but their whole argument doesn’t make sense" yes, the argument of the pilot doesn't make sense, that's literally my point. It's fine to go missed approach, but saying they weren't cleared for the approach is rediculous. They were literally cleared and read it back. In the US it is somewhat more common to give landing clearances early, usually as soon as you are handed over, in europe they usually only clear you once the runway is actually completely clear. In europe they will say "number 2", and only clear you to land once the first plane vacated the runway(might be just a few seconds before touch down), in the us they will immediately just tell you "number 2, cleared to land", and just tell you to go around if they didn't vacate the runway in time. I don't know how they handle it in australia. But i don't think this really matters here. They were at 1000 feet, you don't always get a landing clearance until then, it shouldn't matter. @@bks252
@852twm
7 ай бұрын
Blaming culture runs through the company apparentally
@RLTtizME
7 ай бұрын
Are you talking about the YT comment section?
@Elias-xn1km
7 ай бұрын
@@RLTtizME nope, many of the UAE based airlines have a toxic company culture emirates is the best example look at a few incidents from them, and you can already see some of the problems their pilots (not from the UAE) face.
@RLTtizME
7 ай бұрын
@@Elias-xn1km Oh I thought you were talking about the YT comments section. It is quite germane.
@babyj4154
7 ай бұрын
@@Elias-xn1kmhmm could you elaborate on that? Or atleast show me a couple cases so I can find out myself? I am curious
@Elias-xn1km
7 ай бұрын
@@babyj4154yeah no problem
@flyingskullb737
7 ай бұрын
I heard ATC clearing them for ILS approach once they were established on the localizer course. It seems the crew were fatigued by the tone of their voices on the radio.
@Pilot_George
7 ай бұрын
Comms from atc were ok. But Qatari was clearly too high at the start being asked to expedite descent through 3000. Can’t tell if it was the pilots or atc fault. But atc did seemed rushed so perhaps they were bringing them in too tight and some extra track miles would have been better for all. But the rush could have been Qatari being too high.
@caspianmerlin6434
7 ай бұрын
I suspect the expedited descent and request to report passing levels was for separation reasons
@juliusplayz6960
7 ай бұрын
hey, i fly into this airport in the sim with real world procedures. from there position, they are about 20 miles out, and most times the glideslope doesnt come in until 15nm, but from where they turned onto the loc they were around 16-18nm roughly. perhaps they were too high because they had not completed descent, with procedures often having the aircaft already at 3000ft. im phrasing terribly but i hope you understand my message.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
The second track was MUCH better. If that's what they want, then that's what they will use. ATC will learn.
@markcardwell
7 ай бұрын
Yup, cleared. Super!
@silentservant_
6 ай бұрын
I see. Watch the full video and then go back here 1:20 as it begins. The communication begins to break because there wasn’t a response from ATC confirming the pilot’s prior transmission and he even asked again if they copied but with still no answer. So yeah the “unstable approach” being for this reason. Communication wasn’t clear. On a side note: I hope humility will prevail and lessons will be learned because we passengers put our lives faithfully in knowing that the people who make our flights happen daily, also have our safety as top priority. Pilots and ATC are vital to each other for this reason alone
@dougaltolan3017
7 ай бұрын
Ohh my, what a lot of arguing in these comments... Has anyone stopped to think that when the pilot gave the reason for go around as "didn't recieve *approach* clearance", he misspoke and meant to say "*landing clearance"?
@jacktrieger1499
7 ай бұрын
Except for the fact that that is a completely different reason and would be communicated differently. Pilot told tower unstable approach and then confirms unstable when asked by departure. "no landing clearance received from tower" is a different sentence made up of different words. If you're assuming he misspoke, he misspoke an entire sentence multiple times.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Both answers could be correct. Did you consider that? No you didn't. Ask yourself why you didn't? And it was not the same pilot on the radio twice, being pestered for a debate while executing a GA. You're 2 for 2 in the clown show.
@dougaltolan3017
6 ай бұрын
@@user-pf5xq3lq8i 🔔🔚
@BruiserFL
7 ай бұрын
Doesn't sound like an ATC issue. Approach control cleared them for an ILS 34L approach and then, subsequently, cleared them for the "independent visual" for 34L when Qatari stated they had the visual, runway in sight. Perhaps their airline "stable criteria" dictates they need to go around at 1000' AGl (above ground level) if they are not cleared to land at that point???
@t288msd
7 ай бұрын
They’ll never ever land at Heathrow if that’s the case :)
@timeslidez
7 ай бұрын
Clearance to land is not part of the stable approach criteria at this airline.
@jort93z
7 ай бұрын
Yeah lol. In most of europe they only clear you to land once the runway is completely clear and you are next to land(very much different to the US). So it's quite common they will only clear you at 500 or 600 feet. i can't imagine any international airline would do this. @@t288msd
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Exactly. If the phrases are unclear, go around. ATC will learn.
@boahneelassmal
7 ай бұрын
i genuinely hate to say it but after the airbus-qatar airwas-drama recently it kinda fits into the picture... This seems like a very bad case of altitude / energy mismanagement. which they are now shifting to the controllers. not to mention the need to explain in detail on frequency.... call the tower once you're down....
@robertfarina8235
7 ай бұрын
Same shit they pull driving trucks.
@robr177
6 ай бұрын
You cannot land if you were only cleared for an approach. I think he meant to say he was not cleared for landing.
@zachansen8293
7 ай бұрын
He never blamed atc
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Correct, he never did, he was blaming comms delay. The commenters don't listen to words, they listen to tone then pick a side. Even when there is no "side".
@user-sr9bi2uu8w
7 ай бұрын
The pilots only read back the approach clearances twice. No controller fault or communications problem there.
@olistudd2306
7 ай бұрын
Approach clearance is not a landing clearance. Landing clearance is granted by Tower, not Approach.
@jort93z
7 ай бұрын
Well, the pilot said they weren't cleared for approach, not that they weren't cleared for landing. We don't know if they were cleared to land, there is no recording of what the tower said, and barely a recording of what qatari says to tower@@olistudd2306
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
They don't land 500 lives without landing clearance. You do because you are different.
@realjohnald
7 ай бұрын
not only was he cleared for the visual approach he read it back...not sure where the comms mishap took place
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Not sure? Then go around with 500 lives intact.
@gonetoearth2588
7 ай бұрын
I like that the approach controller didn't interject that they WERE INDEED CLEARED FOR THE ILS AND VISUAL!! Professional indeed. It this were SFO those Qatari guys wouldve been given an earful of NorCal goodness ;-) n In any case ya gotta love the balls on the Qatari pilot to blame ATC in this case....bravo. hahahaha
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
He didn't blame the tower, he blamed it on the communication. This was clearly and issue since the creator of the video went to the same frequency as the pilot was told to and couldn't understand why he couldn't hear the tower.
@PearsonWard
7 ай бұрын
@@jaredjones6292he was cleared for the approach with the approach controller. Tower only gives clearance to land. This crew made a mess up.
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
@@PearsonWard and if you can't hear the tower what do you do? Listen to the garbled audio and tell me you know for sure that all the communication was precise and clear. I'm going to ask Jaun Brown his opinion of what a PIC should do if they are in doubt.
@lars.1975
7 ай бұрын
@@jaredjones6292not every transmission is picked up by LiveATC. They received a landing clearance and read it back (which is the part you can hear). Cheers 👋
@timeslidez
7 ай бұрын
@@jaredjones6292 That has got to do with how VHF receivers work (line of sight). The aircraft would have had no issue hearing the tower.
@plainsailing5987
7 ай бұрын
Completely the crew fault. Unstable. Afraid to admit the real reason. No surprises. Having worked with many Qatar pilots in recent times as my FO’s there is a culture of blame there from the sounds of it. There’s no shame in saying you messed up your approach. Admit it, learn from it and move on. Blaming others for your failings dosen’t inspire confidence in the airline.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
What part of the pilot saying "unstable" did you not hear? But then you only heard the gaslighting afterwards. Cope son.
@mattwebb02
7 ай бұрын
Hard the know what the actual issue was given the video was filtered to this aircraft and no tower comms. 🎉
@AvioMan
7 ай бұрын
If this happened in the States they would have been still arguing over the frequency for 10 more minutes
@MCMXI1
7 ай бұрын
Meanwhile, over on VASAviation, they're blaming the controller...
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
The controller has some blame. We dont know if the comms was stepped on so they can't be blamed for that. But the gas lighting afterwards during a GA procedure was disgusting.
@TomCook1993
7 ай бұрын
He was told to expedite THROUGH 3,000 and they stopped at 3,000 🤦♀️ these guys need some more sim work
@chriskratz5033
7 ай бұрын
They were cleared for the approach
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Yep, they were "probably" cleared for landing also. But the clearance was either too late or unclear to the pilots responsible for 500 lives, so the pilot decided not to risk 500 lives. But that upset some people in atc that they decided to gaslight the pilots DURING A GO AROUND. How dare anyone question sydney atc and their tight and unclear comms? How dare they question the mighty sydney atc for the sake of 500 lives.
@australianaviationist705
7 ай бұрын
When the Qatar went around it flew right over my house at 3000feet
@vst9266
7 ай бұрын
In the cockpit two pinnochios. 🤥😂
@TheGordyb102
6 ай бұрын
Pilot explanation doesn’t hold water…..ATC clearances were read back by the pilot……only he knows why they broke off the approach
@vuxdinh
7 ай бұрын
There was a part of tower communication that was missing so I don't know if tower gave landing clearance to the pilot or not. So maybe the pilot meant he was never cleared for landing.
@caspianmerlin6434
7 ай бұрын
They wouldn't have gone around that far out just due to no landing clearance received
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Not only must it be confirmed, it must be confirmed IN TIME for the sequences. If it is given out of sequence that still needs a GA. Those pilots are not playing fast and loose with 500 lives. Good pilots. Those whining about a GA have an agenda.
@mlmielke
6 ай бұрын
It doesn't matter.. if the communications isn't heard and repeated in definitive, it isn't.
@tillycatcat
7 ай бұрын
There is a lot to parse here, but they don’t seem to be commenting on the original controller. I think they wanted to tell the tower they were on the visual rather than the ILS but couldn’t (we could not GIVE THEM the visual approach). Given that there are different minimums for Visual vs ILS, I imagine that it became unstable as they were visual but not cleared to land in time.
@lars.1975
7 ай бұрын
Parse again my friend, they were cleared to land 🤌
@olistudd2306
7 ай бұрын
@lars.1975 that's unknown. We cannot hear Tower, only Approach. Approach clearance is not the same as landing clearance (the latter given by Tower).
@Klink330
7 ай бұрын
Of course they would’ve been cleared to land - although we couldn’t hear the tower. They were cleared for the approach three times.
@tillycatcat
7 ай бұрын
@@Klink330 as, are we clear to land?
@bks252
7 ай бұрын
He was cleared to land at about the 2:00 minute mark on the video.
@drangpojken
7 ай бұрын
Are they fired you think ? Qr .. blame policy!
@johnnyz8423
7 ай бұрын
The problem began when the A380 Captain’s ego couldn’t handle admitting they were unstable without trying to shift blame. A good Captain would have swallowed his pride and taken pleasure in the fact that he did the right/safe thing by going around. He dug his own hole with that stupid radio comment!
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
No the ATC dug the hole by trying to call it unstable when the captain already called it unstable. They were covering their own part in the cause and gas lighting. They got their answers. ATC can learn or sulk. We will see.
@thatguy8005
7 ай бұрын
Unstable approach… they are required to go around
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Finally, someone who gets it. Look at all the people hearing words that were not said, and not understanding the sequencing those words must take.
@justahomosapiens1861
7 ай бұрын
Qatar lacks consistency and penalizes those who expose them including this kind of very risky and serious mistakes #unbanjoshcahill
@eddieashley1553
5 ай бұрын
What country is this? That phraseology is terrible and why did the dude care what altitudes he was at?
@agustinramirocarruego6831
7 ай бұрын
Is strange to listen that reason for a GA. Bc if the Approach control ask for the reason, was bc the crew decided to go around and no by the control tower. The readback was correct and the instruction and clearence for app was 10/10. After all, is better to try again with no reason than landed and made a mistake. But was strange the child answer to app control!
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Tower was gaslighting saying "confirm not our fault, your bad approach". They knew deep down the contributed by bad comms. But they wanted to gaslight a response. The response was 100% correct, but you didn't understand it because his tone didn't match his words. If you see the transcript he blames the comms, not tower specifically. But you didn't want to listen to his words. It would have been better communicated off air, but tower pestered them TWICE to provoke an error. The only error was the tone of their answer. And that was enough for you to base your entire conclusions, it seems.
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
"For some reason we are not able to hear tower controller on this frequency." 1:57 Why would that be? Could it be that the pilot was having the same problem? The creator can't hear the tower but that's all good, because we should be able to know what was being said without actually hearing it. No, it sounds to me like a real communication problem and the pilot wasn't making an excuse, he was saying exactly what the creator of this video was saying. He didn't hear the communication and did the safe thing by going around until he was sure he was cleared for a landing.
@thomasairbuspilot
7 ай бұрын
The pilot would not have said “cleared to land” if he did not first hear that instruction from the tower controller
@dougaltolan3017
7 ай бұрын
@@mr65136"the pilot read back landing clearance" Not so fast there we *only* heard "bzzt cleared to land bzzt" That might have been "we are not cleared to land", especially since it was immediately followed by "going around"
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Its not enough to hear it. It must be heard in time and in sequence. That is where your argument fails.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Its not enough to hear it. It must be heard in time and in sequence. That is where your desperate argument fails.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
Poor phraseology from atc. "Cleared for visual" is lazy and non standard. That atc should be fired or retrained for using non standard phrases in busy airspace.
@Rosarium2007
7 ай бұрын
Sounded to me like they were cleared for approach by the first ATC with the ILS and confirmed they had visual of the runway. We can Noyola hear the pilot side of the communications with the tower, but we do hear the pilot say “cleared to land” in apparent reply to the tower, so . . . h should have left it at confirming unstable. If he had more to say couldn’t he ask the ATC to give him a phone number to call for the tower?
@jamesmadwat
7 ай бұрын
Australia doesn’t have the whole “call ATC” like some other countries. If something is reported it’s all done by webforms and email.
@user-pf5xq3lq8i
6 ай бұрын
You have it the wrong way around. ATC was gaslighting the pilots to have a debate..while executing a GA. Now think about why ATC was desperate to provoke a response during a GA.
@mlmielke
6 ай бұрын
You can't make assumptions with missing clips.
@boatlover1875
7 ай бұрын
Might need his mommy in the cockpit to help make better excuses. He does know all this was on tape?...Should have just shut up after his initial excuse commonly understood by everyone to mean we weren't ready like we should have been and need to try again.
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
Watch the video again and tell me what the tower was saying to the pilot. Seems to me the creator of the video was making some assumptions too, and neither one of us can be positive that those assumptions were correct. I'd rather have my pilot be safe than sorry.
@timeslidez
7 ай бұрын
The pilots reason for the go-around literally makes zero sense.
@babyj4154
7 ай бұрын
His reason looks pretty viable to me
@timeslidez
7 ай бұрын
@@babyj4154 Okay, explain these points to me then. At 3:04 the pilot says he was never cleared for the approach, this is incorrect, at 1:13 and 1:23 the ATC clears them for the ILS approach and this is correctly readback by the pilot on the 2nd occasion. He then clears him for the visual approach (a normal procedure at Sydney due to the runway spacing) which is also correctly readback. So when the pilot then says he was only cleared for the localiser at 3:05, this is also untrue. The pilot's next sentence starting at 3:07 makes even less sense. ''We did not have a chance to give them the visual approach for the runway''. What does that even mean? ATC gave you the visual approach clearance and you read it back. Then he says due to radio congestion he wanted to confirm he was cleared for the approach? But he already was and read it back. Why would you switch to Tower frequency if you are unsure if you are cleared for the approach, approach control clear you for an approach, not the tower, they clear you to land. So I stand by my statement that it literally makes zero sense. I look forward to your reply.
@babyj4154
7 ай бұрын
@@timeslidez some solid points u have, but while Qatari was indeed cleared for the approach they weren’t cleared to land. Or am I missing something here? I believe tower explicitly clears you to land and that wasn’t the case here. So while I do agree that the pilot had a poor choice of words to describe the situation, he was partly right in that he was cleared to shoot the approach but not to land.
@dougaltolan3017
7 ай бұрын
@@timeslidezin the conversation 3:04 onwards, replace the pilot saying "approach" with "landing" We could hear ATC approach and there didn't seem to be any radio congestion there. We could not hear Tower, and what we did hear ftom the pilot was very patchy.
@ManualFlying
7 ай бұрын
@@babyj4154 rather or not ATC gave it, you could receive late landing clearance below 1000’, stabilized altitude.
@azpilotd4351
7 ай бұрын
Pilot not getting stable. Nothing to see here as a go around is a normal procedure. Not sure why he blamed the controllers when they read back the clearance and called the runway in sight but hey, arrogance is arrogance.
@emiratrous3431
7 ай бұрын
He was at 1000ft and cleared to land! Why all this non sens talk about approach clearance 😂😂. Just land man!
@jamescollier3
7 ай бұрын
long flight. tired
@waldoinaz
7 ай бұрын
Qatari 908 are liar liar pants on fire.
@lukerangel5336
7 ай бұрын
Have a feeling it was one of these characters who like to confirm every damn thing two or three times. Like damnit, you heard it and acknowledged it. I won’t be surprised if they went around just because the capt was still stuck on confirming if they were cleared or not. Like move on man, you’re already on tower freq. Ffs.
@austintx_planespotter8561
7 ай бұрын
Probably put the wrong ILS freq in
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
I'm definitely not an expert on these kinds of things, but it appears that the pilot was suffering from the same problem as the creator of this video. Didn't hear the communications so they made some assumptions that may or may not be correct.
@maikjustus2003
7 ай бұрын
No. The pilot has correctly read back the clearance. But he seems to have forgotten this a few moments later
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
@@maikjustus2003 Listen again, the audio is garbled and a lot of people, including the creator, are assuming what was actually said without actually knowing for sure. Was he asking for clearance to land or was he reading back he was cleared to land?
@maikjustus2003
7 ай бұрын
@@jaredjones6292neither. He read back that he was cleared for the visual approach. There is no need for a landing clearance at this point. Landing clearance above the threshold would be sufficient
@jaredjones6292
7 ай бұрын
@@maikjustus2003 Here is what I know for sure. After he was told to go to 120.5 we see that the creator of this video seems to be confused as to why he couldn't hear the tower. This means communication was poor on that frequency. The pilot said as much with the reply so many people are complaining about him sounding like he was making an excuse. If the creator was confused, listening to that frequency, then it's plausible the pilot was being honest and also being safe.
@steveburton5825
7 ай бұрын
@@jaredjones6292 Give it up Muhammed. The frequency used by ATC and the airplanes for approaches and landings are in the VHF (Very High Frequency) range and those frequencies require that the parties have LINE OF SIGHT between their antennas. What WE hear is the result of hobbiests that collect these transmissions on their PC's from homebrew VHF radio scanners near airports and his/her antenna probably didn't have line of sight to the tower (the could be behind a hill or an apartment building). We KNOW the airplane heard the tower clearly as they read back their clearances correctly so the creator of this video was absolutely correct. In future, don't comment on something you know absolutely nothing about.
@romanb.6905
7 ай бұрын
For *this* I have subscribed to your channel?
@YouCanSeeATC
7 ай бұрын
There will be emergencies soon. Fortunately, nothing happens these days. I'm working on one. But in a couple of days.
@RLTtizME
7 ай бұрын
What did you have in mind? Pornhub?
@neom0nk
7 ай бұрын
Maybe start your own channel tolling through 100s of hours of ATC logs, building gfx, captions etc if you're unhappy? Sheeesh, the nerve of some people.
@aswler
7 ай бұрын
why not? what do you expect instead?
@Cadence-qt2ux
7 ай бұрын
Cleared to fuq off 6905
@alexanderdavidson7837
7 ай бұрын
lol they were cleared for the ILS and visual. And they read back! Ahh well. They just wanted the other time
Пікірлер: 185