DANGEROUS MANEUVER on Final Approach at JFK Airport. REAL ATC 

There was no RA. That means it wasn't even close to close, as you get an RA before it's "close"

(Disclaimer: not a pilot) I was wondering the same - but, at the same time, when you're in the clouds, I'm gonna guess that your best chance is to do exactly what controllers tell you and to trust TCAS as a last resort.

They were IMC nothing they can do but get ready to quickly respond to TCAS.

@@brandonadams7837 I knew they were IMC. That's what makes it worse!! You can't see anything, but you can only hear the urgency. And not hearing a TCAS really didn't help either!

Isn't it technically required in the readback?

technically not required, it may not have helped ATC catch it.. I used to control, and when I first started in radar I did miss a few incorrect readbacks and the pilot even gave the incorrect direction a few times. It happens... you'd be surprised.

That is exactly correct, we listened to every readback to make sure they did what we said,

That is in theory what is supposed to happen. The reality is in a situation such as this the controllers work load skyrockets with the need to coordinate with other airspace. Normally fly runway heading buys some time, but in a case like this it looks like Jet Blue was overtaking the traffic. My guess was that this controller became saturated and even if she heard the incorrect read back it never registered as her mind was 6 places at once. This is not an excuse, in fact this is a good training tool to help new controllers understand the need to focus on the most important task,in this case the correct read back. I’m pretty sure she went to the watch desk totally confident she heard the correct read back and it was a pilot deviation. In my 30 years of controller experience I have seen this many times. In fact missed read backs were, and probably still are the number 1 controller error

They are, but there is a thing called "confirmation bias" where you expect to hear something, so when you hear something else that's close to it, particularly if you have a high workload, your brain ignores the discrepancy. It sounds like that's what happened here. The JetBlue pilot should have questioned it, though - to be given go-around instructions that would take you directly into the approach path of the parallel runway would be dangerous, so if they thought they heard "turn left 280", the first question is "erm, that's right, not left" and the next would be "and 280 takes me right into the approach path of the parallel runway". That should have been enough for the pilot to have requested clarification from tower. There are two pilots in that cockpit, and it amazes me that this occurred to neither of them.

​@@efoxxok7478​very quick to blame a female.. Listen again, first ATC, the one that issued the go around AND correction, was male.

@@efoxxok7478 That doesn't matter, they still need to be vigilant and ensure that they are hearing the correct readback.

Unless otherwise instructed, left turns are the expected normal.

It pretty much was standardized. The 280 turn instead of the 180 was the issue.bad read back that didn’t get caught. Happens 🤷‍♀️

@@garett2892ya, I didn’t even catch it.

@@57Jimmy it happens even to the best controllers lucky enough to have extra safety features in this job

I think the JetBlue pilot had a death wish

@@garett2892no, the turn was supposed to be to the left. The pilot did not clarify right or left and just turned right. If they had said, “right 280” instead of just 280, the controller may have caught the mistake earlier. Any heading change both the controller and pilot should clarify to the left or right.

And?

This is also why standard phraseology is important, instead of rubbish like "280 on the heading"

Readbacks don’t transfer responsibilities back to controllers. Pilot is always ultimately responsible, so this was definitely pilots deviation.

🤣

The CRJ could probably pull off an Immelmann.

That’s the last thing you should do, Endeavour’s right on your tail

You don't have time to think up there. If you think, you're dead. :)

"clearly" based on radio reception used in the video. That's NOT from the plane's radio. Also you don't know who else was talking at the time on the plane. The question is why didn't ATC catch that the readback was not correct? You do know they weren't just watching a youtube video on the plane, right?

It's called inexperienced pilots. It's just a matter of time before lives are lost.

How could they miss it? Very easily. Happens all the time. That’s why we read back and confirm.

@@zachansen8293Well he clearly didn’t here the correct in’s so he made something up. Why did he ask again?

@@zachansen8293 Of course radio reception based on the REAL ATC video, but I'm sure it is exactly the same as in the pilots' headsets.

I guess they were catching the aircraft in front, so runway heading would have still had them catching. In the event of a go around by the aircraft in front, there could have been a conflict. That's why an immediate turn was required.

​@@thomasdalton1508but it would be runway heading while climbing. Thus avoiding conflict.

@@micahgreene4573 I specifically said the issue would be if the aircraft in front went around. That means that aircraft is climbing too. If it climbs at a faster rate or doesn't stop climbing before reaching the altitude they levelled out at, they could come into conflict.

The problem plane was runway heading in front of them. What if that plane needs to go around?

@@micahgreene4573 what if there's an engine failure and they can't climb?

No. The heavy is so far ahead that its not even a factor.

probably because he did...

You might want to go back to 00:04 in the video and read the disclaimer.

@@fascinatingtome Why?

@@SethDykstra Had the liquid shitters...

@@fascinatingtome F the Disclaimer, i'm going by what ATC said, caution wake turbulence 6 miles 787... if ATC told him to slow the hell down then he would of maintain separation.

There's no such word as "discontinue" in the ATC lexicon. "Cancel" would be the appropriate word.

Yeah I was waiting to hear that!

@@PetersPianoShoppe This will unfortunately will be party to blame on the controller... he missed the clearly stated read back error of "280"

Is it a deviation if he reads it back wrong but the controller doesn't catch it?

@@TheFlyingZuluresponsibility is with the pilots. Readbacks are there to potentially catch mistakes, not to transfer responsibility to the controllers.

Uhh you ever see planes coming in to land at a busy airport on a Sunday night? You have to stack the planes a couple miles apart in order to accommodate the landings, then monitor speed so they don't run in to one other or hit too much wake turbulence.

To answer your question, the air traffic control handbook makes it very clear that you should not withhold a landing clearance to an aircraft if there's reasonable assurance that a preceeding aircraft will be clear of the runway by the time a succeeding aircraft crosses the landing threshold.

Anticipated seperation my dude. We use it everyday.

Because it's the USA, it doesn't happen everywhere.

Or the JetBlue crew not being in lala land.

I get paid $1.00 for every time this comment is made. So far I have collected $52, 342 and I am going to the Genesis dealer today to spend it. Thanks for your support. You're the best.

@@RLTtizME i know, thank you.

I mean, probably. With ATC shortages they are understaffed and some might be getting through training with less than desirable qualification.

They’ve likely always happened, but with social media and access to recorded data the info gets put out there so it appears more frequently.

There is a shortage because they refuse to raise the maximum starting age. Until they wake up from that, it will get worse.

@@user-tk3fq9md6i what min starting age?

Simple math suggests, of course they happen more often. We have more planes in the air, we're going to have more incidents.

Panic makes things worse. Being calm in the face of fuckups is good, not bad.

Like your postings.

Too complacent. Kind of like your sloppy attempt at forming an English language sentence.

How is that obvious? I think you should look at air traffic accidents and tell us the mathematical possibility.

Could you be a little more dramatic? Do those loved ones of yours drive cars?

He did exactly what he read back to ATC

While Jet Blue didn't get the right heading, tower missed the incorrect read back. Had they caught the incorrect read back they could have corrected Jet Blue immediately.

​@@leeclemens879 ATC told him to turn LEFT and he did not read that part back and turned right. Not reading back the complete instruction using standard phraseology is just sloppiness of the worst kind. The correct (and shortest) read back would be "cancel approach, left 180, climb 2000". This pilot wasted air time by saying things like "OK" and "on the heading", which don't provide any information, and omitted the direction. Also, it should be pretty damn obvious to a pilot that you don't cross another final at a busy airport. If he didn't hear the instruction clearly or it didn't make sense, he should have asked the tower to confirm while flying the original heading. Yeah, ATC might get a bit annoyed if you constantly ask them to repeat every instruction, but it's much better to do that than compromise safety.

Really? We fly millions of passengers and tons of cargo daily. You declare the system broken just because one controller didn't listen to the readback? You should slow down on the caffeine.

No, I declared it broken because it can't handle the load it is being asked to carry. A system of back and forth radio chatter is fine with few planes and everyone speaking the same language. It doesn't work with high workload and hundreds of different accents. That's why planes are going to be remote controlled in the future using AI. A computer can handle operations much faster than a human can. Instead of "go here, do this", and then waiting for a human to do it, the computer will just do it instantly. @@DrLumpy

It's not "sloppy" that the pilot heard 280 instead of 180. The pilot read back what he heard.

@@DrLumpy Which is why I said 'both parts'. If you don't hear the read-back as incorrect, that is just as sloppy