Frustrated Pilot Reacts as TCAS Intruder Incurs on Approach [ATC audio] 

yeah, I haven't read one comment yet that seems to understand what it meant when the pilot said "RA" (resolution advisory)... I think that probably ordered him to climb (and pilots have to follow a resolution advisory, even if it conflicts with what ATC has told them to do), and messed up his approach

RA's can be ignored if you have the traffic in sight and visual separation can be maintained.

@@ByzantineDarkwraith yes. The FAA and most of the world has decided that TCAS is what you should follow end of discussion. Because the controllers instructions can conflict with what TCAS instructions. There have been mid air collisions because of this very confusion.

Of course. From what I recall.... you don't recover from a mid air collision

Yeah, pilot should follow TCAS and advise ATC they received TCAS and what they are doing.

I thought the same, a simple left 360 would have resolved the whole thing, easy peasy.

Pipeline survey have the same priority, ATC failed to sequence both aircraft.

@@learjet45 Ditto!

Hey SWA, do you want to do a 360 right there so a 172 can pass and you'll avoid a potential RA?

The radar doesn't show it but they have plenty of separation and the Southwest flight could've landed no problem.

@@trdshortbus8009 he got an RA event on the TCAS. There are specific rules for separation even if "there's enough room" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498#Accident_summary

@@webcucciolo Thank you.

@Ro Herms I think you are incorrect. RNAV runway 22L X is a non-precision approach and has a minimum of 1500 at YACHT (unless cleared for visual), followed by decision altitude at 951. Where did you get 3000? RNAV runway 22L Y is instead the approach from Lake Michigan, also with minimum altitude of 1500 at YACHT.

@Ro Herms 1500 at YACHT unless cleared for visual and with runway in sight. And the missed approach procedure calls for 2300. If he was initially cleared to 3000, he can ask for lower altitude later. I did it in IMC a couple of days ago, nothing wrong with that

Yeah but if it's a frequent occurrence in ATC is constantly putting aircraft at risk, I would have been more than "a little grumpy"

@@LiveLogic13 You have no idea how all this works, do you?

Don’t blame the pilot for being grumpy, what was stupid of the other pilot to get so close.

@@LiveLogic13 They got an RA which sometimes could result in an immediate go around, and with the traffic still being very close by, the pilots felt that they just had to get out of there. Who cares if it’s a waste of fuel? Believe me it’s easy to assume things when you’re watching the whole scene unfold with all the information already available, but it’s a much different experience if you were actually sitting in that cockpit.

@@LiveLogic13 they made the decision to do a go around before the radio call. You can literally watch their altitude increase before the other plane passes. You're also contradicting yourself with the "when in doubt go around" comment and then questioning their decision. Lives are more important than fuel.

Cessna was on VFR, can be asked to do something but not vectored like IFR airplane. He reported traffic in sight and tower appropriately asked to maintain separation. The break in the chain is that obviously the Cessna pilot has no idea about the amount of separation required to avoid trigger a TCAS RA event (and/or make a pilot uncomfortable). Here at KLAF I had my share of airplanes coming straight at me and later saying "but I had you on my screen, I have a G1000 with ADS-B in, I felt I was far enough". Electronics cannot be used for traffic avoidance (TCAS excluded), I fly 6-packs, and I had to perform evasive maneuvers 3 times. With a jet, I would be even more concerned if tiny airplane is too close.. tower could have asked the pilot to help by giving vectors (Indy approach does with me a lot, and then they thank me for the help), tried to be nice and this Cessna pilot needs to learn about sharing airspace with larger aircraft en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498#Accident_summary

VFR traffic in controlled airspace and two way comms with ATC must adhere to ATC instructions. 91.123(b) states: “Except in an emergency, no person may operate an aircraft contrary to an ATC instruction in an area in which air traffic control is exercised.”

@@deltabravo6821 Exactly. So ATC asked to maintain visual separation, which the Cessna pilot thought they did, but they were still way too close (and above all never showed clear intention of avoidance maneuvers until called again by tower). AIM chapter 3, section 2, 3-2-4 (Class C airspace), paragraph (e): Aircraft Separation. Separation is provided within the Class C airspace and the outer area after two-way radio communications and radar contact are established. VFR aircraft are separated from IFR aircraft within the Class C airspace by any of the following: 1. Visual separation. 2. 500 feet vertical separation. 3. Target resolution. NOTE 3: Pilot participation is voluntary within the outer area and can be discontinued, within the outer area, at the pilot’s request. Class C services will be provided in the outer area unless the pilot requests termination of the service (I think in the case in question, the pilot was within the inner area) So, tower did appropriate visual separation and later did target resolution

The point of my post was that VFR traffic can absolutely be vectored just like IFR traffic and the VFR traffic must comply.

@Eric Johnson they can and they should have in this case. Hopefully the Southwest jet filed a HATR against ATC.

If you feel that way, don't land at SFO.

Tell that to a Blue Angels pilot.

Yeah he sounds like a Karen to me lmfao

TCAS event due to controller.

@@C783H Pilot applied visual separation. Literally nothing more the controller should have done. Both aircraft have each other in sight. It's probably the most safe form of separation that exists. You see each other, don't hit each other.

@@xmatt931x clearly you do not understand what has happened. Regardless of visual confirmation the 737 must follow tcas!

@@C783H in no way shape or form is this on the controller. The 737 pilots were likely able to stick the first approach after responding to TCAS but to me it sounds like they intentionally sent themselves around out of frustration in the hopes it would potentially support a HATR filed on the Pipeline pilot. There isn’t enough information in this audio to fully assign blame but if anyone messed up it was likely the Pipeline who got closer than need be hoping she could underfly the 737, then realized she needed the 360 too late. Definitely not the controller though.

727 and this was negligence on the instructors part in the cessna en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Southwest_Airlines_Flight_182

Yes, PSA flight 182. Cessna and a Boeing 727 collided over San Diego. Also similar was a Aeromexico flight that had a Piper clip off its rear stabilizer over Los Angeles in the mid 80’s.

1978. I was at work a few miles North at the time, and heard that crash. As a passenger, I'm so cool with the pilot following TCAS, and bitching about traffic.

GCFlower, YES. I was thinking of the San Diego PSA (Boeing 727-214) disaster when I first clicked on this video. I expect that the SWA pilot remembers it, too. I like his caution; I would fly with him.

I was thinking the same thing. A left 360 north of the canal should have prevented the conflict. I'm surprised the controller didn't come up with that.

Agree. I think ATC should have called that

the plane maintained visual seperation. That is all that is required in VMC. Using your logic, the SWA could have done a 360 too

Well, they can always cease pipeline inspections, save if manually done from the ground and until the inspection is completed, the pipeline is shut down for safety. If it's running to the fuel farm of the airport, at least they're safe, if not receiving fuel. If it's to a refinery or storage, the populace can add their views on the conflict and lack of fuel.

So you believe the pipeline inspection is more important and airliner should go around you because you have priority? No wonder he wanted to make a report.

no its not a violation of safety. They were in VMC conditions and they both saw each other.

At least the current rule is that Flight Crews don’t have to follow TCAS RA if the flight crew has definitive acquisition of the aircraft causing an RA. But the main word is definitive. If in doubt, follow RA always. Also the Cessna in this case maintained adequate visual separation from traffic but TCAS systems obviously don’t know this and in general they are more sensitive than they should for safety margin.

§ 91.113 Right-of-way rules: When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach.

@@TheFormerTeam TCAS RA do not follow 91.113. A Resolution Advisory gives instructions in 3D, including altitude changes. FAA Advisory circulars 20-151A and 20-151C mandate installation, verification, and operation of TCAS II systems and mentions how TAs work. The airliner did not have traffic in sight until too late. @nicrative You are incorrect that the Cessna maintained adequate visual separation. Being "beyond the traffic" does not mean anything, if you are still within the RA envelope, because you or the other aircraft might have to abruptly maneuver for whatever reason. You are absolutely correct that FAA says that RA MUST be reported immediately to ATC and SHOULD be followed unless doing this will impact safety of the flight (so, they do not have to, but strongly advised to). After RA event is reported, tower cannot issue any instruction which would conflict with Resolution Advisory. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system

@@TheFormerTeam I fail to understand what quoting 91.113 proves, The right of way you are quoting doesn't work for a towered airport as the controller is performing the sequencing, separation services, and traffic identification, plus both aircraft had each other in sight. Next if you followed the "turn right if head on or nearly so" that would have left both aircraft passing in front of each other, again they weren't head-on or nearly so. Most likely the RA on the SWA either said climb or turn left. The problem here is not 91.113 but that the controller allowed the pipeline patrol to get too close to the final approach corridor while the SWA flight was on his approach. The SWA flight got an RA and typically those must be followed over a controller's instructions, I'm not sure if that is true when the traffic has been positively identified as in sight by the crew prior to the alert to be a non threat.

"He had a right to go around but I don't think he needed to. Would be interesting to read the reports from both pilots if there is an inquiry." The SWA pilots, due to the TCAS RA, could probably no longer meet the stabilized approach criteria as defined in their company manuals thus forcing the go around.

When actual clouds IFR.. Different separation is required

Interesting take. Imagine being a pipeline pilot, doing your job to support infrastructure that provides for millions of people, being in contact with ATC, doing exactly what you're supposed to be doing and you hear some bitchy airline captain chime in and cry about how he failed to see you in VFR conditions.

@@A.J.1656 agreed

@@A.J.1656 Exactly. Southwest pilots seem to be the worst at radio etiquette, so that part isnt a shocker.

@@A.J.1656 agree 100%...

Are you sure that 200 feet would have made a difference????

They're on the glideslope. The 1500 is denoted with the glodeslope intercept. Once you've intercepted the glideslope the altitude restrictions for the approach do not matter aside from DA and maintaining the glideslope.

These were visual approaches… Devin’s comment illustrates an aviation comment at its best. Wrong with a bunch of likes from other wrong people.

@@dylconnaway9976 You're wrong, they were on the RNP Y to 22L as shown by the "Speed our discrection to MNDOE" comment at 0:41.

@@dylconnaway9976 while I agree to an extent. 1. The way the information is laid out in the video it's easy to think they're on an ILS or LPV approach. Where I will disagree with you is just about every US air carrier requires their pilots to use and follow an approach even when assigned a visual approach i.e. youre cleared for a visual but we will tune the ILS and follow its guidance

Not the first time this Captain's had to deal with a TCAS RA on final, it seems.

@@AirTrafficVisualised Just a bully captian!

@@sotm2 he didn't bully anyone, just that he wanted it on the books.

@@philnaegely Actually, even more. By FAA regulations, TCAS RA events MUST be reported to ATC

@@sotm2 Rather someone voicing his concern over repeated safety issues. I prefer someone that reports a problematic recurring pattern while it's still a minor issue than someone who says "I knew it was coming" after the crash happens.

I also cannot believe the airport operates without a local procedure for the pipeline inspections - which sounds like north of the canal for landing traffic. Which is exactly where the Cessna was.

It has crappy separation, even a private pilot should know better. I had my share of airplanes coming way too close and 3 times I had to perform collision avoidance maneuvers. And I don't go at the speed and with the low maneuverability of an airliner. We don't want this to happen again, and the Cessna did not show that they were clearly performing any maneuver for collision avoidance. If the other traffic doesn't show any sign of being taking action to increase separation, you cannot assume that they know or have been advised or agreed to maintain separation (remember that even on the same frequency, you might not have all the traffic in your radio). I had same situation with my instructor, saw the traffic ahead and to the left, so to me there was enough separation. Instructor asked me to descend and turn right, and explained that since the other aircraft didn't show any maneuver, we couldn't assume they would maintain separation, and they could have turned towards us. So, correct action is to become the active party and increase separation. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498#Accident_summary

You can still have it documented without going around. There was no safety issue when he made the go around request.

Yes. People (FAA) would ask the pilot. When RA are given, this is the CLOSEST and MOST DANGEROUS traffic alert by TCAS. Pilots are expected to follow Resolution Advisory immediately. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_system Currently, FAA issued an advisory circular that TCAS II must be installed, certified, tested, and operated in certain types of aircraft. They also say that immediate following of RA should be followed, unless doing this jeopardizes the safety of the flight, and must be reported immediately to ATC. At that point, ATC cannot issue instructions that interfere with the RA from TCAS (the advisory from the system is considered more reliable than instructions from ATC at this point, since the automated system has full local awareness).

@@alfredkennedy3197 Are you familiar with TCAS, RA, and FAA advisory circular 20-151A and 20-151C?

I am

​@@alfredkennedy3197 So, you know that pilots are strongly advised to follow the Resolution Advisory and must report RA events. Having an airplane within 600ft vertically and less than 1 mile laterally or less than half a mile behind (TCAS RA) is definitely a safety issue. In case of any emergency, inadvertent maneuver, turbulence, there is a huge risk for conflict. This is exactly how and why we designed TCAS: to avoid having the subjectivity of Alfred Kennedy telling us that there was no safety issue and Cesare Guariniello telling us that there was. TCAS RA triggering means that there WAS a safety issue, no doubt there.

I suggest that you check FAA advisory circular 20-151A and 20-151C. An RA event on TCAS should be reported to ATC and should be followed until a message of cleared of conflict is received. We do not fly (only) by the seats of our pants, there are rules and regulations to be followed. Also, the airliner did not report traffic in sight until later. The Cessna agreed to maintain visual separation but, until called by tower, did not clearly show any maneuver that would tell the airliner (even on same frequency, you do not hear all the traffic) "I have you in sight and I am avoiding you". As for your last statement, if you are on an IFR flight plan, you own the piece of sky you have been cleared to and have precedence over a VFR flight. So, in this case, the skies belonged to the airliner (unless amended clearance issued). Honestly, if you read the other comments, you will notice that most people are advocating for even stricter instructions given to the Cessna, while instead the ATC opted for being nice and just asked them to maintain separation, which they failed to do. So, you are wrong multiple times here: in your understanding of regulations, in your definition of separation and "traffic no factor" (you can check TCAS separation at the link below. Being "beyond the traffic" means nothing, since the other aircraft can always maneuver), in your statement that someone had an attitude, while they were following FAA advisory and immediately reporting TCAS RA events, and in your misunderstanding of IFR vs. VFR traffic. If you are a pilot in real life, and not on Xplane/Flight Simulator, I would suggest getting more aware of these regulations, because you are the only one having an attitude here, against airline pilots (some of them are not great, I agree. But not when they follow the rules). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_avoidance_systeme

His corporate policy likely requires him to act on an RA as does FAA guidance. It's absurd to let someone do aerial survey work off the centerline of an active runway that close to the field.

@@douglasdever3522 I can agree that it’s absurd, but nonetheless he was authorized to be there. I was more curious as to why the Cessna kept asking for that altitude.

You are 100% correct. If the small Cessna did something wrong then why isn’t any action being taken? You’re right it’s about attitude and the Southwest pilot had attitude, a bad one.

@@cesareguariniello6340 Pretty obvious you’re full of yourself.

They will be eventually. (At least for operations in Class B and C Airspace.)

What's a pipeline pilot?

@@tiadaid Pilots who fly along pipelines looking for leaks. It's mandated by Federal Law in most cases.

"Bad timing" is probably the best description of this incident. Hard to blame either side.

@@chris-hayes The standard procedure for solving "bad timing" issues in the air is a 360. The Cessna and ATC here seem to have taken a regular habit of disregarding that option and taking chances with safe distances. That is not good.

@@tiadaid : AKA "Pipeline Patrol" Aircraft being utilized to visually inspect a pipe-line for various conditions/problems. Aircraft using the tactical call-sign "Power-line" would be conducting the same services along a power line.

I’m not a pilot so take this with a grain of salt but to my knowledge they would maybe have some extra paperwork to do and if it was their fault they could potentially have other repercussions within their company. With that said I think this pilot is just angry because the Cessna is putting the lives of everyone on both planes in danger.

@@hockey4lifeish It's not the Cessna or the Cessna pilot if anything its the controller but even then everything was by the book. SWA did the right thing he got a TA on final approach and decided to go around to be safe. Kudos to all involved.

If they receive a resolution advisory (RA) from TCAS, they HAVE to abide by that instruction. It supersedes ATC. The RA resulted in an unstable approach. Most 121 air carriers require a missed approach if the approach becomes unstable. The Cessna wasn't doing anything wrong, neither was the controller, nor the SW pilots. Just one of those weird situations where a go-around is required.

@@philconey11 The Cessa need to stay on the left of the canal

@@chrisb9143 But the controller told them to follow the road, and once the controller told them to maintain visual separation they moved across the canal. Not blaming the controller, just kind of dumb they told the cessna to follow the only road that took them directly into the path of the southwest plane. I would have told them to be on the left side of the canal from the beginning.

Nor-Cal really has things screwed up. Norcal defaults to pushing vfr traffic low over the terrain. Windy, like its been lately, GA airplanes just don't get flight following to avoid those bad vectors. When you are in VMC conditions, it is up to you to maintain seperation, even on a IFR flightplan. RA has no legal binding and means nothing to GA aircraft. Not their job to follow your airline procedures. If anything, if ATC calls out traffic, you acknowledge it, and you still get an RA, that is on the pilot for not maintaining adequate visual seperation

And RA event is REALLY close. I personally would not consider this a good visual separation by the Cessna, especially since they did not show any maneuver and kept flying straight. No minimum separation other than for safety does not mean "any distance greater than 0". If you look at TCAS RA margins, they are already quite tight (2.1 miles head-on, less than half laterally, 600ft vertically), and the Cessna busted them. When I did this on head-on collision course with other airplane, but I saw them "CLEARLY" (in my opinion) left enough of my course, my instructor asked me to descent on a right turn, and explained to me that since the other person did not show any initiative that would indicate that they actually had us in sight and were maintaining separation, we could not assume that they would keep going straight. And what if they had to maneuver abruptly because of an emergency? Maybe when (like in this case) they were beyond us? I had three close encounters and it is definitely NOT nice. I learned my lesson there, this is exactly what happened here.

@@cesareguariniello6340 not Cessna's job to know RA margins of a 737, though, from their point of view it could have been a completely safe situation.

When you say you have warnings at twice the separation “needed,” are you saying the TCAS is malfunctioning? Because I was under the assumption the TCAS’s job was to tell you if you had the necessary separation. If it says you don’t, you don’t. Unless there is a malfunction, which is a problem of a different magnitude. Or do you mean that the tolerance level of the TCAS is too sensitive? You think planes can safely operate closer to each other? Then what is the point of TCAS? Why would it deliberately be set to alert at a safe distance? I’m not being argumentative - I would imagine there are false “positives” on occasion, as with any technology. But if it happens so frequently that pilots are going to just start ignoring the TCAS (which has happened in the past), something is wrong and people will eventually be casualties of a pilot assuming wrongly that they have safe separation because the TCAS is always alerting when it shouldn’t. Does that make sense? What’s the solution, in other words?

@@jahbern I'm just a beginner, but I'd like the warning when I need to be warned, not when I need to evade immediately without warning. The evade decision should be up to me, not the TCAS. Is that a reasonable way to look at it?

@@jahberntcas does not know atc’s separation standards. It just give warnings when other aircraft are in close proximity. Furthermore, airliners are required to do what tcas says (RA). I personally know air traffic controllers at MDW and that pipeline operation is a normal operation. It just depends on the exact situation at the moment, as to why the RA occurred. I’ve had 1,200 and 1 mile (vfr to ifr), which double the separation needed, and had a pilot need to respond to a RA. As for a solution, I don’t know what the answer is. It seems like “jerky” and sudden movements in close proximity to other aircraft are definitely a problem. I would like to say tell pilots do less sudden movements near each other, but that’ll never happen

@@mattgeerts1466 it sounds reasonable, but I don’t think it actually is. TCAS can “see” things a pilot can’t see. I’ve heard of situations when I pilot is notified of traffic, thinks they see it, but were really being notified of an entirely different aircraft. And so they assume they have appropriate separation when really they don’t. And usually it’s fine. But pilots assume a lot. We all do. My daughter is a pilot and I remember being up with her once in Orlando where there are several hospitals with medevac helos - they can be difficult to see at night. ATC notifies GA planes, but even so we had trouble spotting them at times. I imagine a larger aircraft could easily have had trouble spotting our little Cherokee. Orlando executive is just north of MCO and we watched the passenger jets approach and felt like little ants 😂 I’d rather they respond immediately to TCAS alerts no matter what. That said, I know it’s complex. And I know we humans like to think we are smarter than machines. Myself included. And sometimes we are. Until we aren’t.

"Your safety is our number one priority" usually finds its way into most safety briefings.

If you are VFR or IFR in VFR conditions you are responsible for traffic separation period. Saying, "737 is not responsible for visual separation until confirming traffic in sight" is not true at all. § 91.113 Right-of-way rules: When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. *Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final approach.* There is no distance requirements for separation and the Cessna can't just teleport to the north side of the 737. The Cessna could have flown a Northern heading and remained West of the 737. ATC could have given a suggested heading of 010 and this would have been resolved. I agree that the Cessna pilot was daft about passing directly under the 737 by approximately 400 feet (the 737 is supposed to be at 1500 crossing YACHT although depends which approach they're flying for 22L) but there is no rule stating that they cannot do that. The only thing the Cessna did which you could consider poor decision making was crossing closely beneath the 737s flight path at that low of an altitude. Otherwise everything was well within tolerances for the Cessna. The fault realistically falls onto the controller who should have made sure to separate the Cessna from traffic on approach. The Cessna did what it was allowed to do and the 737 did what it had to procedurally do from the RA warning. The fault in my opinion lies mainly with the controller who failed to separate traffic from aircraft on approach. (Although from my understanding the controller did nothing wrong either in terms of what he is required to do) DECIDE (from Cessna's perspective on flight path conflict) Detect > Current course is in conflict with aircraft on approach. Estimate > Maintaining course has increased risk of in-flight collision Choose > Not crashing into the 737 Identify > Turn to a northern heading > Perform a left 360 > Slow Down Do > Turn to a northern heading Evaluate > No longer on a collision course with the 737 DECIDE (from Cessna's perspective on wake turbulence) Detect > Wake turbulence risk Estimate > Flying beneath the 737's flight path has an increased risk of encountering wake turbulence which could lead to a loss of control at low altitude Choose > Maintain positive control of the aircraft while reducing the risk of a loss of control at low altitude Identify > Continue flying north-east until more vertical separation is attained from traffic on approach. > Wait until wake turbulence is cleared before turning south > Fly over the 737's approach path Do > Wait for wake turbulence to clear > Fly north-east until vertical separation is greater reducing risk of encountering wake turbulence > Request higher altitude before turning south (potential conflict with RNAV (RNP) X RWY 22L approach) to cross over the approach path. I would personally choose to fly over because I think that's the safest option. Potential for ATC to deny that request so extending to then pass behind at the same altitude of aircraft on approach sounds good for avoiding wake turbulence. Evaluate > Wake turbulence avoided

@@TheFormerTeam Thanks for reply. 737 can’t see and avoid when they don’t have the Cessna in sight... so to summarise your quote and list of actions: Cessna should have turned further north, out of the way, and not intended to fly under the 737. Your quote even notes that 737 had right of way because it was on final approach to land. Nowhere in the quote does it say that IFR traffic must maintain visual separation: it notes aircraft must maintain vigilance, ie even if you’re IFR, when in VMC keep your eyes out the window. That is very different to requiring they maintain visual separation. The intent is to do that but if they can’t see it they can’t avoid it. If it were the case that it was only ever entirely up to pilots to see and avoid in VMC there would be no need for IFR... or controllers during those periods. Who would you rather fly with: a pilot who has good airmanship, a high level of situational awareness and can make good decisions or one who can quote the rules after they’ve caused an avoidable (and potentially dangerous) situation? Cessna appeared to have no intent of changing course until the controller reminded them.

Could you repeat that please?

Absolutely correct, both in initial statement and in reply to FORW3R. I think Cessna pilot just doesn't understand how much separation is required for safe operation of an airliner and to avoid triggering TCAS events. Since Southwest is IFR, the VFR traffic cannot be explicitly vectored (though tower could have asked as courtesy. Indy approach always does it with me and thanks me for help afterwards. And I'm glad they send me around airliners, it's safe and makes great pics for my passengers), he asked them to maintain separation and they thought they did enough by going to other side of the canal, half a mile away. 1000ft and 3 miles is likely what tower wanted, 1-2 miles might have been acceptable. Definitely not a TCAS RA event, from traffic that the airliner never has in sight until last minute. Don't want to repeat this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498#Accident_summary

@@marspp My understanding from how I've been trained is that while in VMC the pilot is responsible for traffic separation and that the only reason IFR is needed is when instrument flight rules are necessary i.e. IMC. Otherwise IFR is essentially ensured flight following where it is guaranteed that radar services will be provided rather than radar services being provided workload permitting. So yes, there is no need for IFR in VMC because the whole point of IFR is that I the pilot cannot maintain traffic separation because I cannot visually see other aircraft. And ATC doesn't see all traffic on their scope so what happens in VMC? The whole reason ATC can guarantee traffic separation in IMC is because ALL aircraft operating in IMC must be on an IFR flight plan and thus need specific equipment that allows ATC to see them while flying an approved/expected route. I decided to actually read the AIM as I should have long ago, specifically Section 5. Pilot/Controller Roles and Responsibilities. If you look at 5-5-8. See and Avoid a. Pilot. When meteorological conditions permit, regardless of type of flight plan or whether or not under control of a radar facility, *the pilot is responsible to see and avoid other traffic, terrain, or obstacles.*

Pipeline probably thought they had adequate separation visually. Southwest got a TCAS RA though, which they are required to respond to. So even if they weren’t really going to collide, Southwest’s approach (ideal glide slope) would be interrupted, and thus they probably decided (or were required) to go around.

I admittedly don't know a lot about pipeline patrol ops, but I'm guessing the pipeline pilot was needing to remain on a close track to the pipeline they were inspecting. Also, there's no reason to believe the pipeline pilot wasn't maintaining separation. It's fairly apparent that the SWA pilot didn't feel like it was adequate separation (mostly due to the RA they received), but that doesn't mean the Cessna pilot did anything unsafe. Having said that, I can see why the SWA captain saw things differently.

Some taxiways are angled with the flow of traffic to allow quicker runway exit. If an aircraft slows enough on landing and there isn't someone right behind them on the approach, the use of a "reverse" taxiway exit, IE: One that is angled for the other landing direction, can be approved for use. Pilots should not use these without ATC permission.

@@GrinchWSLG thank you!

If it happened once, probably not too much. The pilot's remark that this "happens way too often" indicates that this is a recurring issue, though, and with enough go-arounds/complaints that might prompt the FAA to take a look at airspace design/policies and procedures in handling traffic like this.

@@AirTrafficVisualised VMC seperation minima were met. This is just a SWA pilot frustrated he has to respond to RA's in VMC

@@BonanzaPilot The number one rule of any safety system is never create constant false warnings. That causes people to ignore the safety systems. In fact that is actually been the cause of several airliner crashes. A lax attitude on safety will eventually cause an accident.

If instructed. That pipeline pilot has a job to do as well. ATC has the full picture and should be the one pushing folks out of the way if they need. Pipeline also has no responsibility to know what that RNAV approach path looks like or what the RA tolerances are.

@@dzurisintube exactly my thought

@@dzurisintube I agree 100%, I'm in no way blaming the pilot of the Cessna. I'm referring to ATC's mistake.

@@sleektruck22 Yeah I wish we had the actual falcon replay on this so we could see how close this was on the scope. Also, it would be nice for a metar on this videos too.

It's strange though, the Cessna pilot at 0:56 was intent on passing *below* at ~1000' with the 737 passing at 1400' at this point. How is this even allowed? The wake turbulence alone at these low altitudes seems like a really bad idea.

The Cessna had a mission to complete as well.

Also, Cessna was VFR so tower tried to be nice and instead than lengthy vectoring they asked them to maintain visual separation from traffic. Cessna pilot thought they were distant enough, but they weren't. Also, until advised by tower they did not clearly show any maneuver to increase separation. Therefore the airliner (who might not be picking up other traffic, even on same frequency. So they might not even know that the Cessna has them in sight) cannot assume that they will maintain separation, which was also small enough to trigger a TCAS RA event.

@@webcucciolo both the Cessna pilot and ATC could have done a better job managing the situation. My thing is that ATC is in a much better position to address it. That's a really busy airspace. I think ATC should be directing traffic in that area. The lax directions would be more suited for outside that class airspace. I'd much rather ATC be too bossy than not bossy enough and an accident happens. A few cases of that happening with small planes and jetliners and its really bad when a collision occurs

@@mar91942 yeah, I feel you. Gave my lecture on risk management on CFI ground school just 2 days ago, and I agree that better safe than sorry. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498

@Eric Johnson it's not ideal but it's a lot better than two planes colliding. If safety requires a minor inconvenience, so be it. The area is just a more difficult area for the pipeline plane to work in. I imagine that most of the areas they inspect don't have this type issue

When you’re landing you need to stay on the glideslope. If you can’t then you need to reject the landing.

I know several pipeline pilots and their equipment is very specific on what/how that it collects data. The pilot should have restarted the segment if they were forced to go outside the limits.

Both aircraft stated they had the traffic in sight. Maybe they are required to react to an RA by their airline despite that.

@@aniwack If that's the case then yea they needed to restart the inspection.

@@stevegiboney4493 Yea, I think that is what's required of them. I think Kelsey from 74gear said something about that system and how it communicates with both aircraft and ensures both recieve commands that maintain traffic sepparation so pilots are required to fly that over what a controller tells them to do.

@@stevegiboney4493 Yes, TCAS RA events MUST be reported to ATC and should be followed (not mandated yet, though), unless it is unsafe to do so. If RA event is reported, ATC cannot issues instructions in contrast with Resolution Advisory. FAA advisory circulars 20-151A and 20-151C. This supersedes the 14-CFR 91.113 rules, because TCAS RA follow different rules than the VFR right-of-way.

Or they should have just asked the Cessna to do a left 360 and avoided this whole situation.

If you don’t have TCAS equipped, maybe you aren’t thinking about it?

@@arjunyg4655 I'm sure he was talking about the controller, not the Cessna pilot.

we have transponder shields we put on the antennas to keep this from happening when putting the a/c wight off wheels, especially when doing RVSM pitot testing, you don't want a busines jet hovering at 35k feet.

@@warmfreeze I'll have to look into seeing if that's something that we can get. Our pubs dont say anything about it. It's a military 737.

@@kennethmc2601 i kind of figured since you where talking about IFF.. you can also tape over the XPDR antennas with speed tape to create kind of a faraday cade around the antenna

@@warmfreeze Probably not a bad idea. Luckily it's a low traffic airfield so it's easy enough to just call the tower without creating too much of a headache.

91.113 right of way rules , only applies if both aircraft are approaching the same runway simultaneously , in this case the 737 actually has the right of way during its approach and landing

yes, it yells at you "TRAFFIC TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC TRAFFIC" and if the two aircraft gets to close it gives both aircraft opposing flight instructions to avoid collision, technically every TCAS infraction has to be reportet to the FAA

@@animalm4st3r ah thanks. Wasn’t sure if the direction for each aircraft was always given or not

@@AndyMcBlane ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z-6zF9PEtdU.html heres a clip from a crew training video

Vast majority of Cessnas dont have that. Maybe the latest ones do, but not to my knowledge.

Doesn’t matter in this case. The Cessna was being controlled by ATC, declared they had traffic in sight and were staying clear. The descending jet DID technically come too close, but this pilot just decided to throw a hissy fit.

@@troyjollimore4100 aircraft on approach have the right of way aka the 737, the cessna was told to maintain separation. being within 600 feet vertically and 1 mile laterally doesnt scream separation. When tcas goes off you have to report it. The pilot throwing a "hissy fit" as you call it was actually stating a massive issue with commercial aviation, it happens way too often and we are now seeing aircraft collide due to pilots ignoring tcas and listening to the atc. TCAS is always right, I cant say the same about ATC. The pilot was in the right in this situation by calling out the negligence of the atc out.

@@tommygillcrist9918 So you're saying that ATC is useless, redundant and not to be trusted, then... I'm sure you're a peach of a pilot, if you are one at all. I bet you're one of those that calls to have your own dedicated lane on a highway, all the way to your destination. Why share? That could be 'dangerous'! Oh, and by the way, this little excerpt directly from the FAA: When an RA occurs, pilots should respond immediately to the RA displays and maneuver as indicated unless doing so would jeopardize the safe operation of the flight, ***or the flight crew can ensure separation with the help of definitive visual acquisition of the aircraft causing the RA.***"

I might butcher this explanation, but as another poster said, most GA Cessnas don't have TCAS. Some do. But there's another system that works with TCAS called ADSB. If a plane is equipped with ADSB-IN and ADSB-OUT, it basically has the functional equivalent of TCAS. If the plane is only equipped with ADSB-OUT (which is probably the case with this Cessna), it cannot receive incoming information from (and about) the 737, but it can broadcast its own position, speed, altitude and direction information to the 737.

It's a quirk in aviation, where "direct" and "non-stop" are distinct. "Non-stop" means there are no stops. A direct flight may have stops, as long as the flight number remains the same. So this is a direct flight, but not a non-stop flight.

Well, yes. “The little plane sees you. They’re staying clear.” “Uh…No! No, I can’t agree with that. Even though they’re no factor now, and I’m well into my approach, I’m declaring a go-around! Just to make you look bad…” SW Airlines: “Hello PILOT. The cost for fuel for your little hissy fit is coming out of your pay…”

@@troyjollimore4100 They had a TCAS event that’s spoiled the landing. Would you like to look up how many crashes are caused by pilots trying to land when their approaches was not stable?

@@neilkurzman4907 If you can’t handle something nice and easy like that, then I don’t want to be anywhere near any plane you would pilot… 🙄

@@troyjollimore4100 So jumping from a TCAS alert to a higher altitude then lower back to the glide slope is easy in a 737? There have been many aircraft crashes because of pilot didn’t go around when they weren’t established on the bike path. So likewise I hope I never fly in a plane piloted by you. You don’t get a prize for landing from an unstable glideslope.

@@neilkurzman4907 If I remember correctly, they made a slight turn to the left with a slight climb… MILES away from the airport. Like I said, if you can’t handle that, you may want to second guess even being a passenger, or even watching these videos… Karen.

Two different pilots. Left and right seat

@@bushido6882 you misunderstood what he said but I can't be bothered explaining it. Give his comment another look though

That was 99% the captain jumping on the radio. Different voices.

@@bushido6882 to both of you, pilot 1,heard at 2:10 was nearly asleep. Then his angry captain (pilot 2) at 2:25 starts wiggin out, then Pilot 1 can be heard after that, being much more lively

According to ICAO, pilots upon receipt of a TCAS RA instruction: Shall respond immediately and manoeuvre as indicated, unless doing so would jeopardize the safety of the aeroplane; Shall follow the RA even if there is a conflict between the RA and an Air Traffic Control (ATC) instruction to manoeuvre.

@@AirTrafficVisualised thats what im talking about. We ALWAYS follow TCAS RA. (I fly in Europe. Doesnt seem the pilots from the conversation did ani RA maneuver)

Well to directly answer your question: Yes, those ICAO rules apply in the US as well. If you watch the 737's altitude (bottom left in the label) you can see they stop descending on the approach and climb. I believe that was the TCAS RA.

that aircraft is required to be vfr due to the nature of its job, and it cant do its job at night when theres less traffic due to the nature of inspecting equipment and even at night aircraft still come in.

As other said; you could: 1. Close the approach or the airport for the duration of the inspection. 2. Avoid inspection during normal traffic volume and wait until traffic is very low (for example, another pandemic lockdown). Neither of the options are realistic. Compromises need to be made.

True. He wanted documented. It seems like. Although maybe he might have unstable the approach? (Not a pilot)

I think he felt that it' unsafe to land, and it's safer to do go-around, but he wanted to have reason in the books that the reason was out of his hands - that is how I feel it.

I mean… he had an RA at the FAF.. I’m guessing they have to be stable by 1000’. They probably *could* have pulled it off but if they don’t and something happens then their ass is grass now. They definitely wanted a point made but can’t blame them for going around regardless

i guess reverse for breaking? but some one will correct me :)

Backtracking the runway, possibly?

Off of 22L, aircraft was most likely exiting Y2 or K. Y2 would be forward high speed, and K would be reverse high speed taxiway. He is saying that he can make the sharp left turn to taxiway K

Now I'm thinking it has something to do with one-way taxiways in use, but that isn't likely for arrivals on 22L/R exiting for Yankee, and I can't find "reverse approved" in JO7110.65 - so I have to agree with @@rizzeau that it means to approve a sharp & slow turn onto a taxiway more than 90 degrees to the runway which would effect the next landing jet, if there was one on final.

@@N_Wheeler SWA 1961 was behind, abt to turn onto final

Exactly. This is a non-event.

You are absolutely right. However there are so many people that are full of themselves on this post that like the “three or four paragraphs of FAA regulations condemning the private aircraft.

Yes the system worked. But there is still fault somewhere. This is not an isolated unforeseeable incident. it's a known recurring situation. While this is always a good thing to confirm from time to time that safeguards do work, it is a bad thing to rely on the safeguards to conduct regular operations. Because the day those safeguards fail there will be nothing to prevent the crash. So better raise the issue and get it solved while it's still under control. I don't know whose fault it is. But there is obviously ground for an investigation to understand the situation and all the operational and physical constraints on all parts involved (landing plane, pipeline pilot, ATC, manufacturers) in order to come up with the right adjustments in the right places so everyone can fly safe. The pipeline pilot was given an impossible task by the ATC: keep doing your inspection job (look down to follow the pipeline) and maintain visual separation with an aircraft above (look up) at the same time. Maybe the solution is to dedicate a specific time slot to the inspection of that section of pipeline that is close to the landing path and either close landings during that time or change the active runway.

This is probably the most underrated comment here. And also, probably the best comment.

@@christianbarnay2499 the fault is the RA systems inability to let the pilot make a decision. He saw the traffic and there should be some way for the RA to be overridden.

That’s Southwest for ya….they’ll have a flight from Baltimore to Atlanta with stops in Seattle and Phoenix!

Hehe, it’s direct if you don’t have to get off the plane. Semantics at its best

Direct doesn’t mean non-stop in airline terms.

A non-stop flight means that you fly from origin to destination without any stops along the way. A direct flight means that the flight number doesn't change, but the aircraft may make one or multiple stops along the route.

@@AirTrafficVisualised Thank you!!

The problem here is not that they got an RA. The problem is that they regularly get an RA here for exactly the same reason. There is a recurring pattern that is problematic and needs to be addressed because obviously with the current approach procedures and the way the Cessna is handled by the ATC they consistently end up in a conflicting situation.

@@christianbarnay2499 But is it really a problem with the system? And if so, which system? The pipeline ops, the controller, or the TCAS/RA requirements? TCAS is obviously a great tool that's averted plenty of disasters, but should it really be necessary under a situation like this to have to respond to such an RA? And should the Cessna pilot or the controller be blamed? I agree there is a problem with the procedures, but where exactly that problem is, is not so obvious.

@@skyhawk_4526 If the real cause and solution to this problem was already known there would be no problem at all. And this is why the SWA pilot requests that the incident is recorded so authorities get involved. Not to put sanctions on anybody but to conduct a thorough analysis of the situation and come up with a solution for the future. He is not asking for sanctions against anyone, just giving his input to the incoming analysis: he was set on an approach path with clearance to land, and another aircraft came close enough to him to cause a TCAS alarm which resulted in an aborted approach. And that is not an isolated event. That's how air safety works: report any incident whatever the importance. Authorities will investigate when needed and gather all those reports to detect recurring problems.Most of the time the results of investigation are a simple reminder to the rules. Sometimes there are adjustments to some of the rules and procedures. Sanctions are rare.

Taxi opposite direction on the parallel runway.

@@beater8687 That's known as "back-taxi." Edit: I'm a pilot, and I don't know what "reverse approved means." I've never heard that before.

@@skyhawk_4526 I know proper phraseology is back-taxi and after reviewing the airport diagram what I said doesn't make any sense anyway because they went left off the left runway, but that was my initial guess at what they meant. Now my best guess was they were referring to the reverse high-speed exit. I'm both a pilot and atc and I've never heard it said like that, and using a reverse high speed certainly doesn't need to be "approved", but that's the only thing that even sorta makes sense.

No the Honda Civic Forced the big rig off the road in this case. The rules of the road are the TCAS tells you to do something you do it, unless in the pilots judgment that’s more dangerous. If other pilots, or air traffic control is putting planes too close together then that’s a problem and needs to be reported to the FAA.

@@neilkurzman4907 Understandable. Only thing I'm confused on is why didn't the big plane make way for the small plane that was already flying there and doing legitimate preplanned business long before it was a problem. They have adsb in the cockpit right? Couldn't this have been prevented if big plane was looking where it was going and realized sooner there was already aircraft in its trajectory? Or was small plane completely wrong for being there at all.

@@bbsbbsairsoft4841 The big plane is on a glide slope. It Has to be lined up with the runway and a specific angle and decent rate. If it can’t maintain that within a certain distance of the airport it has to go around. Apparently after following the TCAS warning the pilot didn’t believe he had enough time to get back to him to be. Which means in the mistake was the Cessna, the ATC putting the aircraft too close together. That is for the FAA to decide.

@@neilkurzman4907 ahh. Thank you for explaining that. So atc should have told told the Cessna to make way and then carry on its business. the Cessna should have done that per the rules regardless of what atc said when it realized it was too close. So many rules of the air. And people think we're ready for flying cars lol.

@@bbsbbsairsoft4841 I don’t know if the issue was ATC or the Cessna. My guess would be the ATC because if it was the Cessna you would expect the ATC to say something. The pilots comment that it happens a lot would lead you to also believe the ATC was putting the planes closer together than the plane manufacture thought was sensible. It’s up to the FAA to decide.

Resolution advisory. It means their TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) alerted them that a mid-air collision (with the Cessna that got too close) was imminent and gave them instructions to avoid it, which messed up their approach so they had to abort the landing.

TCAS = Traffic Collision Avoidance System

@@KevBotM Appreciate the response

He was required to go-around due to an unstable approach and yes, he was ticked off (Un-stable approach - acft is below 1,000 ft agl and has to climb up will trigger a go-around. The Capt. thought he would try and make it, against company requirements, and then changed his mind might be a more accurate statement.

Southwest have several non stops flights from San Jose to Chicago. They called this a direct flight because it had the same flight number thru all of the other stops.

If you’ve ever booked on Southwest you can see that they’ve got plenty of two stop flights to their destinations. It’s like a flying bus. It’s not just about keeping the same flight number

@@magnus466 yes I know but if you want a nonstop flight it is available but it cost more than multiple stops.

@@ManofCulture Thank you sir. Why would ATC need to approve that? Is their approval always needed? Thank you for the explanation. The skill of today’s pilots are amazing. And those of the past too.

I'm a private pilot and had no idea what it meant. But another pilot who seemed familiar with KMDW ops, suggested it meant they were approved to exit the runway using a high-speed taxiway turn-off intended for use by traffic landing in the opposite direction. In other words, a left turn like this: __\ instead of this: __/

um ra's are not optional mate you have to follow them or the faa is calling that pilot

@@topgun1457 in a situation like this there is no reason to respond in such a manner that would preclude getting back on glide slope. Level off for a few seconds. Keep them in sight, pass them and proceed with your life. And by the way, the feckless FAA would never know or care.

@@mike73ng you have to report ra's to the faa and the airline you are flying for so quit talking out of you arse please save your ego for that party with your friends if you have any , tcas ra's are a must follow and are a must report or lose your pilot wings and the missed approach aka go around was need as the approach was not stable and faa requires that it is stabilized or its a auto go-around

@@topgun1457 I looked it up in my FOM to make sure. I’m only required to notify dispatch and be brief with a duty pilot IF a RA is issued AND action is required to avert the risk of a collision. Dispatch will file a report with the NTSB. Whether the NTSB shares this with the FAA, I don’t know (but I doubt it). Compliance with an RA is required UNLESS the pilot considers it unsafe to do so. I have had several RA’s Over my long career (after TCAS was installed). Sometimes when both aircraft are responding the RA goes away before I can respond. I expect that was the case in the incident on the video. The offending plane was deviating to the left off the final and not climbing. The SW jet probably got a “Level off” RA or a “Climb” RA but I’m sure it was over as soon as it began. The SW jet climbed less than 100’. I’ve been in this situation and I’m sure the SW pilot has also. He said so in his remarks. It sounds to me like both he and his FO were tired and cranky after a long day or after little rest. He literally made a Federal Case out of it. He wasn’t wrong but he was maybe a bit too sensitive. The fact that it happens, “way too often” for him is the problem here. I’ve flown survey aircraft that were required to fly through the final approach course at major airports. As long as everyone is with the program there is no danger. Perhaps it is you who need to pull your head out. The world doesn’t revolve around you.

@Eric Johnson Would be more realistic for ATC to just divert aircraft away from that section while the work is being done, it was just awkward because the active runway's approach comes from that side.

@@TheFormerTeam that’s easier said than done. Not exactly the easiest section of airspace to divert flights considering that there’s an even bigger airport nearby.

@Eric Johnson The planes have to be separated. If the pipeline is determined to be the most important thing then I guess they need to shut down the airport while it’s being inspected. Or to not schedule landings during that time. Whatever they need to do.

They weren't unauthorized and followed instructions. ATP was being a diva.

@@AccountInactive Yes, which is why I started out by saying "I realize it's not what happened here"

What does that have to do with this scenario? Why even post this comment? The FAA already deals with such incursions and violations.

It's the name of an expressway - part of the the I-55 - in Chicago: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_55_in_Illinois It's highlighted on the map so you can see where it is.

SW has 100+ lives under his protection. If there would have been a TCAS RA and the pilots ignored it, and then there was some kind of incident, they would be asked "why did you ignore it"? In this industry it's much better to be safe than sorry, a go-around was the safest decision here.

That's never happened before. Lol.

Like this en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerom%C3%A9xico_Flight_498#Accident_summary I think Cessna pilot does not understand how much separation is required to give enough safety to a jet airliner

@Eric Johnson If he had not received IFR clearance, and if he had the airplane in sight (which he did not until last minute) or if tower had asked him to maintain separation amending their clearance, yes, he could have. Before TCAS offered a resolution advisory, he could not do anything because traffic not in sight and, by rule, electronics cannot be used for traffic separation (tower explained it to me once, when I reported that I had traffic in sight and I was also following them on ADS-B screen. Then I checked the regulations, they were right). Only visual and ATC instructions. So, since they did not have traffic in sight and were not asked to deviate, they could not maintain separation.

One of the notifications this morning on You Tube was two aircraft of the same airline came within 200’ of each other. It appears to me that it is happening more in the commercial aviation than it is private aircraft being involved!

@Eric Johnson Aircraft on approach have right of way. Do you really think a 737 with over 100 people on board has more manueverability than a cessna?!

@@poppiarlin5612 The difference is speed and maneuverability. Private GA are slow and maneuverable, that's why they can VFR. Big commercial airliners are fast and with limited visual capacities. They rely heavily on instruments and ATC to keep them safe. When the TCAS steps in, that means that the ATC failed to ensure secure flying conditions. It could have a legitimate cause like failing instruments reporting wrong altitudes and speeds or there were several situations happening simultaneously in different places and ATC couldn't humanly handle all of them. As long as those issues are isolated and properly handled to return to safe conditions, that is mostly fine. But here, it is clearly stated that this is not an isolated incident. This is a regular issue. This means both the ATC and Cessna are fully aware that they are not respecting rules and they are causing disruptions and delays to landing aircrafts. This can't go forever and there is a need for someone to step in, review the situation and either instruct the ATC and Cessna pilot to respect the rules, or make adjustments to the procedures to account for local specific constraints. But we can't have this situation going on forever and let a Cessna take chances with the limits until they go one step too far.