Both the controllers (Tower at Caldwell was superb, too), did exceptional. The pilot was calm and ahead of the aircraft and did well Single Pilot IFR. I do have a comment about the planning (and other comments giving the pilot a hard time), however… Quick note about flying the localizer at KCDW (Caldwell, NJ) - there isn’t an ILS, just a Localizer Approach and the RNAVs. The LOC approach gets you down an extra 20 feet vs. the RNAV (non-WAAS, LNAV), but ultimately that would have, most likely, made no difference as the ceilings were about 180 feet lower than the Minimum Decent Altitude (MDA) for the LOC and 200 feet lower than the MDA for the RNAV. It appeared that the pilot had Caldwell (KCDW) as his Alternate in his IFR plan - he mentions skipping Lincoln Park (N07), and going to Caldwell. To me, this is suggestive that Lincoln Park was his Primary, and Caldwell was his Alternate. When planning an IFR flight to an airport with an approach procedure, the ‘rule mnemonic’ is ‘1-2-3’ ; if the weather, an hour before and an hour after ETA, is forecast to be less than 2000 feet AGL AND less than 3 miles visibility, the plan must include an Alternate airport. And this is a small, but important, concept to consider when filing IFR Alternates: Lincoln Park and Caldwell are less than 5 miles apart - it would be an abnormal thing for the weather to be significantly different less than 5 miles apart. Neither have precision approaches. Some common sense should have been applied here - both Lincoln Park and Caldwell have RNAV approaches (with Caldwell having an additional Localizer Only approach). The pilot knew he was non-WAAS, and knew that there wasn’t a significant difference between the RNAV or LOC MDAs. He chose an alternate less than 5 miles from his primary and both are non-precision - the alternate TAF goes down even further to 800’ ceilings and up to 2SM visibility. To top it off, filing Caldwell as an Alternate, using the LOC, is NA (NOT AUTHORIZED) - legally, the pilot cannot file IFR Alternate at Caldwell using the Localizer. This was extremely poor planning, IMO. Either he did not file an Alternate, or chose a poor Alternate irresponsibly. Now, it may be that the forecast was wildly off - perhaps N07 was forecast to be above 1-2-3 minimums, and thus no Alternate was required. That would be an extreme case of erroneous TAF forecast - and I question the planning. Irrespective, it is always a good idea to plan for the unexpected when flying IFR. Choosing an airport (or two) some distance away, and one with a Precision approach (if you are planning non-precision) as the Alternate gives one a reasonable amount of assurance that approach will be, at least, shootable to land. In my opinion, this pilot is very lucky that his lack of adequate planning worked out.
Happy to clear up a few points. The nearest TAF (TEB) was calling for few clouds 1000, overcast 2000, vis 3-4sm and mist. Primary plan was N07, alternate was CDW, that is correct. I don't recall the LOC being NA for alternate planning back in 2011 when the flight took place (yes, this flight is 13 years old), but it is now, as you pointed out, which would make it impossible to file CDW as the alternate, since you can't plan on RNAV at the primary and alt destinations without WAAS. Regarding planning an alternate that was so close to the primary airport, N07 and CDW are substantially different in terms of minimums from the standpoint is that the CDW LOC mins were 367' AGL, whereas N07 mins were 1100ft AGL. As such, there was ample reason to file to one and use the other as an alternate, not because the WX would be substantially different, but the applicable MINIMUMS were VERY different. And yes, the forecast was indeed wildly off as a result of fog rolling in,. Common sense was indeed applied. I had reason to believe, based on the forecast, that I'd be able to make it into N07. Failing that, I would 'certainly' make it into CDW since there was no reason to think the ceilings would be 300ft or less. They started out at 400ft when the approach into CDW commenced, then dropped to 200ft and 1/4sm before the approach was over, at which point I knew I wasn't going to see anything there, and started working on Plan C and then subsequently, Plan D on the fly (TEB). I disagree that it's always a mistake to not file an alternate that has precision approaches. You file an alternate that you have ample reason to believe you'll be able to make. I'm aware that there are nearby airports with ILS approaches (beyond MMU) such as TEB and EWR. You file an alternate that meets the legal requirements, but that doesn't mean you can't divert elsewhere based on new information...which is precisely what happened here.
@@coma13794 - thanks. I believe I gave you significant benefit of doubt in my response. - Perhaps the LOC as Alternate *was available* in 2011. I would be surprised at that, but perhaps. - Having a TSO-129 unit, you cannot now (per AC-105A released in 2016) file a GPS approach as primary AND a GPS approach as Alternate. Perhaps you could back in 2011 - my memory doesn’t stretch that far, accurately, back in time. - As I said, the wildly inaccurate TAF was a possibility. - However, that is exactly why I said (and stick to that) that having a primary and alternate less than 5 miles apart in this (and almost ALL) scenario was poor planning in my opinion. N07 is at 182’. KCDW is at 171’ with a marshy area charted between them. No other terrain is noted. If it was likely below minimums at N07 , then it was likely below minimums at CDW, irrespective of the MDA. The issue, as I see it, isn’t so much the MDA as it is the distance apart and both having non-precision approaches. Better planning would be to have a precision approach as the Alternate as planned, because the reason we file Alternate is not just to be legal, but to be safe - the fuel planning for Alternate requirement alone ensures a *minimum* margin of error. In my opinion, as does a precision approach enough distance away as to be able to land with lower-than-expected ceilings. In my opinion, it was inadequate planning to choose an alternate so close to the primary. - I write these responses so that I can think about, and learn from, others failures - and in your case, successful outcomes. As I plan my IFR flights, your scenario, and your response, gave me a lot to think about. You handled the change of plans extremely well. You handled the workload extremely well. You made the Controllers work for you, excellently. As I said, I think the only choice I would have done differently would have been to chose a field with a precision approach further away from my primary - you obviously had enough fuel. Your response seems more to do with the ‘legality’ of the filing in 2011 (which would not be ‘legal’ now) than safety. I would hope I wouldn’t do that.
@@arctain1 I appreciate the thoughtful response and am absolutely up for reasoned discussion. Regarding, "If it was likely below minimums at N07 , then it was likely below minimums at CDW," I have to disagree. Putting aside numerous personal experiences where that hasn't been true, the math doesn't hold up. The AGL mins at N07 at the time were 1100ft, while the AGL mins at CDW were 357' on the LOC. This means that days with ceilings between 400ft and 1100ft, N07 are a non-starter while CDW is a good candidate. This is why, many times, I've filed for CDW instead of N07, simply because I am confident of being able to get into CDW, and am EQUALLY confident I will NOT get into N07 with the given weather. Can you help me understand why the significant difference in mins is carrying so little weight in your decision making with regards to CDW's suitability? OVC004 to OVC011 is certainly not unheard of. If they had similar mins, I would 100% agree with your statement, however given that their mins are radically different, by definition, there absolutely are conditions under which you CAN get into CDW safely that will not work at CDW. Not all non-precision mins are created equal, that is my point. I think the point you're trying to make is that the alternate should always be precision and allow for the worst weather possible. I understand that you're planning for the worst, but consider this...HPN has precision mins on the ILS RWY 34 of 341ft AGL. CDW"s non-precision mins (at the time) were 357'. They may as well be the same thing. As such, it's about the minima, more-so than precision vs non-precision. AGREED, TSO-129 (non-WAAS), you can't file a GPS approach at the primary and GPS approach as the basis for the alternate. I was agreeing with you that with non-WAAS today, you couldn't plan on N07 with a GPS approach and plan on CDW as the alt due to the LOC RWY 22 being NA for alternate purposes, however, it would be ok with WAAS today (which I do have). What I have learned since this flight is that MMU is FREQUENTLY down to mins (or below) on a more regular basis than almost any airport in the local area due to the surrounding marshes which often yield fog/mist conditions at night while other fields in the area might be ovc005 or better with much better vis. Thankfully, CDW now has fantastic LPV mins which means its utility as a primary and alternate airport for WAAS aircraft is greatly improved. However, this still makes for an interesting academic discussion about what makes a reasonable alternate (historically, and today). Where the rubber REALLY hits the road is with max range profiles where the legal and reasonable alternate (by my definition) is in legal range, while the 'emergency' field with stellar precision mins would leave you with, say, 44 minutes reserve if used as an alternate, with the assumption that you go to the primary airport and shoot an approach first. You can see where this is going, I'm guessing, and admittedly, it's a cherry-picked edge case, but it illustrates a point). I'm good with the 99% alternate. I'm not going to scrap a flight or add a fuel stop enroute for the 1% case. It's legal (and safe, in my mind) to conduct that flight with the 'reasonable' alternate filed. If things go WAY south, you go to the emergency field and life is good, especially since you didn't even shoot the approach at the primary, and possibly not even at the filed alternate. You end up landing, as it happens, with > 45 mins of fuel. Where things CAN get dicey (to your point) is if you TRY the primary, you have a truly SKETCHY alternate, and your only sure fire bet puts you out of range. Now you're out of options, and THAT would be a mistake. In my case, I planned for airport A (because the forecast WX supported it) which was most convenient, followed by the most convenient alternate, which was also reasonable with 357' mins. Hope this helps illuminate the boundaries of where the thinking is reasonable, and where it can become unsafe. Thankfully, in my terminal area, we're blessed with many options all in close proximity. Also, it's worth pointing out, I've diverted to CDW many, many times. This was the first flight in 20+ years where it was below mins at CDW during a flight that I was attempting. I've since rescheduled MANY return flights home due to forecasted WX that was horrific.
@@coma13794 - Thanks for the response. Please understand I am looking at this from the perspective of 2023/2024, not 2011. My main reason why I wouldn’t do it is that the option wouldn’t be available to me in 2024 were I to be flying TO -129. The LOC is NA as Alternate, so that’s out. I could not fly the non-precision GPS at N07, and then choose the non-precision GPS as Alternate at CDW legally. I would need to choose, legally, a non-GPS Alternate. I could choose a different LOC, NDB, ILS or a RADAR approach, but if I’m going to choose an alternate, I would like my alternate to get me as low as possible - which gives me an ILS as the lowest. I would also like the option to go missed and to shoot that approach multiple times if necessary - so fuel is a consideration, thus distance is a consideration. And there becomes the rub. I want something not too close so that I have potentially, different weather separated by distance, but close enough to carry a reasonable amount of fuel - I usually want an airport at least 30 miles but not 90 minutes from my primary. But that’s me. In your flight, the ceilings were approximately the same at both your primary and alternate, as reported by ATC. Perhaps that difference in MDA allows you to get in most of the time - this time the controller reported that ceilings were almost exactly the same at each airport. And, you did try to ask for a closer ILS at Morristown that happened to be OOS and NOTAMed. I don’t know what it was in 2011, but the LOC RWY23 at Morristown takes you to 700’ and 1/2 mile vis - why didn’t you take that as an option if minima were the deciding factor? For me, that still doesn’t take away that I want as close of a sure thing as I can - and that’s an airport *at distance* from my primary with a precision approach for my alternate. It doesn’t mean that I can’t calculate fuel and shoot an approach that has served me well close by (such as CDW or MMU nearby N07) - but my alternate needs to be “ok - time to get it on the ground - what airport will allow me to do that if the TAF goes to pot.” I believe I would have chosen White Plains as my alternate - it’s 30 miles away and has multiple precision approaches. Whether it did in 2011, I have no idea. And, you’re right - it’s an academic discussion on the differences between my personal minimums and your personal minimums. For me, I wouldn’t have chosen an airport so close as my alternate - irrespective of the difference in MDA. My GA ‘backyard’ is mountainous, and watery. On IFR days, the weather is usually vastly different 30-45 minutes away. Our TAFs are very prone to inaccurate forecasts - so, the scenario occurs around 20% of the time, not 1%, and that colors my thinking, I’m sure. And while I do appreciate your response - so rarely do we get to hear the actual thinking of the subject of the audio - my thinking is that I still do not agree with your decision-making: Not because it didn’t work - it was highly professional and successful - but because, from my perspective, it started out with an erroneous choice of alternate. Some that erroneous choice has been corrected with AC-105A. Some of that has been explained with local knowledge. But, ultimately, you needed that precision approach anyway - why not just plan for it? It seems to be moot now, as you are TO-145C, and can get to LPV minima. Today, this wouldn’t have been an issue at all.
The single pilot IFR N360JH did a superb job handling that situation. He spoke up about his problems and what he needed, rather than trying to hide it and get into trouble. I know this was supposed to be a "haha" video, but he did an excellent job and the controller as well.
Kreolekid71, I am a retired (9 years ago) airline pilot and currently fly the single engine turboprop Pilatus Pc-12NG professionally as my retirment job. In my 29 years with a major airline, I have always loved the professional working relationship I had with air traffic controllers. I have tremendous respect for what you guys do, especially in the New York LAX, and ORD TRACONs where controllers handle so much traffic and neve seem to miss a beat. I was based at ORD for 15 years and JFK for 14 years and just loved working with all ATC positions from ground controll to approach and departure control. My hats off to you and your fellow controllers.
I don’t know how current and former controllers do it, that honestly seems like one of the hardest jobs in the world, with the amount of air traffic and the stakes so high. Hats off to all of you, and the airline Pilots you get us there. But that brief audio clip nearly gave me a headache imagining the flights he was managing, let alone all the other controllers.
Did I miss something? I didn’t hear he had no AP. I would imagine the Lancair is a hi performer. I would think it would have one. And the pilot seemed very experienced. Not his first time in the soup.
If he was experienced why did he try to fly into airports with 200’ ceiling, and why did he not have alternates ready, or know that the ILS at his on-the-fly alternate was down? And why was he worried about speed, which even threw the controller? And why didn’t he load the plate when told to expect it? Participation trophy at best.
If he could see any part of the approach lights he could have went down to a 100 feet. Weather is dynamic as is which approach they could be using. Better to find out which approach they are using before loading a approach since that would be a extra step to unload it. The alternate you file may not be the alternate you end up using. Nope he did excellent and took the time necessary to get it loaded, briefed, and all the check list right. @@RetreadPhoto
Worked with a retired ny controller. He told me most of the people he worked with had passed away at “young” ages. Amazing what stress can do. God Bless’em all.
This was a well flown single pilot IFR flight in a fast plane. I detected NO CONFUSION. Very tight communications. It’s tough listening to ATIS and a rapid fire controller at the same time. Not impossible, but challenging. Good on ATC to let him go off freq momentarily. Pilot did not ever sound like he was behind the aircraft. Good job all. Respect to NYC approach! To the channel owner, the cover page and title are really unfair to the pilot. You imply he couldn’t find his approach plate. He just needed time to reset and go to an alternate he hadn’t planned for. This takes time to load and brief, especially when single pilot. Not sure what his in-flight electronics were, if he was using paper charts he was doing very well!
I have to assume all the love for this pilot is either him as different usernames, or all his sycophant friends doing spin control. Someone’s giving him extra credit for being well known.
@@RetreadPhoto ....did someone hurt you? A few people know me, yes, but the majority do not. It's SUPER easy to tell which. If it helps you move forward, consider that you don't know the context of the flight, the forecast weather, or how busy the radio actually was (all the other traffic was missing from this recording). I'm genuinely unsure what your beef is, but I promise you this, I don't have multiple personal YT accounts, and if I did, I sure as #$#$# wouldn't use them to try to post comments in my favor under the guise of other people. I hope tomorrow is better for you than today.
Oh man. Approach was rocking and that 0JH guy was on it as well. The Lancair is so fast (for a GA pilot) that it is admirable how tuned he was. Even the App guy understood. I hope everyone flying and managing the NAS is this good. Leaves room for the help I need sometimes. So impressive. This was a great capture. Subscribed.
Working together to solve an issue and done well. I hesitate to criticize any pilot, in any situation, with one exception. In those rare instances where I’m sitting in the pilot’s lap every step of the way, there’s no way I can know exactly what he was dealing with. To question, wonder, speculate and envision, are all ok. Criticize.. no. Too many armchair pilots n YT spouting their constant criticism, wisdom and insight, hoping all readers will be in awe of their comments and self appointed mastery.
Great controller, and smart single pilot for pilot. Nobody was guessing what the other was thinking or doing or planning. I love flying in the northeast.
@@RetreadPhotothe biggest mistake made here was simply PreFlight planning. You can't use what he chose as an alternate as an alternate. Once that was recognized as an unavailable option, he handled everything else just fine. Excellent radio work, kept his head, nothing wrong with any of that. Do people make mistakes? Absolutely! It's what they do with those mistakes that either lets them live another day or die trying. At 18,000 hours, I make mistakes. I just don't repeat those mistakes. I'm sure after this and after a post flight analysis of his own performance, he probably won't ever do this again either. Alternate planning keeps you out of the news and off of youtube.
Except a possible error in WX planning before takeoff, this pilot did an excellent job, single pilot IFR in a slick single engine experimental airplane. He recognized task saturation in getting ATIS and told the control such. The controller was aware of the work load he was experiencing and gave him the time needed and was also ready to give him the weather or priority if needed; you could tell because he was asking about his fuel state Good job all around.
He was looking to have the controller hand feed him the weather. All the other pilots could listen to ATIS. The controller was correct to be befuddled by the “I can’t listen to ATIS” excuse.
@@RetreadPhoto all the other pilots had digital ATIS on the FMC via ACARS or a second pilot to listen to the ATIS. He wasn’t asking to be hand fed. He correctly told the control he couldn’t listen to the ATIS and ATC simultaneously without possibly missing a call from ATC or hearing the ATIS incorrectly.
@@RetreadPhoto Your posts are something else. MAYBE, "All the other pilots" were two-crew jets with digital ATIS. MAYBE, it is simply not possible to prioritize listening to a controller who is talking non-stop AND parse a mile-long ATIS at the same time. MAYBE, after 7 attempts of not being able to extract every required piece of info from the ATIS while valuable minutes keep passing by, and after the controller asking for the umpteenth time if I had the ATIS, I then suggested to the controller that it would be easier if I was off frequency? I would ask what you'd suggest, but given that you have no clue of the WX forecast, the details of the flight, the equipment in the airplane or really, anything to do with the operation, it doesn't really matter. Surely, though, you can see that you're just yelling at a bunch of strangers, the majority of whom don't seem to agree with your viewpoint. So, knowing nothing of the flight, the pilot, the WX, the equipment, or the circumstance, you're really THIS sure that you have it 100% right and everyone is 100% wrong? Incredible.
That was Keith Smith I think. He owns Pilotedge online ATC simulation service. Great pilot! I recognize his voice. Some great free advertisement for the benefits of online atc practice.
this dude is more on the ball flying stick and rudder in soup than most other pilots are with all their bells and whistles in clear blue skies. the only "confusion" here appears to be what makes this dudr seem like a good pilot vs others
I don’t respect that opinion. The pilot didn’t seem better than others to me. Most wouldn’t have tried flying into there or Morristown, and would have handled loading the plate and listening to ATIS earlier.
that's very kind, but I did wish I was faster with ForeFlight, and that the Ipad itself was faster at the time. I've mentioned it in other comments this evening, but I only had plates for Plan A, B and C preloaded into a binder. This was in 2011...the UI was harder to use and the hardware wasn't as fast as it is today. Having to load TEB from scratch while hand flying was slow as #$#, especially while trying to get every comment in that ATIS. I appreciate the kind words, though. This was after a long-ass flight, too, about 3.5 hrs from Kentucky with some challenging WX enroute. I was spent by the time I got to the FBO at TEB.
Comms were very good and professional but I’m bothered by the fact that a single pilot in IMC would even attempt a non precision approach with a 400’ ceiling. Also seemed to be very hung up on staying in the area and never asked for conditions at Albany, Bradley-New Haven, or Providence/Westerly which may well have been better.
@@Flight_Followernot a great showing, after the go around. Would be interesting to know what kind of briefing the pilot got, and what alternates were actually planned, if any. Controller was wise to give this guy options.
there is nothing inherently risky about attempting an approach. Heaven help any IFR pilot who can't shoot an approach and go missed. The mins at CDW are 357ft' AGL on the LOC RWY 22. 400ft ceilings are workable. TEB had 600ft overcast with a very functional ILS, it was a very reasonable outcome. It's not known from the video, but this was close to max range as it was, heading to ALB would've been quite a push after a little more than 3hrs enroute already. The TAF was 1000 few, 2000 overcast. The plans were N07 or CDW with MMU as a lightly-briefed plan C. We ended up at Plan D which was constructed on the fly. I will argue all day long that there really is nothing wrong with flying any approach to mins. That's what they're for, precision or otherwise.
Communication was pretty good for this one. Most of the GA planes that have a emergency seem to be treated like a blister by ATC. This sounds like both tried damn hard to not have extra problems. Good job
The fix SNAFU sure fits here today… Pilot made it sound like the divert to TEB is a long flight, lol The text overlay really needs correct editing or oversight. Wrong spelling of words and altimeter, 26.63, was once displayed. But good capture of comms to teach others.
Not a duration issue. It's the preparation required to arrive at an airport that wasn't Plan A, B or C back in 2011 with a slow gen 1 iPad and being relatively new to ForeFlight. All the plates for airports A, B and C were pre-loaded into a binder (N07, CDW and MMU), but TEB/EWR were not. It was non-trivial to get the ATIS that was incredibly long, with a controller talking non-stop, to land at an unfamiliar airport. Hence, the preference was to lean towards CDW/MMU first.
The most important thing that this Single IFR Pilot did was not taking changes after his missed approach. He had great communication with ATC and looked for alternate airports that he could land at. Even whan he was not prepared to land at his last airport that had better conditions, he asked ATC to give himself a few minutes to work his plan. Better to land safe and then take chaces. Great job by everyone.
@@skyboy1956 That's more or less correct. It was late at night and he was working EWR arrivals, too. The 'remarks' in the TEB ATIS were substantial, so while he COULD (and did) read the ceilings and vis for TEB, me not having the ATIS code was not going to fly, so I had to pick it up. The controller was used to dealing with 2-crew aircraft with digital WX capabilities where getting the WX is no biggie, and they have it before entering the terminal area. I was onto Plan D at this point, so I didn't have any info for TEB, and what's missing from the recording is countless, continual transmissions to other pilots, making it hard to hear the ATIS while hearing the controller. Hence, I eventually told him the equivalent of, "hey, maybe just cut me loose so I can get the ATIS in peace and we can all move on." :) Controller was excellent, only issue was getting vectored onto final prior to being ready. I told him I'd advise when I was briefed and ready for the approach. That fact was forgotten while I was on downwind, then he pointed me to the base. I briefed as quickly as I could, but still didn't have the missed briefed and set up, so I told him I needed to be vectored again. It all worked out great. NY controllers are spectacular, while handling hilariously complicated airspace and traffic levels.
absolutely. I flew into CDW a few years back with relatively low ceilings. At the time I was non-WAAS, which has since changed. The app controller said to expect RNAV RWY 22 approach, I told him I needed the LOC approach. He said the RNAV mins were lower, and I politely pushed back with, "not without WAAS they're not, the LOC is the only approach that has mins that will get me in today." That was the end of that and he set me up for the LOC RWY 22 with zero issues. If you know what you need and why, just about anything can be coordinated with some basic communication. Do not assume that they know 100% of the rules regarding IFR and every single note on the plate, or everything about your airplane's equipment. I've found N90 (NY tracon) to be incredibly flexible. They might sound gruff, but in most cases, they're just efficient with their verbage.
I would bust a gut if a controller told me I was five miles from SNAFU. It actually applied pretty well to the situation. That poor pilot, every time he thinks he's got an airport the weather closes. Kinda hard to plan ahead when you are on your fourth or fifth diversion. And THAT is why you carry excess fuel. "I'll have a turn for ya back to the East here...". "Hallelujah"....I did heart that correctly, right? I don't know who it was, but it was funny. "How fast is fast?"? This controller is right on top of everything, I'll say that. I hope that guy can still speak at the end of his shift. It;s always good when everyone is on the ball, so to speak, and literally.
Great ATC. And having to get the plate isn’t that big a deal. Yes, he could (should) have been better prepared, but it’s a dense area and would require several dozen plates out for every approach.
Absolutely agree, screw the plate. The approach controller was great with vectors, frequencies, altitudes, all you need in that very busy circumstance. Excellent ATC, absolutely superb.
Had plates for Plans A, B and C (primary, alternate and "alternate alternate") pre-loaded in a Plate Binder in ForeFlight (2011, with a Gen 1 IPad, far from fast). Plan D was concocted on the fly AND I was less familiar with the flow for loading up plates on the fly, having relied heavily on plate binders up until that point (something which changed after this flight).
Yup, that's the IAF for the LOC-22 (or at least it used to be; looking at a current chart, it looks like that's now called DOWDY). I used to fly out of CDW; I could probably fly that approach by heart. As for the the comment by somebody else about wanting to stay in the area, there's value to that. If he's a local, he's probably familiar with the ILS into MMU and it's right there, so one less thing to add to his workload. Heading to Albany would mean copying a new clearance and adding another hour of flying time, which means everything from fatigue to eating into fuel reserves to maybe having to pee. All good reasons to try something local first.
Great video, interesting to listen to and cool that the pilot is known. Just need to proof read before publishing as some glaring mistake, New Yok instead of Newark etc etc. Good work though 👍. Just subscribed.
This pilot was incredible....I felt my heart rate and blood pressure increasing as I listened to his and controller's comms! They both were absolutely awesome and really mind boggling to think how the controller is managing all these aircraft in what sounded like extreme IMC conditions!!!
Approach plates are used to describe the procedures or charts that pilot's use on approaches during IFR flights. Formally known as Instrument Approach Procedures, they conform to ICAO standards with each country having their own Instrument Approach Procedures.
@@Flight_Follower - you're doing fine. We real pilots are not bothered by small transcription errors. ATC jargon and the way they talk can be confusing. Don't sweat it.
I like to go fast. If you’re not first, you’re last. Wait, let me circle awhile, while I find and load the approach they told me to expect 20 minutes ago. I’ll circle fast though, while other planes that are well prepared land.
@@RetreadPhoto Wow, you're in literally EVERY thread in this video. You must be so very angry. In fact, I told him I would tell him when I was ready to fly the approach. He initially acknowledged, but then vectored to final anyway. I only offered the speed AFTER that, when I WAS ready. So, keep hurling the insults all you like, but at this point, you're actually re-ordering events to imply something which didn't actually happen. I'm starting to think we know each other, and you have a huge issue with me. Why not drop me a line instead?
alternate not always required, but yes, there was an alternate in this case, and it was Caldwell. The primary was Lincoln Park which was abandoned without even attempting an approach since it was likely below mins based on terminal weather upon arrival.
Well, that was a waste of 13 minutes. Sounds like everybody did a good job except for the person who’s responsible for putting your transcription on the screen. That was laughable. Peterborough? Lol.
@@RetreadPhoto possibly but then the automation needs to be better. Or the maker of the video needs to correct it or just remove it. Although I did find it pretty funny.
He’s one hell of an instrument pilot. Probably the best I have ever heard. But he’s a terrible decision maker. Absolutely stupid to by flying an experimental single engine airplane in those conditions. Tons of talent, no common sense. I’ll be surprised if he dies in an old folks home.
The primary airport (N07) was below mins, so I skipped it entirely. CDW (filed and planned alternate) was ABOVE mins, so I tried to go there. Midway through that approach, just outside FAF, it went BELOW mins. I continued because it was simpler to follow that flow and do a standard missed. MMU was at precision mins, so I asked to go there. Upon learning the ILS was not available (controller assumed I had WAAS and could shoot LPV mins, but this was 2011, and I didn't), he offered TEB or EWR, both of which were above precision mins, so I went to TEB. Where was the really dangerous part?
@@skyboy1956 That is actually funny, I'll give you that. I realize it sounds odd requesting an approach to an airport that's at mins, but it was the nearest and most familiar option, and I've specifically practiced to precision mins in actual at night (intentionally seeking out that weather as I built confidence with the airplane over time) in case it came in handy. I had a preference for MMU over TEB having never been to TEB and knowing how complex it is. So, I chose to request. Once that went away as a useful option (ILS out of service), I took what I could get. Context is everything, I hope this helps. I don't have a death wish. I've also cancelled many, many flights where it was known that I wouldn't be able to get in, or there were thunderstorms, icing or fog. This flight started 3 hours earlier with a briefing showing TAFs of 2000 overcast with few clouds at 1000.
