@VASAviation, it actually depends upon what kind of base it is (don't know it) but there will be an escort, search, confirmation of identity, interview. But most likely they don't have anything at that air base that would grant them not to land and be treated with little hostility.
@@simonpriisholm3935 It's still an emergency into an US-Airport. NTSB ... They search for possible threats with guns for self-defense, but after it is clear they don't have any weapons, the personal is most certainly nicer. Many questions are to be asked ... and of course they will confirm the amount of fuel. Security clearing and a NDA are typical (you hadn't seen anything and you wasn't here -- typical charge for Area 51 trespassers). Most certainly they will accept a written report. Nobody gets shoot for trespassing into the military ground. It's secured for this reason (they don't want anybody in an active bombing range)
@@chester8420 Probably just pushed off by an F-250 with a gas engine driven by some private or junior airman, but yeah, that's pretty much exactly what would happen.
Well were else was he going to go. If there was nothing else in the area. Im sure he never wanted to actually land there. Risk getting grilled by the base commander, having his plane seized, having to provide a full debrief why he planned a flight with not enough fuel.
@@operatorjewski9450 We toured an AFB during ground school (civilian) and were assured if we accidentally landed at said AFB instead of nearby field, we would be greeted with great enthusiasm.
Once you declare an emergency any rules/restrictions go out the window. Thats why he was allowed to land. IE: They werent going to let him land for fuel just because it might be the most convenient place.
@@carsonspizzeriaandbar9693 you can't dump fuel from a 206 unless you remove the gas cap and get inverted, open the underwing drain valve, or siphon it with something... like a McDonalds milkshake straw. It was probably a new-ish pilot that just saw a chart and said "Oh, aN AiREFieD. I CkeN ProBabaLy Git FYooL TheR"
@@berkerbuger7578 I learnt to drive in a Peugeot 106, they always looked nice but they probably had to go to the garage every other week the way learners drive them. Maybe you had one of them! :-)
Fairly sure he did save him. Based on his voice, just contacting a military airfield was already a challenge for him, and declaring emergency on top? He would've never done it if the ATC didn't coach him into saying it and actively avoided saying the word
It looks like a cultural barrier that had to be broken through. Declaring emergency is likely an extreme last resort for this pilot. Doing so to a military base even more so. I'm glad he made it ok.
Alireza Alivandivafa The Pilot never have enough indication of a problem for ATC to declare for him. Military ATC are slightly different than civil ATC in declaring for the plane. ATC realized something wasn’t getting communicated and started asking questions. ATC realized there was a possibly a problem, found out what was happening and got the pilot to say the magic words ATC needed to hear so he could land at a military airbase.
@@N1120A In some countries this is not allowed. It is up to the pilot (PIC) to declare. This is why atc are asking "Do you need assistance?" They cannot do it for him, but are trying to encourage him. This is why they made him say "Emergency fuel". Then they can help. I imagine there is a legal angle.
@@FelixUmbra nope, but that's the word to get everybody's attention and "on emergency fuel" is a good reason to declare mayday AFAIK and i would not write comments if i were in emergency nor would i still comment IF crash happened.... :D
Several comments here about declaring an emergency......I've done it several times during my career. Most pilots are afraid of getting in trouble for declaring but this is very rare. The most I've ever had to do is call a phone number and simply explain what happened. ATC will then send the report to the FAA and if it's not too serious, it'll be read and filed and nothing more. Low fuel is generally not serious enough to warrant any action from the FAA. The last thing the FAA (and ATC) wants is for pilots to be afraid to declare and end up crashing somewhere when they could have landed safely.
This video and your comment reminded me of a less fortunate ending as laid out in this video by Accident Case Study ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fLlWf-Fk_YM.html TL;DR Pilot ended up in a low fuel situation, could have landed at nearby military airport with about 10 minutes of fuel remainging if he had declared an emergency, instead tried and failed to make it to a civilian airport further away, declared emergency when he was out of fuel, sadly by then it was too late.
It's a little more complicated to emergency land on a military base. For example, getting your plane back out in one piece (rather than disassembled on a truck) might not happen. Still vastly preferable to dying, of course.
Type of Aircraft? HL1004: Cessna 206 Military ATC: Rodger, space shuttle. HL1004: No sir, a cessna 206 Military ATC: Rodger, the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 HL1004: God damn it, Cessna 206!! Military ATC: Rodger, a Ford F-150 HL1004: That's not even a damn plane, ffs!!
@@TAGsRC its a cessna 206. coming in high gives the option to circle for a power off landing, descending early for a straight in leaves you zero options if you run out of fuel. i'm not sure if it was intentional, but it was actually the safest option.
Props to the ATC guy for realising the gravity of the situation before the pilot did. It's a shame he then had to badger the pilot into declaring an emergency. If you're low on fuel, don't hesitate to call an emergency. If you're in trouble, any runway is a good runway. If you're worried about how much trouble you'll get into, never forget that it's better to be judged by 12 people than carried by 6.
@@dragonbrownies517 Landing on a road is only done in emergencies when there's no landing strip in range that your plane can land on safely. It's always a challenge since you need enough clearance to each side of the road to not damage anything unnecessarily, a long enough straight to actually land and no obstacle on the road itself, including cars and other vehicles usually found on roads. This translates to finding a road suitable for the aircraft in question and blocking it, preferably before said aircraft arrives at the road, or runs out of fuel... All this becomes redundant the moment we come back to my first point: Landings on road are generally only considered in emergencies. Once you as the pilot declared an emergency, any bureaucracy like a PPR gets thrown out by the ATC and as long as your plane is able to land at an airfield, you will get clearance to land. In the case of military airfields, you might get /advised/ to land at a nearby civilian airfield, but it's your decision whether to honor that advice or not.
The controller did an excellent job saying "say fuel in minutes" some pilots are afraid to say "emergency" so it gave the controller a good idea of what needed to happen.
I feel like 90% of the training and education you receive during your first years as ATC serves only one purpose: To understand what the hell everyone is saying on comms.
It mainly depends on the quality of the radio and the clearance of the antennae. The radio in my trainer is pretty clear compared to this. People don't usually swap them out for better ones because hey, they still work and a new one would be expensive.
@@arthasmenethil9957 AM is just like that. The quality will always be crappier than equivalent bandwidth NFM. With all that line of sight, a better antenna won't do much unless the original antenna was awful.
Notice one was an approach controller the other was a tower controller. Tower can use visual reporting points and give what may seem vague instructions.
I feel like he was trying to avoid declaring an emergency until he had too. I imagine he would be asked some questions about how he managed to have a lack of fuel once he declared emergency.
@@Teh_Random_Canadian Well that's a legitimate question. Unless some sort of mechanical failure was in play there is no excuse for a fuel emergency. A pilot should be monitoring his fuel burn in flight and divert to an alternate before you've only got 5 gallons of fuel left. Most countries require 30-45 minutes of fuel reserve plus fuel needed to reach your destination. This is poor pilot planning that kills people.
No, that was a crap controller. He made multiple mistakes in read back, was often talking unnecessarily quickly and causing confusion, and even though he was not in the US he wasn't using ICAO standard phrasing.
@@iatsd Yep , that controller was being obstructive and not listening to what he was being told. .... 'You can't land here.' ...oh o.k. I'll just crash then , shall I ?? lol... procedure over common sense I think....
Sometimes controllers say things which are beyond comprehension Guy says he has 20 minutes of fuel. Do you require assistance? Hell yes he requires assistance. He wants to land at the military base you just told him that he can’t land at, because he doesn’t have a piece of paper. Do you have an emergency? Again what do you think? 20 minutes of fuel is always an emergency.
@@jacobhawkins7116 It's like the controller didn't really comprehend the situation. As the pilot, I would have been really frustrated. In fact, it would be difficult for me to hold back some choice words I'd like to say to that controller.
He’s not the first pilot to come up short on fuel, it happens. He should have been a little quicker on declaring an Emergency, would have been helpful for him and the first controller.
Brad C it’s a cultural difference, declaring an emergency is the LAST possible thing they do, other aircraft have gone down because of the cultural difference with a similar scenario, but regardless they should have declared it
Thank God the ATC asked about how much fuel remaining b/c it felt like the pilot would never spit it out in 20 min or less. It'd be a heck of a lot more (paper) work & stress for ATC if the guy crashed vs landing low on fuel w/o proper paper work.
@@cannedheat300 I find myself wondering how military ATC would have responded to "Well I can land at Osan or on a road." I suspect they might actually have enough authority to tell him he needs to take the road but it's worse for everybody.
Joking aside, the USAF Thunderbirds do perform at Nellis AFB from time to time. Civilians can, with some restrictions, enter the base and watch the show.
People in the comments don't seem to understand what's going on. The reason all the other flights are being waved off isn't because a single Cessna is in need of fuel. It's because an unannounced aircraft just landed at a US military base and put the whole place on security lockdown in case "low fuel" is Korean for "flying IED".
Good. Control would rather see a man in an embarrasing situation than dead. I doubt he had any consequences. Imagine if he died because he was too discouraged to declare emergency?
@ I completely agree with you on that one. I can also say that it is true because myself personally, have experienced that on many, *many,* occasions in the Military.
My grandfather was flying a solo training flight before he could get his license. The weather changed unexpectedly and was unable to receive or transmit radio contact, he could just make out a airfield and took his chances and landed. Little did he know, he was landing at a military airbase. He landed and was met by about a hundred soldiers, weapons drawn and screaming “WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING!, GET ON THE GROUND!”
This happened in Delaware and the pilot was hesitant to declare an emergency when he could’ve landed at an Air Force base.Also the controller wasnt to helpful. He didn’t survive
I remember listening to that on this channel. The military ATC was female right? Guy tried over and over to land at different places, ran himself out of fuel and crashed into the trees near the airport after they finally gave him authorization :-( (If I remember correctly )
Here's the thought, if you're a military airbase, would you rather have a working Cessna 206 land, refuel and leave, or a formerly working Cessna 206 crash and need to be cleaned up
@@vert3432 I’m pretty sure it was humanitarian. All airports have to give complete right of way and give all assistance to emergency aircraft. Doesn’t really matter if military or not
I was stationed in GTMO in early 80’s. On midwatch one night I got a call from the tower. A Cessna got lost on its way from US to Bahamas. It was in Cuban airspace and low on fuel. The Cubans could have shot it down but didn’t. The plane landed at NAS GTMO Bay, was met by Rapid Response team and security at gun point. The people aboard were Army guys that just got the pilots license and poor planning for first over water night flight got them lost. So yeah it happens....
As an aviation meteorologist, I once called the tower to advise them of thunderstorms with 5 nm, as required. I got a nasty phone call a couple of minutes later. "You never told me that there would be lightning with these thunderstorms." In the Air Force, we didn't have a lot of respect for the ATC guys....
I've had the pleasure of flying into a military installation before. The flight line folks were real pro's. Checked ID's, took a look at our little bird, then walked us over to their operations center where we gladly paid off Uncle Sam to get us back on our way. Any stress was on our side, they acted like it happened more often than they wanted to admit.
"Desiderio Tower, HL1004" "HL1004, Desiderio Tower whats type of aircraft and intention?" "HL1004 Cessna 206 low on fuel" "Roger. Mig-29 inbound for attack"
Great job from the ATC here, he understood through the language barrier that the pilot just couldnt quite affirm that he was declaring a fuel emergency and understood that he needed to dig why a civilian would want to land at a MIL AFB...
A good lesson for anyone wanting to negotiate with atc, took ~3.5m into the video before he got a vector, possibly longer in real time if silence was edited out. With only 20 minutes left in the tank you don't have 5 of them to waste. The initial call should have been declaring an emergency, , request to land at Then atc will follow up with what info they need, and issue a vector. Don't make ATC play guessing games, they want to help
South Korea flying around there there isn’t many air strips out there, Seems like he wandered too far and couldn’t make it home. Also last calling aircraft into the airfields call sign is DUSTOFF FYI.
Props to the pilot’s comprehension of English though. I’ve heard commercial asian pilots with worse comprehension of English landing at Class B airports!
Max W The Japanese and Thai are especially well versed in English. The Chinese and Koreans not so much. Most Japanese do flight training in the USA or Guam.
I find it amazing the towers and pilots are able to understand each other. This isn't just a non-native language thing; it's the same with two native English speakers -- between the speed with which things are said, a sort of slurring of the words, and the inevitable distortion of radios, what comes across is often different from what was intended. Maybe this is overcome by practice, or more likely by knowing the short list of things the other person SHOULD be saying.
Can confirm, generally there’s a little less distortion so understanding what they’re saying isn’t too bad. Catching everything at the speed it is said comes from expecting what they’ll say and practice
The diatortion is not because of data loss. It's because the microphone is trying to pick up your voice while cutting out engine noise. If it did not do that, all you'd hear is 'mmmmmmm'. So, think of the audio you hear as the human's voice + the background noise that occupies the same frequency the human is speaking at.