Tense Exchange at Fort Worth Alliance (AFW) | "I need you down!" 

Based solely on the transmissions I guess it was so he could clear ATN3485 heavy to cross 16R to parking. Exchange could have been better on both sides. 721FL initially requested a long landing prior to the runway change but it was not confirmed and the tower had the arrivals stacked-up probably tighter than they should have been considering the speed and weight class differences involved.

@@HamBown I believe you're correct. 16R has no parallel taxiway yet (under construction) so the amazon aircraft have to either backtaxi on 16R or cross both runways at intersections before taking A all the way down to 16L for departures. That said, the intersection distance between clearing 16R and holding short of 16L is rather short, only enough room for small aircraft to fit. Anything larger will have it's tail still across the bars and not clear of 16R, making it unusable until they can cross the next runway.

ATC won't do anything out of the blue. They don't switch runways on you just to make their days interesting. As pilots, we should understand that. Personally I don't think a small airplane doing a long landing floating above the runway for a long time at half the landing speed of the big airplanes is such a good idea at a busy airport. Get down on the ground and clear the runway ASAP (safely of course) is the best. There are more choices (e.g. stopping) once you are on the ground.

@@2011blueman Air Transport crossed 16R, the Cessna landed on 16L. No conflict there.

@@2011blueman Lazy controller? Looks like a lazy pilot taking all 11,000 ft to land a stationair. Either he changed to the left runway or was going around anyway because the right was unusable.

I think he was being a smart a$$. Controller said contact Ground (without giving him a freq). Soooo, he did call Ground on tower freq twice, till controller gave him the ground freq

@@wileywooten279 The controller doesn't have to give you the frequency. Part of your "approach to an airport" briefing is getting all of the pertinent frequencies. If you haven't done that then you kind of are a crap pilot.

I don’t disagree with your statement, but I think the pilot was sarcastically complying with exact instructions given by the controller.

@@wileywooten279 If that's the case then the pilot should turn in his cert. There is no place for that kind of childishness in the cockpit.

@@SantaZeede agreed!!!

haha right even after the first time I was like haha what poetic justice

I was thinking this pilot is so distracted and mad with TWR he couldn't even dial-in and switch frequency to GRD.. He didn't even seem to be bothered by the idea of wake turbulence. These are the things that lead to bad decisions. The controller kept his cool and was professional. He didn't let it affect his job, unlike the pilot. Just my opinion.

@@andrewnicholson6634 you’re clueless.

I laughed but the second time made me think maybe he's just being a dick cause tower didn't give frequency. He seems like he was in a bad mood that day 😂😂 good on the controller.

Why is anyone trying to make this a pilots vs. ATC issue? Anyone recall the cirrus crash in TX....similar vectoring in close, multiple radio calls, circling etc. A recipe for distractions way too close to the ground.I'm with the pilot on this even though ATC did keep their cool The pillot simply should have said unable on the request to switch runways once he was cleared to land

Yeah, in this case ATC screwed up with the first go around (or before that with spacing and speed restrictions) but that pilot was rather immature in response. A go around should never be issued to an aircraft cleared to land and on short final without an immediate danger, the following aircraft does not qualify as an immediate danger unless that 767 had total engine failure and was gliding. However if ATC says go around, you don't wait for a reason, just do it on the assumption of an immediate threat and ask about it later after returning to a stable climb or pattern altitude.

@@mytech6779 Here’s an aviation safety tip for you and others flying the friendly skies... If ATC or another pilot asks you to go around, do it. Don't get upset; climb to a safe altitude, do a couple of 360 turns if they ask you, and come back for a safe landing. 😁 After those steps have been made, go on and enjoy your day. Trust me; you will feel much better. Kindness and safety in aviation is no accident. You have to practice it and pass it on!

both true and false... ATC was a contributor in some crashes, & does get away with raising the level of danger to pilots without proper reasons.... sometimes you do need to stand up for yourself as pilot in control, but, you also need to presume tower knows some things you don't, so do not jump to conclusions or ignore them if it's not endangering you to comply.

@@simpleman1364 Apparently reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

@@RS-uo2nd And how is any of that related to my post?

If that's the case, there was no reason for the late request for 1FL to switch to 16L. Should have been the plan from the beginning.

Thanks for that info

I was told that’s why the air show was parking lot only this year also. Any truth to that?

@@nothing1421 it has to do with the category 3 aerobic box for the blue angels. Before it was far enough west that people could be on the ramp, but now that Amazon is there and doesn’t want to shut down for two days, they moved the box over the ramp area. People can not be in the box unfortunately.

Above re: AZ is accurate.

Yeah you're right haha, the registration address of N721FL is an empty lot next to a school. Interesting, maybe the controller has had issues with them in the past and wants to inconvenience them. From other comments it doesn't really make too much sense why haha, but if we wanted to annoy them then sure

Explain the doucheyness of it all

wake turbulence

Yep, all kinds of government "contractors" based there.

I think they're saying "AOC" ("Aviation Operations Center" which is on the sign outside the DEA's building at AFW, 2300 Horizon Dr) but yeah.

"Did you hear my last transmission?" "I'm TRYING to fly a PLANE here...." every bloody time. Good thing it's only simulator for me.

um... plane was okay... problem was the controller for a change.

@fivestringslinger 100% correct. Both sides messed up here. Good communication requires both parties to participate, and both acted entitled. The edge on who was less wrong here was the controller, he cleared FL to land, he did *not* clear a long landing. I’m not aware that a long landing clearance is a thing. Controller was not treating FL with due consideration, and FL was an entitled prick in busy airspace.

@@00BillyTorontoBill Plane was okay up until he started arguing with the controller over his instructions on the frequency. Then we have a problem. However... If you have a legitimate safety concern with the instructions you've been given, you have every right to say: "Unable." as PIC. Or to ask for clarification if you are confused or unclear as to what you're being asked. If the controller still will not cooperate, declare an emergency. Then you can do anything you need to get down safely and explain it later. But most of all .. deal with it on the ground and not in the air. You can't just pop off in the radio at the controller because you find their instructions inconvenient or not what you wanted to do.

@@BillySugger1965 You generally do have to request and be approved for a long landing. The controller is expecting you to land and vacate the runway as soon as possible. If you're in a small piston aircraft they're probably expecting you to land and vacate within the first third of the runway. You may ask to land long if it would make for a shorter taxi to parking, but they are not obligated to give you that. There may be an aircraft waiting to cross at that far end and blocking the taxiway, which would then require you to back taxi and screw up the whole traffic flow resulting in go arounds or forcing other traffic to yield unnecessarily. If your intention is to land long, you need to notify them that is your intention and have it approved so everyone is behaving as expected.

Last time I checked, the priority order was: 1) complain, 2) create memes, 3) move in with auntie and uncle in bel air

Sums up my feelings on this.

Me too.

@@2Timothy42 Your name is extremely similar to mine...just take the "g" out. I was super confused for a second!

I'm sure that the tower supervisor would have been willing to get on a calm, civilized call to explain to the pilot what happened and why, and perhaps offer a bit of counseling that controllers don't always have time to explain things to pilots at the time.

It's really not a request, but an advisory. "You warned me of wake turbulence. You want me to land relatively close after the heavy. My best option is to use the runway section past where the heavy touched down, because wake turbulence moves down, then after hitting the ground it spreads out and rapidly dissipates. Landing short of where the heavy touched down is 'JUST NO'"

Do NOT do multiple left 360s. Aerospace physiology 101: the inner ear will get used to the bank angle and assume "unlevel" is the new normal. If he flies into IMC, he's 5 steps closer to spatial disorientation. Extend downwind or establish new vectors to get them on the approach in an appropriate sequence.

@@stephenhenley7452 1) There are no restrictions in the .65Z regarding 360s in the traffic pattern 2) This scenario is unlikely IMC 3) I would have concerns with a pilot who cannot maintain orientation by looking out of the window 4) I did multiple left 360s by flying my friend around the Statue of Liberty at 900' AGL. Am I doing something dangerous in this case? 5) The 360s idea is based off of the controller's instruction of a left 360 later on in the video. Could have been equally reasonable to extend downwind, but you don't know why he isn't able to just take 1FL that far north. Could be SOP for AFW to keep patterns tight, who knows.

@@stephenhenley7452 If you know you'll need the space later, might as well do the first 360 now. By your rationale, it's better to do one early, fly a while on downwind, then possibly do another if needed.

@@stephenhenley7452 we train for that. We have to do left 360s to get a commercial certificate and to keep current

This one sounds like a clash of similar personalities, with previous interaction(s). More and more now, "the common man" can fly, combined with the general tone of our country where it's okay to: be a victim, cancel/ shame people and we are all experts.

he suspected he was being punished by unnecessary turns. It's not like it's never happened that ATC told someone to go around because they had a bad attitude. Everyone is human here.

@@GigsVT Everyone is human here, but only one person here was clearly acting like a prick.

The pilot is DEA. The airline guys are polite because they don't want to lose their jobs. This guy didn't have to be polite because he's essentially a cop

@@behindthen0thing525 you don't lose you job being a fed employee.

Then don't use 11,000 ft of runway in a plane that can land in 1,500 ft.

@@smitty1893 Unless otherwise asked not to, I'm never going to say someone is in the wrong for using the whole runway they were cleared to land on. There was no stipulation from the controller and it's not the pilot's responsibility to deal with his planning unless he was explicitly asked to do so as a condition of getting to go first.

@@Wolf_IT you are expected to land a exit as soon as practical. It's not the controllers job to ask you to make a normal landing. It's the pilots responsibility to make a request if they would like to do something other than expected. I don't think it's reasonable to take 2 miles of runway and disrupt other traffic, especially IFR traffic with paying customers.

@@smitty1893 It might be courteous to ask for a long landing, but there is no requirement to do so and I would not rely on a pilot making a short landing unless I have received indication from them that they will do so. They are cleared to use the whole runway as they see fit unless it is a LAHSO, therefore, the "expectation" should be that they will use the whole runway. Either way you want to frame it, the pilot in front shouldn't be told to go around for traffic behind him. He has the right of way. And who cares about IFR/VFR, or whether the people behind them have "paying customers"? It's not on my mind and the 7110.65 specifically says that it shouldn't matter. In practice obviously that's not the reality of it, but if you intentionally set things up the way the controller did, you gotta deal with the repercussions of it and follow through.

@@smitty1893 there are all sorts of reasons you would land long. A long landing might actually expedite your clearance of either the runway or taxiway. Also, landing behind a heavy will ALWAYS be a long landing for a pilot who doesn't want to end up dealing with wake.

Its does remind people to do the f8ckin job. And lose the ego.

Exactly. Every time I heard an unnecessary remark I just cringed.

Nah. Its fine to sort them out in the moment. The bitchier, the better.

@@RLTtizME BINGO!

Yep, you can clearly see he tightened the turn a lot (unless the radar track we are looking at is not so precise)

Plus it doesn't help when it's being used to delay for timing especially wake turbulence.

That was no 2 minute turn :D his bank must've been in the 70s.

Pilot needed to use the head 🤦🏽‍♂️ he didn’t wanna clean up his airplane 😂 better cleaning the plane than being flipped

It doesn't defeat your purpose if you are demonstrating that you are a child

Thank You Sargent Hulka!

@@MrCrystalcranium With the Big Toe.

N721FL is a Citation X, not a single engine piston Cessna

@@TM-nu7pj according to the FAA registration it is a 2019 Cessna T206. Not a citation. Plus, if it was a Citation he wouldn't be asking to land long.

​@@TM-nu7pj N721FL is a T206H built in 2019

@@TM-nu7pj and let's just say for argument sake, you didn't look it up on the FAA registry. If you watch the video, a citation would not ask to land long, a citation could not fly a tight pattern like this 206 did and if a citation were asked to do a left 360 it would be a rather large diameter turn that would take a heck of a lot longer and a lot longer distance than this 206 did it.

Heck there's barely enough room to hold a Cessna between those two runways

another commenter elaborated on this as well "First things first, if anyone has a reference in the FAR/AIM where pilots need to request a long landing, please reply here. When you're cleared to land, you're cleared to use the whole runway, except by NOTAM or if a LAHSO was accepted. Pilots of small aircraft commonly say this just to keep the controllers aware of their intentions. There's no requirement to request or gain approval of a long landing, but doing it anyways is useful for both the controller and the pilot. For those asking why the controller wanted 1FL to change to 16L, it's because he intends ATN3485 (a heavy B763) to cross 16R. This is a two-part problem. The Pilot/Controller Glossary in the AIM defines clear of the runway for landing aircraft as "when all parts of the aircraft are beyond the runway edge and there are no restrictions to its continued movement beyond the applicable runway holding position marking." If you look on satellite imagery and measure the distance, there is 275ft between 16L runway edge and the 16R hold bars, and 60ft between the 16R and 16L hold bars. Let's say the controller wanted ATN3485 to hold short of 16R to let 1FL to land on that runway. So while a B767-300 (180ft long) can easily get past the 16L runway edge while holding short of 16R, since its movement is restricted by a parallel runway, 16L will be considered "not clear" because it is impossible for ATN3485 to get past the 16L hold bars without crossing 16R. It is a bad situation either way. 1FL or SCX3049 would have to go around in either scenario. Looking back at it now, 7 seconds into the video, I would've let 1FL join downwind and do 1-2 left 360s, let SCX land first, then let 1FL land 16L or 16R. If the controller noticed the considerable gap between SCX3049 and GTI3795, you can get 1FL in between those two aircraft. On the second attempt, the pilot implicitly reminds the controller of the use of 16R around midfield downwind after the left 360. The controller responds vaguely with "caution for wake turbulence." 7110.65Z 5-5-4 MINIMA involving wake turbulence says to consider "parallel runways less than 2,500 feet apart as a single runway because of the possible effects of wake turbulence." There is 450ft of space between the edges of the two runways, requiring wake turbulence separation to be applied unless the pilot is able to maintain visual separation. Easy to look back in hindsight, but I would say it would help if the controller had better situational awareness to allow for more efficient sequencing, and the pilot to quit with the silly remarks."

Not always. There could be a number of factors that might restrict such operations. Helicopters ops might be one of them for example.

If you are "cleared to land" you will own the runway when you cross the piano keys. Cleared for "the option" is the same. "Cleared touch-and-go" means you keep going unless an emergency on final. This pilot should have acknowledged heavy/ wake turbulence and said nothing else.

@@GZimmermann nonsense

In my opinion yes. You were cleared to land, it’s your runway. Controllers fault for pushing it too close.

@@JBalloonist Technically speaking you are incorrect. It is expected that you touchdown within the touchdownzone and vacate the runway ASAP. And then you have to distinguish between a long-landing (meaning you touchdown later to vacate where it’s practicle) and a long-rollout (which is self-explanatory)

I don't think 1FL was unable, but I agree he could have said so. Because 16L is so long, he could have been at pattern altitude on base leg and still landed with a stable approach, he just needed to use more runway to do it

You're right that pilots shouldn't be afraid to say unable when there's a request they can't fulfill, but that doesn't appear to be what happened here at all. 1FL had already said that he was planning to land long even before the controller asked him to switch runways. When the controller asked him to switch, he didn't tell him that he'd no longer be able to land long if he accepted 16L. He probably could have landed near the touchdown zone of 16L (or just declined the runway switch) if it had been requested in time, but it wasn't. I don't think the pilot did anything wrong here. This was just a screw-up by the controller, IMO. Also, I get that sending a 737 around sucks, but FAA reg is that the aircraft in front and below has priority when landing. Sending an aircraft around for traffic behind them because you messed up the sequencing is not kosher. And then sequencing the light aircraft that you sent around behind a 767 and giving him grief when he says he'll need to land long to avoid wake turbulence of said 767? Yikes.

Spot on original post.

@@vbscript2 eather way, for the second unable long landing, he could have said unable for the short and asked for 16R

Alliance has huge runways. Any small plane can switch pretty easily and still have half the runway left lol. The problem was the plane coming in behind him which the controller was trying to squeeze him in behind.

When I was a student pilot flying circuits I asked for a "180 for spacing" instead of a 360, because I was behind a little ultralight. ATC had some amused and sarcastic remarks for me....

And why was the final approach "unable for long landing". The wake turbulence was there.

If you're cautioned for wake turbulence and asked if you have the traffic in sight, you are expected to maintain a descent profile above the heavier aircraft and land beyond their touchdown point. The long landing is not only expected at that point but assumed because that is how one avoids wake turbulence.

16L was clearly the active runway, and we do not know that the separation between16L and 16R is sufficient to mitigate the wake turbulence risk. The onus is on the pilot to position himself to mitigate that risk by separation, not by using it as an excuse to land long against the traffic management needs of the controller and other aircraft. The pilot of FL was being a pushy, entitled prick.

The reason for the runway change was because an aircraft was between the runways. Option 1 is let a VFR stationair land 16R and send around IFR traffic on the left because the runway isn't clear. Option 2 is cross traffic on on 16R to clear 16L and have all aircraft land the left. The problem is an aircraft that can land in 1,500 ft took 11,000ft.

@@smitty1893 That's the most accurate and clear description I've seen here.

no lives were risked in this conversation

@@CornyWebb I disagree.

@@fredtaylor9792 well, I'm sure we've both got plenty of time sitting in airplanes, talking to controllers, listening to controllers, and have come to a conclusion of what is and what isn't good conversation over the radio. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :)

@@CornyWebb Sounds good

Some pilots on approach sound like they need to poop real bad... "Go around NOOOOOOOOOO...!"

@@ck2112 wise advice my friend. I shall keep in mind for the rest of my life 😬

This really made me laugh, Thanks!!

The best comment!

Amen to that.

As a non pilot, why is that?

@@mattmanbrownbro think for a second

@@jakesnussbuster3565 about what dude? I don't know what needs to be considered here

@@mattmanbrownbro I'd say the shear size of the plane alone is scary compared to yours. But I believe the reason is due to wake turbulence from the 767. It can throw smaller planes around like a napkin.

If there’s traffic behind him, it’s pretty easy to see why the controller would object to a long landing

@@claytonramsey1092 Not if the same distance has to be taxied on the runway instead.

It's like ATC forgot how little airplanes fly.

@@MarkRose1337 most ATC guys are not pilots.

@@grayrabbit2211 Right, but forgetting basics like landing into wake turbulence, and thinking they can just land short on a switched runway, is a bit concerning.

There's a difference between a long landing and landing beyond touchdown point for wake turbulence

Shit happens. Pilot was far too annoyed about it. I've been sent around many times for stupider reasons. But all have always been for perceived safety reasons. Really isn't that big a deal.

And I don't get why he didn't let him land when he's already over the runway, and why make him go around? That other aircraft was quite a ways behind him.

Because Same Runway Separation standards require that the plane be off the runway before the next one lands. 1PL wanted to land long because the FBO he was going to is ~2/3 down the runway, and he'd rather be at flying speed than taxiing speed. When the tower calls him on his first long landing attempt, he's still at 100 knots over the ground, considerably faster than the 74 knots indicated that is Vref in a 206, so the controller had to anticipate that the guy wouldn't be able to get slow, get down, and get off the runway in time.

@@JudsonCc514 but why did he had to change runways at all?

It sounds like both the controller and the pilot could have handled this better, but to answer your specific question, when the tower clears you to land, they make assumptions about how long you're going to tie up the runway and plan their other traffic around that. If you unexpectedly fly an extra mile down the runway before touching down, that might not leave enough room for the jet they put on final two miles behind you, thinking the runway would be clear by the time they got to the threshold. And, yeah, there's really no reason to argue with the controller on the frequency. I can think of a few scenarios why the controller might be handing out 360s on downwind. Maybe he's simultaneously on the landline coordinating with approach over an inbound emergency. At the other end of the spectrum, he might just have lost the picture and is struggling to keep up. Either way (or anything in between), arguing with him on the frequency isn't going to improve the situation.

@@Thesuperapp98 Tower wants ATN3485 (B763) to cross 16R, can't really make large planes hold short in between the parallel runways. Look on google maps, there's only 60ft between the hold short bars, and the 767 is 180 feet long.

If ATC makes a bad decision, people die. It's not ego

@@404-Error-Not-Found he’s talking about the pilot

@@Scentedsam1993 yes I know... If ATC makes a bad decision, people can die. It is always the case that the pilot needs to insure that the flight instruction they have been given makes sense and is safe. In this case, he was just being an ass, but op's comment is about the general nature of pilots.

@@404-Error-Not-Found ensure *

@@404-Error-Not-Found Why did you say "Its not ego" in response to the OP saying "this is "the kind of ego you do not want to share the cockpit with." Youre saying talking to the controllers like idiots and arguing with them isnt about ego? Then what is it? You failed to give your response, all you did was say its wrong but not how its wrong.....

when airspace/airports are busy theres no time for "oh sorry this is what we have going on here". You listen and respond to atc and only get firm with them when theres a safety concern.

There's nothing to be sorry for.

@@absthewonderdog Of course there is. Nearly everything the controller did with regards to 1FL was incorrect. First mistake: The pilot had stated his intention to land long. The controller cleared him to land without any further address of the subject, which implicitly means that the controller is ok with him landing long. A landing clearance, unless issued as a LAHSO clearance, is a clearance to land on the full length of the runway. If the controller didn't want him 1FL to land long on 16L, then he either shouldn't have requested 1FL to change to 16L or at least stated that landing long would not be allowed if that change were accepted. Second mistake: Violation of FARs regarding landing priority on the part of the controller. Sending an aircraft around for traffic *behind* them is not kosher and violates FAA regulation. Unnecessarily sending an aircraft around right before they're about to touch down is also unsafe. This further created the even more unsafe situation where, if the 737 had needed to go around for any reason, proper separation would almost certainly have been lost given how much faster the 737 is flying. While the pilot should have held his quip to himself, it's very understandable why he was quite annoyed at this point. Third mistake: Sequencing a light aircraft to land behind a 767 and then complaining when he says he'll need to land long due to wake turbulence. This is *required* for the light aircraft when landing behind a heavy. It is not optional. The wake turbulence from a 767 could easily flip that light aircraft and toss it around like a toy. It is absolutely required for light aircraft to land past the touchdown point of a large jet that landed in front of them and every controller should know that.

@@Falcon2.39-1 That's a bizarre take. No one's saying to enumerate reasons for the hold-up, but it takes literally two seconds, if that, to apologize for a mistake or some awkward handling. I've even heard it done by NY TRACON and JFK controllers. Given that NY minutes are faster and their skies filled with more planes than oxygen, someone controlling AFW airspace can spare a few words, I think.

@@RS-uo2nd The reason for the runway change is completely irrelevant to anything I said. The fact is that everything I said is per FAA rules and the controller violated them. When you're cleared to land, you're cleared for the full length, unless it is LAHSO, which this was not. FAA regs state that the lower aircraft has priority when landing. If separation is lost, you send the one behind them around, not the one that's already over the runway. And you sure as heck don't complain when a pilot tells you he's unable to land a light piston in the wake turbulence of a 767.

Dude obviously wanted to land long so he didn't have to taxi two miles to the ramp. With that kind of traffic coming in I would never assume that's ok to do, he's jacking things up for the controller who is about to have a separation issue. He did make the long landing request, I didn't hear an answer to it so to me that means "no". ATC was not wrong here.

@@michaelglasier7282 You obviously do not know about the dangers of landing a light aircraft after a heavy.

@@DISOPtv or the fact that he was cleared to land 16R and then tower shifted him on base

@@WX4CB If the pilot was unable to handle shifting runways on base, he should have said "Unable".

@@DISOPtv I am very aware of the dangers, but that has absolutely nothing to do with my comment. If 1FL had just landed, gotten off the runway and spent the rest of the afternoon taxiing in, he wouldn't have had to go around and deal with wake turbulence. It was his initial landing long that caused the problem that then left him dealing with following a heavy.

Except that that controller was a lot more professional and was doing his job properly.

It was so long, it involved an extra circuit plus an orbit 😂

Hi diddly ho, Sky Captairinos!

@@mattmanbrownbro Haha!! Wasn't expecting it, good one!

Ikr? He was spittin’ some mad bars

A lot of things change when you know lives are on the line and not just a few dollars or time

Lol. You’re making things up.

No kidding bro, no kidding.