*This got tense...* With a wind so calm, I find senseless to instruct a go around and state the wind component. What do you think? Were the pilots really confused by this? Anyway the GO AROUND instruction was clearly instructed but they landed instead. Glad no one was hurt.
Pilots fault for not listening to the ATC protest ("Negative. Go Around") But why would ATC follow a "Go Around" with the runway number and wind component. If there had been blocked frequency or any other radio problem it would just confuse pilots. The standard language as I understand would be: "Go around. Standard Missed Approach" or "Go around. [Altitude]", or just repeat the "go around" over and over like in Air Canada SFO incident. Just another reminder that little things like this can make difference between life and death, especially in heavy workload situations.
That was odd to give wind when telling someone to go around. Usually it's just, xyz 316 go around, fly runway heading, climb to X,000ft, contact departure on xx.xxx or whatever.
There were no read back for any of the two go around instructions. Maybe ATC should be more insistent on this until the crew get the thing right. Also given the slow response to ground vehicle while the Airbus was landing I suppose the controller was busy with something else at that moment. Anyway, can't tell what was going on in their minds. I'd love to see the final report on this by the way...
Hi everyone, this might come a bit late but this could clarify a few things. I work at Orly (as an ATC) and know both controllers that you can hear in this video. There are a few factors that led to this situation, of them which : • The male controller was on training and the French phraseology standards expects us to mention the wind for go-around clearances. In that case the wind was calm so I perfectly understand why he could have got rid of that anyways, but when you’re in your training phase, you tend to stick to « the basic rules », so yeah, I guess the wind instruction came out automatically of his mouth before he could even compute the data. • The tone might not be firm enough because of the same reason : training phase. • When the Inspection vehicle called TWR to say they vacated the runway, the controller got all hesitant because he didn’t know how to react given the situation : the Inspection vehicle reported out of the runway while it was barely vacating, and the plane cleared to go around kept going and landed. I guess at that time, that’s when the trainee looks at their instructor with a half-open mouth like « What the hell am I supposed to do now ? ». The instructor at that time then took over the mic and discussed with the pilot : that’s the female controller you can hear. • Tunisair (callsign « Tunair ») pilots all speak French, are used to Orly and usually are well-aware of the ongoing situation. I’m not defending anyone, or accusing the pilot of going against the rules, just stating a few facts that most likely have led to this misunderstanding between pilot and controller and giving you a little bit of a context. Cheers fellow aviation enthusiasts !
Thanks for that clarification - I have studied many air crashes and near-crashes from the point of view of "what went wrong in the human factor". I have found noticed recurring failures - confirmation bias, failure of a junior crew member to aggressively question the captain, and failure of both ATC and crew to take action when there is indication that they are "not on the same page". This case is interesting because based on your information about the trainee, it seems to fall into the second category, but with the trainee controller being the junior crew member. I was born in Canada and live near San Francisco, so I was shocked a few years ago when an Air Canada flight almost landed on a taxiway at SFO where 4 jets were lined up for takeoff. Shortly before landing, the captain asked ATC is the runway was clear, saying he saw lights. ATC assured him it was clear. A few minutes later, the captain asked again and ATC reported that there were no aircraft on the runway. Just before landing, the captain saw the four aircraft and went around, passing just over them. Of course the captain was disciplined and I agree that he was mostly responsible. But I would have liked to have the ATC think to himself "what on earth does that pilot think he is seeing that isn't there?" - I think calling a go-around would have been very responsible recognizing that pilot and ATC are not in sync. In another case out of Canada several decades ago, ATC cleared a foreign pilot to land in Montreal. The captain reported short final but the ATC realized that he couldn't see the aircraft and should have been able to. He immediately asked the pilot to describe what he saw. The pilot replied and ATC immediately issued a go-around. The pilot had lined up on a short runway at a nearby abandoned airport. (What I don't know is what part radar did or did not play in this, this happened 40-50 years ago). But the point is that ATC found a disconnect and rather than ignoring it or trying to figure out what or why, immediately took action to avoid an accident.
That's a very interesting point you're making here about making sure the controller and the pilot are on the same page, because one thing for sure is that when you're in training phase, especially in early phases, one focuses all their energy to "making their part right". Yet it is something that everyone involved should be aware of : we are all playing different parts about one same situation. It is part of our training (here in France at least, I don't know much elsewhere) to follow regular Human Factor courses. And I feel that what you just mentioned should be covered more often. Thank you for your reply, it's one of the many things that help me grow as a controller.
@@elyannouh8880 I think one factor you haven't addressed is that after the "negative, go around" instruction, the controller didn't get a proper readback from the pilot, and didn't include the pilot's callsign.
@@elyannouh8880 Hello Yann and Andy. Please let me jump into this conversation just to tell you that I'm very satisfied with the outcome of this exchange of clarifications and opinions. I am the one who have captured and sent this extract to Vasaviation and performed the French/English translation. My purpose was not to blame anyone or to shame the controller or the pilot. Not at all! My sole motivation was to see this kind of constructive sharing of knowledge and usefull information. It is very interesting to receive the feedback from an Orly ATC showing how the French Regulation and training can affect the Human Factors and to compare it with the analysis of a Canadian specialist thousands of miles away. That's pretty cool ! I am personnaly working as an Airworthiness Officer for a French airline and I believe that we are all part of the same machine and if we can learn something new every day about Safety and our industry we didn't waste our time ! So thank you both for sharing your knowledge like gentlemen.
I was surprised the first controller didn't get more forceful after the first readback failed to confirm the go around; being in training easily explains it. From a more experienced controller I'd expect something like "Tunair 716, GO AROUND, GO AROUND, cancel landing clearance" (without the wind information to make the transmission as short as possible and wait for a reply, which might have helped since that was apparently what confused the pilots) after either the first readback or seeing the plane approach the touchdown zone still descending.
I'm no pilot, but I wonder at what altitude was the go around given. French speakers are hard to understand. Would doing a gi around that low already prepared for landing be more dangerous? Why not tell the plane a go around from the beginning? ATC caused a big confusion here imo.
yeah, i'm not a pilot and i haven't watched a lot of these, but are they normally "cleared" to go around? i would think you would be "cleared" to take off and land, and maybe... "instructed" to go around? i dunno, adding "cleared" at the beginning coupled with the accent and loss of audio quality from radio, the tunisair pilot was probably just trying to pick out key words to work with. he heard "cleared" "runway 26" and the wind directions, what else would he be cleared to do on runway 26?
PoundMeToo I was just mocking the stupid ATC, who should have just said TunisairXXX GO AROUND with no wind information or any other bullshit. The controller should be retrained.
@@dissimulii you are are right. Nobody requested a go around. So no need to clear anybody to do anything. A go around is an instruction that should be commanded LOUND and CLEAR, no clutter or distractions. "Aircraft123 GO AROUND, say again, GO AROUND"
I live in Norway. Where I live, we have practically zero international flights in this airspace, and all pilots are norwegian. Still all conversations are practiced in english, for the very few foreign pilots that appear sometimes.
French is the international language, it has been for hundreds of years, all conversations at airports should be spoken in French. Besides, this is in North Africa.
...but they DID address it. After the pilot read back something the controller never said ("cleared to land"), the controller immediately responded: "Negative. Go around runway 26"
Paul Furey no. Listening to communications between other aircraft/ground ops is a major factor in situational awareness. Even when they’re not speaking directly to you, you have a much clearer image in your head as to what’s going on.
Saffa Jake yes it happens to me i'm a student pilot and when i'm flying the tower and other traffics are talking in their language i don't have any clue whats going on they want to be pilots for big companies like Emirates but they don't know english lol
@@Faxy I was wondering how many people caught on but he did not completely say negative and did not specify a call sign on who he was talking to go around
Glad no one was hurt. There is plenty of blame to go around: - French ATC phraseology specifying wind speed in a go around instruction - French ATC not complying with their own phraseology by adding the runway number in the go around instruction - French ATC not escalating the tone and wording of the go around instruction after the second incorrect read back - The pilots not listening carefully to ATC and letting confirmation bias make them think they heard cleared to land ... twice - The pilots continuing at decision height when, by their own admission, they could see the vehicles still in the process of clearing the runway The supervisor lady who talked to the crew at the end spoke much more clearly than the male controller. I suspect if she was the controller on the radio, this would not have happened in the first place.
I agree with everything you just said. Upon first listen I did not realize that ATC gave the runway number with the go around. They sould have given the callsign of the craft instead.
I think there was another transmission during the Tunisair's readback, but I re-watched and heard go around clearly both times. Tunisair pilot is only human, but the words "confirm instructions" could have prevented this from both parties
@@aj3751 There may have been a radio block we aren't hearing, but - in this case - I agree that the ATC was not clear, and just jumbling things together. "Tunair 716 Go around. I repeat, Go Around" would have been prudent by the second time.
putting the wind with the go around instructions confused the pilot , just simple tunis air go around i say again go around would have made him follow the atc. bad atc and bad cockpit communication
i find it a bit strange though that the pilot said "i just heard the wind direction, not 'go around'"... but didn't say he heard "cleared to land". So he took wind direction alone to mean cleared to land!? why not simply ask ATC to confirm!?
Just a go-around. With that French accent I understand the Tunisair’s problem. Go around with runway and wind and an accent is almost same tone.m as a cleared to land. The negative is also not clear. Instead of confirmation the other transmission comes through and Tower decided to talk to the inspection. The female atc is clear but not really fair. I guess caught in the moment.
paazhaaz It's shithole Tunis Air, he won't take orders from a female ATC if he feels he knows better and even has a visual of the inspection leaving the runway. But yes, a simple "inspection vehicules still on the runway, go around" would have made it
I understood them well enough but the English wasn't great. Also, it doesn't matter how Tunis Air feels about female controllers, the one giving landing clearance (or not, in this case) was male, and the female came on to tear the pilot a new one and probably cover for a shaken controller.
@@jfpinkston1 i agree with you. As a French, i have many of friends who speaks "fluently" english, but no one ever did the effort to get rid of the terrble french accent. Girls find it sexy (not sure why btw) but in some case it's pretty dangerous (like here)
This is why standard CAP 413 phraseology is used in the UK... "Tunair6 go around I say again go around acknowledge". The use of the surface wind obviously confused the pilot as this is what's used on a landing clearance
AND Runway. Why would you give Runway number in a go around command, especially when there's clearly a language barrier. Both ATC and pilot are speaking a second language with those shitty aircraft radios. This was ATC all day.
@@aaronsuever2414 Aircraft radios aren't shitty. The issue with these recordings is that they're made from an aerial on the ground, somewhere vaguely near the airport, but often with buildings in the way. If you watch the various videos filmed from commercial airports, you can hear that the sound quality in the plane itself is pretty good.
Crappy ATC. I’m an airline captain and if I hear the wind with a go around instruction I would have questioned it. The correct ATC instruction should have been “Tunis Air 716 go around I say again go around”
@@sanantonio855 then surely that is the part that needs to be looked into as a deviation from ICAO standards that in this instance caused a safety issue.
@@1Gregos as an ATC in training it bothered me, but we don't make the laws... There's some logic to giving the wind because it's some kind of takeoff, but I reckon it is confusing for foreign pilots. I guess in a very tight situation I would just say "Go around". The thing I don't understand is why they didn't ask the pilot for read back. Costs nothing...
I'm not sure but it may be a French thing where they must have the wind information included but the ATC person should have on the 3rd go abandoned that tactic and gone to the more urgent do not land go around do not land go around please repeat call back my communication
ATC didn't cancel clearance, gave wind direction on a go-around (non-standard), and let 716 get one minute away from final with inspection on the active. Very poor work by ATC.
"Cancel clearance"? The airplane had no landing clearance to be cancelled. If you're from the US where clearance are given in advance and then cancelled if the runway doesn't actually turn out to be free - this does not happen in Europe (or most of the rest of the world). The airplane had, at most, clearance to approach. He would NOT be given clearance to land with the vehicles still on the runway.
You’re right. I heard kind of go-around-clear-to-land mix. Both ATC and the pilot has some accents which obviously made them understand each other erroneously.
Yes. "go around" is perfect. Here in Italy, many of my colleagues use to say "go around and perform the standard missed approach procedure... Bla Bla bla". (what do you think an IFR flight is going to do then?!? Moron!) 😂😂😂
With the French accent "go-around" and "cleared-to-land" have the same voice inflections and can be misheard if the accent is strong. Combine this with giving wind conditions I can understand how the confusion happened.
I really don't blame the pilots as much as the tower controller. He heard the pilot reply "cleared to land" twice, but didn't reinforce the go-around instruction any further.
Can you enlighten us how one would pronounce a capital letter over radio? Also there's a big difference between speaking perfect English and insisting to speak your own niche language.
When it takes three playbacks to fully understand a set of totally confusing instructions ordering a go-around, with windspeed instructions attached, the blame lies largely with ATC. I had no problem understanding the comms from the Tunisian pilot.
@@Belchmaster41; Providing the wind indications/info is what kicked the situation into hi gear. I'd lay blame to the bilingualism there, I am fluent in Slovak and Polish, and switcking back to English is damn difficult to accomplish, especially during the emotional pressures one experiences during landings. Do you believe that the switching between languages is in-part, to blame?? Stay safe, and healthy!
That was squarely the controllers fault. He buried the go-around instruction in irrelevant information and when the pilot responded "clear to land" he didn't correct him with strong commands. Additionally, his accent could make understanding instructions very difficult for non-French pilots.
The peculiarity is that most Tunisians do speak French (although we don't know if the Tunisair pilot was in fact Tunisian). I agree that the controller issues poor instructions by adding the wind and the runway number. When the controller realized that the readback was wrong, he should have simply said "Tunisair - GO AROUND" and nothing else.
to be honest, that "go around" sounded a lot like "clear to land". Then in one breath added the wind to it, I think this was a very dangerous mistake by ATC. Not the pilot
This was two people neither of which spoke English natively and one with an incredible accent. The pilot couldn't understand and didn't ask for confirmation and instead relied on tone and the ATC both needed more language instruction and screwed up his command and gave extraneous information and then didn't confirm after he noticed the bad response. This wasn't the pilot ignoring him just two people who wouldn't say they didn't understand.
I think it is mainly ATC fault, why give winds and no heading/altitude for the go-around instead? And the second time the controller tells the pilot to go-around, he didn't even mention the callsign of the aircraft he was talking to...
winds, yeah that is dumb. but for large airports go-aroundprocedures are part of the approach SOP, and should been known. and once communication is established you don't give callsigns usually, only at the beginning to identify who you are talking with, and at the end to designate the coversation is over.
Have you ever heard of a standard missed approach route? Go around means go around and doesn't allow you to carry on with your approach. No needs for wind or heading just follow the missed approach route
Why english ? The world is not englishland. Tunisair pilot probably speaks better French than English. Maybe had everything been in French they'd have understood each other...
@@justt1ice Well ATC has to communicate to planes somehow. If we take Europe as an example and have a sample of pilots from say, Sweden, Germany, France, Spain, Bulgaria and Greece, are they all more likely to know French, Spanish or English? Sure the French pilot will speak French and the Spanish will speak Spanish, but is even the Spanish pilot more likely to know French or English? There's a reason English is the language of choice for communication between people that don't speak each other's language.
@@walden420 Simply not true. English needs to be available for international pilots that request it. There is no mandate for all transmissions to be in English.
Ummar Razac I think it's also the fault of the controler. Why did he say the wind ? And why did he not say "go around I say again go around" when the pilots said "clear to land" ?
She had the adrenaline pumping, scared that the plane runs into a car under her supervision, with the atc guy not giving clear instructions, and not ensuring a proper readback. A guy who can't speak with understandable accent should double-check that people understand him.
@@jeremieszelag6774 it could of been very bad, for the plane and ground vehicles and her legally if it was a crash (surprised they did not see on radar that they was still coming into land unless go around is to fly over the run way) funny how they said I did not understand what "go around" Ment but the pilot was correct about if they was going to have to do a go around why did she have to provide landing information(wind speed) and at the end of that information say go around without confirmation from the pilots ( as normally when you say go around the pilots should also respond with go around assume that usually provide heading information as well)
Also poor English at one point (taken more then 15-20 seconds to say a 5 second sentence) sounded like the person was starting to have problems with brain (he also did not come back onto radio it was a woman) Also why did they not continue to say abort landing and go around do not land "plane name"
2:00 seems like he was trying to tell them to slow down to minimum speed (was not worded correctly) 4:00 he mixed go around with other information ( heading and the wind) Again 4:17 after just after No to landing (in French) he did repeat go around but again he mixed wind speed and heading again after it , he never made a third attempt to actually tell them to abort the landing, go around objects on the run way (he should of repeated it until he got confirmation) the male ATC person needs to be more prompt on saying go around, abort landing and stop mixing wind and direction information with go around (the pilot and ATC could of caused a lot of death that day)
It's always fun to try and understand foreign languages in aviation setting, even when you know the language, it always sounds weird how they say things.
I'm a Tunisian pilot. I speak English with a good enough American English, but in the cockpit, things change xD You have to insist a bit more on every word and factor in the receiver's English level, instead of speaking as if you were communicating with a friend. Besides that, there's the factor of stress which leads to a bit of regression when English is not your first language. Also, communication is often multitasked with flying the aircraft and it's never the main task. Other than this, we were trained to speak with a modified pronunciation (example: "Tree" instead of "three" and "Fiverr" instead of "five"...). I believe that these pronunciation "laws" don't apply any more thanks to the advancement made in radiotelecommunication clarity, but they're still remnant, usually if judged helpful.
This is why I like the way UK controllers make you confirm of the go around “Speedbird 123 Go around, I say again, Go around, acknowledge” it is so much easier to understand
What makes me even more angry than the actual incident is the woman ground controller afterwards that things she has the right to blame the pilot. The Tower did never insist on the go around by repeating it until correct readback by the pilot and what is so difficult to simply say „Tunisair 716 go around, go around“ instead of that mumbling and inserting runway name and wind directions and even forgetting about the callsign in the second radio call
@@TheLuxentertainment well the pilots never heard the actual word cleared for landing just the wind information but I agree they shouldn't have included the wind information on the second go and should have made sure that they repeated the message until they responded with go around
@@emporytechnology1502 once they had landed when they was talking to the women ATC person the pilot actually said "I did not understand go around " 5:30 Still mixing non vital information with instructions is bad really
For what it's worth at the 5:20 mark the pilot says he saw the trucks "vacated the runway". Not that it make much of a difference in the outcome. While the controller did call for a go-around the pilot read back the landing clearance and the controller never followed up fully, and never got an acknowledgement. This is a clear case of "a message unacknowledged is a message unreceived." This falls fully on the controller. No matter what, failure to get a read back on the go-around full falls on them. Their highest priority should have been getting an acknowledgement of the go-around, no way around that. I think upon examination of this incident the controllers involved will wish they and not the pilots would have done something different.
Why did the pilot even bring up seeing the trucks vacating. Isn't it irrelevant to whether or not there was a go around. Did they see the trucks vacating and decide to ignore the go around instruction and land?
@@ianhawthorn1527 the pilot mistaken "go around" instruction with "cleared to land" hence seen the truck vacating seem to confirm "cleared to land". And even the 2nd go around instruction no callback from pilot.
I feel like the go around was blended into the flow of the sentence at the first time he was told. A well spaced and pronounced go around before the rest of the instructions would've made things a lot clearer in my opinion
Actually, the title should rather be "A320 lands while cleared to go-around". Being french, I can hear the runway inspection crew say that they vacated the runway before the aircraft touched down ;)
I -- Ooo -- Wish -- oo -- ATC -- ee -- would speak English all times so pilots wouldn't get disassociated from the ATC calls. Or think ATC is not very fluent in English and start to make their own assumptions. Either case it is distracting. Still though big mistake to "assume" you are cleared without clearly hearing the clearance. Great video and showcase as always !
Couldn't agree more, I don't understand why this isn't standard practice in some countries. I mean it's fine to say 'bonjour' at first contact but this tower even gives landing clearance in French. Really bad for the non-French speaking pilots' situational awareness at this international airport. Besides, if the controllers spoke more English perhaps their accent wouldn't be so strong.
@@ksthebest I have the feeling that the rest of the world just gives a fuck about speaking english on ATC, except Germany, Austria, GB, US, Australia and huge international airports with only international traffic. As a pilot flying into an airport only talking in their countrys language I would first say them to switch to english, because I would want to know what is going on around me. It's sad that a proper nearly accent free pronunciation is not taught in ATC and flying schools. There are a lot of good examples on RU-vid of pilots not able to explain a situation, which needs english skills outside of standard phrases.
Yes, they did not fully hear the clearance... which is why they readback to check for errors because the rest of it sounded spot on like a landing clearance. They checked if they heard right and said "cleared to land" and got a really sketchy response so they tried again and instead of correcting the communication error the ATC starts to blank for seemingly an eternity on the comms talking to the inspection crew. The tunisair crew then naturally assumes their readback was correct and proceeds... 99% ATC error.
4 года назад
Well, he 'clearly' said "Go ahead" in his broken, broken English and gave landing instructions next. The pilot's announcement of landing was not countermanded.
so I have a question. Why didn't the tower controller insist on correct readback after giving go-around clearance and not getting a readback. I can kindof understand why the a320 misheard "cleared to land" instead of "goaround", probably due to expectations. But there is a reason why a clearance should be given at the END of a transmission, after wind info. like, "XXX wind 180 degress 12 knots go around", not the other way round.
Tunisia (along with Algeria) is a country that is largely bilingual Arabic & French and had close relations with France (as former colony and francophone country). I'm surprised when they didn't understand English instructions, that they wouldn't communicate in French to the pilots.
Even so, this whole "Using the foreign language cause oh look those guys might understand us" is a mess in my opinion. Instructions should not only be heard by the aircraft that they're intended for, but also by other pilots, so they can get a sense of the traffic situation.
OMG so many errors! ATC communications are designed to tolerate errors, but not this many: 1. 2:13 ATC should inform Inspection 1 that traffic is arriving in 3 minutes 2. 2:48 ATC should inform Inspection 1 that traffic is arriving in 2 minutes 3. 2:53 Inspection 1 should clarify its required time better (maybe, recording is poor) At 4:02 ATC should say "Tunair 716 go around" instead of "Tunair 716 goaroundthewind 320 degrees 2 knots": 4. ATC should say "go around" clearly without eliding it with "the wind" 5. ATC should not say the wind at all in this instruction 6. 4:07 Since the instruction was unclear, Tunair should say "confirm" or "say again" instead of "clear to land runway 26" At 4:11 ATC should say "Negative Tunair 716 Go Around I Say Again. Go. Around." instead of "Negat... Uh... Uh... Negative. Go around runway 26 wind 320 degrees 2 knots": 7. ATC shouldn't interrupt the word "Negat" 8. Since readback was dangerously wrong, ATC should use a slower and clearer voice this time 9. ATC should not say the runway in this instruction 10. ATC should not say the wind in this instruction (Added) 11. 4:21 (recording of Inspection 1 is poor, but assuming this is him) Inspection 1 should have heard the misunderstanding of errors 4-10 and should not take the frequency to say anything. (He should, however, make every effort to vacate the runway immediately, which perhaps he did.) 12. 4:28 Since the instruction was unclear, Tunair should say "confirm" or "say again" instead of saying nothing. Or, if no time to confirm anymore, Tunair should initiate his own go around due to failed communication of landing clearance. 13. 4:28 Since first go around readback was wrong, and second time was not read back, ATC should repeat Go Around instruction a third time. 14. 4:58 Second controller should not say "Cleared" in "you were Cleared for going around procedure". Even though the incident already happened, this shows that misleading phraseology is widespread in this tower and not limited to the first controller. 15. 5:07 Tunair's responses to ATC after landing seem to suggest that he had a clue before landing that his landing clearance might not be right. In that case, he should have initiated his own go around, even if he never heard the go around from ATC.
They should really ban native language on frequency for critical communication. This would help with the awareness of the pilots firstly and would hopefully help with the awful French accent. Idiotic ATC, which was fully at fault here.
I agree with you but that's probably not practical given that even the ATC have such heavy accents, I doubt the ground crew could piece together any sentence with understandable grammar.
I feel sorry for the Tunair pilot. If everything was in English they would have at least had a chance to hear the context with the ground crew. The very strong accent doesn't help either.
I dont think they should. Entire South America speaks just Spanish apart from Brazil and most of them dont speak English, so it would be catastrophic if they all started speaking English
@@bahenbihen If they don't speak English, why are they allowed to be in the aviation industry? If they can't communicate with plane crews that don't speak their language, people could die.
@@JamEngulfer I used to think like that before too, but for some learning English is very hard - primarily for far eastern nations, French, Spanish etc. If you are for example controling a TRACON in Santiago de Chile and 95% of traffic consists of Spanish speaking pilots, it is far safer to speak Spanish rather than English on a daily basis. I know it would be brilliant if everybody spoke English, but it is just not the case.
ATC tell him: go around, the pilot will hear clear to land, AND windcheck. So after the 1st go around call, i heard no good NEGATIVE from ATC, but only a sort of negat…. so i can see where the problem started… (4:00)
My policy is never land until you clearly hear “cleared to land”. ATC definitely could have done better, but ultimately, understanding and following ATC orders is the crew’s responsibility.
Several mistakes and problems here in terms of human factors. 1. Non-ICAO standard language used for ATC-pilot communication. Common awareness is nearly equal zero, if pilots don't speak french. (I know this is done in many different parts of the world, but is a problem.) 2. Wind instructions with a go around instructions are missleading, especially on short final where pilots are really really focused on flying the aircraft. 3. Wrong anticipation on an instruction, without clear understanding. 4. Probably a huge difference of experience between captain and FO. Which could result in a situation where the FO didn't tell the captain that he's wrong. (reminds of several accidents around the world... and is still a huge problem in cockpits... We had such an incident latelly, which was corrected on ground...)
As an unworthy sofa pilot, I am more than glad to help French inspectors how to evaluate that report. An instruction was issued, the aircraft did not read back properly, that happens all the time. The next go around instruction was actually NOT addressed towards the flight - there was no callsign at the front of the message, also the message was broken apart. This is a critical moment of flight, almost before touchdown,these "eeee-eeeeeeergh" chokin sounds are just no help. No further comm towards TAR was initiated afterwards he read back the clearence incorrectly. That is my two cents.
I'm no pilot but I'd say this is on both ATC and the pilot, with some possible radio issues. The pilot confirmed cleared to land and ATC corrected him. ATC did not confirm that the instructions to go around we're received. This is why instructions are read back.
I'm not so sure. The first time, he confirmed "Cleared to land" (4:09). The difference in sound between "Go around" and "Cleared to land" is not great. The same intonation on each of the three syllables, and the vowel and consonant sounds are somewhat similar. Given accents and static, I can see how it would be easy to hear what you are expecting to hear, rather than what is actually said. Given the comment on the wind, I can see how this could have happened.
Harold Kelly agreed. My 30 years experience as a controller tells me this is 100% on the controller. The pilots had every expectation to receive a landing clearance. The purpose of a full read back is to confirm with the pilot that he fully understood any clearance. Any failure on the read back falls fully on the controller.
@@angharadhafod, In my opinion, he only acknowledged clearance to land, he didn't ask to confirm it, which by the hesitation in the response he should have.
He (pilot) did not hear the “go around” according to his answer to the controller anger, but he can hear the wind direction and speed and also the runway number (designation). The big question mark, why the controller need to say the wind and runway instead of just “go around.. go around..”
I really enjoy the graphics to help us visualise what has happened. I can see both sides of the incident, I'm not sure wheter it's SOP for these airport to read out wind direction and velocity after issuing a go around, but the pilot on the radio should have clarified if there was any doubt about the clearance.
What type of ATC he is where he gives wind information on Go Around but not in the time of landing clearance as done for the next traffic 45GJ 05:55. Btw why he was singing that song from 04:33 - 04:46 where he should had asked TUNAIR716 again for GoAround.
The controller made a good move by saying "call me on short final." I heard Go around clearly both times. And the pilot saw the vehicle on the runway which he admits. I wouldn't gamble with an aircraft like that. Sounds like gotta-get-there-itus. That being said, controllers are responsible for their runways and communications, including getting clear readbacks from pilots. In this case, it sounded like two transmissions at once (4:19) which blocked the readback, but this is where the controller should step in and say "I say again, TAR716 Go around!" The controller also never told the inspection crew about traffic until they were a minute away! I realize that that could be a good amount of distance, but I've never seen a runway inspection take only one minute before. He needed to paint the picture for everyone. And then he practically froze up when it was happening. No good. 50/50
I could hear the go around too, but it is very easy sitting in your armchair, reading the summary of events before the video and then listening to it, knowing what happened, ti what to expect, what to listen for and even having subtitles added. I would really like VASAviation to upload some vids without any subtitles every now and then, it would be interesting to see how much the armchair pilots really understand clearly. You and me are just listening to a conversation to which we are dedicating our full attention, those guys had a plane to fly as well, I imagine they had a bit more on their plates then just listening to what that ATC tried to tell them.
@@FrankyLon Indeed it is, but as someone who works in a control tower I can't exactly hold back from my feelings. You're definitely right though, hindsight is 20/20
i clearly heard "go around", and when the first go around was answered with"clear to land" the controller clearly stated "negative, go around". the wind speed and direction are not needed, but the "go around" was plain and clear.
The controller can say "Go around" 200000 times, if the pilot never hears "go around" then they were never actually told. Radios are not 100% reliable. If you are concentrating on something else, like landing the plane without breaking it, it is easy for the pilots to miss something like that. This is why there needs to be a clear, reliable way to signal the pilot to "go around." Flashing the approach lights would work nicely, because that is the one thing you'll know the pilot is looking at. Did the go around order even reach the plane? Is it clearly audible in the CVR?
KarlosBricks--His field of vision was in front and his speed, relative to the ground, was far faster than any ground vehicle could have moved to avoid a collision. He didn't THINK that, perhaps, there were ground vehicles that his wing could have struck. Regardless of what other information was provided, or what he could see, the instruction was clear, "GO AROUND".
@@onemercilessming1342 he was not. dude has binoculars and a screen in front of him with airplane's altitude's information. you don't just give a go around instruction and go take a sip of coffee
no matter if he didn´t understand the words go around. There was no " cleared to land" instruction... without landing clearance with thos exact words, the pilot needs to initiate the go around on his own with the words " going around"
They make my blood boil, speaking French to other traffic and ground vehicles on a tower frequency. Who the hell gives a wind read out for a go around. Totally ATC at fault!!!
The ironic thing is that I bet the Tunisair pilot could speak French better than he could speak English - it's just the rule that English is used for all international ATC.
Well, there is definitely a language problem in aviation. Bear in mind that the ICAO has defined six official languages to be used for communication in aviation and French is one of them...
A better instruction would be to give a go around instruct twice, Goaround I say again go around, Only then after the crew acknowledge or visibly going around, maybe give wind, I do not think the wind is so vital because the wind is surface wind and its light, The aircrafts on board wind would give a better realtime go around wind. The pilot didn't hear the go around and assumed it was a cleared to land because the instruction contained wind info, Seems he was reacting to what he was expecting rather than what was being instructed. - Confirmation Bias is a killer. The pilot replied clear to land so the controller should have been more clearer and repeat the instruction until he got it.
Definitely seems odd to give wind info on a go-around, especially considering that when they cleared the next plane to actually land, they didn't give any wind info at all!
In my opinion ATC was at fault here, he didn't get a readback the second time (why would he, he didn't say their callsign), so he should have called them again. Also, using both french and english would be super confusing if I was a pilot flying into that airport. In this incident, the Tunisair crew might have heard that the trucks are still on the runway if they would have talked in english.
Good point. They should only speak English. The pilots never confirmed the go around and the controller got distracted talking to the ground personnel and didn't use the standard terminology.
So many issues with this, 1. they should not have been speaking French on frequency... Then the pilots would have understood more of the situation. 2. after giving the incorrect readback, the controller failed to properly correct them. 3. the woman wasn't listening - the pilots told her twice they heard cleared to land. They should have indicated that was what they read back as well, but either way I'm sure it'll all be sorted once investigators listen to the tapes.
Controllers are really week there. WHO gives the wind during go- around instructions?! It is confusing. Plus the controller should change the tone of his voice to alert the crew and repeat as many times as necessary. Controllers need to be reprimanded as well as the pilot, who didn't pay enough attention. A Classical case of psychological deafness . Pilot hears what he wants (or expects) to hear.
I agree, adding wind information confused the pilot. Anyone who communicates has to allow for interference that may result in partial reception. The pilots did have visual on the runway and noted it was clear of vehicles.
I was thinking the same thing as I heard that. MAYBE the pilots were only pretending to be confused, but I don't see much benefit in a wind check along with a go-around instruction. Also, I would omit the RWY number unless there's a similar callsign on final for a different RWY.
Oh, so ATC has been well trained in filing reports, surely not in communication with pilots. First time I heard phrase "you are cleared to go around" with wind data. LFPO is quite busy airport yet they stick to French. Same problem was when ground control cleared KLM and EZY for pushback in Dutch at EHAM and the result was tail-to-tail collision not that long ago.
ATC informed TAR716 that 26 was under inspection and to maintain min approach speed and report short final to try and get TAR716 in. To ANY pilot this means there are vehicles on the runway and pilot awareness should be at the highest as a go-around may be coming. Then the GO AROUND comes. TAR716, hearing wind information thinks that means Clear to Land. Then comes NEGAT, followed by negative, GO AROUND and wind information again. I Have to disagree with most of the comments here, Go Around means Go Around no matter what is said afterwards. This pilot lost situational awareness and landed the plane based on some wind information totally ignoring all other information. Landing with vehicles on the runway most certainly leads to catastrophe. I usually side with pilots but in this case, NEGAT.
In my opinion it was the controller's fault because he gave wind information and runway number when he instructed the go around. A few moments later the lady said he "cleared you for go around procedure" but a go around is not a clearance, it's an instruction.
Non standard phraseology from ATC. Outcome: unexpected situation. In France ATC gives the wind for landing clearance, never for go around. Ref: training manual for ATC employees. Document de ref pour la formation de la circulation aérienne p 148 and 151. Sia.aviation-civile.gov.fr From french dgca manual p148. Landing: call sign, rw, cleared to land, wind. Go around: call sign, go around, +any add clear if diff from published proc. From Eurocontrol training zone. Exactly same. Icao doc 4444, 12.3.4.18 and 12.4.2.5.8 Also A320 flightdeck is very noisy bellow 400ft. RA starts calling loudly the height, PF read the FMA with a land call out. PM acknowl with check call out then comes the 100 above, minimum, continue call out from pilot and gpws. Add computers ventilation and aerod noise + maybe some comm from vhf 2 (121.5, ops, dispatch...) So pilots have heard the call sign , something + wind and they landed. Confirmation bias: inspection vehicule is leaving the rw so we are cleared to land. Standard ICAO phraseology.......
Well.. Firstly I didn't know that Frech is a ICAO approved language to use but I have to say one thing...As a person who doesn't speak French nor Spanish I always feel very confused when listening to frequencies in countrues speaking those languages(eg. Mexico, Brazil, Spain, France and others) because I don't understand what's happening on the airport which lowers my overall understanding of the current situation on the airport. I can imagine that the Tunisair pilot was kinda "confused" as well as me(at least a bit more than if he was landing somewhere where they speak English only). Also.. Why the hell would you give current wind during a go around procedure and thus make the pilot feel he just misunderstood the clearance. Secondly - he clearly repeated "cleared to land" and after that there was no direct disapproval from the ATC followed by a proper readback by the pilot. The ATC couldn't have been sure about what the pilot understood. I do believe this was the fault of the ATC, they should have made sure that the Tunisair pilot understood the go around and not ignoring the wrong readback.
The languages of overall do cause a more dangerous environment yes, as you say with the situational awareness, but I as a non pilot do enjoy picking up the aviation terms in other languages, to help my situational awareness, should I ever need. yeah, I agree ATC was pretty poor here, seemed to be doing something else as the flight landed too, given his slow response to the truck. I suspect the ATC will end up with at least 50% responsibility. In the event though, pilot thought he had clearance, and checked the runway was clear, so it all seems under control.
It could be harder for you but why should the other 90% of traffic that is local flights and other airport personnel be burden having to speak in a non native language?
@@fabioguedes4872 Why would it be only in French and Spanish countries then and not the others? :) Honestly, I do believe that English should be the number one language everywhere. I do understand, that for example during emergency situations, the emergency traffic can use native language because it's probably easier to describe the problem in details. But come on - saying basic phrases like "cleared to land" in English isn't such a big problem..
Hum believe me, The tunisian pilot understand perfectly french, Tunisia is a former french colony, YOu would like to understand everything around you?? Dude you're no pilot, you don't know what it feels like!!!
In a situation like this the "go around" command should be repeated 3 times to make sure the pilot understands. In this case the "go around" was lost in the other information.
ATC so unprofessional. Why do they use French on radio? Everyone on the frequency does not understand French. And it’s so disturbing you hear two languages on radio.
The wind information made it sound like a cleared for landing. Especially when you have two people for whom English is a second language. In a go around just say "[aircraft id] GO AROUND" so it's clear.
To me this is 100% ATCs fault: 1) They created an unsafe situation by talking to the inspection crew in French. While Tunisair was notified about the runway inspection in process, they did not have full situational awareness since conversations between the tower and the crew were in French. IATA official language is English and all communications on channels that feature any non-native local language speakers should be in English. 2) ATC never got a correct read back of the go-around order. They should have continued to say "go around" until they got a correct read back. And each time with increasing urgency. 3) ATC distracted Tunisair with the wind readout and muddled the transmission by saying the most crucial piece of info without any emphasis. I'm not a pilot but I see from these ATC videos why the pilot thought he was cleared to land, since generally the calls are "Cleared to land, wind is ___." - The only thing Tunisair did "wrong" was fail to understand 2 radio transmissions that were given in a poor fashion and never read back correctly. It is ATC's responsibility to make their requests clear.
@@martintheiss743 the official language of aviation is English. It's only by chance that the arriving aircraft was from a former French colony. The airport in question takes arrivals from across Europe and the world. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that even a pilot at a French airline is French or speaks French. Airlines hire pilots from around the world. One of the benefits of a standard language is it *prevents* incidents by making sure everyone is on the same page; they are not on the same page when the policy is violated.
@@juliusreiner5733 sounds like you observe a death wish. FAA counterpart in France has a long investigative history. I don't like the chances for the first arrivals controller. Insisting on French when they got away with it. Dumb.
Including a reference to the runway and the winds when instructing to 'Go Around' would be confusing, especially with radio signal issues like were heard in the recording. The controller should have been very clear by using the aircraft call sign followed by the 'Go Around' instruction and no other chatter. Additionally, the pilot had a responsibility to clarify the transmission if it was garbled as claimed. They got lucky this time!
