THIS VIDEO IS A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATION IN FLIGHT:
30-NOV-2022. A Cargolux Airlines International Boeing 747-8R7F (B748), registration LX-VCM, performing flight CLX93V / CV6713 from Luxembourg International Airport (Luxembourg) to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, TX (USA) being on final approach contacted Tower controller and received landing clearance but didn’t confirm it. The crew subsequently went around and said that they hadn’t got landing clearance.
Join me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/You_can_see_ATC
#realatc #aviation #airtrafficcontrol
_______________
Timestamps:
00:00 Description of situation
00:17 Approach
00:37 Go around
01:29 Go to Departure
_______________
THE VALUE OF THIS VIDEO:
THE MAIN VALUE IS EDUCATION. This reconstruction will be useful for actual or future air traffic controllers and pilots, people who plan to connect life with aviation, who like aviation. With help of this video reconstruction you’ll learn how to use radiotelephony rules, Aviation English language and general English language (for people whose native language is not English) in situation in flight, which was shown. THE MAIN REASON I DO THIS IS TO HELP PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND EVERY EMERGENCY SITUATION, EVERY WORD AND EVERY MOVE OF AIRCRAFT.
SOURCES OF MATERIAL, LICENSES AND PERMISSIONS:
Source of communications – https://www.liveatc.net/ (I have a permission (Letter) for commercial use of radio communications from LiveATC.net).
Map, aerial pictures (License (ODbL) ©OpenStreetMap -https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en.) Permission for commercial use, royalty-free use.
Radar screen (In new versions of videos) – Made by author.
Text version of communication – Made by Author.
Video editing – Made by author.
HOW I DO VIDEOS:
1) I monitor media, airspace, looking for any non-standard, emergency and interesting situation.
2) I find communications of ATC unit for the period of time I need.
3) I take only phrases between air traffic controller and selected flight.
4) I find a flight path of selected aircraft.
5) I make an animation (early couple of videos don’t have animation) of flight path and aircraft, where the aircraft goes on his route.
6) When I edit video I put phrases of communications to specific points in video (in tandem with animation).
7) Together with my comments (voice and text) I edit and make a reconstruction of emergency, non-standard and interesting situation in flight.
32 Comments
Well the tower gave them the landing clearance but there were several transmissions at the same time plus looks like they had the ATIS playing on com 2 as well which doesn’t help either.
Wouldn’t it make sense to inquire about clearance to land again (if they thought they weren’t cleared) before declaring a go-around?
The read-back did not include "cleared to land." It sounds like tower did not catch the read back was incomplete. To that end, going to say tower's fault.
That being said, CLX93V could have asked for landing clearance to be confirmed instead of simply saying "short final."
The approach when calling could have been different. Like we didn't copy landing clearance we're going around. Oh I gave you clearance no big deal contact departure and come back and we'll try it again. There's no fault here just a missed communication. When in doubt follow the safe course.
DFW ATC did given landing clearance the pilot did not read it back
It sounds like Cargolux stepped on their own landing clearance. You can hear the intermod towards the end of Tower's transmission of the clearance, indicating that someone else was also transmitting on the same frequency. Once Tower finishes and stops transmitting, you can hear the end of the other transmission – which was Cargolux themselves reporting on final.
Granted, Tower should have repeated the landing clearance when they didn't get a readback, but it's possible they just heard Cargolux's callsign right after they finished giving the clearance and thought that it was Cargolux acknowledging the clearance. Of course, an acknowledgement isn't a readback, though, so still should have repeated the clearance. It sounds and looks like the airspace was quite busy at the time, though, so it probably just got missed.
I would guess if he included the surface wind that might have gotten through
both were at fault but pilots just need to relax and hear out all the instructions before they key in what they're expecting to hear. you can tell the way the pilot had a style of responding methodically instead of hearing it out.
The Cargolux needed to listen to the entire instruction before starting to read back. In the US, you are going to get a landing clearance based on anticipated separation, which means you may get an instruction to slow as well as landing clearance at the same time. A Cargolux pilot should know this, as they operate quite a bit in the US.
👆 – NEW SITE WITH HOT GIRLS 🥰💑y❤
In my opinion the callsign "Cargolux" could easily be misinterpreted by the controller as "Cleared to land" if it's said too fast or not clear enough. It could be a case that the controller believed it was read back because of this fact – especially given the pilot stuttered.
Too fast talking
Sounded like someone got walked on / over, and they might have missed the last part, (landing clearance) and was acknowledging the reduce to final. Both in the wrong, but the pilot failing to announce WHAT he was acknowledging, and the tower not requesting what was being acknowledged. Too many shortcuts, IMO.
One reason AM is used vs FM, with AM when there are simultaneous transmissions a heterodyne or whine can usually be heard which alerts others there was a double transmission. With FM the stronger signal overtakes all others to the receiving radio.
I wonder if the pilot was Captain Joe
I don't care who made the mistake. The pilot did the right thing. When in doubt go around
Cargolux fault. No biggie. Fill out report and learn from the incident.
and the dog ate their homework as well, I suppose? 😋
There has to be a better way for aviation to communicate.
Busy airport, sloppy Tower Controller, sloppy radio work, people stepping on each other = recipe for disaster. CargoLux did the right thing by going around. They even called short final, but because they were stepped on, Tower didn't hear. Tower, instead of being incredulous, should have realized the radio conflict and simply cleared them on the vector & hand them back to Departure/Approach. Instead, the tower controller copped a slight attitude over this, which was totally uncalled for. Hopefully, the super will pull the tapes and review this incident with the that controller, so that the controller will have better situational awareness in the future.
"short final" means nothing. They should've specified can we confirm landing clearance, or something in that nature.
Too many traffic in limited space and limited time causes this kind of issue.ATC radio communication take more time than people think.
In this issue,there was no room for the pilot and the controller to confirm the clearance.
Lots of voice traffic and over talk. simple mistake
CargoLux probably stepped on the landing clearance because it was given at a strange time, although expected from busy US airports, but nowhere else around the world.
Its a human factors thing to be used to a landing clearance on a 3nm final, as the aircraft ahead of you clears the runway. If you don’t get it at the time you’re expecting it then your brain can dismiss it.
Meh, it happens.
If in doubt ask again but also a go around was the best thing. Tower should have realised that Cargolux hadn't confirmed clear to land also. Tower was talking a bit quick as well and the whole instructions of reducing to minimum and then clear to land was said quickly, some tower controllers will issue a host of instructions but will pause and then emphasise the ' Clear to Land'
50/50. blame/fault.
Out of scope – but does anybody know why kathryns report stopped updating a month ago? Hope it's not permanent..
Well done, Captain, well done!
The ATC handbook places an affirmative obligation on the controller to insure the read back is correct and if not to correct the crew. This obligation is not subject to the condition that it is subject to “workload permitting”. If the read back was stepped on, the controller must go back to the crew and inquire.
Regardless who was at fault this worries me. I have always wonderd why such sloppy talk. Talk fast yes, but not muttering.
Sounds like the original ATC was blocked so Cargolux didn't hear it. The second contact sounds like they were stepped on as well. The joys of a busy runway on which to land
Just found this channel yesterday and what I learned in a day is ATC gives instruction and the Pilot repeats it back. I heard the instruction but I didn’t hear the repeat back and neither did ATC. So I would assume ATC should have inquired whether he heard him. But since he didn’t, glad he didn’t go. It’s crazy to be able to hear what actually goes on while we passengers are sitting around thinking how fast we can stand up after he pulls to the gate. Counting down til the seatbelt sign turns off.