A NetJets plane was told to go around due to traffic on the runway, only to reject that request, on grounds of low fuel… which was never previously disclosed. Yet the air traffic controller’s claim of traffic on the runway was questionable in the first place, so one wonders what was actually going on here. Was the pilot bluffing in response to a perceived lie, or…?
In this post:
NetJets pilots claim they can’t go around due to low fuel
VASAviation has the air traffic control audio and a visualization of an incident that happened on the afternoon of June 24, 2026, at Las Vegas Airport (LAS). There’s a lot going on here, and we won’t even talk about how the callsign Janet 48 is on frequency, referring to the secret government airline that carries people to Area 51.
Anyway, the primary aircraft involved here is a NetJets Cessna Citation Latitude jet, flying with the callsign Execjet 659. The plane was coming in from Albuquerque (ABQ), approaching Las Vegas’ runway 8R. For what it’s worth, that flight did take a little longer than expected in terms of the route it was given, but nothing crazy.
The tower controller gave the pilots landing clearance, and they were the next plane in the approach sequence. It’s worth mentioning that immediately behind them was Alaska Airlines flight AS806, an Airbus A330 on approach from Honolulu (HNL). Side note — hearing “heavy” behind the Alaska callsign still takes some getting used to.
Anyway, just a few miles short of the runway, the following interaction took place:
Air traffic controller: “Execjet 659, go around, I’ve got traffic on the runway. Climb and maintain 7,000, fly runway heading.”
NetJets pilot: “Unable for fuel, sir.”
Air traffic controller: “Roger that. Execjet 659, runway 8R, you’re cleared to land.”
NetJets pilot: “8R, cleared to land.”
Air traffic controller: “Alaska 806 heavy, traffic’s not gonna clear the runway. Go around, cancel approach clearance, climb and maintain 7,000, fly runway heading.”
There’s so much about this interaction that’s strange
Typically when an air traffic controller requests that a pilot go around for traffic, they need to go around… for obvious reasons. The controller was clearly caught off guard by the NetJets pilots saying they couldn’t go around due to fuel.
The NetJets pilots hadn’t declared any sort of minimum fuel or emergency fuel prior to this incident, which is what pilots are supposed to do when fuel is a factor that could impact the ability to go around. As you can hear, the controller was caught completely off guard by that revelation.
It’s also strange how the pilots weren’t given a number to call for a possible pilot deviation, since you’d think this is something that needs to be investigated further.
But that brings us to the second point — it appears that the air traffic controller wasn’t being totally honest about the reason for the go around. As you can see, the controller claimed there was traffic on the runway, only to instruct the Alaska plane behind the NetJets plane to go around, because the traffic wasn’t going to clear the runway in time.
So that’s not how that’s supposed to work. Did the NetJets pilots know the controller was fibbing and they called his bluff, or what happened there? I know some suggest that it might be the Southwest plane landing from the north that caused the go around due to the slightly converging paths, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Why? Well, when NetJets pilots said they couldn’t go around, the controller didn’t send the Southwest plane on a go around either.
One certainly wonders why the controller was giving the Alaska plane priority over the NetJets plane? It sure seems like the controller should’ve asked the NetJets pilots to keep their speed up on approach, because the gap between the two planes on approach kept getting smaller.
Bottom line
A NetJets plane on approach to Las Vegas Airport was instructed to go around, but it rejected that request due to fuel. What’s so strange here is that the pilots hadn’t previously alerted the air traffic controller of any fuel emergency, which is supposed to be done in these situations.
What makes this even stranger is that the go around request was made due to traffic on the runway, but it appeared that was a bit of a stretch. In reality, it seems like the NetJets plane was being sent around so that the Alaska plane behind it could land without having to go around.
What do you make of this Las Vegas Airport go around situation?
New YouTube channel with a retired ATC: Kennedy Steve, who has done some good videos with what looks like professional help. He partnered with the retired pilot, Steeve, for one on his channel. Subscriber count is growing rapidly.
Pretty much the bottom line summed this up. If NetJets hadn't previously declared a fuel emergency (or at least "MINIMUM FUEL") then it's NetJet's Fault.
If they had, then that's an ATC coordination issue.
The NetJet had low fuel , so was rightly cleared to land .
Give me gullible for 400 please
This reminds me of an interaction between a rude MEA pilot and an African ATC controller many years ago.
MEA was being condescending and correcting the prononciation of some words due to the controller's accent. The controller was annoyed but didn't say anything directly.
MEA established on the localiser and requested approach. ATC put him in a hold due to traffic and advised he was number two for arrival.
"Number two for arrival? Can...
This reminds me of an interaction between a rude MEA pilot and an African ATC controller many years ago.
MEA was being condescending and correcting the prononciation of some words due to the controller's accent. The controller was annoyed but didn't say anything directly.
MEA established on the localiser and requested approach. ATC put him in a hold due to traffic and advised he was number two for arrival.
"Number two for arrival? Can you advise location of traffic for number one?"
"Affirm number two Cedarjet, traffic is 17 miles behind you"
Poor Cedarjet flew a holding pattern while the plane behind him overtook him and landed. I noted with amusement that another pilot handled the ATC comms from that point as well.
No one should be treating each other that way. Obviously, shame on that MEA pilot; but, also, ATC ‘punishing’ them isn’t ‘great,’ either.
You’ll notice we have some wise-guys on here who occasionally denigrate flight attendants (mocking safety, misogyny, etc.) So, I often mock them, saying, ‘please, do tell your crews exactly how you feel about them, preferably before meal service.’ Drink/eat up! Yum.
Now, I recognize it would be unprofessional, say, for the crew...
No one should be treating each other that way. Obviously, shame on that MEA pilot; but, also, ATC ‘punishing’ them isn’t ‘great,’ either.
You’ll notice we have some wise-guys on here who occasionally denigrate flight attendants (mocking safety, misogyny, etc.) So, I often mock them, saying, ‘please, do tell your crews exactly how you feel about them, preferably before meal service.’ Drink/eat up! Yum.
Now, I recognize it would be unprofessional, say, for the crew to then spit in their drinks, but… see what I mean? Not ‘great.’