Typically when I post about air traffic control interactions, they’re in the United States, given that the audio is publicly accessible here, unlike in most other countries. So here’s a rare — but very interesting — interaction in another country.
Continue reading: Turkish Airlines Pilot & Muscat ATC Argue: “I Don’t Follow Anyone’s Orders”
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Well, TK pilot is right, commander of the aircraft is in charge and ATC is not their boss, but both parties keep the tone professional instead of creating a pointless fight. This is how it's done by professionals, that's why we're all baffled by the mess the US ATC keeps creating for no apparent reason.
I'm surprised about the premise in the opening paragraph though. What makes you believe that ATC communication is not publicly available in "most of the world"? The reason why US recordings are more common is simply that US has these unnecessary battles on the frequency much more often, so there's much more to publish.
No serious incident to report.
No casualties caused by this verbal intercourse.
It could have been worse by not making it on of Ben’s, click-bait articles …. 🙂
I agree with Ben because it highlighted a disagreement by two professionals, who managed to disagree in a thoroughly professional manner as opposed to New York ATC that happens often.
Aviate Navigate Communicate thats only what ik about Airline pilot....
The muscat guy can give order but the plane at that instance belong to the CAPTAIN..if theres a problem or emergency tgen only he should not follow his Instruments or else just believe it ....
ATC can't give an "order". It can issue instructions, advisories and clearances, not orders. The final authority is always with commander of the aircraft.
Two obsolete roles lucky enough to not get obsoleted on a collision course.
What worst can happen.
So much for "we’re not playing with safety".
Maybe it's a conspiracy to keep more jobs at NTSB? Especially when most of the fatal accidents always point to "human error".
Uhh. I disagree.
While the TK pilot is very professional, Muscat approach isn't.
The 2nd round of this topic brought up by MCT is unnecessary and unprofessional.
But ATC is acting human, being a biased authoritarian hypocrite.
Eskimo, as you consistently fail to provide any meaningful information about your claims, why should anyone ever take your gibberish posts seriously?
Your gramophone needle is firmly stuck in a repetitive groove, yes!
MCT is at sea level; below 3500 is pretty low to be vectoring for a jet. that should at best be the final approach altitude unless there are obstacles which does not appear to be the case.
Makes you wonder who else has been vectoring that low and just accepted it.
Eskimo, as you consistently fail to provide any meaningful information about your claims, why should anyone ever take your gibberish posts seriously?
Your gramophone needle is firmly stuck in a repetitive groove, yes!
For your information Tim.
On the right side of the pond, executive jets on approach, or, other light odds and sods aircraft in the vicinity of major airports, etc, observe such.
Both the pilot and the author do not understand the difference between MVA and MSA? Probably should receive refresher training.
I am aware that there are places in the world where lower approaches and vectoring are common.
MCT and most Middle East airports are not near as geographically congested as Europe = as is also true at most US airports.
and light aircraft in the US routinely turn at 500 to 700 AGL
but transport jets are moving much faster and maneuver much less easily (throw the o in if your version of the English language requires you to do).
whether Turkey has such low level vectoring within Turkey or not, there are procedures for each airport and the TK pilots indicate they are capable of doing so if the company has documented it.
If a controller is making up an unpublished or unapproved procedure, pilots have reason to reject it or at least question it.
@AeroB13a
Like your other alter ego Tim Dunn, there is no point to reason with you. Next time go ask chatGPTim.
@Speedbird
Didn't some where a human crashed their car a few seconds ago, someone died within the half hour and will be repeating like this in every few minutes on average?
That Turkish Airlines pilot more likely a Ex-Air Force pilot with so many flight hours experience.
TK flies into generally Muscat twice a day (Including Cargo Flights - Code E) and all my flights on TK for the last 10 years on the runway which open Dec 2014 - Worries me, the approach has always been 3400/2200 - Just recheck the AIP
Question is why was TK A321 flying with out date charts on this flight and never been issue for 10 years. First TK pilot with issue with standard Muscat Approach procedures - Is the question
It worries me as my wife and I fly TK between the wife country and Muscat - Maybe I should use FlyDubai FZ as they have min of 4 flights daily have no issue with the 2200 as per the charts for MCT
Eskimo, thank you for confirming that you are unable to provide any tangible information whatsoever to support your ramblings. Perhaps you would be best advised to take your own advice and return to “chatGPT” whatever that is.
You simply post for effect, yes?
Eskimo, thank you for confirming that you are unable to provide any tangible information whatsoever to support your ramblings. Perhaps you would be best advised to take your own advice and return to “chatGPT” whatever that is.
You simply post for effect, yes?
Well looks like the Turkish Air Pilot is coming to Oman for the first time...? OR Maybe the ATC staff with whom the Pilot is interacting must be a fresher.... Now actually what what the Pilot said... Lets clear this issue when we meet on the ground rather than risk the landing as per the ATC's requirements.....
Would love to know the final result....Though, just for the sake of knowledge for a layman like me....
Can anyone knowledgeable enough explain why they have different numbers? Does tk have a wrong number or mct have? I suspect mct knows the number better but still even Ben doesn't explain this. Without that information it is really hard to judge. Well many commentators already made that judgement and I hope they know the reason. Wish they explained the reason as well
I'd ask again that you please lose the insults. Provide correct information and leave it at that makes for a more convincing post.
If posters would drop the insults it would make for a much more concise and readable thread.
In aviation specially in ATC and pilot professions, anything can turn into a disaster. Let's say the approach was giving it descend due some traffic (in approach the seperation gets quiet close, around 5NM normally but can also be reduced to 2.5NM). And the controller didn't have enough time to argue or explain the details. During peak hours controller just expect his instructions to be follow-expect for RA of course. Pilot has to communicate with one controller whereas controller has to communicate with many aircraft simultaneously with many conflicting for which alongside communicating with one pilot and separating his traffic he has to plan for other conflictions and keep an eye for any potential conflictions. And once the controller has cleared that MSA is 2200 then why not trust his knowledge.
If the pilot can't trust a controller's information which he specifically cleared to the pilot-"MSA is 2200", how can he even take any other instruction from that controller and trust it.
But in the end what matters is if it all ends well.
Not true at all. Since everyone loves to comment about the supposedly obnoxious NY controllers, let’s use them as a single example. JFK Final routinely vectors down as low as 2000’.
Apparently this Av Blog doesn’t agree with you. I’ve suggested limitations before on content and number of posts; odd how it was the worst of the offenders who responded most loudly.
Staying above MSA is safer. Being vectored off the SID under radar contact, you can accept lower ATC altitudes. The TK ops specs may not allow that. Maybe the TK pilot is ultra conservative, which is safe, but ya gotta land at some point.
is it even an argument to start with? lots of apologies offered. and pilot suggested to be resequenced.
Every Airline have their own MSA (not really the decision height) from which you cannot go round because of the power lag at full throttle.
The two should not be mixed.
It is very safe to descent to MSA - ultimately it is the Captain who makes the decision regardless of ATC instructions.
It's not heated argument, while the voice wasn't really clear, he's not shouting but insisting. There was no who's better. At the end ATC allowed him.
If you believe pilots and ATC controllers are obsolete you probably not aware of the crash rate of drones and the incredible level of safety that modern aviation systems achieve. I suggest you look them up.
Secondly the reason that human error is the cause of most accidents/ incidents is because humans are the easiest to identify.... the far deeper more systematic issues a usually missed or ignored... I suggest you read about the A320 crash in Tallinn Estonia to understand this in detail..
Firstly MCT has a platform altitude of 2200 to intercept the FAS except 8R which is 3200 due to proximity of terrain. If ur going to an airport of a different country u better have their updated charts and be aware of their procedures.....for eg if u go to DXB other than a hefty fine this Commander would not have been allowed to operate out.....Secondly yes the controller may issue orders/instructions/advisory whatever you want to call it......you gotta have a reason not to follow it.....u can clarify....cause for one you don't have the traffic picture in its entirety......
Guys an idiot. He should have descended to 2200 as instructed. Atc will not send him below msa
It’s looks like TK Pilot had wrong charts, it’s not been issue for over 10 years with other TK pilots to follow the correct charts
One flight out of 300 flights per day is not following the standard procedure
Do not understand why you would think ATC would have it wrong
Well guyz, just imagine the conversation on the matter, I'm gonna have with my son. He's a pilot( captain) and I' m an ATC...;)
The pilot acted in a responsible and safety-conscious manner, ensuring that they would not descend below the minimum safe altitude as per the charts. They also proposed a reasonable alternative, showing flexibility and cooperation.
The controller initially insisted on a lower altitude than was safe according to the pilot’s charts. However, once the disagreement was communicated respectfully, the controller did not escalate the issue further, which is a positive outcome. Ideally, ATC should have had all the relevant safety information at hand to avoid the conflict in the first place.
The pilot acted in a responsible and safety-conscious manner, ensuring that they would not descend below the minimum safe altitude as per the charts. They also proposed a reasonable alternative, showing flexibility and cooperation.
The controller initially insisted on a lower altitude than was safe according to the pilot’s charts. However, once the disagreement was communicated respectfully, the controller did not escalate the issue further, which is a positive outcome. Ideally, ATC should have had all the relevant safety information at hand to avoid the conflict in the first place.
While the pilot was maintaining a safe and conservative attitude, the MVA chart clearly shows that out as far as 40 miles 3000 feet is an acceptable vector alt and from approx 17 miles and closer, 2200 is acceptable. As long as the DME is between 7 and 15, while being vectored, there's no problem. Pilot was misinterpreting his approach charts with the recommended altitude of 3600 at GESOS for the full procedure. Controller was not wrong in his instructions but could have phrased it better.
—ATC has the authority to vector u to 2200 ft in terminal area ..MVA..You are under positive radar control within MSA..
—You must comply with their instructions..(except for safety ).
I'm not a pilot and have no expertise in aviation. But if ATC asks pilot to descend to 2,200 feet because of collision avoidance ATC would obviously mention that and pilot would comply. But in this case it was not that rather just procedural differences. So the pilot was justified here to continue with his company chart procedures.
You don’t mess with Turkish pilots. There is a reason why Turkish Airlines is one off the best in the world. I agree with Turkish Airlines pilot not because I’m Turkish, because the pilot is responsible for every soul on the plane and he must follow his own instructions not some arrogant individual.
The pilot in command is ultimately the person responsible for the safe completion of the flight. If in his judgment an instruction/clearance from ATC compromises safety, based on information that he has, as in this case, it is his duty not to accept such clearance. The pilot should propose and request a different clearance that in his view maintains safety for his flight. This is what happened on this flight.
It is worth noting that the pilot did imply that the altitude given by ATC could well be ok but the information from the charts in his possession showed that the lowest altitude he could descend to was 3,600ft and not 2,200ft.
Even if, eventually, it is shown that the controller was right and the Turkish company approach charts had erroneous information that misled the pilot, you still cannot fault the pilot’s insistence on maintaining an altitude of 3,600feet. He was following standard operating procedures of not going below the MSA as indicated in his approach and navigation charts.
If pilots charts indicate that 2200 feet is below minimum safe altitude, he never descends below that. It is one of the biggest airlines in the world so pilot has lots of reasons to trust company-prepared charts. There may be a mistake, I am not saying that they must be 100% right but a pilot with lots of souls onboard never goes below MSA that he/she sees on publication according to ATC who is in fact sitting on a safe chair. ATC's are trained to communicate really fast with numerous aircraft on air and here ATC should have suggested and redirected the pilot after a couple of warnings instead of putting him under pressure of decision change at a critical time and mental stress by disrespecting both crew and company.
Turkish airlines pilot was acting like a robot with tunnel vision.
his Airmanship and knowledge and/or his company training = zero
İn some big company pilots can't be more than an operator with restricted knowledge.
I hope that pilot is commended in some way by his employer/Turkish Airlines. I completely agree this is exactly the kind of calm, capable person you want in a situation like this.
It is the pilot who has 100% authority over safety. If the pilot is uncomfortable for any reason with an ATC's instructions, it is his right to request/suggest alternatives. The ATC must accept or instruct a go around. ATC assuming he can 'order' displays a mindset. This ATC needs to be pulled out and sent for psychological and psychiatric evaluation. Thousands of lives are at stake and he can keep his tantrums away from aviation, where a small egotistical error can mean a major disaster.
Absolutely top professional behaviour by turkish crew. Atc gives you clearence you can accept or reject. In this case 2200ft could not be x-checked in the chart