Air traffic controllers in New York have the reputation for sometimes having a bit of an attitude with pilots, and losing their cool. So here’s an interesting interaction, where the opposite is true — the pilot loses his cool, while the air traffic controller keeps his calm. That being said, was the pilot’s frustration justified?
In this post:
Spirit pilot loses cool while landing at LaGuardia
VASAviation has an excellent video with air traffic control audio and a visualization of what happened during a recent Spirit Airlines flight from Chicago O’Hare (ORD) to New York LaGuardia (LGA), operated by an Airbus A320neo.
The Spirit jet had been given clearance to land on runway 31 at LaGuardia. Here’s the interaction that takes place between the air traffic controller and Spirit pilot, shortly after the plane touches down, as it’s decelerating on the runway:
Air traffic controller: “Spirit Wings 472, hold short of runway 4 at P.”
Spirit pilot: “4 at P.”
Air traffic controller: “Verify, Spirit Wings 472, verify, hold short of runway 4 at P.”
Spirit pilot: “Hold on! We’re trying to land. You’re giving me a hold short while I’m trying to land. You know why we have problems? It’s because of that.”
Air traffic controller: “Okay, sir, 472, just turn left onto R, right P, hold short of runway 4.”
Spirit pilot: “Okay, you understand that? We have all these problems. We’re trying to land the airplane, and you’re giving me hold short instructions.”
Air traffic controller: “Spirit 472, I need you off the runway. Traffic’s on a mile final. Turn left on R, right on P, hold short of runway 4.”
Other Spirit pilot: “Left on R, right on P, hold short of 4, Spirit Wings 472.”
At that point, an unnamed person on the frequency says “welcome to LaGuardia, Spirit!” The Spirit pilot responds “no, this is why we have the problems, man!” That same voice responds with “you’re the only one who has a problem.”
You can listen to the air traffic control audio and see a visualization of what happened below.
Was the Spirit pilot’s frustration warranted?
Was the Spirit pilot’s attitude completely uncalled for, or did the air traffic controller do something he shouldn’t have? The answer is probably a little bit of both.
To the Spirit pilot’s credit, he was given an instruction during what’s arguably the single most critical and hands-on phase of the flight, as the aircraft is touching down and decelerating. At that exact point, while the plane is barreling down the runway, pilots are focused on that specific task.
It’s not the time to give instructions that probably should either be given well before a plane lands, or once it has slowed down to a taxi speed. As you can see, the Spirit pilot reads back the instructions, but then the air traffic controller follows up to confirm that it was the Spirit pilot who did that, given the lack of a callsign being used.
Most people seem to think that the air traffic controller could’ve had better timing. That being said, even if the pilot’s frustration was warranted, this wasn’t the way he should’ve expressed himself. He’s more focused on arguing and proving his point, than he’s focused on following the instructions and vacating the runway, with an aircraft on short final.
Furthermore, a pilot’s first duty is safely flying the plane, so if he wasn’t happy about the instructions, or the request to confirm the flight number, he could’ve said something along the lines of “standby,” rather than all of this.
I do have to give the air traffic controller credit for not arguing with this guy, and remaining exceptionally calm. Could you imagine how this would’ve ended if the air traffic controller was that one guy who works the graveyard shift at JFK, who is looking for any excuse to fight with pilots?
Bottom line
A Spirit Airlines plane landing at LaGuardia was given taxi instructions while touching down, which rubbed the captain the wrong way. He expressed his displeasure with the air traffic controller, accusing that interaction of being the reason that our air traffic control system has problems.
I think his frustration wasn’t totally unwarranted in terms of the timing of the instructions being less than ideal. However, it still seems like there’s a better way to communicate that, and I’m not sure this accomplished much, in the end.
What do you make of this interaction?
From a 36 year airline pilot perspective...I have to agree 'somewhat' with the article. The pilot should have read back the clearance correctly and it would have reduced some of the confusion.
However, once a clearance is issued and accepted, the controller cannot then change it. In this case, he was cleared to land with no restrictions on his rollout (ie. no 'Hold short of...") but then during his touchdown, he was directed to...
From a 36 year airline pilot perspective...I have to agree 'somewhat' with the article. The pilot should have read back the clearance correctly and it would have reduced some of the confusion.
However, once a clearance is issued and accepted, the controller cannot then change it. In this case, he was cleared to land with no restrictions on his rollout (ie. no 'Hold short of...") but then during his touchdown, he was directed to hold short. If the tower had wanted them to hold short of a taxiway or runway on landing, that must be part of the landing clearance.
Retired ATC here. If Spirit had time to argue with the Controller, then he had time to correctly read back the control instruction.
If the instruction was untimely, then Spirit should have said Standby.
As for the timing of the control instruction, it may benefit the Controller to ride cockpit jumpseat on a flight into LGA and get an appreciation for what's happening on the other end of the mic. I did this...
Retired ATC here. If Spirit had time to argue with the Controller, then he had time to correctly read back the control instruction.
If the instruction was untimely, then Spirit should have said Standby.
As for the timing of the control instruction, it may benefit the Controller to ride cockpit jumpseat on a flight into LGA and get an appreciation for what's happening on the other end of the mic. I did this several times in my career and it was beneficial to me to witness what was going on.
I do notice an increasing amount of unprofessional transmissions from both atc and pilots. Time to reign that in.
Airbus pilot here who’s flown this flight multiple times. This is a classic KLGA setup, Landing 31 / Departing 4, with landing traffic spaced 2.5 miles in trail—a tight choreography of arrivals and departures at LaGuardia’s intersecting runways. In my opinion, the controller issued a premature and potentially confusing runway exit clearance “hold short of Runway 4 at Papa.” Immediately after touchdown, the Pilot Monitoring (PM) would be diligently working through standard operating procedures (SOP),...
Airbus pilot here who’s flown this flight multiple times. This is a classic KLGA setup, Landing 31 / Departing 4, with landing traffic spaced 2.5 miles in trail—a tight choreography of arrivals and departures at LaGuardia’s intersecting runways. In my opinion, the controller issued a premature and potentially confusing runway exit clearance “hold short of Runway 4 at Papa.” Immediately after touchdown, the Pilot Monitoring (PM) would be diligently working through standard operating procedures (SOP), calling out “REVERSE GREEN” to confirm thrust reverser deployment, “DECEL” to verify deceleration, and “70 KNOTS” as the aircraft slows through that threshold—all critical cues during the high-workload landing rollout phase to a short runway.
Per ADS-B data, Spirit was still above 100 knots when this instruction hit, a speed where the crew’s focus is on safely managing the aircraft’s deceleration, not processing complex taxi directives. According to AIM 4-3-11, runway exiting instructions should facilitate safe and expeditious movement, typically issued only when the aircraft has slowed to a controllable taxi speed—say, 30-40 knots—making this call far too early.
The controller’s instruction was also vague. He didn’t specify a taxiway (e.g., Tango, Sierra, or Romeo) for exiting Runway 31, nor did he use the explicit term “exit,” as FAA JO 7110.65, Section 3-9-4, recommends to ensure clarity in runway clearance phraseology. Simply saying “hold short of Runway 4 at Papa” introduces ambiguity in itself—“hold short” is a loaded term, often associated with runway safety zones per AIM 4-3-18 or taxi operations per FAA JO 7110.65, 3-7-2, and could be misheard as tied to the landing clearance, especially amidst the PM’s SOP calls. The Spirit crew’s clipped response, “4 at Papa,” strikes me as a rote readback under pressure, suggesting they weren’t expecting such a directive so early. At over 100 knots, with the PM busy announcing deceleration milestones and the Pilot Flying (PF) managing the rollout, this untimely ATC call likely forced an awkward split in attention, disrupting their rhythm.
What the controller likely didn’t want, per FAA JO 7110.65, Section 3-10-5’s focus on efficient runway sequencing, was Spirit rolling past the 31/4 intersection. That could disrupt the delicate balance: forcing the trailing aircraft on 31, just 2.5 miles behind, into a go-around, or shrinking the departure window for Runway 4 departure traffic if Spirit didn’t exit before reaching the intersection. At KLGA, where every second counts, exiting prior to 31/4—via Tango, Sierra, or Romeo—creates a gap for departures, but issuing this instruction at high speed misses the mark. Runway 31 is Spirit’s runway, its full 7,000 feet, until reaching a safe taxi speed to exit, as AIM 4-3-11 clearly prioritizes for landing aircraft. Dropping “hold short” on a crew still decelerating from over 100 knots doesn’t align with that.
Both parties could have handled this situation better. The controller could have waited until Spirit slowed to a manageable speed—say, below 70 knots after the PM’s call—then issued a precise instruction like “Exit at Taxiway Sierra, hold short of Runway 4 at Papa,” per FAA JO 7110.65, 3-9-4’s standard for clarity. The Spirit crew, though understandably swamped, could have sought clarification if workload allowed, as AIM 4-4-1 urges for mutual understanding between pilots and controllers. In this classic KLGA setup, where precision is everything, a vague and early clearance at such a critical moment underscores the need for both sides to sharpen their adherence to these standards.
below a certin altitude you cannot give a land and hold short. Not sure of spirits altitude.
ATC is an antiquated process based on WW2 technology.
LGA is just one example of how this creates operational stress for all involved.
Credit when it's due.
While current ATC is obsolete and run by dinosaurs.
It's not WW2 tech, it's 70s Cold War tech.
Regardless it's an half century old obsolete technology.
But the average Joe, no the obsolete Joe thinks Morse codes are better than 5G cell towers. Because humans are there to transmit and receive. He uses an abacus to prove his theory.
The landing performance of that aircraft is based upon runway distance available. That crew verified those numbers before their approach brief. Now at the last second during a critical phase of flight you're asking them to accept an instruction based on reduced runway available. At best I would have said we only have number for full length. Then state if we can get off by R we will hold short 04 at P. Most airlines...
The landing performance of that aircraft is based upon runway distance available. That crew verified those numbers before their approach brief. Now at the last second during a critical phase of flight you're asking them to accept an instruction based on reduced runway available. At best I would have said we only have number for full length. Then state if we can get off by R we will hold short 04 at P. Most airlines don't allow land & hold short on a contaminated runway. Sounds to me like the guy behind them created this problem & maybe sending him around will have him think twice about jumping up on preceding aircraft. They call it situational awareness for a reason.
Another ATC challenge or US Military ‘horlicks’?
One understands that on Friday, DA flight 2983 out of DCA, was involved in a near miss report along with a USAF T-38 Talon. Luckily all is well, however, Tim Dunn and his trolling ‘friends’ have been extremely quiet.
Because it wasn't a BA flying LHR DEN.
first, Delta's 2 letter identifier is DL. It's not hard to memorize and accurately use the correct codes for the top 20 airlines in the world.
second, I did reply to this article.
third, Ben hasn't covered the DL/Air Force issue but there isn't much known other than what has been reported.
ATC has issues and the major congested airports are the most problematic. It needs to be fixed. We don't need any more body bags.
The pilot not flying should be doing the talking, or at least say standby. ATC guy was wrong.
As a wise man once told me, "if it feels good to say it - don't"
Tell your buddy sitting next to you about your feelings - off the air.
I am absolutely with Spirit on this. This has become a disconcerting trend. ATC loves to issue complex instructions while you're still at 80kts on roll out. They're attempting to offload their own work on the pilots, but it's gotten completely unacceptable. This occurs at a lot of major airports and isn't limited to LGA.
From reading his travel reviews for a while and paying attention to his IFE choices, Ben definitely enjoys gossip content. Ben obviously also loves aviation. Getting Ben's commentary on aviation gossip is an awesome combination
Controller was an amateur. We never make a radio transmission when a plane is touching down.
If I had been given a hold short, after landing, I would have responded with “unable”.
What we don’t hear is the landing clearance, which should have included the hold short, “cleared to land Rwy 31, hold short of rwy 4”, it should also be on the ATIS. Landing data is calculated on the available runway length. Last second hold short is a no go.
This wasn't a short landing but rather a taxi instruction for after leaving the rwy (hold short of rwy 4 *at papa*).
Maybe controllers aren't like the old days? Back in the (when I flew a few decades ago) it was not uncommon for ATC to call out an instruction to you preceded by "no need to respond" because they knew you were busy at that moment.
And controllers aren't like the future.
There wouldn't be a need to have one.
Spirit is in the wrong here. The pilot talking on the radio and the pilot talking are... different pilots! Getting hold short or taxiing instructions at that phase happens ALL THE TIME in the NAS.
And he didn't have a problem with the instruction- he just didn't read it back properly. He didn't read back the hold short (which is required, and he knows that) and he didn't use his call sign (also required).
From...
Spirit is in the wrong here. The pilot talking on the radio and the pilot talking are... different pilots! Getting hold short or taxiing instructions at that phase happens ALL THE TIME in the NAS.
And he didn't have a problem with the instruction- he just didn't read it back properly. He didn't read back the hold short (which is required, and he knows that) and he didn't use his call sign (also required).
From ATC's point of view, ATC has zero way of ensuring/knowing that 1) the correct aircraft took the clearance and 2) that the clearance was fully understood and the pilot would comply.
Spirit was probably having a bad day and then makes it worse.
Correct:
ATC uses the end of runway to taxi aircraft to their gate. This clearance put the responsible on the pilot landing to maintain separation with taxing aircraft . The one major error was when the pilot did NOT use their callsign on the read-back. The local controller did exactly what .65 states, the controller SHALL go back and make sure the correct aircraft transmitted the read-back, if not an another aircraft took the...
Correct:
ATC uses the end of runway to taxi aircraft to their gate. This clearance put the responsible on the pilot landing to maintain separation with taxing aircraft . The one major error was when the pilot did NOT use their callsign on the read-back. The local controller did exactly what .65 states, the controller SHALL go back and make sure the correct aircraft transmitted the read-back, if not an another aircraft took the clearance and something happens, the controller gets the error (DEAL). The controllers are always responsible for correct pilot read-back, it's called; Read-back Hear-back, which means no matter how busy your are, listen to the read-back.
The main problem wasn't the lack of callsign but incomplete readback - lack of the "hold short of" instruction. From that readback you can't be sure whether pilots understood the instruction to hold short of the runway instead of crossing it.
Retired 121 pilot here.
Problem #1) Spirit PNF did not read back ATC instruction properly, causing ATC to re-transmit. Proper readback initially would have precluded all the rest. Now it is later in the approach.
Problem #2) Unprofessional response from Spirit. Unnecessary and unproductive attitude. Was the landing that in jeopardy? If truly unable to mentally process ATC instruction at that point in your landing workload, just say unable.
Bingo
Exactly. Tower instructs rolling arrival aircraft on runway exit and handoff to ground every single day. (e.g., "Spirit Wings 472, exit Charlie, contact ground")
This pilot's weird response says it all. Seems like buddy had a lot more on his mind that day.
Here’s my theory. And I want to clarify that this is just a theory, and I’m not a pilot, but these types of communication issues may be more common on NY ATC than we think. New Yorkers are famous for being a bit short-tempered. Having grown up in the NY area, a lot of times we don’t even realize how we come across to others. My guess is a lot of pilots read about the...
Here’s my theory. And I want to clarify that this is just a theory, and I’m not a pilot, but these types of communication issues may be more common on NY ATC than we think. New Yorkers are famous for being a bit short-tempered. Having grown up in the NY area, a lot of times we don’t even realize how we come across to others. My guess is a lot of pilots read about the “on request” incident a few weeks back, and now feel their visceral emotions towards NY ATC are more justified than they thought. Couple that with a recent string of close calls and Huffy Duffy saying pilots should loose their license for ignoring ATC instructions, and you have reduced patience from pilots for ATC confusion, and more arguing.
No, because "I have your request" is something that happens multiple times daily all over the place. It's just not that unusual at all.
Traiing traffic is one mile back. Cut the chatter. Adapt to the the time sensitivity and respond and identify yourself.
Pilot was way out of line, controller was 100% in the right, this was a 100% routine procedure (or would have been if the pilot hadn't been an idiot) .
As usual, so much nonsense here, so many self appointed experts who have no idea WTF they're talking about.
As the plane is touching down and rolling out is a perfectly appropriate time to tell the pilots what to do next (after successfully controlling...
Pilot was way out of line, controller was 100% in the right, this was a 100% routine procedure (or would have been if the pilot hadn't been an idiot) .
As usual, so much nonsense here, so many self appointed experts who have no idea WTF they're talking about.
As the plane is touching down and rolling out is a perfectly appropriate time to tell the pilots what to do next (after successfully controlling the plane on landing). From what I can tell (admittedly, based on limited "internet" details), the plane had already touched down when the controller gave him the hold-short instruction - a critical instruction that most be acknowledged clearly. The pilot botched his radio transmission - he did NOT use correct, complete phraseology which is both required and expected - and froutinely enforced. If you leave out details, the controlled is supposed to get you to repeat your acknowledgement WITH the right details. The pilot initially failed to do that, and when properly instructed to correctly acknowledge that he understood and would comply with the instruction, instead of simply using the correct and complete phraseology, went off on a rant instead. Controller was 100% following the book, pilot screwed up twice in a row, at a critical time and place where screw-ups are not, and should not be tolerated.
This isn't complicated. The pilot was clearly 100% in the wrong, the controller's work was exactly what the book says it should be. No attitude (except from the inept Spirit pilot), no gray area here, it's very clear, period.
Where's the usual idiot chiming in to claim all the humans involved are dinosaurs and everything must be automated? I'm sure he'll be along any minute.
I'm not a pilot, but that transcript doesn't read like a land-and-hold-short clearance to me. When ATC elaborates, the instructions seem to be to hold short of 4 during his taxi, after leaving the runway. Am I wrong?
No, I don't know why people think it's a LAHSO. You're 100% correct. It is obvioulsy saying hold short at Papa, i.e. after vacating the runway
Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.... Fly the aircraft first.
the pilot talking on the radio isn't the one flying the plane
No, he is the pilot monitoring, not pilot communicating. It is his job to ensure the aircraft is operating as expected, the brakes are slowing the aircraft down, the spoilers are up, and maintaining situational awareness outside the window. There have been tons of incidents and accidents that could have been avoided had the pilot monitoring not been distracted or negligent.
I have had them do this to me.. It is extremely dangerous to give these instructions out. Imagine you are landing a 100ton aircraft and in the process of slowing down, any new assignment like that can end up causing a knee jerk and unsafe reaction. The crew may also anticipate that new instruction as a possible collision hazard of they do not comply. Land and hold hold short instructions MUST be given out during...
I have had them do this to me.. It is extremely dangerous to give these instructions out. Imagine you are landing a 100ton aircraft and in the process of slowing down, any new assignment like that can end up causing a knee jerk and unsafe reaction. The crew may also anticipate that new instruction as a possible collision hazard of they do not comply. Land and hold hold short instructions MUST be given out during the landing clearance, not rollout. A pilot must consent to LAHSO.
THAT being said, the Spirit pilot can simply say unable at that point or address it over the phone. I never do that on the radio. that in itself in unsafe and eats up precious airwaves. Keep it simple and if you have to discuss ask for a phone number.
This wasn't a land and hold short instruction, it was an "after vacating, hold short of a runway on a dofferent taxiway"
At least the ATC didn't say "we have you on request," whatever the eff that would even mean...
It means:
"I heard you and you are never going get your request approved"
All minutia.
Trump should sign an EO banning public consumption of ATC audio outside fatal/major accidents.
Insert person who pretends controllers are obsolete so that he can feel better about his lack of ability to do such a job.
you’re the only one who has a problem.
Why can't the Spirit plane just use the full length of runway 31 and pass the intersection to runway 4?
Too much runway occupation time
ATC uses the end of runway to taxi aircraft to their gate. This clearance put the responsible on the pilot landing to maintain separation with taxing aircraft .
The one major error was when the pilot did use their callsign on the read-back. The local controller did exactly what .65 states, the controller SHALL go back and make sure the correct aircraft transmitted the read-back, if not an another aircraft took the clearance and...
ATC uses the end of runway to taxi aircraft to their gate. This clearance put the responsible on the pilot landing to maintain separation with taxing aircraft .
The one major error was when the pilot did use their callsign on the read-back. The local controller did exactly what .65 states, the controller SHALL go back and make sure the correct aircraft transmitted the read-back, if not an another aircraft took the clearance and something happens, the controller gets the error (DEAL).
The controllers are always responsible for correct pilot read-back, it's called; Read-back Hear-back, which means no matter how busy your are, listen to the read-back.
I can see both sides of that. From a piloting standpoint, the flare and rollout are some of the most safety critical moments of flight and instructions really should not be given during that time. If the tower needs you to land and hold short, that should be an instruction given while in the air on the approach via a LAHAO clearance.
At the same time, LGA controllers are incredibly busy and aircraft sequencing...
I can see both sides of that. From a piloting standpoint, the flare and rollout are some of the most safety critical moments of flight and instructions really should not be given during that time. If the tower needs you to land and hold short, that should be an instruction given while in the air on the approach via a LAHAO clearance.
At the same time, LGA controllers are incredibly busy and aircraft sequencing has almost no room for error. The pilot should’ve simply said unable or standby, and not argued with the controller. “This is why we have problems”. Not sure what he’s getting at there but sounds like he’s not in a great mood.
My interpretation of the "verify" request would be different. The readback wasn't incorrect primarily because of the missing callsign but rather because they only replied with "4 at P". That can mean two different things - cross the runway or hold short of it at that point. Obviously a huge difference and it's crucial for the ATC to be sure that pilots understood the "hold short" instruction. That's what readbacks are for.
hold short instructions are coming... landing is not the time to give them
and you can't respond with "standby" but could have said "unable"
he caused himself more stress w/ his response than if he just accepted or declined.
...common