I often share air traffic control clips of interesting interactions between pilots and air traffic controllers. Well, here’s one that I’m not sure what to make of, because the circumstances are so strange.
In this post:
GlobalX Airbus A320 unable to land in Phoenix, twice
The excellent VASAviation YouTube channel has uploaded air traffic control audio and a visualization of what happened on the evening of Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport (AZA). It centers around GlobalX flight G66136, which was arriving from San Diego (SAN). The flight was operated by a 17-year-old Airbus A320 with the registration code N630VA.
First for some context, GlobalX is a charter airline based in Miami, which was founded in 2018 (at least in its current form). The airline operates a fleet of nearly 20 jets, and it does a lot of contract work for the government, including military charters and even deportation flights. Heck, GlobalX planes were featured in Trump’s cinematic, promotional video about recent deportations.
Anyway, that’s neither here not there. Long story short, the GlobalX A320 seemingly struggled to land in Phoenix, and… we don’t really know why? It’s bizarre, because weather conditions were great, with good visibility and light winds. Despite that, the plane performed two go arounds.
During the first attempt, the plane was cleared to land on runway 12C, but then the pilots informed the tower controller of their intent to go around. When asked for the reason for the go around, the pilot simply stated “unstable.”
The plane was then lined up for a second approach on the same runway, and the pilots once again performed a go around.
While then attempting a third approach, the pilots suddenly started flying the completely wrong heading, without air traffic control permission. While they were supposed to be flying a heading of 120 degrees, they were instead turning to a heading of 360 degrees.
Later on, the pilots claimed to have a “computer problem,” and requested to hold their “present position.” However, for whatever reason, they agreed to continue with the approach, despite their initial hesitation.
This time around, the pilots landed successfully, though not before an Allegiant jet behind them was forced to perform a go around, due to them not making the taxiway turn they were asked to make.
The entire clip is worth watching, as there are a lot more details, and the interaction between the pilot and the controllers is really what makes this so interesting.
For what it’s worth, below is the path that the aircraft flew around Phoenix. Once the plane landed, it stayed on the ground for three days, before operating its next flight. However, I don’t think the plane was taken out of service due to any issues, but instead, GlobalX planes have quite a bit of downtime between trips.
What is going on with these pilots and/or this plane?
This is such an unusual situation, and I’m not sure what to even make of this. Was there actually some major malfunction with the aircraft? Or was there some minor computer issue, and the pilots just struggled to actually fly the plane in perfect conditions, rather than just programming the computer?
I’m not saying it’s the case here, but I know one of the common complaints about many of the newer pilots nowadays is that they struggle to actually fly the plane, and instead, are just good at working the computers, since training is so heavily centered around that.
A few things stand out here:
- During the first approach, the plane had a significant decrease in its descent rate on its base leg, as it dropped to 2,500 feet per minute at a low altitude, so I’m not sure if these pilots were just rusty hand flying the plane, or what…
- The pilots did a really lousy job advocating for themselves, and/or communicating to air traffic controllers what they needed; during the third approach they indicated they needed to extend their downwind or hold, and they sort of got talked into accepting an approach
- The pilots seemed really distracted throughout, which probably gets at the poor job they did communicating, and advocating for themselves
- That air traffic controller working P50 W was kind of a jerk, as it should’ve been obvious to him that these pilots were struggling and were working through something, when he almost sarcastically communicated how there were three 10,000 foot runway they should see
I hope the company at least looks into what happened here, because this definitely seems like something out of the ordinary.
Bottom line
Earlier this month, a GlobalX Airbus A320 seemingly struggled to land in Phoenix, despite perfect flying conditions. The pilots requested two go arounds, first claiming an approach was “unstable,” and then claiming there were computer problems. I don’t know what exactly happened here, but it sure is strange…
What do you make of this GlobalX A320 situation in Phoenix?
LUCKY - You buried part of the lead.
100% the pilots of that plane were iffy at best flying.
BUT, ATC... yikes! 3 planes very close together, 1000' apart, climbing/descending, opposite direction... one of them the GlobleX that was having all sorts of trouble following directions/flying the plane. THEN pointing these iffy pilots at VFR AC opposite direction under 1000'. YIKES!
While the dinosaurs continue to defend this obsolete practice and we customers have to face the consequences.
This would never have happened if a computer was flying.
No careless pilot, no missing passports, no drunk pilots, no power trip pilots, no landing at a wrong airport, departing from taxi way, no sick, no DEI blame game, no childish condescending game with other humans (yes you ATC), to name a few.
Best of all to those...
While the dinosaurs continue to defend this obsolete practice and we customers have to face the consequences.
This would never have happened if a computer was flying.
No careless pilot, no missing passports, no drunk pilots, no power trip pilots, no landing at a wrong airport, departing from taxi way, no sick, no DEI blame game, no childish condescending game with other humans (yes you ATC), to name a few.
Best of all to those obsessed with 1500 hours. Consider the average 12k planes flying at any given moment. Collectively computers would pass that 1500 hour requirement approximately every 7.5 minutes.
Just sayin.
A pilot bang your wife dude?
The Airbus is an auto flight aircraft. The autopilot is turned on shortly after takeoff and turned off on short final. When conducting a visual approach you load the instrument approach for the runway as backup. Were they having problems loading the approach or were they trying to shoot a close in visual approach without the aid of an instrument approach and maybe the autopilot? The type of visual approach they were trying to do...
The Airbus is an auto flight aircraft. The autopilot is turned on shortly after takeoff and turned off on short final. When conducting a visual approach you load the instrument approach for the runway as backup. Were they having problems loading the approach or were they trying to shoot a close in visual approach without the aid of an instrument approach and maybe the autopilot? The type of visual approach they were trying to do can be challenging in a commercial size aircraft but as professional pilots they should have been able to do it.
Just a preview of what's to come of more inept crews....
Hi @Lucky,
Wanted a tip you on some news regarding Global Airlines, it seems like they are starting pre-sales for their (possible) first flights...
Here is the article I found (in Dutch):
https://www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/2/airlines/global-airlines-voert-in-mei-eerste-passagiersvluchten-met-a380-uit-start-pre-sale
First attempt, they were unstable, too high with too high sink rate.
On second attempt it seems ATC hold them too high due to traffic, and got too high again. On final in landing configuration, hight above landing elevation should be 1000 feet at 3NM.
By the way, "hold at present position" is a standard request from pilots or from ATC. It is a request for joining a holding pattern. Without further instruction...
First attempt, they were unstable, too high with too high sink rate.
On second attempt it seems ATC hold them too high due to traffic, and got too high again. On final in landing configuration, hight above landing elevation should be 1000 feet at 3NM.
By the way, "hold at present position" is a standard request from pilots or from ATC. It is a request for joining a holding pattern. Without further instruction it means starting a right turn with a 1 minute inbound leg on the heading you started the hold with.
When you can only hire pilots willing to fly deportation flights, this is what you get. The Kid Rock of pilots.
"Later on, the pilots . . . requested to hold their “present position” (which… when you’re in the air…)."
When pilots request (or are assigned) to hold present position, it doesn't refer to hovering in place; rather, it means entering a standard hold with their present position as the holding fix.
Bless these pilots. they are doing God's work...
How I wish some commentators would be on future GlobalX flights ex USA. Your TDS is just…
TDS is not an actual thing.
Global X is just a secret tool of the cream sickle Mussolini. Let them and everyone employed by them rot in hell!
Why am I not surprised. GlobalX is a charter airline that subsists on deportation and rendition flights for the U.S. Government.
Oh is that so? Then I hope GlobalX executives suffer from chronic constipation.
They're doing God's work.
Okay it's my turn to pull a Dim Tunn which is to say to handwave the question (I don't really know what to make of this GlobalX situation!) and veer into an entirely different topic. Except for me it's not Delta. It's Big Law.
You see - everybody on this travel blog is interested in travel. Not the hostel or Motel 6 kind of...
Okay it's my turn to pull a Dim Tunn which is to say to handwave the question (I don't really know what to make of this GlobalX situation!) and veer into an entirely different topic. Except for me it's not Delta. It's Big Law.
You see - everybody on this travel blog is interested in travel. Not the hostel or Motel 6 kind of travel. Not even necessarily the Hampton Inn kind of travel. People on this blog are interested in traveling in mass-market luxury.
Up until around 10 years ago this kind of travel was extremely accessible through miles and points. I personally remember getting into the game when the deal was you could redeem 50,000 Hilton points for a Bora Bora overwater villa or the DoubleTree Suites Times Square on New Year's Eve which would otherwise cost you $2,999. [Fun fact: Skadden's former offices in Times Square were an excellent vantage for the ball drop.]
Today with the miles and points game having gone mainstream and overcrowded, even 500,000 Hilton points aren't enough for those redemption, even though earnings rates on credit cards have not changed. What this means is the kind of upscale travel miles and points were famous for enabling is ever so slowly going away. Maybe not ever so slowly, actually. It's already going away.
The bottom line is if you're a young person today interested in traveling in something other than basic economy you can't rely on miles and points to still offer any semblance of value when you become an adult and can actually travel. What you need to do is enter a specialized profession that pays at least $250,000 at the entry level. Big law firms obviously do. So does high finance, medicine, big tech software engineering. You need to be gunning for one of these jobs. Anything else and get ready to fly in the middle seat with only a personal item because that's all that Spirit or Frontier allow you to bring for free.
Ignore this Bozo.
When is someone going to actually reach out to Skadden and let them know some 16 year old is posting AI generated dribble on blog posts using their logo? It's becoming quite funny. Or not?
Lack of experience on display for all to see. All the morons who decry the 1500 hour rule, take note.
Just sounds like barely competent pilots (I think there were two - both were non-native English speakers with an accent, at one point I think a second pilot with similar accent came on - not 100% sure about the second pilot). They just seemed to have their hands full and were nervous. Flying the computer...
Lack of experience on display for all to see. All the morons who decry the 1500 hour rule, take note.
Just sounds like barely competent pilots (I think there were two - both were non-native English speakers with an accent, at one point I think a second pilot with similar accent came on - not 100% sure about the second pilot). They just seemed to have their hands full and were nervous. Flying the computer rather than simply flying the plane would be the most obvious explanation. This guy did not sound confident or experienced, he sounded..scared.
All the ATC controllers were fine, professional, were not snotty or obnoxious at all. If you think one of the controllers was out of line you have no business being anywhere near an airplane. Sure, you could hear the controllers managing things were a little annoyed (justifiably so) but never called out the guy. This is a vast, gigantic airport, easily visible from many miles away even at night - at least it's to anyone with some experience looking for an airport in a city at night.
Note: when controllers start telling one plane after another "I'll call your base" it usually means somebody (somebody ELSE) has been screwing up their sequence and they have to direct people to deviate from standard practices to try and keep things working before it all falls apart complete.
I found it noteworthy that after going around, the Global pilots always asked for the handoff to Center (who would then hand-hold them by feeding them vectors), rather than simply staying in the VFR traffic pattern and hand-flying the plane around the runway for the next approach, with the runway in view the whole time. To anyone who is comfortable flying the damn plane, and who knows where the airport is (it's hard to miss...) simply staying in the VFR pattern without switching to Center and then switching back...that's the easy, natural and confident thing to do. Note that's what the Allegiant pilot did. But the Global pilot seems distracted, confused, and (most telling) didn't seem to know where the airport was - suggests to me he wasn't looking outside and was fixated on some gizmo he was way too dependent on. One of the first things any good pilot learns is to "fly the #$%*! plane" first, worry about other stuff second (in order: "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate").
What I see and hear are pilots who don't know WTF they're doing. Controllers were all doing their jobs well.
I could not have dissected that scenario any better than you did. Well said.
This is an US airline, so the 1500 hours rule applied. Didn't help much, it seems. If you get crap training, you can keep flying for a century and still be a bad pilot. Most of the world doesn't have the 1500 hours rule and doesn't seem to have any safety issues because of that.
An airplane is “unstable” on an approach when it is not in the right landing configuration (landing flaps and gear down), approach speed, and power setting for landing at a 1000 ft (500 ft in some cases) above the landing elevation. Airlines come down hard (‘tea and biscuits” with higher ups) when these rules are violated, because airplanes touching down with excessive speed have lead to runway overruns and a jet engine at idle needs...
An airplane is “unstable” on an approach when it is not in the right landing configuration (landing flaps and gear down), approach speed, and power setting for landing at a 1000 ft (500 ft in some cases) above the landing elevation. Airlines come down hard (‘tea and biscuits” with higher ups) when these rules are violated, because airplanes touching down with excessive speed have lead to runway overruns and a jet engine at idle needs about 8 seconds to spool up in case of a (possibly unexpected) go-around, during which time the airplane keeps descending.
Unstable approaches are often the result of lack of briefing, preparation, or lack of familiarity with the airport.
The second go-around, I don’t know, but it could be a crew unfamiliar with the airport (it’s a charter airline whose crews may not fly there that often) and possible stress. Some crews are also reluctant to fly visual approaches (“eyeball” it) and are used to be fed onto the Instrument Landing System (ILS) by controllers or flying a pre-programmed procedure from the Flight Management System (FMS), so-called “Children of the Magenta” (the colour of the planned track on their instruments).