As an aviation geek, I love listening to air traffic control audio, and always enjoy the VASAviation YouTube channel, which does a great job covering noteworthy air traffic control interactions.
The channel has just uploaded a video involving interactions between a NetJets pilot and an air traffic controller, and I’m just plain confused by how this could happen.
In this post:
Air traffic control loses patience with NetJets pilots
This incident involves a Cessna Citation Latitude jet operated by NetJets, which is the largest private jet operator in the world. Let me emphasize that NetJets operates flights with two pilots in the cockpit, and it’s a reputable company, with many career pilots. So this isn’t just some random dude flying his own jet, or something.
In this particular incident, a NetJets aircraft with the callsign Execjet 636 was on approach to runway 24 at Teterboro Airport (TEB), but the pilots couldn’t seem to follow the (very basic) instructions. The aircraft was on an RNAV approach, which uses waypoints to keep planes moving in the right direction.
The situation kicks off with the following basic instructions:
Air traffic controller: “Execjet 636, you’re eight miles from STRAD, STRAD at 3,000, cleared RNAV 24.”
NetJets pilot: “RNAV 24, Execjet 636.”
A short while later, the interaction continues as follows, after the NetJets pilots weren’t doing what they were supposed to:
Air traffic controller: “Execjet 636, everything okay?”
NetJets pilot: “Yes, sir.”
Air traffic controller: “Because I gave you STRAD at 3,000. STRAD is five miles behind you, and you’re still at 4,000.”
NetJets pilot: “Execjet 636, we’re going to 3,000 now.”
NetJets pilot: “We heard at or above 3,000 at STRAD for the approach.”
Air traffic controller: “It’s okay. Just, at least, when you get to WHEZY, make sure you’re at two there, alright?”
NetJets pilot: “WHEZY at two, Execjet 636.”
Okay, so I can see how the initial interaction could’ve gotten messed up, as it doesn’t seem like the pilot even read back the full instructions. But after that first mixup, surely the pilots will be at 2,000 feet by the time they get to WHEZY, right?
Well, fast forward a few moments, and the NetJets plane actually crosses WHEZY at 3,000, rather than 2,000:
Air traffic controller: “Execjet 636.”
NetJets pilot: “Yes, sir.”
Air traffic controller: “I thought we agreed that you were gonna cross WHEEZY at two, so this is the second clearance that you’re not abiding.”
NetJets pilot: “Execjet 636, roger.”
Air traffic controller: “No, roger isn’t the answer. I want to know why you’re not complying with the clearance that I’m giving you. Are you separating yourself from other IFR traffic? Would you like to continue VFR or, I mean, I’m just confused why I keep asking you to do something and you’re not doing what I’m telling you.”
NetJets pilot: “Sir, we’re descending to 2,000 to WHEZY now, sorry.”
Air traffic controller: “Read it back.”
NetJets pilot: “Yes, sir.”
Then after a brief break, there’s more confusion from the NetJets pilots:
NetJets pilot: “What’s the heading again for Execjet 686, 636?”
NetJets pilot: “Execjet 636, we’re going left turn to 080, correct?”
Air traffic controller: “No, no, no, you’re on the approach. Execjet 636, you’re supposed to be at 2,000, you’re cleared the approach. You’re already not doing anything that I told you to do and you’re not descending, I’m just confused, do you want to continue going to Teterboro or what would you like to do?”
NetJets pilot: “Descending now for Teterboro, Execjet 636, sorry.”
After that interaction, the air traffic controller gave him a phone number to call, which is standard when there’s a pilot deviation. What’s interesting is that ordinarily air traffic controllers will say that there’s a “possible pilot deviation,” while in this case, the air traffic controller said it’s a “definite pilot deviation.” Hah, I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before.
You can listen to the entire interaction for yourself below (and VASAviation does a great job with mapping everything out as well).
What could explain this level of confusion?
I’m as confused as the air traffic controller about what’s going on here. It’s almost like the NetJets pilots thought they were flying a different plane, or weren’t there, or something.
To look at any other possible explanation, two things are worth pointing out:
- There was both Execjet 636 and Execjet 633 on the same frequency, so in theory that could’ve caused some confusion, given the very similar callsigns
- The air traffic controller wasn’t using formal phraseology with giving instructions, and could’ve been a bit clearer
However, neither of the above seemed to be a factor here, and I can’t figure out what’s wrong with this NetJets crew. For one, the pilot on the radio does a horrible job reading back instructions. He only partially reads back the instructions he’s given, and the only thing he seems to be good at is saying “yes, sir.”
I can understand the first mistake, where the pilots didn’t descend through 3,000 feet by STRAD, because maybe they didn’t understand the instructions correctly, since the pilot didn’t read them back correctly. But being at 2,000 feet by WHEZY was very clear, and the pilot read that back, yet they didn’t do that. Even when then instructed to do so, they still didn’t move fast.
Next, it’s almost as if the pilots didn’t realize they were on approach, because they thought they were supposed to make a left turn to 80 degrees, when they were about to line up for an approach to a runway at an angle of 240 degrees. So that’s a difference of 160 degrees with the heading, suggesting they had no clue what they were doing (despite the fact that they earlier acknowledged they were on an approach for runway 24).
Were the pilots fatigued? Were they genuinely confused about what was going on? They offered absolutely no explanation to the controller about what’s going on. It’s one thing if they indicated there was any sort of an issue, but they didn’t.
Bottom line
Some NetJets pilots on approach to Teterboro seemed mighty confused, as they struggled to follow basic instructions from an air traffic controller, and provided no explanation for why. They ended up being given a number to call, but rather than it being a “possible pilot deviation,” it was instead a “definite pilot deviation.” Hah.
What do you make of this situation between NetJets pilots and an air traffic controller?
Get used to it folks and use protective strategies. The number of incidents, deviations, accidents and the like seems to be off the charts, a common daily occurrence. Inexperienced pilots promoted up the ladder into jets accelerated with a pilot shortage and at the same time came DEI. You no longer have to be a good pilot to make it into a professional cockpit, only a warm body that checked a box. I've become a scared flyer and avoid it if possible. God help us.
How about “these” instead of “some” NetJet pilots. This is a very specific incident with a specific crew not a series of issues with NetJet pilots as inferred by “some.” Also, “Hah” is hardly mature as you seem to indicate your pleasure at this crew having received a pilot deviation. You don’t have all the facts, only the ATC exchange. Being glib and general are inappropriate for this particular example that you’re citing especially when...
How about “these” instead of “some” NetJet pilots. This is a very specific incident with a specific crew not a series of issues with NetJet pilots as inferred by “some.” Also, “Hah” is hardly mature as you seem to indicate your pleasure at this crew having received a pilot deviation. You don’t have all the facts, only the ATC exchange. Being glib and general are inappropriate for this particular example that you’re citing especially when there is a great opportunity here to learn from the pilots’ errors and maybe a shortcoming on ATC’s part.
ATC in the wrong in this situation
Several reminders and making it clear that they want closer adherence to clearances is fine, but they're riding the pilots unnecessarily given other traffic and the somewhat bizarre responses are a reflection of crew stress.
Telephone numbers and deviation discussion can be made after they are safely on the ground and off an active runway, not constantly harassing as they're trying to set up an approach
They're "riding" the pilots because the pilots failed to follow even a single instruction.
Is it appropriate for ATC to ride pilots? If they are confirming instructions and then not following them, wouldn't that raise concern that something non-normal is going on in the cockpit? Wouldn't it be better to offer assistance than challenge?
Eric,
I could not disagree with you more. This isn't just reminding a crew what they are supposed to be doing. This was a standard RNAV approach. All of these procedures and altitudes are also directly available on the approach plate as well as the aircraft's FMS, assuming they programed it correctly. None of this should have been a surprise to the flight crew.
Having been cleared for the approach (which they should have...
Eric,
I could not disagree with you more. This isn't just reminding a crew what they are supposed to be doing. This was a standard RNAV approach. All of these procedures and altitudes are also directly available on the approach plate as well as the aircraft's FMS, assuming they programed it correctly. None of this should have been a surprise to the flight crew.
Having been cleared for the approach (which they should have been expecting) makes it even more of a mystery as to why this was going on. The comment about "turning left to 080" demonstrates that they had no situational awareness as to what was going on.
Fortunately it appears as if this flight was actually conducted under VMC because if it was IMC, the outcome might have been tragically different.
At least one of the two pilots had to have been PIC on multiple landings at that airport. It might have been that the other pilot was less seasoned at that airport . . . and happened to be PIC at that time . . . and was mentally behind the curve. In either case, I'm imagining some sim time at Flight Safety is in someone's future.
Liquid or powder chemical intervention?
Mental perturbations?
Passenger involvement?
Too low for mile high club?
Anybody’s guess, definitely further investigation and explanation necessary.
Simple explanation, they hate BA and never set foot on a BA plane before.
Oh and they still believe there is only one option to fly DEN to LHR.
When i listened to this over the weekend I wondered if the passengers on board were trying to change the destination and the crew were speaking to HQ.
On approach at 2000', they're almost at gear down, PIC would have told pax they're landing at TET.
My understanding is they were supposed to be at level 3000 through a waypoint but remained at 4000.
But yes I would have hoped the PIC would not be distracted by demanding PAX involvement if indeed that was the issue.
"Can you fly this plane, and land it?"
"Surely you can't be serious."
"I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."
Roger. Over.
What's your clearance, Clarance?
Charlie Charlie 95…Over
“What’s your vector, Victor?”