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 an interaction between an air traffic controller and a JetBlue pilot. This one is interesting, because I don’t think either party looks good here…
In this post:
JetBlue pilot and air traffic controller argue over semantics
VASAviation has the air traffic control audio plus a visual depiction of a recent interaction between an air traffic controller at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and a JetBlue pilot. The JetBlue Airbus A320 had just landed, though the gate the plane was heading to was still occupied by another JetBlue aircraft.
The JetBlue pilot advised the air traffic controller that it would be 10-15 minutes until the gate opened up, so the air traffic controller had to keep directing that plane around so that it stayed out of the way of other aircraft operating on the ramp.
It ended up taking 24 minutes until the JetBlue plane at the gate pushed back, meaning that the JetBlue aircraft that had been waiting could finally proceed to the gate. This is where argument starts (just past the three minute mark in the below video).
Once the JetBlue aircraft at the gate pushes back, the air traffic controller gives the departing JetBlue aircraft permission to taxi. Here’s what happens next, when the controller gives the arriving JetBlue aircraft permission to pull into the gate (and I’d recommend listening to the audio, because the tone is quite something):
Controller: “JetBlue 2436, continue to the gate.”
JetBlue pilot: “I can’t, it’s blocked.”
Controller: “Continue to the gate.”
JetBlue pilot: “Ground, JetBlue 2436, how am I supposed to get to the gate if the JetBlue airplane that pushed in front of us at B8 is blocking the gate?”
Controller: “JetBlue 2436, it’s an approval to continue to the gate. If you want something else, I can move you somewhere else.”
JetBlue pilot: “Okay I’ll move forward to like gate B9, but I can’t go to B8 because it’s blocked.”
Controller: “Okay, would you like to just hold there for the rest of the day?”
JetBlue pilot: “Okay, you’re being completely unprofessional, and you’re messing up ground, and you’re feeding a safety issue. Just tell me which gate you want me to park behind, don’t tell me to continue to a gate that I can’t get to, that’s blocked.”
Controller: “Are you able to get there now?”
JetBlue pilot: “I will be able to get there in about 30 seconds.”
Controller: “So the clearance to continue is valid.”
JetBlue pilot: “It wasn’t at the time you gave it to me.”
Controller: “I told you to hold position prior. So the clearance to continue… okay, call the tower, let me know when you can copy the number.”
This is such a pointless disagreement
San Francisco air traffic controllers seem to have quite a few incidents, and I’ve written about ones involving Lufthansa pilots, Qatar Airways pilots, and United pilots. Often there’s one side that seems more right than the other, but in this case I think they both just sound like jerks who are more interested in technically being right and stranding their ground rather than finding a solution?
Essentially, the ground controller cleared the JetBlue plane that pushed back from the gate to start its taxi, and then the controller cleared the JetBlue plane that was waiting for that same gate to taxi there. Okay, the taxiway was still briefly blocked, since the JetBlue plane that just pushed back hadn’t yet started its taxi, but it was going to any moment.
But then the controller and the pilot basically talk past one another:
- The controller should have probably said “continue to the gate when able” or “continue to the gate when the company plane starts its taxi”
- The JetBlue pilot could have clarified the air traffic controller’s intent, confirming the instruction was to go to the gate once the other jet moved, but instead the pilot came in with an attitude (this is where the tone changes), as if he had no clue what the controller was suggesting
- It was unprofessional for the controller to ask the JetBlue pilot if he just wanted to hold at the current position for the rest of the day
- The two just kept talking past one another and doubled down because neither wanted to admit that they could have handled it a bit differently
As if this argument wasn’t silly enough, it seems that the debate continued off frequency, since the pilot was given a phone number to call.
Bottom line
An air traffic controller at SFO and a JetBlue pilot got into an argument over taxi instructions. Typically when I post about air traffic control interactions, it’s in situations where there’s reason for one party to be upset. This interaction is interesting because of how stupid the disagreement seems to be.
With how overworked air traffic controllers are, you’d think everyone could just stick to doing what’s necessary, rather than this silly drama.
What do you make of this SFO ATC and JetBlue A320 pilot interaction?
this is on the pilot. ATC gives pilots clearance to land all the time when the runway is occupied. a clearance to land doesn't mean you have to land. likewise, you are cleared to the gate. you have the clearance to taxi in when able. similarly if the pilot was cleared to taxi to the runway via XYZ, you read back the clearance and taxi viz XYZ following the traffic in front of you. you...
this is on the pilot. ATC gives pilots clearance to land all the time when the runway is occupied. a clearance to land doesn't mean you have to land. likewise, you are cleared to the gate. you have the clearance to taxi in when able. similarly if the pilot was cleared to taxi to the runway via XYZ, you read back the clearance and taxi viz XYZ following the traffic in front of you. you may not make it to the hold line because you're number 7 in line. it doesn't mean reject the clearance and say "there are 6 other aircraft ahead of us"
This was 100%
on the controller. Jmho.
Wow. So much misinformation.
A "clearance" is permission to proceed. Since the plane was in a "hold" state, it needed to be cleared to continue.
Once he was cleared, he could move at whatever pace was necessary to move into the gate (which he could see from where he was at) and not run into the plane sitting there. As another example, when planes are cleared from the gate to the runway, the controller doesn't...
Wow. So much misinformation.
A "clearance" is permission to proceed. Since the plane was in a "hold" state, it needed to be cleared to continue.
Once he was cleared, he could move at whatever pace was necessary to move into the gate (which he could see from where he was at) and not run into the plane sitting there. As another example, when planes are cleared from the gate to the runway, the controller doesn't need to tell them "avoid hitting any other planes in front of you", pilots take care of that all by themselves. They don't radio back and say "I can't get to the runway, there are planes between me and the runway!"
Five bucks that was the captain jumping on the radio OVER his first officer. I think that says it all and who the arrogant d-bag is!
Some captains don’t know when to shut the f up.
Laat night at SFO arrived late then had to wait out on tarmac for 25 minutes till the gate opened!! It will be getting worse as they are closing one of the runways this week to build it up from sinking into the bay!! For 4 months....
As a 32 year airline Captain, the Jet Blue guy was just frustrated and was taking it out on the ground controller. We get it from ATC all the time. IMO, they forget why they are actually there. They believe that they are ALWAYS right, and even when they are not......they always blame the crew. We know it, they know it. It's a game we all play.
Anyone who enjoys aviation over the years has to decide at some point to make it a career or a hobby.
Moving in to middle age now and I don’t consider it either. Thank goodness I didn’t try to make it a career.
Sometimes it's just a bad day so unless there is a pattern of behavior it's one of those things that we should just not spend too much time fretting. It's like someone who works in a job requiring repetitive questions and asks the same question 1000x. Eventually, they will say the wrong words. It's just life.
Not AA related but United. I have seen the out of order upgrading more than once and I don't understand how it's possible. I recently was on a transatlantic flight in paid premium plus - trying to use plus points to upgrade to biz. I was number two on the wait list. They cleared only once we were on board - but here is what's weird. Two people had been upgraded from economy into premium...
Not AA related but United. I have seen the out of order upgrading more than once and I don't understand how it's possible. I recently was on a transatlantic flight in paid premium plus - trying to use plus points to upgrade to biz. I was number two on the wait list. They cleared only once we were on board - but here is what's weird. Two people had been upgraded from economy into premium plus (you can see from the live upgrade list). One of them was seated right behind me. Then suddenly the flight attendant came by and they were both upgraded to biz, skipping over everyone already on the upgrade list. I didn't want to make a scene especially since we were already all boarded. But I do not understand how someone in paid economy could get upgraded two classes and trump everyone in paid premium plus. By the rules that seems impossible. Both GS somehow? On paid economy??? Seems highly unlikely especially since premium plus wasn't sold out (thus the upgrades before boarding from eco to PP). Does anyone understand this?
The comment blaming the controller is garbage. The clearance is good as soon as the route is clear, which is expected momentarily. Right now it's two aircraft from the same airline in the ramp area, and there should be no issue, except the First Officer on the radio wants to act like a four-year-old. With 26,000 hours and 35 years experience I can recognize one when I see or hear one.
I recall another SFO incident with highly un-professional conduct on the part of ATC just a few months ago in this space. Wow ! What gives SFO ?
Pilot completely in the right, controller a jackass.
Instructions are meant to contain no ambiguity or inference, leaving no room for assumption whatsoever.
I'm siding with the controller here - pilot being an ass unnecessarily.
Using a SFO ramp diagram as reference, the crew (pilot) of B62436 would've had clear line of sight to the pushback of the departing B6 ahead. Further, he also would've heard ground issuing taxi instructions to the departing company.
Once ground control issued the "taxi-to" instruction, a simple acknowledgement would've sufficed. The PIC maintains final authority upon assessment of conditions ahead....
I'm siding with the controller here - pilot being an ass unnecessarily.
Using a SFO ramp diagram as reference, the crew (pilot) of B62436 would've had clear line of sight to the pushback of the departing B6 ahead. Further, he also would've heard ground issuing taxi instructions to the departing company.
Once ground control issued the "taxi-to" instruction, a simple acknowledgement would've sufficed. The PIC maintains final authority upon assessment of conditions ahead. PIC could've "slow-rolled" the taxi, taxied at normal ramp speed, or just remained in position. No need to debate over frequency.
To add - from the FAA Standard Phraseology Handbook - JO Order 7110.65, Chapter 3, Section 1:
3−1−7. POSITION DETERMINATION
Determine the position of an aircraft before issuing taxi instructions or takeoff clearance.
NOTE−
The aircraft’s position may be determined visually by the controller, by pilots, or through the use of the ASDE.
Controller is in the wrong. He needs to communicate clearly.
Completely on the Controller.
While some folks here say it should've been obvious to the pilot that ATC meant "once clear, go to the gate" that's NOT what the controller said. In flight communications everyone is taught to use standard phraseology and to have zero ambiguity.
I once worked for AA at DFW as a "Ramp controller". The FAA wants no part in managing the dense traffic on the ramp, so the airline...
Completely on the Controller.
While some folks here say it should've been obvious to the pilot that ATC meant "once clear, go to the gate" that's NOT what the controller said. In flight communications everyone is taught to use standard phraseology and to have zero ambiguity.
I once worked for AA at DFW as a "Ramp controller". The FAA wants no part in managing the dense traffic on the ramp, so the airline controlled it (on landing, the FO would call us to confirm gate assignment, if its open or not and which taxiway to enter the ramp at. They'd then call ATC Ground control for permission to taxi to that taxiway, not to the gate. Like wise on departure, the flight called us for pushback (or in my days, powerback) and we'd later assign the departure taxiway.
Inthis scenario, yes I'd want to stage the arriving flight closer to the gate as soon as I see the delayed flight is about to depart. Since the gate area is not clear yet, I need to give the arriving flight a 'clearance limit' : "AA123, taxi towards gate Bravo 8, hold abeam Bravo Niner."
Once I given the derating acft taxi-out clearance, I can clear the inbound to the gate despite it still being technically blocked. Even I fI just finished giving to departing planes clearance, I will NOT assume the inbound crew knew I was talking to the outbound ... I will tell the inbound exactly what's going on : "American123, the A-320 ahead will make left turn for taxiway 26, give way to that aircraft then taxi to Bravo 8."
So, like the SFO Controller, I left final decision to proceed into the gate area to the inbound crew but not without giving them a place to wait and by letting them know what the "conflicting traffic" is supposed to do.
Unclear or open ended remarks by tower that lead to miscommunications is a safety issue, and the type of issue that contributed to the incident at Haneda. Tower could’ve said, “continue hold, proceed to spot B8 once clear” or something more precise along those lines. This in opposition to what was said about proceeding to B8, with holding until clear implied but not said.
There was no ambiguity in Haneda. The coast Gard was told to hold at the point before the runway. I rewound the ATC clip many times to figure out where the confusion could have come from. They even read the directions back
Misdirected exasperation from the pilot? Most Jet Blues landing at SFO have just finished a 5-6 hour flight from BOS or NYC and there is NOTHING more annoying for *everyone* on the plane than to be forced to sit on the tarmac waiting for a plane at the gate to leave. Perhaps the pilot was at the end of his patience and the ATC being a jerk made him snap. I dont know, but my support goes to the pilot.
Assuming intent is how accidents happen. The controller should have said when able or some other indication he was aware there was a plane blocking the way to the gate at the time.
Would the controller assume intent to take the active runway for takeoff after an aircraft on approach was cleared to land? Absolutely not. They should know to not let their directions be subject to knowing intent.
I don't see why you are blaming the pilot. He was given a direction that he couldn't do.
This isn't a, 'your boss gave you an ambiguous instruction, but you should be able to figure out what he meant.' ATC is extremely co-ordinated and intentional.
You can not just make inferences. I don't think the JetBlue pilot comes off poorly. While he was clearly annoyed, he had been waiting 20 minutes already and now was being given impossible instructions.
Sure, technically the pilot was correct but what a stupid thing to argue about on frequency. The JetBlue pilot knew exactly what the controller meant, he just wanted to be difficult about it for no reason. The plane blocking the gate was issued taxi instructions, it was going to be clear shortly. The controller was just trying to be efficient, and keep traffic moving.
The JB pilot was right to remark it was not clear because if there was a lack of ground separation or contact and he said nothing he’d have been at fault for either moving too close or not moving at all. I didn’t listen to the recording and tone could be snarky or rude but being cleared to move when unable for safety or procedural reasons is absolutely a problem and not one that ground...
The JB pilot was right to remark it was not clear because if there was a lack of ground separation or contact and he said nothing he’d have been at fault for either moving too close or not moving at all. I didn’t listen to the recording and tone could be snarky or rude but being cleared to move when unable for safety or procedural reasons is absolutely a problem and not one that ground controllers should create. When notified the area was not clear the controller should have corrected himself and issued a proper directive instead of giving the pilot crap. Both of them were probably overworked at the time, but that’s no excuse for a lack of simple professionalism and efficiency.
It might seem like the pilot should have just realized what the controller meant (you are clear to go to the gate as soon as the other plane moves out of the way), but that' not how ATC communications work. Every single phrase and statement has an exact meaning, and although I'm not an expert, it seems to me that the controller used the wrong statement because there was no way the plane could "continue...
It might seem like the pilot should have just realized what the controller meant (you are clear to go to the gate as soon as the other plane moves out of the way), but that' not how ATC communications work. Every single phrase and statement has an exact meaning, and although I'm not an expert, it seems to me that the controller used the wrong statement because there was no way the plane could "continue to the gate" without causing an accident. Surely there is exact ATC-speak for "you are cleared to continue to the gate as soon as the plane that's there moves out of the way." I think the pilot was right to call the controller out on this because any instance where ATC or a pilot uses language that means something other than his/her intent is potentially dangerous.
And to add to this: the pilot is always supposed to repeat back exactly what the controller told him to do. But he didn't because he couldn't do what he was told. So what is he supposed to do? Say he'll do it and then not do it? Say he won't do it and not explain why? He did *exactly* what he should have done, which is say he could not do it and explain...
And to add to this: the pilot is always supposed to repeat back exactly what the controller told him to do. But he didn't because he couldn't do what he was told. So what is he supposed to do? Say he'll do it and then not do it? Say he won't do it and not explain why? He did *exactly* what he should have done, which is say he could not do it and explain why. The controller then started with the attitude, and nothing he said after that made any sense. The controller should have just said, "correction ..." and then ordered the pilot to wait until the other plane cleared the gate.
Pilot right, ground controller wrong! This is how accidents end up happening.
..."it seems that the debate continued off frequency, since the pilot was given a phone number to call."
That's not how that works. When pilots are given phone numbers, they talk to a supervisor or operations manager. That's not a function delegated to anyone outside of management except in rare examples when there's a controller-in-charge handling the call.
As a pilot who got a number once, not necessarily. Good opportunity to relate my favorite “take a number” story though:
After a short argument,
ATC: possible pilot deviation advise ready to copy phone number.
Pilot: I don’t want to talk to you now what makes you think I’ll want to later?
I'm not sure what you mean by not necessarily. I'm not guessing that that's how it works from the ATC side, I'm saying that's how it works. Unless it's some small tower or something, pilots will never call in and speak with the controller they interacted with, they will speak to someone in management who will document the interaction and generate a report.
...The pilot is right! The "controller" is telling him to move in real time, the controller didnt said in this amount of minutes or when, it meant now!
Jetblue pilot is protecting the company from a liability...