11 hours ago, killthespam said:

Jim,

Not to be misunderstood, I agree with some of your statements but again you speculate scenarios and you don't have all the details available to us from this video clip.

We can talk and speculate for ever, that's actually my problem, jumping to conclusions and having hypothetical scenarios.  I find this video like many others trying to put a spin in one direction without all the correct info.

I would adventure myself to say that it was an unfortunate situation and it was handled poorly from both sides.

All I can say is that at least after 2 weeks of flying per month internationally and when I fly back home, I touch down once in ANC where ATC is very nice and good to the GA or other time going direct to JFK where ATC ( 80%) it is a nightmare for everybody with unbelievable attitudes and try to intimidate people on frequency that puts all of us to shame.

Me personally as a professional pilot I find this video offensive and unproductive for both parties ATC and PILOTS. 

 

 

I absolutely agree that some US ATC (JFK controllers in particular) can be “brusque” at best, if not often inexcusably rude. On the other hand, some controllers at large airports are so well-known for being helpful and courteous, that they actually develop a fan base in the airline community. The (now retired) “Boston John” is a good example.

The woman at LAS approach sounded very professional. She clearly lost patience with the Centurion pilot when he started arguing with her, but she was simultaneously handling the busy approach corridor for 26L at McCarran, and the last thing she needed was a VFR arrival arguing on the frequency.

He was close enough to the arriving airline traffic that she had to call out his position to at least one Southwest flight, which kind of defeats the entire point of class bravo, which came into existence after two horrific mid-air collisions between arriving airliners and small VFR aircraft. One of those incidents (PSA182 in San Diego in 1978), I personally witnessed.

1 hour ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

 - if this pilot had this attitude in the UK I have a feeling he'd be sent on a FRTOL course.....!

The difference being in the U.K. ,and I’ve seen this happen while waiting to take off at LHR when a GA aircraft accidentally stumbles into the LHR control zone and is not talking to anyone all departures get suspended immediately.

18 hours ago, killthespam said:

What is really disturbing (for me as a RW heavy equipment pilot) are statements like " is a tiny little GA plane" or " then GA should be more... cautious"

Alex, you can blame this layman for those comments. I hope you took the rest of my post into account which goes on to say that of course any type of aircraft has a right to fly, but only with appropriate permissions. I can drive my car anywhere on the public road, but I'm not allowed to go the wrong way up a one way street..

I meant the "little GA plane" comment to imply that the big boys are less manoeuvrable and thus the Centurion should be prepared to get out of the way if needs be. This stems from when I used to fly RC gliders on a hillside near the local full size gliding club (of which I was a member for a short time). The RC fliers had a duty of care to look out for and manoeuvre out of the way of the full size which made perfect sense to me. I didn't mean to pour scorn on the GA community.

You mention that you find the video offensive and unproductive, yet it happened in real life (or why would VAS Aviation upload it?) and I would think that all parties can learn from it in the future. The events cannot be taken back or erased. If a cancel culture ever got into aviation then aviation would be doomed as lessons would not be learned. Sorry, just a layman's opinion (and possible future passenger) which hopefully still counts for something.

19 hours ago, killthespam said:

At time 1:17 there is a statement on this video that he had contact with ATC about 7 minutes prior to this issue...

Then that one communication was played back saying that the Centurion was with Vegas approach descending through 5700, then the controller replied that info Mike was current and that RWY 35 was in use at Henderson. No Class B clearance was given. Would there ever be a situation where a flight plan passing through Class B would not need any clearance by ATC - permission need not be sought? I certainly don't know, sorry.

49 minutes ago, HighBypass said:

Then that one communication was played back saying that the Centurion was with Vegas approach descending through 5700, then the controller replied that info Mike was current and that RWY 35 was in use at Henderson. No Class B clearance was given. Would there ever be a situation where a flight plan passing through Class B would not need any clearance by ATC - permission need not be sought? I certainly don't know, sorry.

If an arriving aircraft is flying under an IFR flight plan, no class B clearance is required, because the aircraft is already under positive ATC control at all times. For IFR traffic, the class B does not exist for all intents and purposes. As long as the pilot is instrument rated, and the aircraft is appropriately equipped, an IFR flight plan is always an option, even if the sky is completely clear and visibility is 100 miles+

Class B applies strictly to aircraft flying under VFR. Had the Centurion been an IFR arrival, the controller would have given him specific vectors and altitudes to keep him clear of arriving traffic at LAS, and to sequence him for (most likely) a visual approach to his destination airport, HND.

If flying VFR, ATC clearance to enter class B airspace is required, and once within the class B, the aircraft is required to comply immediately with any and all ATC instructions regarding headings, altitudes and airspeeds, just as IFR traffic would have to do.

There are some limitations - if ATC instructed a Cessna 172 to “maintain 160 knots”, the only possible response would be “unable”, since that would be outside of the aircraft’s performance envelope.

Edited June 27, 20205 yr by JRBarrett

5 hours ago, jon b said:

The difference being in the U.K. ,and I’ve seen this happen while waiting to take off at LHR when a GA aircraft accidentally stumbles into the LHR control zone and is not talking to anyone all departures get suspended immediately.

Safety first over here!  Same pilot friend of mine also said he often had to file reports of near misses with GA aircraft on approaches in the US, and any time he mentioned it on the R/T he was either ignored or just got "copied".  Note the UK phraseology doesn't include the word "copied" although my instructor (who was an ATCO) said there were some occasions when "copied" could be used and excused.  

I just think the shorter and more "clipped" the R/T the safer it all is and it is far better to say "wilco" or "roger" than "yeah, okay, will do" which I once heard on an R/T in another land I have mentioned too much already.  

Out of curiosity, in the GA world in the US is the R/T a separate licence like the FRTOL?

1 hour ago, trumpetfrazz1 said:

Safety first over here!  Same pilot friend of mine also said he often had to file reports of near misses with GA aircraft on approaches in the US, and any time he mentioned it on the R/T he was either ignored or just got "copied".  Note the UK phraseology doesn't include the word "copied" although my instructor (who was an ATCO) said there were some occasions when "copied" could be used and excused.  

I just think the shorter and more "clipped" the R/T the safer it all is and it is far better to say "wilco" or "roger" than "yeah, okay, will do" which I once heard on an R/T in another land I have mentioned too much already.  

Out of curiosity, in the GA world in the US is the R/T a separate licence like the FRTOL?

No, currently there is no R/T license of any kind required for pilots in the US. The actual aircraft radio transmitter has to be licensed if the aircraft is flown outside of US airspace, but that is just an equipment registration with the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

Many years ago, I believe anyone operating a radio transmitter in the US had to have a very basic personal license known as a restricted radiotelephone operator certificate, but that was not aviation-specific. It applied to anyone operating a radio transmitter, including public safety dispatchers, mariners, pilots, and even announcers at commercial broadcast stations. That requirement was dropped a long time ago.

2 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

No, currently there is no R/T license of any kind required for pilots in the US. The actual aircraft radio transmitter has to be licensed if the aircraft is flown outside of US airspace, but that is just an equipment registration with the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).

Many years ago, I believe anyone operating a radio transmitter in the US had to have a very basic personal license known as a restricted radiotelephone operator certificate, but that was not aviation-specific. It applied to anyone operating a radio transmitter, including public safety dispatchers, mariners, pilots, and even announcers at commercial broadcast stations. That requirement was dropped a long time ago.

I think we've just found the problem then...