What is going on here (Live ATC New York weird exchange)

[flyingron]

Just like they won’t know that an Army aircrew can shoot an approach regardless of what the ceiling / vis is reporting.

There's no such thing as an instrument approach ceiling minimum, even for Part 135. The 135 landing minima is solely visibility.

 

[Velocity173]

There's no such thing as an instrument approach ceiling minimum, even for Part 135. The 135 landing minima is solely visibility.

Sure there is. “Military pilots refer to appropriate regulations.” A USN/USMC F-18 pilot cannot initiate an IAP if reported weather is below the published minimums. Their absolute weather min is 200 & 1/2/2400 RVR. While a USA UH-60 crew must have reported landing mins for planning purposes, on arrival they can initiate the approach regardless of what ceiling and vis are being reported.

As far as 135, just looking at our Ops Specs we have similar wording for having landing minimums for conducting the approach. We also have a company ceiling and vis for RNAV and circling approaches that’s more restrictive than generally published. Same for our VFR ops.

So yeah, it’s not as simple as Part 91 requiring flight vis for the approach. And, no controller is going to know military regs and each company’s Ops Specs for specific weather minimums to conduct an approach.

 

[Country Flier]

If the controller had simply explained why the guy had to hold, there wouldn't have been any friction. In my experience and is what I tell all my trainees, "don't keep secrets." Pilots will help you out if they're informed of what is going on. However, in some situations, there simply isn't time to explain.

"I don't care what the weather is, I just want to shoot the approach." The controller's response should have been, "The weather has been reported at below minimums. If you go missed, I have no place to put you." Controllers are often put into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Regardless of what you say, it is going to make someone happy yet rub someone else the wrong way.

I wasn't there. Just my opinion and it costs exactly what you paid for it.

It’s hearsay on the video, but the pilot says he was told he can’t shoot the approach because the weather is below minimums. Hearing just that, I would respond as he did…
So from your explanation it sounds like the pilot was told this due to brevity…but I know if I also heard the added “and after going missed I’d have no where to put you” I wouldn’t respond as that pilot but instead I’d stay quiet and remain in the hold.
Thanks, makes sense now.

 

[TrueCourse]

Unless it’s the same video and ATC exchange, I’ve heard that pilot’s voice before. Sounds like one featured before on the same type of YouTube channel.

 

[Velocity173]

I’ve heard that pilot’s voice before only it was 25 years ago so it couldn’t possibly be him. Falcon 100 doing 360 kts GS at 6,000 ft. I told him a gentle reminder to slow up for traffic, “Falcon 345, 250 knots below 10,000.” His snotty reply “that’s indicated airspeed not true.” No **** Sherlock.

 

[Chicago Bearhawk]

It’s hearsay on the video, but the pilot says he was told he can’t shoot the approach because the weather is below minimums. Hearing just that, I would respond as he did…
So from your explanation it sounds like the pilot was told this due to brevity…but I know if I also heard the added “and after going missed I’d have no where to put you” I wouldn’t respond as that pilot but instead I’d stay quiet and remain in the hold.
Thanks, makes sense now.

I would really like to know how close to 22:20 he actaully got cleared to continue the arrival?
Also the Pilot must have been listening to tower as well to hear the other plane land...

 

[Arnold]

VFR aircraft are not under ATC's "control" within controlled airspace (class E). They are controlled by visibility and cloud clearance, so a different kind of "control".

There are many, many, many pilots and controllers who do not understand this distinction. Spend a few minutes listening to "opposing bases" and you'll find that these controllers believe that an aircraft in class "e" airspace is under their positive control airspace.

 

[RussR]

There are many, many, many pilots and controllers who do not understand this distinction. Spend a few minutes listening to "opposing bases" and you'll find that these controllers believe that an aircraft in class "e" airspace is under their positive control airspace.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but if you are receiving ATC services, even in Class E airspace, you must comply with the instructions. 91.123b. I'm not sure why you would voluntarily request a service but then not follow the directions given to you by the people you asked to help you.

 

[dtuuri]

I'm not sure why you would voluntarily request a service but then not follow the directions given to you by the people you asked to help you.

I can help with that. Once upon a time I called approach when entering a TRSA, thinking it would be a safe thing to do. When they immediately gave me a vector to parallel the active runway that would result in at least a five mile wide (or more) downwind I told them I no longer wished to participate and continued heading for the center of the airport. Traffic was not a factor and their idea of efficient use of my and my student's money and time differed from ours.

 

[coma24]

There are many, many, many pilots and controllers who do not understand this distinction. Spend a few minutes listening to "opposing bases" and you'll find that these controllers believe that an aircraft in class "e" airspace is under their positive control airspace.

N90 routinely issues VFR altitude constraints to VFR aircraft in Class E avoid downstream traffic conflicts with heavy arrival flows that are known to be descending through the altitude of the VFR aircraft.

Case in point, departing the N07/CDW/MMU area towards CMK, then continuing east bound, you are an absolute hood ornament for the LGA arrival stream running north to south. They will routinely ask you to be above, or below certain altitude. I appreciate the service, they can see issues developing that I cannot, so I take them at their word when they ask me to be at or above a specific altitude. I trust that they're doing it to avoid a potential safety issue in the next 10-20nm.

Sure enough, after I comply, I see the traffic, every time, and they were right, it wouldn't have been a great place to be.