A minimum wage ramper who grabs a wand, walks out beyond the wingtip, turns his back on the jet, and walks forward without even looking at the jet. But, still a get-out-of-jail -card-free for the pilots.

[-]

wileysegovia@reddit

Didn't they have these in Game of Thrones

[-]

pahHONEix@reddit

They’re like the walkers in The Walking Dead but winged. Fucking. Terrifying.

Kidding of course, they’re people that stand by the wings of an airplane that’s either getting pushed out of or pulled into a gate and make sure the airplane doesn’t hit anything.

[-]

falcrist2@reddit

They’re like the walkers in The Walking Dead but winged. Fucking. Terrifying.

https://y.yarn.co/cc366254-72af-4cf8-8d13-302d2b0d7944_text.gif

[-]

BelowXpectations@reddit

Not to be confused with a white walker

[-]

ilfaitquandmemebeau@reddit

A Zelda game

[-]

Stoney3K@reddit

Someone who walks along the aircraft to check that it has enough clearance to any obstacles, and who looks out for FOD.

Basically the aviation version of having mirrors.

[-]

Castun@reddit

Basically the aviation version of having mirrors.

Sort of....mirrors would allow you to see with your own eyes if you are going to clear or not. This would be more like the equivalent of having ground guides (people who are on the ground walking next to you and in contact with you, while driving large heavy machinery like construction vehicles or a semi-truck hauling large payloads.)

[-]

showMeYourPitties10@reddit

To add to your comment, signaling to ground traffic and ensuring the road is clear is a big part of a wing walkers job at my station.

[-]

CalmFrantix@reddit

They are usually stunt men that walk out on the wing while the plane taxis in. They walk to the very tip with a walkie talkie and just tell the pilot when the wing is about to hit something.

Considering the stunts don't pay much. This is a steadier wage so a much more popular job in the wing walking community

[-]

iepure77@reddit

Ground maintenance folks who walk adjacent to the aircraft to ensure the aircraft doesn’t hit anything as it taxis. I did it in the Air Force and see it happen often while taxing in and out from the gate as a passenger.

[-]

Theron3206@reddit

Won't help if the paving won't take the weight of the plane.

Which is apparently a notable problem for the a380 in question.

[-]

Rollover__Hazard@reddit

VAS is chock full of ground controllers seemingly not knowing anything about their own airfield so I don’t blame the pilot for being extra cautious.

[-]

Brossar1an@reddit

Even then I wouldn't do it. I'd send company an ACARS or call them on SATCOM and get approval to operate outside company manuals. You cover your ass and potentially get some OT, easy call.

[-]

Double_Chicken_8769@reddit

I am no pilot and defer to those who know what they are doing. That thing is very very big!!🙏😎🙏

[-]

OmegaPoint6@reddit

The gate at only very recently (maybe 1st day in use) been approved for A380s so the pilots paperwork was out of date. VASAviation have the rest of the conversation: https://youtu.be/P6jjY-AW4LE

[-]

humourlessIrish@reddit

Control was being very unhelpful.

"I don't know what to tell you"
How about "its just been updated recently"? That could fucking do

[-]

ropahektic@reddit

The person giving the information doesn't necessarily know or has access to the information of when the data was updated.

[-]

reckless_responsibly@reddit

They're a ground controller for that airport. It's their job to know when things get updated.

[-]

ropahektic@reddit

Not necessarily, do you even work in the sector? Or any sector for that matter?

Air controllers move from airport to airport and from tower to tower. It's called job market and dynamics inside the work place.

A person who has been in the same tower and gets the new updated securities would realize it's an update because the day before he had the same briefing and now it has changed.

A person who receives that briefing of sec for the first time doesn't necessarily know when it was updated it just knows the information is updated because it is in all briefings.

The pilot is the one that acted extremely condescending as if his truth was absolute and nothing could have happened to challenge that.

[-]

reckless_responsibly@reddit

So, by your argument, the most likely scenario is that a new to this airport controller is directing traffic on their first day with no shadowing/familiarization period? Color me skeptical.

[-]

titsandbits@reddit

Human factors notwithstanding, when you’re on the horn you represent the airport, not yourself as a private citizen. It’s not acceptable for the airport itself to not know what was recently updated. I don’t care how they disseminate that information to the air controllers. Maybe sec briefings could take the extra 3 fucking seconds necessary to say “and by the way, this item has changed, so some pilots may be confused, be aware.” Maybe they could tape a printout of recent changes to the desk. I dunno what your workplace looks like, I just know there are a ton of well-known solutions for how to disseminate information to front-line representatives in large bureaucracies, and in this situation somebody failed to employ any of them.

[-]

---AI---@reddit

That would make it their fault then, no,? If they don't know such info

[-]

ropahektic@reddit

Not necessarily. We can't pretend to know the logistics of information of any company just because it makes sense in our mind after giving it a 5 minute thought.

Does the clerk at McDonalds know when the cow was killed? Does he even know when the meat turns bad?

Now, it's fair to say that his communication wasn't optimal, in any profesional context "I don't know what else to tell you" is probably not the best way to express this particular thought.

But beyond that? This could very well be something that happens once in a blue moon and thus it's normal for the actors involved to react a bit uniquely.

[-]

Projecterone@reddit

If it wasn't in the briefing then ATC won't know.

They don't hang around down at the planning and building department.

[-]

MistoftheMorning@reddit

Pearson being one of the top 3 worst rated airports in North America, I'm not surprised by how unhelpful they were.

[-]

CXDFlames@reddit

It doesn't matter if it was updated recently if the pilots documents show its prohibited.

The pilot can't just go "oh okay then" and go ahead. Then you end up with a phone number to call for a much worse reason.

[-]

Wes_Keynes@reddit

Understaffing and lack of a paycheck due to gvt shutdown will do that.

[-]

pannenkoek0923@reddit

This is Toronto Pearson, Ontario Canada

[-]

hugeyakmen@reddit

This is Toronto, Canada and not part of our US shutdown

[-]

BoxerguyT89@reddit

The YouTube video was posted 4 years ago.

[-]

silent_vortex_120@reddit

💯 That's all that needed to be said.

[-]

muricabrb@reddit

Coffee didn't kick in yet.

[-]

mvpilot172@reddit

I’ve run into this before at an airport that had an updated taxiway that we previously could t taxi on but was not widened. However, I refused to use it since our manuals hadn’t been updated to reflect that to cover myself.

[-]

zer0kewl007@reddit

So if they gave you a phone number to call, would you have gotten in trouble or no?

[-]

Air320@reddit

No, we wouldn't get in trouble if our charts reflect conflicting data.

While the local airports obviously have more up to date info, if there's a conflict of information we have to default to our charts because the safety of the ac and its occupants is entirely our responsibility. It's better to be more conservative than gung-ho and potentially damage the ac or injure someone.

[-]

Downvotesohoy@reddit

if there's a conflict of information we have to default to our charts because the safety of the ac and its occupants is entirely our responsibility.

If this is a somewhat common thing, shouldn't the ATC operator know this as well? Like why is there a discussion at all? As soon as the pilot said his info said X, why argue about it if the procedure is always going to be the pilot doing what his instructions say?

[-]

pilot3033@reddit

The issue is that aeronautical charting occurs on 28 and 56-day cycles that have been coordinated years in advance. Airports, however, are not required to adhere to those dates for the opening and closing of infrastructure. When stuff like this happens it's often because an airport has made the change on a date other than the cycle date instead of waiting to correspond to a date a new chart is published.

Most airports would then issue a NOTAM which can be incorporated into "paperwork," but NOTAMS are a whole other can of worms.

That's not to mention whatever airline specific paperwork exists.

[-]

roald_head_dahl@reddit

God, I was responsible for updating our Jepp database fortnightly (TACs updated on that schedule) and my GOD was it tedious. Everything still came on CD-ROM as of 5 years ago.

[-]

Secret_Account07@reddit

Yeah this is where I lost:

We just updated updated Charlie and this is the first day it’s open for use. It can now accommodate xyz. It’s weird arguing was the default, yeah?

[-]

opotamus_zero@reddit

Probably because ATC weren't given enough information either. Both ATC and the pilots did their jobs correctly here - airport screwed the change up.

[-]

brendangalligan@reddit

Wouldn’t a version number on documents allow both parties to compare their info and see who is working off more antiquated sources?

[-]

opotamus_zero@reddit

Yup that's how it would work for regular updates. The pilots have an airport diagram supplied by and updated by their company that owns the expensive plane they don't want damaged.

Even if the airport had properly advised the company and the company had updated those diagrams, the company / airport would still be required to notify these particular pilots that the conditions at the airport have changed.

For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Erebus_disaster - where after trying to pin the screwup on the pilots, a commission later found it's not good enough to change something, update the docs and not tell anyone about it.

[-]

popular_in_populace@reddit

Flight manuals (if civilian works the same way as military) got updated based on a schedule. Some of them got updated before others, as long as all of them are updated by a certain point then they are compliant. It’s quite possible this pilot loaded their information prior to the airport pushing the update out.

[-]

brendangalligan@reddit

Not a pilot but that’s sort of what I’m getting at. If two people looking at official documentation have conflicting info, a version number on each page (or revision date next to changes) should settle the debate rather quickly. That’s how it works with construction when there is a plan change, it’s also how it works in insurance with policy changes, seems like it could work here too.

[-]

popular_in_populace@reddit

Except when you’re responsible for souls on board, I’m not trusting what someone says is true. I’m trusting what I see in front of me with my eyes. That’s what the guy with the badge is going to ask me for.

[-]

Air320@reddit

So most changes to an airport, be it changes to taxiways or approaches etc. are known in advance and the charts pre-loaded onto our efb (ipad) with a valid from date attached. We can't use those before that date.

Rarely, the new chart is not uploaded by mistake or maybe in this case the planned opening date was preponed by the airport for some reason or the other.

So the controller is mildly irritated that because of this conflict in info, he now has to coordinate a new bay and have the huge ac taxied to a different bay. For a smaller ac that may not be that big an issue but for the larger birds that may be an involved process.

Honestly, no one is the wrong here maybe except for the group responsible for the conflict of info.

[-]

Smyley12345@reddit

But procedurally if you had wing walkers then you would be covered in that the airport is giving active real time validation that you are staying on the taxiway?

[-]

Fluffbrained-cat@reddit

What are wingwalkers? Bc I'm imagining someone literally walking along the wings of the plane, which, given the speed its moving might not be that dangerous, but still not ideal, given the jet engines just under said wings.

[-]

jjckey@reddit

The issue is not just width but weight rating for the taxiway.

[-]

econopotamus@reddit

I knew a lifelong pilot who never got over the fact the only “accident” on his record was the time a taxiway collapsed under his gear while he was taxiing and dropped the plane to the tarmac. He was listed within spec and everything. He was salty about it for 40 years.

[-]

SilverDad-o@reddit

I don't blame him. There are always systems backed by week senior "leaders" that apply zero-tolerance and/or Catch-22 standards after the fact.

I've had a few of those scenarios in my life, and I, too, remain salty about them many years later.

[-]

fripletister@reddit

That's the kind of pilot I want in the cockpit, as a passenger

[-]

DecentBathroom7725@reddit

What did you say about my momma?

[-]

BigBlueMountainStar@reddit

She so fat, the other day she stepped out on the road in front of my car and I ran out of fuel swerving to avoid her.

[-]

DecentBathroom7725@reddit

🫳

.....

👎

[-]

UniqueIndividual3579@reddit

Nothing about your momma, she wouldn't fit in a A380.

[-]

20FNYearsInTheCan@reddit

Yo mama so fat an AN225 couldn't make V1 before running out of runway.

[-]

DecentBathroom7725@reddit

😲

[-]

Dac_Monalds@reddit

He said whoever threw that paper your m….

[-]

Gwayana@reddit

That she got to stop exposing her planus

[-]

oX_deLa@reddit

It's basic common sense. "Cover your ass". Does the paper work says "no"? Then it's a no.

[-]

Late-Objective-9218@reddit

It's a number for a supervisor who will walk the issue through with the pilots. A pilot has to follow safe procedures based on the information they have, they will not get in trouble for being careful. The same goes for the ATC, even if they are correct with the up to date information, they shouldn't push the pilots into something that they're not comfortable with, and give them time to process the situation. Both sides did their jobs professionally

[-]

Reverse2057@reddit

Couldn't the ATC just say "The gate has recently been updated to allow your ac, but we can get wingwalkers out for you so you feel ok with it?"

[-]

Fluffy_Juice7864@reddit

It’s like a conversation on a phone with a three year old. Is mummy there? Yes. Can I talk to her? Yes. Give mummy the phone!

[-]

Late-Objective-9218@reddit

Yes it seems they either lacked awareness or just had a bit of a bad attitude. But the main thing is, they didn't get hung up on it on the frequency.

[-]

BobIoblaw@reddit

It doesn’t work like this. The pilot has approved publications (pubs). Those pubs very explicitly say that they can’t taxi to that terminal. It’s a large aircraft and the documentation lays out exactly what is needed to taxi to that terminal. This isn’t ATC, rather Ground Control (which is a very important “controller” at large airports). If I’m reading the tone, there have been a few larger aircraft saying their pubs state they can’t taxi to that terminal. Pubs are now updated electronically and it’s very likely this is a very recent change in SOPs.

[-]

Stuffstuff1@reddit

If he was wrong and you had paper work telling you it was not allowed….

[-]

brucebay@reddit

Isn't the pilot has a right to ask for follow me and wing walkers? ATC was overreacting in my amateur opinion (assuming there were no heated argument in-between the calls).

[-]

Late-Objective-9218@reddit

When the ATC knows it's a safe, standardised taxi, it's a bit of an absurd situation. Forwarding the situation to the supervisor is a safe call

[-]

Goooooooooober69@reddit

To add to this that ground controller needs that freq to coordinate with other aircraft. Full on conversations are better had over the phone with a supervisor

[-]

Late-Objective-9218@reddit

Yes, a prolonged debate could affect the safety of other traffic

[-]

zer0kewl007@reddit

Awesome, thanks.

[-]

Pretend-Guava@reddit

I want to know what this infamous phone number is that pilots have to call when something happens.

[-]

criminy_jicket@reddit

As people have already stated, no.

I just wanted to add that calling over the phone isn't necessarily related to a pilot deviation or safety mishap. It's often much better to hash out an issue or make an inquiry over the phone rather than over potentially congested radio frequencies. There are many instances where a pilot may initiate a phone conversation with ATC.

[-]

dexter-sinister@reddit

I always thought the "I've got a phone number for you" was for the pilot to call in after the flight was finished and passengers deplaned, etc. Is ATC suggesting he call that number right then to talk through the issue and decide which gate to use?

[-]

criminy_jicket@reddit

In this particular incident, yes, though the issue was regarding the taxiways which the pilot's paperwork showed were restricted for his aircraft. Quoting from the video, the ground controller says, "Stand by; hold your position. I'll get you a phone number." The implication being that the plane would not move forward until either wing-walkers were dispatched or a phone call resulted in some other kind of resolution to the issue.

If memory serves correctly regarding this incident, the pilot contacted the apron controller over the radio and wing-walkers were dispatched.

[-]

mvpilot172@reddit

No not at all. Sometimes ATC gives you a number to just go over something or ask questions to pilots about something. It’s not necessarily punitive. I had a chat with controllers when they started new arrivals into DCA. They wanted feedback from pilots of different aircraft on descent rates.

[-]

BizarroMax@reddit

The main approach to DCA over the Potomac was the most anxiety I’ve ever felt as a passenger flying into an airport for the first time. It 100% looks like you’re going right into the drink. Reminds me flying into Cancun from the water side, although the last few times I flew there we approached from inland.

[-]

One-T-Rex-ago-go@reddit

Vancouver is bad, you fly right over the strait of Georgia, over giant boats. And the wall before the strait is not small at the end of the runway.

[-]

BizarroMax@reddit

Ha! Sounds like Midway. You can see what people who live near the airport are watching on TV while you land.

[-]

byteminer@reddit

Well DCA has to contend with airspace for Dulles as well as BWI, plus Joint Base Andrews and DC’s special protected airspace all at once. You essentially have to stay up out of it and then dive bomb the landing pattern.

[-]

BizarroMax@reddit

I've noticed that. I was on one flight that flew over to Delaware, then south into Virginia before turning around and approaching. The Southwest app said 5m to land for like half an hour.

[-]

RobertABooey@reddit

Flew into cancun a lot years ago and totally agree. The water approach is brutal.

The other way isn’t that much better because it used to be all trees. So it looked like you were landing into a forest.

[-]

BizarroMax@reddit

Forest is generous. It was jungle.

[-]

RobertABooey@reddit

I was trying not to be TOO dramatic lol. But yes, jungle is probably a better description!

[-]

Menethea@reddit

DCA? Really? Try Madeira, not only lots of water, but wind, and a mountain on one side…

[-]

Worried-Penalty8744@reddit

Madeira always fascinates me because of the wind and how often it gets disrupted. Do pilots need any special sign offs for Naples because of the presence of Vesuvius? I remember being there a couple years ago and the flight path looked very weavy.

I think Santorini a bit dicey too?

[-]

Llewellian@reddit

Also Sicily. Depending on Ash and Smoke of Etna and Stromboli Volcanoes... there might be reroutes reaching Catania Airport.

[-]

Menethea@reddit

I‘ve been a aircraft passenger to all those destinations, but other than Madeira, don’t recall anything unusual.

[-]

3rdlifepilot@reddit

Fancy bit of info on Madeira. The airport shuts down if the crosswind is more than 15 knots.

[-]

pannenkoek0923@reddit

Flying into Copenhagen you are usually flying the last 10 minutes on sea, with windmills and a bridge that goes under water abruptly

Fun times

[-]

smootex@reddit

Wasn't there a whole television series about that bridge?

[-]

hiking_mike98@reddit

The water approach to Logan is way worse in my opinion as a passenger.

[-]

IncredibleVelocity4@reddit

As a DCA local, the finger grooves squeezed into the hard plastic arm rests after a river approach are always entertaining. Those that live here are all going “wheeeeee!”

We had a stormy approach one night, and about 5 minutes before landing the pilot came on the intercom and warned us, “this one’s gonna be sporty.” We ended up going missed approach on short final and getting a two for one ride.

[-]

cemyl95@reddit

Both of LGAs runways are partially directly over water. Landing on them is super fun cause it looks like you're gonna land on the water but then the runway appears at the last second

[-]

Still-Wafer1384@reddit

Never been to Hong Kong Kai Tak

[-]

Aetane@reddit

and never will!

[-]

DrJupeman@reddit

Try flying into St. Barth’s sometime.

[-]

Majician@reddit

ATC Was tired of the back and forth circular argument so he just said here's a phone number, That phone number being the Supervisor in charge of that ATC, He has the final say if your plane is landing or taking off at that airport. I can imagine that the ATC has MANY planes on his board and he wasn't caring to waste more time than necessary with this guy.

[-]

danikov@reddit

If they said possible pilot deviation then gave you a phone number, you’d be in trouble.

Switching to a phone number is just a better way to have a longer conversation without dominating the air waves that should be used for ongoing traffic.

[-]

appthrower@reddit

aviation noob here, is the phone number like a normal phone number?

[-]

danikov@reddit

Yes, it's just a normal phone, pilots have mobiles like the rest of us and facilities can and do have landlines.

[-]

appthrower@reddit

oh lol, idk why it sounds funny in my head that despite all the high tech at their fingertips, they have to use something commonplace like a phone number and an international travelling sim.....

[-]

a_scientific_force@reddit

A foreign-certificated pilot can’t really get a deviation anyway. The FAA will contact their home nation CAA, and it’s up to them what happens.

[-]

Bureaucromancer@reddit

It would also be… diplomatically interesting… for the FAA to insert themselves in this one ;)

[-]

Being_Stoopit_Is_Fun@reddit

Just in general, it would make sense siding with caution would never get someone in trouble. Otherwise pilots would be afraid to do the safest thing in fear of being reprimanded. That would be a formula for disaster.

[-]

Imlooloo@reddit

As PIC you have every right, and responsibility, to maintain safety at all times. Better to tell ATC “Unable” than to have an incursion and touch grass or take out a pole.

[-]

phatdinkgenie@reddit

i knew a guy who worked on updating airport runways in 2006 for the A380 and he said they have to pour 3 feet of concrete for 380 taxiways and parking stands whether that's true or not

[-]

kona420@reddit

Possible if the soil is worthless but usually under 2ft.

[-]

nobody65535@reddit

How much over lava beds?

[-]

kona420@reddit

Depends on whether the bulldozer fell through on the first pass or not lol. They actually dynamited all the caves, after that the basalt fill supports like 15000psi+. My understanding is that KOA is just asphalt, 20 inches thick but I could be very wrong. I've seen a 380 come in exactly once here.

[-]

kincent@reddit

It's less than half that lol. Concrete's #1 trait is its ability to carry compressive loads. It's not THAT weak.

[-]

CandylandRepublic@reddit

Depends on what's under the concrete.

[-]

duprass@reddit

I had a related experience in TUS a few years ago, we landed on the crosswind runway and I had briefed an exit near the end of the short-ish runway. The captain saw the exit coming up, took the plane, and slammed on the brakes. When we exited, we both realized that the airport had added a new exit and relabeled all of them. The new exit was labeled D3 (what I briefed), whereas on our charts D3 was way further down. No NOTAM, and the Jepps were current.

[-]

Kayback2@reddit

We had a taxiway that was temporarily limited for 4 engined heavies and it's been open for literal years and the carriers no longer use 4 Jumbo's and they still sometimes refuse to take it with their 2 engined 777, 350's and 787s.

Sometimes company policies don't catch up to the prevailing conditions very well.

[-]

Jazzlike-Sky-6012@reddit

Why did the tower not just say it had just opened to them? Would clear things up.

[-]

seeasea@reddit

You would also think, that while not yet updated paperwork, the airline would have known about it too.

It's not like the airport wakes up one day and decides to open a taxiway for an a380.

Construction would have been planned and performed over a minimum a year, likely 5.

Or even just the crew coming in and out would kind of know about it by osmosis

[-]

Jazzlike-Sky-6012@reddit

Sure, the airline should have known. But when a situation has changed this recently, this miscommunication is to be expected. It is a bit like that flight to new York asking for priority because of the fuel situation. It is not the correct way to declare an emergency, but if someone asks for it twice, it would make sense to start asking if they actually want to declare a mayday fuel. If you suspect the communication isn't clear, you have the obligation to ask.

[-]

dkobayashi@reddit

Because YYZ thrives in confusion

[-]

Conscious-Economy971@reddit

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king

[-]

Mercedes003@reddit

Now it makes sense

[-]

amanwithoutaname001@reddit

Sort of... Ground Control should've been briefed to expect dated airline instructions and been given talking points.

[-]

ahpc82@reddit

I don’t think atc really has the time in day to prepare talking points for the screw ups of the only one airline that operates this specific type.

[-]

badguy_demogorgon@reddit

US based ATC here. We have mandatory briefing items and weather briefing before we plug in before each shift. This would have been something that was very well documented for the controller and would have noticed that construction had been going on for weeks or months. This would not have snuck up on the controller.

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

Could this controller have handled this differently do you think? Or is this sort of situation just expected and worked through?

[-]

badguy_demogorgon@reddit

The controller definitely could have handled it better. "This taxiway was recently updated to accomdate the weight of your aircraft. Here's a phone number to contact to verify." This is a case where no one wanted to take the responsibility of possibly being wrong and cause 10s of millions of dollars in damange.

[-]

Laxku@reddit

Just a pax here, but I feel like 'better safe than sorry' is a good instinct in the tower and the cockpit, yeah?

[-]

badguy_demogorgon@reddit

Definitely. The PIC (pilot in command) always has the last say so. We can give any instruction we like but they have to decide if they will comply. “Fly heading 120 for spacing” “That puts us right into a thunderstorm. Unable.” Controller then comes up with a new plan.

[-]

ahpc82@reddit

I stand corrected in good grace and full humor then lol The airport I fly out of got a contract tower and getting info to/from airport ops through them has been a contortionist act to say the least.

[-]

Thurak0@reddit

ATC should have been human enough to know that when they start sending A380s that way for the first day that maybe a simple "it's brandnew, there has been work done. your paperwork is out of date." probably would have helped here.

[-]

pbrassassin@reddit

Seriously , instead “ I dunno what to tell you” how about telling the pilot it’s brand new , your papers are bad ….dumb

[-]

stiliophage@reddit

Because he probably wasn’t aware paper work was dated and according to the video posted it sounds like nothing new was done to the gate but rather there was increased congestion so they had them go there. So it was likely a temporary approval since they needed wing watcher

[-]

pbrassassin@reddit

Pilot was calling for men on the wing

[-]

CeleritasLucis@reddit

Yep. So many words were said without anything useful

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

Agreed, perhaps the controller wasn't so up to date.

[-]

_HanTyumi@reddit

Was it the controller’s first date? Because if not they surely should’ve realized that was the first day of sending A380s down that taxiway. “I don’t know what to tell you” is an absurd response in that context.

[-]

RedditReader4031@reddit

In this time of instant, worldwide communications, why aren’t the manuals and charts aboard the aircraft updated unto the second? I get that each side singers they’re supposed to but how isn’t the latest tech not being used to keep the crew updated. Hypothetically, if the change to the ramp or gate has been put into place mid flight, the crew would immediately know about it and this conversation never would have occurred.

[-]

CallOfCorgithulhu@reddit

This screw up was on the airport for not communicating the recent changes adequately. Besides the other person's reply, the ATC absolutely has time to have that sort of talking point prepared since it's their job to safely and efficiently manage the traffic flow at their airport. YYZ is not a tiny airport, there is absolutely someone on staff who could take 30 seconds and write down a talking point on a sticky note if the ATC are just that busy from shift start to shift finish.

Also, Emirates isn't the only one here. Etihad also operates the A380 into YYZ. And other airlines still fly the type, so it's possible they switch to using it on their routes as well.

[-]

amanwithoutaname001@reddit

An aviation it's called situational awareness and it's not just limited to those of us in the cockpit.

[-]

chrisma572@reddit

Wouldn't/shouldn't YYZ know and advise that it was a completely very recent change/reality that those A380 could now park there, so their paper work was right until just very recently but no longer is?

Initially YYZ seems to communicate as if C34 was always adequate since the beginning of time and UAE is delusional to believe otherwise.

[-]

puzzlebuns@reddit

There's only so much encyclopedic knowledge we can expect from a single ATC. That's why they're getting a number to call.

[-]

nineyourefine@reddit

It wouldn't matter. If the flight crews paperwork doesn't show that they can park there, then they won't park there without company confirmation.

If I show up to XYZ airport and my paperwork says gate B9 is prohibited to use, but the airport recently changed that and ATC directs me there, I'm stopping the airplane and figuring out what the deal is. That may involve me calling our on station ops, or me taking out my cell phone and calling my dispatcher or even duty chief and figuring it out. An aircraft like the 380 especially has so many taxiway and gate restrictions, that putting them somewhere they don't belong could lead to loooong delays.

[-]

counters14@reddit

I think that is fine, but an explanation about why the discrepancy existed could have made finding a solution and resolution much simpler?

[-]

xXxjayceexXx@reddit

The tower is saying I don't know what to tell you in this context is complete BS.

[-]

PDXDeck26@reddit

"I don't know what to tell you" is MidwesternPassiveAggressive-ese for "I've given you my position on this and I'm not going to continue to argue with you about it"

it's not literally "I have no idea about what the next words out of my mouth should be"

(yes, I know this is in Toronto - Ontario is very much "midwestern" in culture)

[-]

NoSir4289@reddit

Lmao you'd think they'd have protocol in place to inform planes who previously weren't allowed. Incompetency on display.

[-]

Jonny36@reddit

Yeah that's my thought. How can the controller not know recent changes to their own airport? The works to of this must have been in long for a while too. They must have known these restrictions previously?

[-]

PM_Me_Your_Deviance@reddit

He also probably knew that arguing wouldn't matter since the pilot isn't going to deviate from his own paperwork without approval from a higher authority. Both sides were being reasonable.

[-]

Additional_Teacher45@reddit

Considered that ATC may not have the finest and most experienced staff on hand right now?

[-]

erection_specialist@reddit

This was in Canada like 5 years ago. At least you tried though.

[-]

CAT32VS@reddit

YYZ is in Canada

[-]

Elim-the-tailor@reddit

This wasn’t in the US

[-]

Pooch76@reddit

Yep— good old human communication!

[-]

wikiwikiwickerman@reddit

I have no knowledge about flying other than being a passenger. But, having been a passenger that has flown in and out of YYZ on numerous occasions, poor communication is very much inline with my experiences

[-]

talldangry@reddit

"I don't know what to tell ya"

Well, I've had two sips of coffee and am not an ATC, but let me take a stab at that:

"Gate has only just been approved for use by your type yesterday, confirm date on paperwork?"

[-]

MastodonUpper6998@reddit

Thank you for posting the rest of the conversation. The initial argument seemed a little frustrating but it looks like once they got in touch with ground everything got squared away and everyone was pretty cordial. Always good to plan to verify.

[-]

Die4Gesichter@reddit

And atc couldn't have just said "Oh yea it JUST got approved" but np he chose to be a dick?

[-]

mowtowcow@reddit

Seems like that's something ATC should be aware of. "We just had it recently approved within the day (or week, or whatever) but we will provide wing watchers for your taxi in. Your paper work is out of date."

Pilot was definitely right to question it. The "I dont know what to tell you" was so unprofessional.

[-]

PDXDeck26@reddit

So I read watched this extended clip/dialogue.

Pilot was referencing a notice about not using a specific taxiway but then seemed to abruptly stop with that argument after realizing something about the time?

Was that basically a notice/restriction that only applied during certain times of day? Possibly because there's a lot of traffic during those times so they can't have super-long wingspan aircraft using taxiways because that would encroach on parallel/adjacent taxiways?

[-]

o5mfiHTNsH748KVq@reddit

Seems reasonable for the pilot to question it

[-]

socalbeach@reddit

1 , is that document released? Good on that pilot for asking questions.

[-]

nclpl@reddit

Yeah this is the problem with all these TikTok accounts that just chop up and sensationalize these ATC recordings. Most of the time they’re just watching VAS or similar and pulling from there.

[-]

counters14@reddit

I'm a layman, but wouldn't the ATC be able to inform the pilot about the update? Why act like the pilot is just an asshole?

[-]

beardicusmaximus8@reddit

So when they upgraded my local airport to handle the firefighting DC-10s it took months of work. Should it be considered concerning that the airline didn't know to issue updated paperwork for that airport?

No complaints about the pilots though. If their charts show red then their charts show red.

[-]

sageinyourface@reddit

To be more clear, pilot is worried about big plane at little gate but gate is new and not little.

[-]

Lilith_reborn@reddit

The US is using a centralized flight database and it needs to be updated by the airport to show the availability of that gate. If it does not show that, then it is not available.

[-]

ddadopt@reddit

Toronto is in the US?

[-]

parlami@reddit

The US wishes it was

[-]

_HanTyumi@reddit

Nah we don’t want Drake

[-]

Lilith_reborn@reddit

You are right about the geography, see my update above

[-]

clintj1975@reddit

Did they move Toronto recently?

[-]

Lilith_reborn@reddit

You are right, see my update above

[-]

Lilith_reborn@reddit

Edit : you are right about Canada but that database also includes that (as far as I know)

[-]

clippervictor@reddit

Well then the ATC wouldn’t have committed any crimen in saying so to the pilots right? I mean being the first day I do understand that it’s the responsibility of the pic but come on man…

[-]

ocashmanbrown@reddit

also, btw, the video someone put along with that audio is not the actual plane during this incident.

[-]

Mookie_Merkk@reddit

Huh? You mean not approved? If had always been approved why would his paperwork show differently?

[-]

Advocateforthedevil4@reddit

Feel like it’s perfectly understandable to have a questionable attitude in this situation. The ATC should have communicated that there was a new gate, I’m not a pilot or an ATC so I don’t know the protocols with this kinda shit, just a nuclear operator who sees a lot of similarities with how planes and reactors are operated.

[-]

Expert-Account-5235@reddit (OP)

Thank you very much

[-]

DennisDEX@reddit

If I recall correctly, this is at Toronto Pearson airport YYZ. The airport had 2 gates which were purpose built for A380s but a third gate was approved in case the other 2 were full. Emirates usually only used the first 2 gates and since their paperwork was outdated they didn't know the other gate is A380 approved. As many others said both are correct in this situation.

[-]

Poltergeist97@reddit

What about the taxiways they said were red for them? I can understand the gate just being updated, but did they widen the taxiways too? Even if the gate can take a 380 now, the instructions ATC gave were still incorrect if they couldn't physically use the taxiways given.

[-]

Glass_Landscape_8588@reddit

There are a whole slew of restrictions of what size aircraft can taxi where. These sorts of restrictions vary by airport, but most airports were designed and built before aircraft the size of the A380 existed, so taxiways were built or certified for their wingspan.

In this case, the airport previously had size restriction in these taxiways restricting the A380. They had performed measurements to certify those taxiways for use by the A380, but there was a breakdown in communication getting that info to the pilots.

[-]

DennisDEX@reddit

I am not qualified to answer this. I'm assuming if a gate can take a plane the taxiways to it would also be able to take it. Else there is no point in having that gate.

[-]

RideWithMeSNV@reddit

Alternative idea: the gate can handle, and ATC gave the direct route to the gate... But the direct route can't accommodate, and a longer route is needed and ATC was being human and didn't notice.

[-]

DennisDEX@reddit

Definitely possible

[-]

Glass_Landscape_8588@reddit

There are several taxiways that restrict the maximum size of aircraft that can be on them. There are also taxiways where the presence of a code F aircraft (A380, 747-8) will restrict the maximum aircraft size that can pass them on an adjacent taxiway.

It could write about 20 times this amount listing out all the aircraft size restrictions that exist at YYZ.

[-]

DennisDEX@reddit

Gates 171A and 173A are F certified. Gate 175A is an E gate modified to F status.

[-]

fruntrila@reddit

Whoa, first day on the A380? That must've been one hell of a ride!

[-]

aviation-ModTeam@reddit

This content has been removed for breaking one or more of the r/aviation rules.

If you believe this was a mistake, please message the moderators through modmail. Thank you for participating in the r/aviation community.

[-]

airwx@reddit

He says that he has flown the A380 into the airport "many times before".

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

I mean, it's worth making absolutely sure.

[-]

Aescwicca@reddit

Worth in the sense the pilot is responsible for a $500,000,000 airplane and the 500+ people on it. ATC was being super snotty. If it really was a recent update to policy ATC should know that for their airport and be able to explain it.

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

I'll be supportive of ATC here, they're under enough pressure at a big airport, sounded fine to me how he handled it.

[-]

nickolove11xk@reddit

Not really. It’s PICs plane, PIC says his information is saying no. ATC should say okay give me 5-15 minutes and I’ll have a supervisor figure this out and you should reach out to your company also. While it would be PICs fault if there’s any damage the ATC is gonna be making a bit of a mess for himself as well if he was wrong, so no point really.

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

I'm not so sure "reach out to your company" was a straight forward option.

[-]

nickolove11xk@reddit

sure it is. And it would be a very short call. "Hey chief pilot, we're at KXYZ, and the ground controller wants us to taxi via ABC, but the chart says we're not allowed in our (Largest aircraft type that commonly has these problems), Should we follow ATC or set the parking brake and wait for a tug and wing walkers?" "Yeah, I would choose the option that makes you not liable, captain."

Or maybe the chief will be like "ahhh yeah we finally got that additional gate to park our half billion dollar plane at and your updated charts should be available for download."

[-]

Gold_Assistance_6764@reddit

Given that ATC is now basically a volunteer position, I’d say they did fine.

[-]

NewLifeguard9673@reddit

In Canada?

[-]

mowtowcow@reddit

It was mostly fine. When it got to "I dont know what to tell you" instead of explaining new changes is when ATC got unprofessional.

[-]

rodrigo_c91@reddit

I think both could have handled it better.

The air controller advised “it’s okay for your type” and then the pilot saying “alright, I’ve flown into Toronto many times” just had a lot of know it all sauce which triggered the condescending response.

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

A bit of frustration, wonder what the outcome was in the end.

[-]

mowtowcow@reddit

I think it ended fine. The clip the guy linked above has it where they ended up guiding them in with wing watchers and offered a follow-me as well. The pilot says he will have to call in and get his maps updated. So, it ended positively.

[-]

xynix_ie@reddit

Worth? It's expected.

[-]

tumamaesmuycaliente@reddit

Expected? It’s necessary.

[-]

Potential-Courage979@reddit

Necessary? It's required.

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

Required? It's expected.

[-]

Xenoman5@reddit

Definitely. Those planes aren’t cheap and even a minor ding can be eyewatering pricy.

[-]

Octaazacubane@reddit

If there's one thing I learned from GTA San Andreas, is that one ding in one of these huge tin cans can absolutely make it go boom, or the magic smoke gets led out at least!

[-]

xynix_ie@reddit

FARs state that the PIC has final authority over ATC in conflicting information scenarios. So it's literally expected.

[-]

cptalpdeniz@reddit

This is not US but yes you are right this is ICAO

[-]

theLuminescentlion@reddit

More like he could get himself in deep shit even if he didn't hit something by going down a non- approved taxiway.

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

The buck stops with the captain ultimately, obviously the controller could get in deep shit too if a mistake is made in this situation. Anyways seems was no biggie, just needed working through, the captain understandably wanted to make sure a "situation" was avoided.

[-]

hpdasd@reddit

I agree. if ATC has been unreasonable then his suggestion of marshals and a follow me is absolutely appropriate.

The only (albeit small) issue is this is busy ground traffic: I’m not sure if the controller needs to stop everything to arrange that, when the pilots likely briefed on a wrong chart on approach. ATC’s attitude certainly doesn’t help move the situation towards a conclusion

[-]

nolongerbanned99@reddit

Funny shit. Yeah, the pilot isn’t like …. busy or anything.

[-]

Steve554433@reddit

I think an ATC who manages lots of planes needs to get out of the problem which he did by giving a phone number.

[-]

nolongerbanned99@reddit

I get it. Was half sarcasm. 😀

[-]

_rem_@reddit

That's the gate at YYZ, you can see that C34A is just a slightly different angle so that A380s can also use it. You can also see two jet bridges, which are only used for heavy or super aircrafts. Overall, very professional from all involved.

[-]

PilotKnob@reddit

This isn't an incident. It's everyone doing their job properly. If you don't know, ask. If you still aren't sure, set the parking brake until you are damn sure.

[-]

Nikansm@reddit

Tower ATC here. We appreciate pilots who stop to check when something feels wrong instead of blindly following taxi instructions. We all have a responsibility to make sure everyone operates safely.

[-]

PilotKnob@reddit

I've been doing this way too long to try and look like a hero when even I don't know what the hell is going on.

I have about 14 years left, and I just want to finish out my career without bending metal or having to go tap dance in front of a chief pilot.

Controllers have been very patient with me, especially when I was just getting started. We're all in this together. Thanks for putting up with us.

[-]

djgizmo@reddit

ATC should have gotten the documentation pulled up and pulled in a senior person to validate it.

Pilots aren’t stupid.

[-]

PilotKnob@reddit

That's what they were doing. They told them to go park out of the way until everyone agreed what the right course of action was. I guarantee you the pilots were on the radio talking to their ground ops folks, and the ATC guy was talking to his supervisor. They will eventually agree on a course of action and follow through on it. That's as good an outcome as you can ask for.

[-]

Tinchotesk@reddit

It's everyone doing their job properly.

"I don't know what to tell you" is not "doing your job properly". The controller could and should have explained that he knew he was sending then to Terminal 3 instead of Terminal 1 (which is the one Emirates uses), and that there was a reason for that. He could also have explained that although C34 is not usually used for the A380, it is possible when the two gates to the sides are free. Instead he chose to say "I don't know what to tell you".

[-]

PilotKnob@reddit

I know it's hard to believe, but not every ATC has encyclopedic knowledge of every last bit of airport infrastructure, especially that which has changed very recently. Neither do pilots, for that matter.

We all just do our best, and try and get through every day without bending metal. We're all only human and sometimes there's confusion and miscommunication.

The important thing is to figure out what the right thing to do is, and they both agreed to have the aircraft park out of the way until it was definitively figured out. That's a successful outcome to this situation.

Yes, sometimes there seems to be friction and harsh tone between ATC and pilots, but as long as everyone stays safe, such is life. I'd much rather have a controller say "I don't know what to tell you" than just simply send me headlong further into a situation that could go sideways very quickly.

[-]

photoengineer@reddit

Good pilot. Good ATC.

[-]

NewLifeguard9673@reddit

ATC could've dropped the attitude

[-]

sumgailive@reddit

Why doesn’t the atc say it was updated instead of saying idk

[-]

ER_Support_Plant17@reddit

I’m laughing picturing the pilot pulling the lever for the parking break like in a Honda

[-]

ThinkExtension2328@reddit

You should see him drift park , what a hoot I tell you /s

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

The parking brake on the E2 looks exactly like a parking brake on an old 5-speed. It's awesome.

[-]

drunken_man_whore@reddit

E2? The Embraers?

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

Yep. I fly the E195-E2. I imagine the E1s are the same.

[-]

qwertyzeke@reddit

The 145 is a pull and twist, the 170 is like the e2.

[-]

ER_Support_Plant17@reddit

Thank you! TIL

[-]

GirthBr00ks10@reddit

That’s literally what I pictured in my head, yankin the lever, then sitting there with his arms crossed 😂😂

[-]

ARottenPear@reddit

Some airplanes do have a car style parking brake. The Embraer E jets all do. Most of the Airbus products have a knob and the Boeings have a tiny lil lever thing.

[-]

pm_me_round_frogs@reddit

Wallace and gromit rocket ship

[-]

PassengerNo2259@reddit

Fast and Furious Toronto Drift.

[-]

Dependent_Rain_4800@reddit

And rolling his eyes, grabbing his flip phone and calls the number ATC just provided.

[-]

ClearedInHot@reddit

set the parking brake until you are damn sure

Well said. As a check airman I can't tell you the number of times I've seen a captain in the simulator unsure of the taxi instructions and asking the F/O to get a clarification or confirm their position on the airport while still taxiing.

[-]

PilotKnob@reddit

It's almost as if I've been doing this for 30 years or something. (Yes, I guess somehow I have been...)

One of our CQT scenarios this year has an entire half sim session dedicated to taxi clearances, runway crossings, and congested airports. As long as you don't rush and aren't afraid to stop and get clarification, it's a piece of cake. Some guys must go out of their way to hang themselves because they're too macho to just stop and admit they're unsure of the clearance.

[-]

MikeOfAllPeople@reddit

Only exception is the controller being a little unprofessional about it.

[-]

djgizmo@reddit

shitty ATC. it’s literally their job to verify all of that shit with documentation.

[-]

shelovesmesounding@reddit

I’ve had this happen to me before and I’m not even a pilot.

[-]

Fitch9392@reddit

Dumbish question time. If the Controller knows the taxiway AND Gate we’re both just updated. Could he not just say that and all would be fine?

[-]

daygloviking@reddit

From an operational perspective, if your company hasn’t updated their manuals, you go and take that chance and damage something, your company will throw you under the bus, and not just you but your first officer too for not stopping you doing it.

Frankly, it’s not worth the risk. Even if you know for sure the update is coming, but it’s not in the manual that you have in your possession, you don’t do it.

[-]

Responsible_CDN_Duck@reddit

It wasn't a recent update from his perspective.

[-]

Ok_Meaning8266@reddit

God damn that tale is huge

[-]

daygloviking@reddit

Could even say it’s a tall tail

[-]

jeffbas@reddit

Man, you ain’t kidding

[-]

littlebopeepsvelcro@reddit

This isn't Toronto. This is Toledo.

[-]

daygloviking@reddit

This ain’t Memphis

[-]

luluring@reddit

Sir, this is a Wendy’s.

[-]

Thatonejho@reddit

No, this is Patrick

[-]

Beneficial_Jelly2697@reddit

Holy Toledo Batman

[-]

testtdk@reddit

I don’t k ow about you guys, but ATC is the last person on the planet I would argue with.

[-]

daygloviking@reddit

Yeah, they’re always perfect and never make a mistake…/s

[-]

Hornygaysatanic@reddit

Couldn’t they just tell the pilot it’s been updated instead of being a little cunt.

[-]

gallahad1998@reddit

What happens after he gives him that phone number ?

[-]

blueavole@reddit

A supervisor in air traffic control can explain that the gate the ATC was trying to send them to had recently been widened so it would now be safe for them.

The airline hadn’t updated the pilots’ information. So it looked dangerous to the pilot.

The Pilot was absolutely right to verify when his information didn’t match what the ATC was telling him.

Aviation safety is not a secondary issue. It is supposed to be the primary concern of everyone.

So probably the pilot would have to contact his airline to get approval, or the ground crew could provide wing walkers to guide the airplane in, making sure that nothing was hit.

[-]

jking615@reddit

It's not an ass chewing phone call, it's a decongest the radio so we can talk phone call.

They will discuss the recent changes, what movement options he has, and if he needs further accommodations.

[-]

Meta6olic@reddit

In this case. Hey we updated the airport your charts are old. Haha. Ok sounds good Bob. Can't we still get some walkers? Sure can rick.

[-]

Floppy-Over-Drive@reddit

Your call is very important to us and will be answered in the order it was received. Did you know most issues can be resolved by using our website?

[-]

FragrantExcitement@reddit

The guy on phone tells him how he could save a bundle on his plane insurance.

[-]

NorthEndD@reddit

If he lives in that zip code with no fuis.

[-]

ti36xamateur@reddit

Not even an extended car warranty?

[-]

Top-Basil9280@reddit

He calls it and they discuss why or why not it can't be done.

You don't want to tie up a radio frequency with what might be a 10-15 minute conversation and the company also possibly getting involved.

[-]

DarkGinnel@reddit

We've been trying to reach you about your plane's extended warranty.

[-]

antariusz@reddit

They can sit and talk for a while, it’s easier to have a back and forth conversation on the phone rather than over a radio.

[-]

comradeTJH@reddit

They make out.

[-]

dumpster-muffin-95@reddit

Pretty sure I listen to the guy on the ground, versus the guy that comes here once a month.

[-]

tropicbrownthunder@reddit

My question is.

Emirates Pilot, so we are assuming the pilot is based in UAE and is not a local resident/national.

How the foreign crew can make the call to that phone number if them are without an active cell phone (let's assume their Telco has no roaming agreements with local carriers)?

[-]

YeahIGotNuthin@reddit

This was a $450 million airplane with modern avionics and, like, showers and a piano bar.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GS8nqYf5NvQ

They have a damn telephone.

[-]

Illustrious_Royal494@reddit

If it was recently upgraded the tower could have mentioned that, and give him phone number.

[-]

xybergho5t@reddit

That’s a big ass plane!

[-]

OmiColchea87@reddit

2021

[-]

sayziell@reddit

The only reason I understand half of this is because of airforceproud95

[-]

giantcappuccino@reddit

Calls phone number.... "SIR, this is a WENDY'S"

[-]

Castun@reddit

"Oh...well in that case, I'll take a couple of Baconator combos with a Frosty. Hold the mayo."

[-]

Striders_aglet@reddit

"Sir, there is no mayo in a Frosty"

[-]

Mom_baMentality@reddit

“There should be!” 😡

[-]

thehotshotpilot@reddit

Sir it is 10:59. We don't start serving lunch until 1100AM

[-]

ATotalBakery@reddit

*"Sir, this is a Tim Hortons"

[-]

Exotic_Athlete4609@reddit

It sounds to me like a consequence of the shut down with dude in the tower being tired, overworked, underpaid and slightly overwhelmed by all of the sometimes conflicting and large amount of information flowing around him.

[-]

EndGroundbreaking677@reddit

Uh…Canada?

[-]

Exotic_Athlete4609@reddit

Oops I'm not a smart man sorry😬

[-]

EndGroundbreaking677@reddit

Me neither. I second guessed myself. :)

[-]

dassketch@reddit

Everyone followed procedures like the professionals they are. ATC gets to razz the pilot next time he comes in. Pilot gets to bitch about management fucking up the paperwork. Wins all around.

[-]

octoreadit@reddit

"I have a number you can call yourself" is going to be my new insult. "Fuck yourself" is so overused and unoriginal.

[-]

Alijony@reddit

Didn't an Emirates A380 get damaged when first flown into Chicago O'Hare (ORD) due to gates not being compatible? It wasn't until years later British flew one in ( I was there, man!!!)

[-]

OU812VHRules@reddit

As a truck driver I hear; that dock was designed for a straight truck, not an 18 wheeler. If you want me to try to get in there I'm going to need spotters and we're going to have to block off traffic.

[-]

L84aGiG_@reddit

Love this ⬆️

[-]

enderforlife@reddit

Seems like very reasonable responses by both parties

[-]

GoodGoodGoody@reddit

Yup, and Emerits was smart and switched to the better English speaker for longer chit chat.

[-]

unimportantinfodump@reddit

Who's legally liable in this situation.

If he just went and caused an incident, would it be the ATC who said yes, or would it be the pilot who had the paper work that said no.

[-]

GoodGoodGoody@reddit

It would follow to the party who was incorrect.

The taxiway was (recently) upgraded/certified for the AC type so ATC is correct in their instruction.

Pilot refusing instruction without current correct information is wrong.

So, liability side, what might happen is pilot refuses, ATC gives them a different gate, and bills airline for unnecessary costs, if any. Who’s in shit side, in this case the pilot. Fundamental law is have current paperwork. Practically however given the change was very recent the pilot and airline will be told to carry current paperwork.

Imagine if every pilot just said, “Um our paperwork say no, give us a different route and gate”.

[-]

hanshede@reddit

“We don’t serve their kind in here” Bar guy in New Hope

[-]

RideWithMeSNV@reddit

Unrelated to the main thread... But the cantina doesn't serve androids. This is the only time it's brought up in the Star Wars universe, so I assume it's a local thing. Maybe persisting bigotry rooting from the wars with the separatist's droid army. I dunno. The real question here is what the hell are androids ordering at bars to start with?

[-]

rando7651@reddit

Would a gate being reclassified so it can used by a 380 be included in briefing notes to ATC so they can pass this along if/ when questioned?

Is “here’s a phone number” a regular response?

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

Is “here’s a phone number” a regular response? <- in that situation I'm not sure what else he could do

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

“Here’s a phone number” is “this is going to be a complex and detailed conversation that will monopolize the frequency and the controller, let’s take to to a more appropriate medium”

[-]

RideWithMeSNV@reddit

It's funny that it's the same phrase for "you just fucked up" and "you raise a very valid point".

[-]

cyberentomology@reddit

Kinda like your boss scheduling a meeting without an agenda…

[-]

KosmatoKljuse@reddit

The guy wanted to give him a phone number to call 😁

[-]

RideWithMeSNV@reddit

For a good time call...

[-]

Valuable-Self8564@reddit

I’ve got a number you can call […]

Oh boy.

[-]

Intelligent_Bag4736@reddit

I would assume You cannot go against your manuals and that you would be risking your airplane, passengers, in your job. The pilot in my opinion absolutely made the correct call even though it turned out to be the wrong call.

[-]

Howthehelldoido@reddit

"are you familiar with X airport as published?"

"Affirm"

"LIAR"

[-]

Hmgkt@reddit

Legend has it that EK241 is still waiting on the taxi way….

[-]

blabofthepave@reddit

Did he get the $10K?

[-]

Quantiad@reddit

This isn’t an incident. This is two professionals communicating through a discrepancy.

[-]

lmaotank@reddit

Pilot aint driving ur 90s honda and wants to make sure.

[-]

Navinor@reddit

I am not a pilot or ATC. But it seems they both handeled th situation very professionally. This sounds like your average day to day aviation job talk, which can come up from time to time.

I am working in a hospital and we have the same type of talk between doctors, nurses and apothecaries when a patient needs a certain medication.

[-]

TravisJungroth@reddit

I wouldn’t call ATC here very professional. “I believe” isn’t good enough for taxiing an A380. “I don’t know what to tell you” is also a misstep, he should know exactly what to tell him here. There shouldn’t be so much social friction in this situation.

[-]

Responsible_CDN_Duck@reddit

he should know exactly what to tell him here

He does know exactly what to tell him - the gate and route are approved, and after a brief delay that's where the aircraft proceeded.

The controller wouldn't assign wing walkers or follow me vehicles, that's on the airline via dispatch.

It's up to the pilot to call his assigned dispatch, though a number was provided as an alternative.

I wouldn’t call ATC here very professional.

You would be wrong. He didn't just blow him off, or demand anything they weren't comfortable be done. Have him a safe place to park while they sorted it out.

[-]

TravisJungroth@reddit

Maybe we have a different standard of “very professional”. Are you a pilot or ATC?

[-]

Navinor@reddit

It often happens in high stress jobs. People should see how we talk behind closed door in a hospital. I think the ATC was still quite polite.

[-]

TravisJungroth@reddit

Different high stress jobs are different.

I’m a little confused because in your top level comment you said you’re not a pilot or ATC, but this sounds like your average day to day aviation job conversation. What are you basing that on?

[-]

Miserable_Set8529@reddit

Pilot started a pissing contest, controller didn’t have time for it. Well done to the controller.

[-]

Thequiet01@reddit

There is no pissing contest about not wanting to take your big huge jet into a space that your maps say aren’t safe to go. They asked for a follow me car and wing walkers so they could try to go there safely.

[-]

PDXDeck26@reddit

meh, could've dropped the"\~\~I've been eating here for years and i know the manager\~\~ I've flown in here many times" bit

[-]

fundiedundie@reddit

How so? The pilot can get in major trouble going into an area that may damage the aircraft. The airbus 380 is the largest passenger plane out there, meaning they can’t just pull into any gate.

[-]

Da-Monkey-Man@reddit

What a beast I've never seen one. I got to fly on a 747 once from Tokyo to Hong Kong.

[-]

Pilot-For-Fun@reddit

Biggest passenger plane ever. Can’t fit everywhere.

[-]

Taptrick@reddit

Not really an incident. Just some back and forth coordination. Companies often have their own charts or assessments as guidance for their crews, which here differs from what NavCanada has. Maybe that ramp was modified later.

[-]

Flat-Story-7079@reddit

They are both correct. This is how the system is supposed to work. There’s some tension, but a multimillion dollar asset didn’t potentially get damaged.

[-]

Dungeon_Crawler_Carl@reddit

Let’s not forget the safety of the passengers lol.

[-]

msi2000@reddit

I reversed a company mini bus into a gate once and got grief about it for about six months, I expect it would be worse with a passenger jet.

[-]

ArguablyMe@reddit

Possibly. ;-)

[-]

airpab1@reddit

Pilot did the right thing… Regardless of what the controller was saying if there were an incident, he would’ve been blamed

[-]

IM_REFUELING@reddit

Sounds like the crew is doing their due diligence. The bigger the plane, the more restrictions it has on its movement, and your flying organization will usually have some internal documents telling you where you can and can't go on a field. ATC doesn't necessary have that information, and it's also possible that your company chooses to be more restrictive than the regulation for added safety margin.

[-]

metalenkist@reddit

So for me as a newbie to understand this: As soon as a pilot lands I would expect that he is a guest at the airport and that the ATC is responsible for all traffic to move safely around. But according to you airliners can restrict their pilots to be on specific parts of the airport. Why would a company do that? Wouldnt that make life not really hard? I can understand that this happens if there is a risk of damage to planes otherwise I dont know. And who is ultimately responsible in these situations?

Sorry if I ask stupid questions :)

[-]

RedDirtDVD@reddit

Pilot in command is responsible for the plane. If something happens he needs to be able to prove he was following procedures. Pilots have to follow country aviation laws and company polices. So yes a company might have a procedure in place saying at airport x, taxiway y and X are prohibited. Pilot has to respect that.

Why would airline say y and X are prohibited? Their risk assessment differs from local rules and the airline doesn’t want to risk bending metal/cracking carbon.

[-]

metalenkist@reddit

Thank you very much!!

[-]

flyingkea@reddit

Captain is always responsible. And it’s not always wingtip clearance - it might be that the taxiway is not wide enough for the wheels of my aircraft, or,the pavement is not physically strong enough for the weight of the aircraft. I don’t fly 380s but I fly to some airports that have taxiways we literally can’t use because they’re not big enough. Small turbo props sure, not but not us. (And I don’t fly a massive jet either.) And A380s are MASSIVE - not every airport can take them, and not every part of those airports. So if ATC told the pilot to go somewhere his plane doesn’t fit, and something goes wrong, the first thing the Captain will be asked is “why did you try to go somewhere that you know won’t work?”

[-]

metalenkist@reddit

Thank you very much for this answer!!

[-]

Chaxterium@reddit

To put it simply, the Pilot-in-Command is always responsible.

ATC is responsible for moving aircraft around but they don't always know the wingspan of each plane they're in control of so the onus is on the flight crew to be aware of which taxiways they can and cannot use. Each airport will show the maximum wingspan acceptable on each taxiway so the crew can be aware.

[-]

metalenkist@reddit

Awesome today I learned something, thank you very much 🙏😎

[-]

thesuperunknown@reddit

your flying organization will usually have some internal documents telling you where you can and can't go on a field. ATC doesn't necessary have that information

I’m not saying that’s not possible, but it seems totally unnecessary when the published charts literally have these restrictions explicitly printed on them. Some airports even have a taxi chart specifically for the A380 (and B748) that shows on a map where they can and can’t taxi and which gates are approved, for example Jepp chart 10-9H for KBOS.

[-]

TheSaucyCrumpet@reddit

I was told there's a gantry at London Gatwick that is high enough for the 380s tail to pass underneath, but it's not cleared to do so because a nose gear failure at just the wrong moment would allow the empennage to rise just enough to hit it?

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

Possible... I think the Hong Kong skybridge or whatever it is called has 4 meter clearance over A380 if memory serves.

[-]

amcoll@reddit

Highest footbridge in Europe from the North terminal to the satellite, yes, it was specifically designed to allow a380's underneath, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not permitted because of the reason mentioned

Luckily, it doesn't prohibit access to any stands, it just cuts out a shorter route, plus, I think Emirates flies out of the South Terminal and they're the only 380 operator into Gatwick

[-]

CharAznableLoNZ@reddit

Pilot using the information available to him by his company believes he cannot use the proposed taxiways to the final parking stop. Ground believes he can. Asking for wing walkers shows the pilot is willing to take the proposed taxi route but wants to be safe. Big planes come with big problems.

[-]

FlyingHounds@reddit

It’s the ultimate “you can’t park there” moment, but the system they use to solve the problem and correct it so it doesn’t happen again is actually impressive. Other industries including mine (outpatient health care) could learn from this.

[-]

felinefluffycloud@reddit

Handicapped placard would have helped a lot.

[-]

Puzzled-Camera-4426@reddit

I'm not even sure why this worth talking about. Pilot vs airport have different info, pilot is not messing around exactly as trained, we aren't supposed to follow ATC especially not if our paperwork shows the proposed routes in red.

If you hit something when following ATc, nobody's gonna go like "oh well, this is ATC's fault". it is 100% the captain's fault if they follow instructions and something goes sideways.

[-]

ken120@reddit

Either the pilot or atc has incorrect information on where the plane will actually fit at the airport. The pilot is asking for extra eyes to make sure the plane doesn't hit anything along the path if atc insists. Airports have cars and people who they employ to do this service on request.

[-]

ActionHartlen@reddit

lol I was on this plane

[-]

SilverQ11@reddit

Did you guys actually use gate c34? Because emirates usually uses the E gates in Terminal 1, which is a whole other building

[-]

ywgflyer@reddit

C34 can be used by a 380 with some conditions. Emirates was originally going to move to T3 at some point, before they signed a codeshare/partnership with AC which now has them staying in T1 indefinitely. C34 can still be used as an overflow for it if they can't park at T1 for some reason -- unserviceable aircraft blocking their gate, apron construction making the usual gates (171A, 173A, 175A) unavailable, etc.

[-]

Resterix@reddit

Wait, did the pilots accent go away half through the conversation??

[-]

ywgflyer@reddit

My guess is the Capt decided "ok if this controller is gonna argue with the FO, I'm gonna give them a piece of my mind too".

[-]

Expert-Account-5235@reddit (OP)

There were two pilots present at the cockpit, one with a noticeable Arabian accent and the other with an American/ Canadian one.

[-]

Prof_Black@reddit

Neither the pilot nor the controller are in the wrong here.

They both are applying due diligence and making sure,

[-]

Jasminez98@reddit

Better be safe. Hope it cleared fairly quickly with YYZ traffic

[-]

JLead722@reddit

Give him a phone number. Pilot gets put on Hold until he gives up and goes away. Many govt services use this practice also.

[-]

Initial_Insurance585@reddit

Group 6 aircraft are a pain in the ass

[-]

TrifleMeNot@reddit

More importantly, can we get the stews to reopen the bar?

[-]

Due_Ad4884@reddit

This also happened in 2021.

[-]

anun4h@reddit

Typical A380 pilot mindset: thinking that your wingspan is bigger than everyone else’s

[-]

martianfrog@reddit

They need more training.

[-]

UnfairStrategy780@reddit

Without knowing anything else, who would you trust more to be right in this situation; the pilot that’s flown there many times knows where the A380 is and is not capable of fitting with corresponding paperwork or the ATC that works there day in and day out and knows the airport layout like the back of their hand?

[-]

uusrikas@reddit

Both were right, but controller was being a bit obtuse and throwing slogans like "what can I say", he could have just explained that the rules at the airport have recently changed and the pilots company rules were probably outdated and the pilots needs to contact his company

[-]

Klutzy-Residen@reddit

Both can be right.

The pilot never said that the plane won't fit there, just that it's marked as red in his papers.

[-]

altitude-adjusted@reddit

Exactly. If his docs told him not to but he followed ATC and took out a jet bridge or the wing from another plane he'd lose big time. Protocols are in place for a reason and putting it in park until he knows for sure is the right answer.

So to answer your question, I trust the guy driving the 600K kg bus to park it safely.

[-]

Clem573@reddit

And both of them are at the end of their separate information channels.

ATCo is just telling the pilot what he sees on his computer, it says gate C41, maybe this stand was approved for just a week but the ATCo is not aware of that because he speaks daily to both C172s and B777s and he does not know on what date this or that stand changes approval

Pilot just telling the ATCo what comes on his company documentation, if he did not update his own iPad, well, he is being safe and conservative by refusing, if the airline has not updated the charts yet, well he could completely refuse

In any case, they are just the last element of the information chain, the last barrier to prevent a big oopsie, they are both reacting as they should

[-]

Benniisan@reddit

This. Just because something is allowed/SOP at an airport doesn't mean an airline allows it and the other way round.

[-]

jeepfail@reddit

As with many industries I’d say both are right until they figure out why one is right.

[-]

Consistent_Tutor_540@reddit

In system that care about safety is not only about "who", its about procedure to get the right information. Both can be perfectly right

[-]

DesperateLawyer5902@reddit

Trust goes w/ the aviators

[-]

MacGibber@reddit

I’ve only see the A380 at 1 of 2 gates in Toronto YYZ and it seems like ATC was trying to send them to a different gate.

[-]

DennisDEX@reddit

There is a third gate which was approved for A380s. The pilot's information was outdated.

[-]

EvenTheDogIsFat@reddit

When in doubt just be a fucking asshole

[-]

Which_Material_3100@reddit

Better safe than sorry. The “red” taxi lanes on the Jepp app may conflict with some updated ops alert the company had for their aircraft going into that gate and taxiways. I applaud the crew for taking a minute to figure it out.

[-]

pueblokc@reddit

That was an interesting one I had not seen or heard thanks for sharing

[-]

honker99@reddit

Guy on atc useless... I don't know what to tell ya.. How about fking trying to get to bottom of this and advice pilot appropriately.

[-]

Britt801@reddit

14 day wash job literally takes 14days

[-]

citysims@reddit

"Temu" AC with zero professionalism.

[-]

theLuminescentlion@reddit

Pilots have charts or taxiways they are allowed to use especially for large planes they are sometimes too large for a decent number of the taxiways. The pilots chart doesn't allow him on any of the taxiways that would get him to where the ground controller wants him to go. If he were to enter a taxiway the airline doesn't approve of he gets in big trouble and would be responsible if something happened. The ground controller is frustrated by this.

[-]

V48runner@reddit

I thought the ATC was being snarky and was telling the pilot to call himself, like his own person.

[-]

ArendTerence@reddit

Better safe than sorry

[-]

dredeth@reddit

Seems like some egos were being rubbed here for no reason...

Simple facts, while asking or answering questions shouldn't involve any dck measurement contest, especially when carrying people on board.

[-]

Occams_ElectricRazor@reddit

Which egos? ATC is following their protocol. They just admitted they don't know what to tell the pilots because the pilots are following their protocols. ATC gave them the number for the supervisor to figure out the situation. I see absolutely no issue here.

[-]

swoodshadow@reddit

Yeah, the whole exchange was pretty professional. Being professional doesn’t mean just agreeing with people all the time. It’s avoiding getting emotional, stating your position, and working towards figuring out concrete next steps. Which both sides did here.

[-]

Occams_ElectricRazor@reddit

Honest to God, I need to get in a position to retire in the next 10 years. The upcoming generation in general has zero conflict resolution skills.

[-]

swoodshadow@reddit

I don’t know if you’re more or less optimistic than me. Because I think every generation has a bunch of people that don’t know how to resolve conflicts reasonably. :)

[-]

Occams_ElectricRazor@reddit

I agree but it's getting worse. Or maybe it's just selection bias. I'm a geriatric millennial and think that boomers and Gen x have better resolution skills. But then again maybe it's because I'm a physician and I interact with the successful ones who are in high level admin.

[-]

sbcixii@reddit

Boomers and GenX didn't have helicopter parents fighting their battles for them. We learned to resolve conflict ourselves—sometimes successfully, sometime not. Either way, we learned.

[-]

lyricaldorian@reddit

Gen x and boomers could punch back when bullied without getting in trouble due to "zero tolerance" bull shit. I think teaching kids that the way to solve conflict is "curl into a ball and let them punch you until someone else does something to help you" is what fucked us up. I didn't want my mom coming to school to yell at teachers and principals for letting kids attack me, but if I defended myself she had to do it anyway to keep them from punishing me for it.

[-]

cptn-MRGN@reddit

So this is an incident because it will be documented as an incident in the system of record and there will be a root cause analysis done on it. And there will be potential changes made to either the ATC processes and procedures, the pilot's or both.

[-]

Local-Dish-5695@reddit

Holy shit. I remember the union bust in the 80s when ATC was broken out of a union.

This guy is in over his head and LIVES are at stake!!!! fuck

[-]

Original-Fig4214@reddit

He’s too big for turns.

[-]

bergler82@reddit

They are both very within reason and quite professional dealing with it. For the pilot, the company paperwork is legally binding. For the airport, the AIP with all its add ons is legally binding. The company paperwork is approved by the operators state. The airport AIP and everything around it is approved b the airports state. So both may be „right“. If I was the captain of the a380 (I only fly the puny A320) I would’ve done the same thing. If my paperwork says no, it’s no. If the airport still wants me to park there it’s the airports responsibility to make this happen. So bring out the follow me. Bring out the wing walkers and the phone number. This might take a while. Some taxiways just don’t have the required PCN. Or they’re just not wide enough (or we’re just rebuilt and the change hasn’t been cycled into the new paperwork). So many reasons. And so many things than can go wrong when you’re taxiing a city block around an airport.

[-]