Hey, guys! I decided to create a channel with slightly better visualization. The first video is already on the channel. link below and in first comment. Leave your opinion in the comments under the video. Please, welcome! th-cam.com/video/lpjGsljLnbc/w-d-xo.html
Agreed! For all we know, ARFF Command could have been on the toilet when the video starts. Tower, ARFF, and the flight crew all did a terrific job here.
Such a calm and professional way of dealing with a potentially deadly incident. They made it sound routine, even though it is definitely not. This pilot probably never had something like this happen before and will probably never have something like this happen again. But handled it like it was a standard occurrence. And fire command really did a great job providing information and support.
@@paulkurilecz4209 Of course it it... And they brief it in the below/before the line pre takeoff briefing. But a simulator can't add danger or the knowledge everyone dies if the pilot balls it up. And the briefing is intended to shorten the startle period, but even then there's a sense of unreality that people describe experiencing in emergency situations. They still did a very good job...
@@a24396 SWA's simulation training is to have their cockpit crews go through normal take off and landing procedures and then at some point the IP will "flip a switch" on the simulator to cause any number of problems either single events or multiple events. If you haven't been in a modern day flight simulator, you should. Your mind's and body's reaction will convince you that it is absolutely real. I had an opportunity to "fly" a 737 simulator and go through the Delta 191 approach. I managed to successfully go around and then land. After "landing", my heart was racing, my shirt was soaked in sweat in the armpits and back and my knees were weak. So, convince my limbic system that it wasn't "real". The IP told me that my gear came within 10 feet from the ground. My response was better 10 feet above than 10 feet below.
Great example of why they always plan ahead, to reject takeoff before they've reached v1, if the any of the engines or airspeed indicators fail. The engine fire happened and got extinguished before the temp sensors even told the pilots there was a fire; nowhere you'd rather be than be standing near a fire truck when that happens.
Between 80kts and V1, Southwest will only reject for: engine failure, fire/ fire warning, predictive windshear warning, or aircraft is unsafe/ unable to fly. Airspeed indicator(s) failure is minor and doing a high speed abort for something like that would be more risky than just taking off and coming back to land.
@@aebalc The pilot reported that he didn't get an indication in the cockpit, as in: no warnings came on. So, the comment is indicating that the crew trusted fire without an indication.
@@SpartacusColo There are instances when a fire indication isn't shown in the cockpit. It depends on the area of the engine that caught fire. For example, a tailpipe fire wouldn't be detected by the fire loops but it would be very visible from outside.
Could have been much more intense if the fire happened a few seconds later at V1 and the flight went airborne. A safe outcome might still have been expected but all of that would have happened in the sky while maneuvering an emergency return with one engine. Hats off to the safety engineering and pilot professionalism protecting us all.
Great job by everyone. I really wish more passengers would listen to these to understand that they shouldn't get up before being told to do so. They need to understand that they cause delays when they do that. Like the Air Canada flight in Toronto that had to go around because a passenger stood up to go to the bathroom while on Final. Earlier this year had a passenger stand up during the approach while all of the flight attendants were strapped in. A couple of them unstrapped to get this person back in their seat. Not just being selfish and stupid but also risking injury and the lives of others. Sit down!
Yep, had a passenger get up on landing in an AirAsia flight to KUL, he was escorted off the plane and I later seen him in and held in police custody while i was killing time in the airport. Not the best way to start a holiday. Simple, Follow there instructions. Cheers.
I’m not going around because someone stood up. In 24 years I’ve landed twice while someone was taking a dump. It happens. Nor should flight attendants get up to put someone back in their seat. There’s a PA system for that. If a passenger gets hurt, that’s on them.
@@BobanVagene if only that were true. The passenger will get injured. That will cause a delay, so everyone is inconvenienced. Then the passenger will sue the airline because he or she got injured. It may never go to court because the airline might decide to settle, as a cheaper alternative to fighting in court. Then ticket prices will go up in order to cover the losses by the airline. All because some jerk chose not to follow rules.
I find it interesting how all of these groups - ground vehicles, airplane, ground controllers, in flight controllers, gates, emergency, and others, talk with each other , switch frequencies, communicate at such a high level so everyone knows what everyone else is doing, and at the same time keeping themselves and others safe. No one seems to overreact or act entitled, pilot who just had to abort takeoff and had to apply heavy braking, pulls safely off runway, stated he had to stay clear of loading gates, thought about flaps, activate extinguishers, among everything else he had to do to control the aircraft. Emergency ground crews inspected, gave feedback and responded to pilots request. Everyone was calm and respectful. 👍🏼 to all.
I have often wondered why planes are not fitted with outboard cameras strategically placed so that the captain can see what is happening outside of his plane
@@lilolme69 It's another couple of holes in the skin of the plane causing an additional weakness to the airframe. Plus it adds a small, but increased amount of weight to the plane, thus requiring more fuel. But I tend to agree it would likely be worth it.
@@merlinathrawes746 Just build it in to new planes. If they would have started this in 2000, it would be almost 25 years since then and would be on almost all the planes by now.
Some of them do have cameras mounted externally, (atop the tail usually) not only that you can also watch it on the in flight entertainment screen, although that wasn't its original purpose. Several videos of it on here.
That's his takeoff clearance. Once airborne from the runway he's being instructed to make a slight right turn to a heading of 190. In this case he never got that far and rejected prior to getting airborne.
That captain was so calm. That’s the kind of person you want in an emergency. We had to evacuate at 36 story building that was on fire in the 90’s. He’d have fit right in with the FD - “Bad news, you got a fire. Good news, it’s not a very big fire, are you able to get to the stairwells in the core?”
Can someone explain to me what the firing of bottles means? I never heard that before. Airplanes are fitted with fire extinguisher bottles in the engines thar pilots can fire into the engines to put out a fire?
Someone had to make the incident about them, I would bet the were trying to get a selfie with the engine fire background. A lot went on between a lot of people during a very short time and only the people who just had to sit and stay alert screwed up
I do have to QUESTION ARFF telling Southwest I need to get you off the active taxi way. (3:08) It's the Captain's decision to move the aircraft not ARFF's. What if Boeing had put Brake Temperature Monitoring System BTMS on the 737, the crew would know how hot the brakes were.
I RENEW my suggestions that 1. Install cameras, facing forward,on the tail of all planes so that pilots can see for themselves what is happening outside their aircraft and, 2. Under the fuselage facing forward so that pilots can see under to see especially their landing gears.
They are basically fire extinguishers that are plumbed into the engines and nacelles. There is usually one per engine plus an extra. They are a last resort. I promise that the plane went nowhere for a while.
@@wmason1961 You rarely go away with a failing engine anyway. Plus the brakes and tires that will probably need replacement because of damages from the RTO.
Professionalism?? 1). The tower controller was not not paying attention and had to ask the pilots to repeat their rejected runway call. 2). The tower controller did not read back and confirm that he had called the fire department. 3). The pilot and ARFF had a difficult time establishing communication, not sure who was on what frequency. You call that professional?? Wow, your standards are woefully insufficient.
@mikek5298 Found the person who has never been in an emergent situation. If someone suddenly comes across the radio with something unexpected and alarming, its pretty much standard to make sure you heard what you thought you did either by asking for say again or a readback of what they said to confirm if you werent 100% sure. Sure the controller should had confirmed fire was on the way but hes probably scrambling to get everything rolling. And the same for the pilots. They might have been on multiple frequencies themselves. Its easy to sit there and armchair quarterback from the safety of your home but when youre actually in an emergent situation, its wildly different. Stuff is happening really fast and whats most important is making sure everyones safe. They acted with professionalism. Was it perfect, no. But that still doesnt give you the right to judge.
If you wanna make a video of ATC from my flight from yesterday F92142 if it’s anything of your interest we had a hydraulic fault detected in Vegas and landed in Philly and there was also an an announcement I can send to you if you want it’s was N331FR
Are you that airline passenger that stands up and starts getting their bags during an emergency while the plane is still on the runway or taxi way? Is that you?
It's also takeoff....Like they probably just got on within 30 minutes. If they actually took off no way they would have been able to get up any faster.
Why? Do you think planes are designed in such a way that an engine fire can ever reach the fuel? Do you think they had a 6 year design it? Or do you just watch too many movies? Airplanes are safe, get over your irrational fear.
@@kkjjqrysdgadff7782 There's a report from the United States Department of Transportation called "Potential for Fuel Tank Fire and Hydrodynamic Ram from Uncontained Aircraft Engine Debris" that shows how wrong you ARE, Skippy. You just sit there and let the adults talk, okay?
The thing that pisses me off most about this story is the passengers getting up with absolutely no friggin reason to. Should be bounced and banned for life.
I mean... there was a fire in an engine after a rejected takeoff. I know it's not a reason for people who know, but if you are totally unaware of anything to do with airmanship you might assume that "fire = evacuate", which isn't entirely unreasonable. Sure, you should wait for the command to EV and follow the insctructions of the flight crew - but I don't think we should be this harsh in the judgment of lay people. They saw fire and got ready to get off...
As a non-native English speaker I'm always amazed how people understand this mumble by dispatchers. It's harder to make out words than watching Nolan's movie :) . I wonder if these interactions are clear to understand without subtitles to the English speakers.
I'm not a pilot, but have private pilot friends and liked to listen to ATC traffic on some United flights. Knowing the situation is really important, that helps here! A lot of the understanding comes from pilot and ATC having a very good idea of what might be said, and why, and of the limited vocabulary that is used. Oh, and knowing layout of the runways and taxiways - something we don't really have here!
There's one more factor: They're a lot closer to each other than the receiver used by LiveATC. The LiveATC receiver could be anywhere within a few miles of the airport. A quiet mumble on our end might be a loud mumble to them, or at least a mumble without any interference.
Never understood why the fire and emergency vehicles are positioned so far away from where their services might be needed - I.E. nearer the runways. It is just expense that gets in the way of having fire suppression hoses actually built in to the runway edge so that it could be remotely activated within seconds of being required? (Not applicable in this case obviously - but could have happened if the fire had not been contained.)
@jordanrodrigues1279 I suspect the speed-of-molasses-FAA has a lot to say about what can and can't be implemented. An engineer tasked with designing a fire suppression system for an airport would look at the data and determine that most fires occur on the runways and then implement a set of remotely controlled foam dispensing units along the length so that an aircraft in distress would slide into a mountain of foam thereby diminishing the fire even before the bits had come to rest. Thereafter the ARFF can drive the 2 miles or so to the scene. I'm reminded of the Air Korea San Francisco crash where it seemed to take forever for the fire crew to arrive as the plane burned and where at least one of the fatalities occurred as a result of being run over by the ARFF truck. As they say in primary school - could do better.
The fire truck on site proceeded to the aircraft fire trainer to release a load of fire retardant, in order to alleviate the condition of epididymal hypertension.
why the heck do the passengers think they can disregard orders and get up out of their seat? SMH.. does ANYONE know how to behave in public anymore. ??
Most of the time it’s a passenger that has to use the restroom and was hoping to use the restroom while in cruise. Sometimes they’ve been holding it in so long they have no choice. Especially the female passengers. It’s a lot harder for them to hold it in because of they’re anatomy. It is what it is.
I would have thought the moment they found out there was smoke coming from the engine their priority would be to get everyone off the plane immediately due to the risk of fire???
Question: I know he was waiting to continue taxiing because the brakes needed to cool. But why can’t they just move it super slowly? I’d imagine that an airplane has a ton of rolling resistance, so couldn’t they just taxi at like 2mph and let rolling resistance bring it to a stop if needed?
The brakes heat up after you stop. They don't reach max temperature until several minutes later. It's easier and safer to stay stopped, have the ARFF trucks prepositioned and ready, than it be moving, catch fire, and have an increase in potential for total brake failure. At which point ARFF trucks are scrambling to get into position with 150,000lbs still moving uncontrolled with 180 people on board.
Each engine has two canisters of fire extinguishing agent that the pilots can discharge into the nacelle if needed. There are also fire bottles for the APU and the cargo holds.
I can see why the crew did what they did and it looks like it all ended well. But I don't think I would have people sitting on a plane that has had a confirmed fire for any time more thsn they absolutely had to. I think an engine fire is enough to override a hot brake limitation. I think I would have had ARFF spray the brakes and had them pull up some stairs. If the problem got worse you may have to do an emergency evac. If smoke from the engine was in the cabin, that's a whole other problem and would call for emergency evac. I just don't like having passengers on a plane where there's been a fire. You don't go to a jet bridge until the engine fire is confirmed out and thoroughly inspected. Seems like the crew should have at least checked on the ETA of some stairs. Maybe they did check. If hot brakes were holding everything up, I would address the hot brakes. ARFF can fix hot brakes. SWA has their SOPs and procedures so there's a lot of missing factors and information so I can't blame the crew, they handled it fine.
Evacuation is really a last resort move, if lives are in grave danger, as injuries are almost certain. With the trucks there, there is no reason to empty the plane in the middle of the field, where it is hard to approach, and shuts down the entire airport. Once in the maintenance area, you can deplane in a controlled fashion, and put passengers straight on buses, so they can't go wandering about, and keep the rest of the planes moving with minimal delay.
@csgergo80 has a good response but I would like to add that the hot brakes situation is not something that can be fixed or ignored. During this rejected takeoff, the brakes were likely the only thing that was used to slow the aircraft generating a large amount of heat. Those brakes can continue to heat up after the aircraft stopped as heat is radiated from the inside to the outside where they can actually cool down from airflow. While there is a small risk that the brakes can catch fire, the more dangerous situation comes from the tires. As the air inside the tire heats up from the brake heat it causes the pressure of the tires to increase. There are safety plugs in the tire that are supposed to melt out and release the air pressure if the brakes make the rims to hot but they do not always function properly. If the tire explodes and people are to the sides of it they can be killed or injured which is why the airplane can't go near buildings. After the initial waiting period, the brake and wheel temps are usually checked to ensure they have cooled enough to be safe with a laser thermometer or other method before clearing the aircraft to the terminal or final parking.
Hmmm. Active fire confirmed by fire trucks. I would evacuate on the first officers’s side (right side) of ac. Take care of them pax! Even though certain injury would occur during evac. Hardest call of all emergencies though, Captain to order an evacuation.
The fire was in the engine and due to no fire warning in the cockpit it was likely in the tailpipe unless the fire detecting system was damaged during the failure. Tailpipe fires are "safe" as the fire is occurring in a part of the engine that is designed to handle the high heat. In normal instances of a tailpipe fire the pilot would motor the engine (spin it without fuel so the engine doesn't actually start) to blow the flames out and then would continue on. In this case since the engine that was on fire was damaged the option to motor that engine is not available so the pilot dispensed a fire extinguisher bottle into the engine to prevent the fire from spreading and allowed the fire department to maintain visuals on the state of the fire. Had the pilot ordered an unnecessary evacuation there would have been confusion on the ground, and injuries would be likely making it a worse situation than it was. This plane probably waited the required time to allow the brakes to safely cool and then proceeded to the terminal where the passengers disembarked normally.
First, it sounded like the engine was on fire for all of 10 seconds, in a large part because of my second point. As demonstrated here, those engines can put out fires with internal systems in many cases. It sounds like there was no need for the firefighters to actually get involved when the crew was able to put out the fire by "firing a bottle". They even observed the fire appeared to be out. Now, I'm assuming what you're really pointing out is the apparent conflict of the fire fighting crew backing away instead of fighting the fire. What makes you think they couldn't fight the fire while backing away? I'm going to assume the fire crew actually did have a truck capable of spraying given the pilot's comment about firing the bottle before they sprayed. Hell, that comment by the pilot or co-pilot alone potentially shows he considered the fire truck to be in a position to react appropriately if needed. Do you know the reach of those sprayers on those trucks? I don't, but I've seen videos of them being used in a more....ceremonial...fashion. They don't have to be right on the plane to spray an engine fire. Maybe they have to back away because they're too close and the nozzle can't depress far enough to aim down? Maybe it's considered safer to keep a minimum distance away when spraying down an aircraft? I don't know have the answer to this, but I HIGHLY doubt they were backing away in a manner that prevented them from fighting the fire as you seem to be implying. But let me emphasize....in this case, they were not needed to put out the fire. So why throw shade at them when you know so little about the situation or what they're trained to do?
One of the first rules of fire/rescue you're taught is, "We don't trade lives." We won't sacrifice ourselves to rescue you. It's not because we're more valuable than you, but because the loss of one of us means not only do we now have an additional victim to deal with, but we also have 1 less rescuer and several more who have to deal with them, so it's a minus 3-5 for us. And it might be minus a lot more of you if that tips the balance and compromises the operation. I assure you those firefighters knew exactly how far they needed to back off and still be able to put that engine out and evacuate the plane if needed. They probably also needed to back off simply to give the plane maneuvering room.
That’s correct. Even if you have no fire warning indication on the cockpit but you receive and indication verbally or visually by someone outside the aircraft, you’re gonna assume the worst case and discharge at least one hrd bottle.
Initially they had an indication of engine failure but not of fire. Something also made them think a tire was flat on that side so presumably there was also some noise and/or vibration that would have made them reject takeoff even if there wasn't instrumentation telling them about a problem.
A tail pipe fire won’t indicate, it’s usually fuel that bypassed the n1 assembly, unburned fuel, not a hazard to the engine exactly because it’s in the tail and normally we just spin the engine blades and it will blow itself out (usually occurs during start with a failed igniter) but I would of released a bottle myself just in case…
I used to fuel Southwest. Their safety standards are ignored. At least they are at Raleigh Durham. I reported a bird strike one time and they were insistent that it was just bird poop, despite blood all over the wing. Cant have any delays they said.
@@TangoDelta8111 when an uneducated person in the field of aviation doesn’t understand what is going on, you need a touch of common sense and not a degree. This jackass doesn’t have a clue what he’s talked about
That's a lot of cleaning if the pilot pulled the handle for the bottles. That engine will be totally dismantled and inspected by NTSB & the manufacturer of the engine with Boeing.
My plane caught fire once when I was leaving San Andras. The police were firing on me and a helicopter was shooting missiles at me. I had to escape with only my parachute and my gun. Thank God I was able to get a ride home before I ran out of energy.
Hey, guys!
I decided to create a channel with slightly better visualization. The first video is already on the channel. link below and in first comment. Leave your opinion in the comments under the video.
Please, welcome!
th-cam.com/video/lpjGsljLnbc/w-d-xo.html
Highly professional job all round. This is what happens when everyone works well together. Great job folks!
Agreed! For all we know, ARFF Command could have been on the toilet when the video starts. Tower, ARFF, and the flight crew all did a terrific job here.
Such a calm and professional way of dealing with a potentially deadly incident. They made it sound routine, even though it is definitely not.
This pilot probably never had something like this happen before and will probably never have something like this happen again. But handled it like it was a standard occurrence.
And fire command really did a great job providing information and support.
This event is handled in their simulation training along with other events that rarely happen.
@@paulkurilecz4209 Of course it it...
And they brief it in the below/before the line pre takeoff briefing.
But a simulator can't add danger or the knowledge everyone dies if the pilot balls it up.
And the briefing is intended to shorten the startle period, but even then there's a sense of unreality that people describe experiencing in emergency situations.
They still did a very good job...
@@a24396 SWA's simulation training is to have their cockpit crews go through normal take off and landing procedures and then at some point the IP will "flip a switch" on the simulator to cause any number of problems either single events or multiple events.
If you haven't been in a modern day flight simulator, you should. Your mind's and body's reaction will convince you that it is absolutely real.
I had an opportunity to "fly" a 737 simulator and go through the Delta 191 approach. I managed to successfully go around and then land. After "landing", my heart was racing, my shirt was soaked in sweat in the armpits and back and my knees were weak. So, convince my limbic system that it wasn't "real".
The IP told me that my gear came within 10 feet from the ground. My response was better 10 feet above than 10 feet below.
Great example of why they always plan ahead, to reject takeoff before they've reached v1, if the any of the engines or airspeed indicators fail.
The engine fire happened and got extinguished before the temp sensors even told the pilots there was a fire; nowhere you'd rather be than be standing near a fire truck when that happens.
Between 80kts and V1, Southwest will only reject for: engine failure, fire/ fire warning, predictive windshear warning, or aircraft is unsafe/ unable to fly. Airspeed indicator(s) failure is minor and doing a high speed abort for something like that would be more risky than just taking off and coming back to land.
We call them loops…fire loops
Poor fire truck. That was so mean! They didn't get to put out the fire!
Yeah, you could hear their disappointment. Well, maybe next time...
It was good that the pilots didn't hesitate, just fired the bottles off even though there was no indication. Awesome job.
@@roddy222 Not to be an ass but a fire department telling you there is fire... that is a solid indication.
@@aebalc The pilot reported that he didn't get an indication in the cockpit, as in: no warnings came on. So, the comment is indicating that the crew trusted fire without an indication.
@@SpartacusColo There are instances when a fire indication isn't shown in the cockpit. It depends on the area of the engine that caught fire. For example, a tailpipe fire wouldn't be detected by the fire loops but it would be very visible from outside.
Could have been much more intense if the fire happened a few seconds later at V1 and the flight went airborne. A safe outcome might still have been expected but all of that would have happened in the sky while maneuvering an emergency return with one engine. Hats off to the safety engineering and pilot professionalism protecting us all.
Love the professionalism and calm demeanor of everybody involved. Fantastic job!
Nothing ever good came from panicking.
fun fact: at 0:17 that is the actual southwest taxi speed
Lmao.
Trying out new high speed taxi. Got to be careful with those brakes.
This reminds me of the animations from an old Onion video "Obama replaces high speed rail plan with high speed busses"
Thank me later, it's hilarious
@@highviewbarbell I'd never seen that, still laughing. I loved it! Thanks!
It’s not high speed taxi.
It’s just a really small airport.
Great job done by everyone. Professional, kept one another informed and everyone kept a cool head.
Best ARFF I've heard yet.
All parties involved are handling this very calm and professional. Good example of how you should deal with an emergency.
Great job by everyone. I really wish more passengers would listen to these to understand that they shouldn't get up before being told to do so. They need to understand that they cause delays when they do that. Like the Air Canada flight in Toronto that had to go around because a passenger stood up to go to the bathroom while on Final. Earlier this year had a passenger stand up during the approach while all of the flight attendants were strapped in. A couple of them unstrapped to get this person back in their seat. Not just being selfish and stupid but also risking injury and the lives of others. Sit down!
Yep, had a passenger get up on landing in an AirAsia flight to KUL, he was escorted off the plane and I later seen him in and held in police custody while i was killing time in the airport. Not the best way to start a holiday. Simple, Follow there instructions. Cheers.
Just go. It’s not taking off. Too bad.
I’m not going around because someone stood up. In 24 years I’ve landed twice while someone was taking a dump. It happens. Nor should flight attendants get up to put someone back in their seat. There’s a PA system for that. If a passenger gets hurt, that’s on them.
When you have to go, you just have to go. Would you rather go around or clean up a soiled seat...
@@BobanVagene if only that were true. The passenger will get injured. That will cause a delay, so everyone is inconvenienced. Then the passenger will sue the airline because he or she got injured. It may never go to court because the airline might decide to settle, as a cheaper alternative to fighting in court. Then ticket prices will go up in order to cover the losses by the airline. All because some jerk chose not to follow rules.
Superb and professional communication on all accounts. Beautifully handled!
Why didn't the pilot take off? Passengers have places to be and it didn't sound serious enough to cancel a flight
I’m a Southwest Instructor. Great job! This is just how we practice it in the Sim!
Excellent communications from all involved parties
Interesting to hear what all happens in a situation like this! Thanx for creating the video!
I find it interesting how all of these groups - ground vehicles, airplane, ground controllers, in flight controllers, gates, emergency, and others, talk with each other , switch frequencies, communicate at such a high level so everyone knows what everyone else is doing, and at the same time keeping themselves and others safe. No one seems to overreact or act entitled, pilot who just had to abort takeoff and had to apply heavy braking, pulls safely off runway, stated he had to stay clear of loading gates, thought about flaps, activate extinguishers, among everything else he had to do to control the aircraft. Emergency ground crews inspected, gave feedback and responded to pilots request. Everyone was calm and respectful. 👍🏼 to all.
Well said!
And they think planes can fly without a pilot/co pilot. Stupid thinking.
Interesting to hear just what goes on during something like this. Thanks.
I have often wondered why planes are not fitted with outboard cameras strategically placed so that the captain can see what is happening outside of his plane
It's an extra $59 per plane that the airlines does not want to spend.
@@lilolme69 It's another couple of holes in the skin of the plane causing an additional weakness to the airframe. Plus it adds a small, but increased amount of weight to the plane, thus requiring more fuel. But I tend to agree it would likely be worth it.
@@merlinathrawes746 Just build it in to new planes. If they would have started this in 2000, it would be almost 25 years since then and would be on almost all the planes by now.
Some of them do have cameras mounted externally, (atop the tail usually) not only that you can also watch it on the in flight entertainment screen, although that wasn't its original purpose. Several videos of it on here.
Boeing struggle to put tech from the 1990s in their 737s, how could you possibly think they’d justify anything from this century…
Ok...im confused. Tower at timestamp 00:34 says turn right heading 190...but the airport map shows them turning left...
That's his takeoff clearance. Once airborne from the runway he's being instructed to make a slight right turn to a heading of 190. In this case he never got that far and rejected prior to getting airborne.
Excellent work by everybody, especially the pilots. A good outcome from a near miss?
I don't know if I would even call this a near miss.
This is textbook teamwork and proof the safety planning works and works well.
That captain was so calm. That’s the kind of person you want in an emergency. We had to evacuate at 36 story building that was on fire in the 90’s. He’d have fit right in with the FD - “Bad news, you got a fire. Good news, it’s not a very big fire, are you able to get to the stairwells in the core?”
Can someone explain to me what the firing of bottles means? I never heard that before. Airplanes are fitted with fire extinguisher bottles in the engines thar pilots can fire into the engines to put out a fire?
Yep
The only thing that kept this from being a textbook scenario was the passenger that had to jump up and mull around the cabin...LOL
Someone had to make the incident about them, I would bet the were trying to get a selfie with the engine fire background. A lot went on between a lot of people during a very short time and only the people who just had to sit and stay alert screwed up
Passenger probably got up because they "needed" to make a TikTok about it, "you won't believe what just happened on my plane!"
I do have to QUESTION ARFF telling Southwest I need to get you off the active taxi way. (3:08) It's the Captain's decision to move the aircraft not ARFF's. What if Boeing had put Brake Temperature Monitoring System BTMS on the 737, the crew would know how hot the brakes were.
Everyone is calm af while the passengers in the back think the plane is going to explode at any moment! 🤣
Why does teamwork always make me feel good?
Top notch response
An engine fire doesn't surprise me when you taxi to the runway that aggressively😂
SW 737-700 had an engine explosion at KSNA a few weeks ago on takeoff. Left engine. ….
Great vid. Thanks!
I RENEW my suggestions that 1. Install cameras, facing forward,on the tail of all planes so that pilots can see for themselves what is happening outside their aircraft and,
2. Under the fuselage facing forward so that pilots can see under to see especially their landing gears.
Pretty impressive pilot, how he stayed so calm!
still waiting til the day you fix "R" alignment on the opening screen lol
Good work by all involved!
There was a Jetblue accident at SRQ on Monday afternoon 6/19, hoping to see a video on that soon!
Please enlighten me. What accident are you referring to at srq?
Very informative video!
ground sounds like arff doing a voice character. it's incredible
The coordination is impressive. There’s a reason flying’s so safe in U.S.
Seriously? Some of the most stupid accidents have happened in the US.
Btw, the world trade center was in the US...
And the thousands of similar incidents not reported in 2nd world countries.
@@johnlawrence7386😂 the hate instantly you know nothing stfu
@@flo7844literally nothing to do with nothing but thanks
Bob: so what you do for work? 🙂
Jerry: AARF
Bob: I was just curious - no reason to bark at me! 🤨😒
can anyone explain the "bottle" reference? I assume some kind of engine extinguishing system?
They are basically fire extinguishers that are plumbed into the engines and nacelles. There is usually one per engine plus an extra. They are a last resort. I promise that the plane went nowhere for a while.
@@wmason1961 Incorrect, it's where the pilots break open a bottle of alcohol to celebrate because they know it might have been much worse :)
@@wmason1961 You rarely go away with a failing engine anyway. Plus the brakes and tires that will probably need replacement because of damages from the RTO.
Pure professionalism
You sound like my wife after a passionate night of love making...
@@YOURDADSDILDO Bruh she was lying to u
@@YOURDADSDILDO Best reply I have ever seen to a comment
Professionalism?? 1). The tower controller was not not paying attention and had to ask the pilots to repeat their rejected runway call. 2). The tower controller did not read back and confirm that he had called the fire department. 3). The pilot and ARFF had a difficult time establishing communication, not sure who was on what frequency. You call that professional?? Wow, your standards are woefully insufficient.
@mikek5298
Found the person who has never been in an emergent situation.
If someone suddenly comes across the radio with something unexpected and alarming, its pretty much standard to make sure you heard what you thought you did either by asking for say again or a readback of what they said to confirm if you werent 100% sure.
Sure the controller should had confirmed fire was on the way but hes probably scrambling to get everything rolling.
And the same for the pilots. They might have been on multiple frequencies themselves.
Its easy to sit there and armchair quarterback from the safety of your home but when youre actually in an emergent situation, its wildly different. Stuff is happening really fast and whats most important is making sure everyones safe.
They acted with professionalism.
Was it perfect, no. But that still doesnt give you the right to judge.
If you wanna make a video of ATC from my flight from yesterday F92142 if it’s anything of your interest we had a hydraulic fault detected in Vegas and landed in Philly and there was also an an announcement I can send to you if you want it’s was N331FR
Are you that airline passenger that stands up and starts getting their bags during an emergency while the plane is still on the runway or taxi way? Is that you?
It's also takeoff....Like they probably just got on within 30 minutes. If they actually took off no way they would have been able to get up any faster.
Notice how they don't say "tarmac" anywhere in this exchange? Yeah, news media. Take notes.
Which tire do you think is flat?
The one on fire.
Smoke coming out of the engine? That might be a bit of a concern.
But when you have an engine fire on a plane that still has takeoff fuel levels don't you want the passengers out ASAP ?
Great job by everyone all professionals .
I wonder if the Captain told the passengers there was a fire. I would have been petrified as a passenger hearing that with all the fuel onboard.
Why? Do you think planes are designed in such a way that an engine fire can ever reach the fuel? Do you think they had a 6 year design it? Or do you just watch too many movies? Airplanes are safe, get over your irrational fear.
@@kkjjqrysdgadff7782 fuel is in the wings, right above the engine... Hence pulling the bottle immediatly after hearing the word "fire".
@kkjjqrysdgadff7782 It always amazes me how TH-cam comments will take any opportunity to jump to condescension and disdain. Chill out, will you?
@@kkjjqrysdgadff7782 There's a report from the United States Department of Transportation called "Potential for Fuel Tank Fire and Hydrodynamic Ram from Uncontained Aircraft Engine Debris" that shows how wrong you ARE, Skippy. You just sit there and let the adults talk, okay?
@@maxsdad538 What!? No response from kkjj7782? Still reading I suppose!
The taxi portion wasnt sped up at all
The thing that pisses me off most about this story is the passengers getting up with absolutely no friggin reason to. Should be bounced and banned for life.
I mean... there was a fire in an engine after a rejected takeoff. I know it's not a reason for people who know, but if you are totally unaware of anything to do with airmanship you might assume that "fire = evacuate", which isn't entirely unreasonable.
Sure, you should wait for the command to EV and follow the insctructions of the flight crew - but I don't think we should be this harsh in the judgment of lay people. They saw fire and got ready to get off...
Exemplary professionalism by everyone. Remarkable example of why US aviation is the safest in the world.
that might be the most clear audio of arff ever
Of course passengers got up. People are so lame.
As a non-native English speaker I'm always amazed how people understand this mumble by dispatchers. It's harder to make out words than watching Nolan's movie :) . I wonder if these interactions are clear to understand without subtitles to the English speakers.
I'd guess good headsets and good radio recievers help
Police scanners are even worse!
I'm not a pilot, but have private pilot friends and liked to listen to ATC traffic on some United flights.
Knowing the situation is really important, that helps here! A lot of the understanding comes from pilot and ATC having a very good idea of what might be said, and why, and of the limited vocabulary that is used.
Oh, and knowing layout of the runways and taxiways - something we don't really have here!
There's one more factor: They're a lot closer to each other than the receiver used by LiveATC. The LiveATC receiver could be anywhere within a few miles of the airport. A quiet mumble on our end might be a loud mumble to them, or at least a mumble without any interference.
As a native english speaker, I most certainly do not understand them! Then again I don't usually do well with song lyrics, either.
LOL. Holding the brakes because they are too hot to set the parking brake.
Priceless
Never understood why the fire and emergency vehicles are positioned so far away from where their services might be needed - I.E. nearer the runways. It is just expense that gets in the way of having fire suppression hoses actually built in to the runway edge so that it could be remotely activated within seconds of being required? (Not applicable in this case obviously - but could have happened if the fire had not been contained.)
@jordanrodrigues1279 I suspect the speed-of-molasses-FAA has a lot to say about what can and can't be implemented. An engineer tasked with designing a fire suppression system for an airport would look at the data and determine that most fires occur on the runways and then implement a set of remotely controlled foam dispensing units along the length so that an aircraft in distress would slide into a mountain of foam thereby diminishing the fire even before the bits had come to rest. Thereafter the ARFF can drive the 2 miles or so to the scene. I'm reminded of the Air Korea San Francisco crash where it seemed to take forever for the fire crew to arrive as the plane burned and where at least one of the fatalities occurred as a result of being run over by the ARFF truck. As they say in primary school - could do better.
The fire truck on site proceeded to the aircraft fire trainer to release a load of fire retardant, in order to alleviate the condition of epididymal hypertension.
why the heck do the passengers think they can disregard orders and get up out of their seat? SMH.. does ANYONE know how to behave in public anymore. ??
Carefull you will hurt some stupids feelings
Most of the time it’s a passenger that has to use the restroom and was hoping to use the restroom while in cruise. Sometimes they’ve been holding it in so long they have no choice. Especially the female passengers. It’s a lot harder for them to hold it in because of they’re anatomy. It is what it is.
Is the video in real time or did the creator maybe remove several minutes of delays?
@@Mr_Bones., their anatomy. They are not the anatomy. They have an anatomy.
I would have thought the moment they found out there was smoke coming from the engine their priority would be to get everyone off the plane immediately due to the risk of fire???
That rhyme went unnoticed 😅
Question: I know he was waiting to continue taxiing because the brakes needed to cool. But why can’t they just move it super slowly? I’d imagine that an airplane has a ton of rolling resistance, so couldn’t they just taxi at like 2mph and let rolling resistance bring it to a stop if needed?
The brakes heat up after you stop. They don't reach max temperature until several minutes later. It's easier and safer to stay stopped, have the ARFF trucks prepositioned and ready, than it be moving, catch fire, and have an increase in potential for total brake failure. At which point ARFF trucks are scrambling to get into position with 150,000lbs still moving uncontrolled with 180 people on board.
Could someone explain to me what they mean with the "firing a Bottle"?
Each engine has two canisters of fire extinguishing agent that the pilots can discharge into the nacelle if needed. There are also fire bottles for the APU and the cargo holds.
Two bottles per engine? On the B727 at least,there were only two bottles for the three engines. Must have come a long way.
I can see why the crew did what they did and it looks like it all ended well. But I don't think I would have people sitting on a plane that has had a confirmed fire for any time more thsn they absolutely had to. I think an engine fire is enough to override a hot brake limitation. I think I would have had ARFF spray the brakes and had them pull up some stairs. If the problem got worse you may have to do an emergency evac.
If smoke from the engine was in the cabin, that's a whole other problem and would call for emergency evac. I just don't like having passengers on a plane where there's been a fire.
You don't go to a jet bridge until the engine fire is confirmed out and thoroughly inspected. Seems like the crew should have at least checked on the ETA of some stairs. Maybe they did check. If hot brakes were holding everything up, I would address the hot brakes. ARFF can fix hot brakes. SWA has their SOPs and procedures so there's a lot of missing factors and information so I can't blame the crew, they handled it fine.
Evacuation is really a last resort move, if lives are in grave danger, as injuries are almost certain. With the trucks there, there is no reason to empty the plane in the middle of the field, where it is hard to approach, and shuts down the entire airport. Once in the maintenance area, you can deplane in a controlled fashion, and put passengers straight on buses, so they can't go wandering about, and keep the rest of the planes moving with minimal delay.
@csgergo80 has a good response but I would like to add that the hot brakes situation is not something that can be fixed or ignored. During this rejected takeoff, the brakes were likely the only thing that was used to slow the aircraft generating a large amount of heat. Those brakes can continue to heat up after the aircraft stopped as heat is radiated from the inside to the outside where they can actually cool down from airflow. While there is a small risk that the brakes can catch fire, the more dangerous situation comes from the tires. As the air inside the tire heats up from the brake heat it causes the pressure of the tires to increase. There are safety plugs in the tire that are supposed to melt out and release the air pressure if the brakes make the rims to hot but they do not always function properly. If the tire explodes and people are to the sides of it they can be killed or injured which is why the airplane can't go near buildings. After the initial waiting period, the brake and wheel temps are usually checked to ensure they have cooled enough to be safe with a laser thermometer or other method before clearing the aircraft to the terminal or final parking.
There’s always the idiots that stand up isn’t there! You’ve just boarded you can’t need the toilet already wtf
Way to go plumbers!!! Good work!
At least it didn’t happen airborne!!!
I sure wouldn't get up, but I'd be planning my steps to the exit doors on the right wing.
Hmmm. Active fire confirmed by fire trucks. I would evacuate on the first officers’s side (right side) of ac. Take care of them pax! Even though certain injury would occur during evac. Hardest call of all emergencies though, Captain to order an evacuation.
The fire was in the engine and due to no fire warning in the cockpit it was likely in the tailpipe unless the fire detecting system was damaged during the failure. Tailpipe fires are "safe" as the fire is occurring in a part of the engine that is designed to handle the high heat. In normal instances of a tailpipe fire the pilot would motor the engine (spin it without fuel so the engine doesn't actually start) to blow the flames out and then would continue on. In this case since the engine that was on fire was damaged the option to motor that engine is not available so the pilot dispensed a fire extinguisher bottle into the engine to prevent the fire from spreading and allowed the fire department to maintain visuals on the state of the fire.
Had the pilot ordered an unnecessary evacuation there would have been confusion on the ground, and injuries would be likely making it a worse situation than it was. This plane probably waited the required time to allow the brakes to safely cool and then proceeded to the terminal where the passengers disembarked normally.
Is it normal to ask airplane to move after observed engine fire?
they said engine smoke at first, then fire
“Fire in the left engine”
No kidding.
Not to be funny, but shouldn't he have stayed on the runway , or at least requested to exit the runway where he did?
Can someone please tell me what "firing the bottle" means. Thanks in advance.
Each engine has two extinguishing bottles that the pilots can activate in the flight deck. It’s activated with a pull and twist motion.
@@mlx39996 Thank you for the explanation.
It's easy to criticise when your not there or after the event
It's spelled you're, with an apostrophe.
What was determined to be the cause of the fire? My guess would be bird-strike.
Great job all the way around. It would have been much worse had they actually gotten airborne.
Eerily similar to American 383, right down to the way the pilots called the tower. Rejecting on the runway due to engine failure/fire
And the one in Las Vegas a few years ago where they evacuated on the runway. Rejected takoff due to a fire.
I like that the firefighters keep backing away from the fiery plane but all the passengers are still stuck on board.
First, it sounded like the engine was on fire for all of 10 seconds, in a large part because of my second point. As demonstrated here, those engines can put out fires with internal systems in many cases. It sounds like there was no need for the firefighters to actually get involved when the crew was able to put out the fire by "firing a bottle". They even observed the fire appeared to be out.
Now, I'm assuming what you're really pointing out is the apparent conflict of the fire fighting crew backing away instead of fighting the fire. What makes you think they couldn't fight the fire while backing away? I'm going to assume the fire crew actually did have a truck capable of spraying given the pilot's comment about firing the bottle before they sprayed. Hell, that comment by the pilot or co-pilot alone potentially shows he considered the fire truck to be in a position to react appropriately if needed. Do you know the reach of those sprayers on those trucks? I don't, but I've seen videos of them being used in a more....ceremonial...fashion. They don't have to be right on the plane to spray an engine fire. Maybe they have to back away because they're too close and the nozzle can't depress far enough to aim down? Maybe it's considered safer to keep a minimum distance away when spraying down an aircraft?
I don't know have the answer to this, but I HIGHLY doubt they were backing away in a manner that prevented them from fighting the fire as you seem to be implying. But let me emphasize....in this case, they were not needed to put out the fire. So why throw shade at them when you know so little about the situation or what they're trained to do?
One of the first rules of fire/rescue you're taught is, "We don't trade lives." We won't sacrifice ourselves to rescue you. It's not because we're more valuable than you, but because the loss of one of us means not only do we now have an additional victim to deal with, but we also have 1 less rescuer and several more who have to deal with them, so it's a minus 3-5 for us. And it might be minus a lot more of you if that tips the balance and compromises the operation.
I assure you those firefighters knew exactly how far they needed to back off and still be able to put that engine out and evacuate the plane if needed. They probably also needed to back off simply to give the plane maneuvering room.
I think they were letting the pilots know they were clear of any engine blast so they were free to taxi.
“turn right heading 190” at the end of RWY 18R ?
thats a heading assignment after takeoff
@@tikkin11 Yes, and 190 off a heading of 180 is not that much really...
*I wish my flight taxied that fast*
That must have been exciting....!
I like pilots who do a high thrust start to roll then slam on the brakes to knock those idiots who stand up and their adz.
Any emergency, and American Air Traffic Controllers always respond with "say again". They just cant handle the unexpected.
(0:17) Wow, a real speed demon at taxiing, isn't he? 😉
How did the pilots know there was an engine fire if none of the sensors told them so?
They didn’t. Sounds like fire was observed by the firefighters on the ground. They relayed that to the pilots who decided to use the extinguisher.
That’s correct. Even if you have no fire warning indication on the cockpit but you receive and indication verbally or visually by someone outside the aircraft, you’re gonna assume the worst case and discharge at least one hrd bottle.
Initially they had an indication of engine failure but not of fire. Something also made them think a tire was flat on that side so presumably there was also some noise and/or vibration that would have made them reject takeoff even if there wasn't instrumentation telling them about a problem.
A tail pipe fire won’t indicate, it’s usually fuel that bypassed the n1 assembly, unburned fuel, not a hazard to the engine exactly because it’s in the tail and normally we just spin the engine blades and it will blow itself out (usually occurs during start with a failed igniter) but I would of released a bottle myself just in case…
In their rejection call they say engine failure, not fire.
What fire?
Guess they need to return to station to play with their hoses diversity mechanics . Notice the increase in problems lately
I hope during all this radio chatter,that the trucks were rolling
I used to fuel Southwest. Their safety standards are ignored. At least they are at Raleigh Durham. I reported a bird strike one time and they were insistent that it was just bird poop, despite blood all over the wing. Cant have any delays they said.
A fueler providing his uneducated opinion? It’s like a janitor telling a surgeon he thinks he ignores safety standards.
@@LEVELGAZANOW Im a pilot Mr Uneducated. Talk about not being part of the crayons. Watch your mouth boy
You don’t need a degree to see things arn’t correct.
@@TangoDelta8111 when an uneducated person in the field of aviation doesn’t understand what is going on, you need a touch of common sense and not a degree. This jackass doesn’t have a clue what he’s talked about
@@LEVELGAZANOWwhy can’t a janitor point out that a surgeon is ignoring safety standards? that seems like a totally plausible scenario
That's a lot of cleaning if the pilot pulled the handle for the bottles. That engine will be totally dismantled and inspected by NTSB & the manufacturer of the engine with Boeing.
probably for the best given it failed and caught fire
My plane caught fire once when I was leaving San Andras. The police were firing on me and a helicopter was shooting missiles at me. I had to escape with only my parachute and my gun. Thank God I was able to get a ride home before I ran out of energy.
Definitely don't want an engine doing anything weird.
ARRF: on our way!🫡
SWA: It’s okay I pulled the bottle 😁
AARF: wait so there’s no fire 🥺
SWA: no we’re good 😊 👍🏼
AARF: oh okay 😞
why was that so interesting???
Glad that pilot wasn't the "new DEI" hire!!!
Seems like southwest has a lot of these incidents……….😮
2:05 sounds like the engine blew and the tire ran over engine parts.
And the passengers got up - just saying 😱