@@BrewCityChaser I don't hear what you're hearing. Pilot was never rude, nor do I detect any annoyance from ATC at all. Pilot clearly communicated their needs and intentions, and answered ATC's queries. Both sides got the job done without confusion.
Outstanding professionalism by the pilots, ATC and everyone else I suspect. I was particularly impressed by the pilot when he notified ATC about go around request. The crew was thinking well ahead as they should be. 😅
As a current center controller, hearing that pilot declare an emergency and give ATC the pertinent information that we need in one transmission makes me so happy. Great job by everyone!
Shouldn’t be trying to land somewhere if there is a risk of a missed approach, when single engine. I don’t mean to be dismissive when I say this, but the choice of airport, type of approach, etc, should be evaluated such that a missed approach is not going to happen. It is common to expect a pilot, in such a situation, to remind ATC of their higher approach speed, longer landing distance, and to ask ATC not to be allowing anyone to depart before they land in order to reduce the risk of debris on the runway, or a delayed take off leading to a go around.
@@Primus54 - the risk is minimised by airmanship and a stable approach. If you think there is a realistic reason for a go around, especially when OEI, then you’re at the wrong airport or flying the wrong approach.
@@EdOeuna There is literally a checklist requirement to set up for a missed approach in every landing… emergency or otherwise. The communication is not an indication of a heightened expectation due to conditions at the airport, but on the aircraft’s issues.
Uh, if by that you mean fly an airplane in a way that is well within spec long enough to return to the airport, then sure. I guess. Airplanes are designed to be able to fly on one engine. The only reason this is classified as an emergency landing is because it has to be classified as that. There was nothing unsafe about flying like this at all. He just needed to get on the ground because, if he loses another engine, it actually becomes an emergency. In your way of thinking, any pilot who flies an airplane exactly the way it's intended is saving hundreds of lives with every single by the book landing.... 🥺
@@since1876 Do you know the cause of the first engine failing while it's happening? If it's due to fuel the other will follow shortly. Just because they're designed to fly with one doesn't make it less of an emergency
@@zach6639 until he has lost the other engine, he still has an engine, dummy. Therefore, it's not an actual emergency until it is. Nothing about my last reply was incorrect. I should clarify that, as I expect you to not have much mental capacity: at this point, the call is a pan pan. That means there's been a mechanical failure but it's not a life threatening emergency. Radio traffic should be silent during a pan declaration. **IF** the rest of the engines fail, it becomes a mayday call. At that point, this plane will be the top priority for landing. It's important to understand when a call is urgent and when it isn't. If you're getting on the radio and screaming mayday just because you lost one engine, you're gonna get a number to copy down.
@@since1876 Tell me you're a 16 year old wannabe pilot without telling me you're a 16 year wannabe pilot. Congratulations, you've watched a few live ATC videos. He declared an emergency because it's an emergency
@@since1876Every loss of required redundancy is defined by law as an emergency. Planes with three or four engines are legally not considered emergency aircraft after losing an engine, twin engine aircraft are. US ATC still treats aircraft with more than two engines as an emergency after one fails. th-cam.com/video/Ezc6F0Zph6o/w-d-xo.html www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpart-T/section-121.565
This pilot sounds like they've had this happen to them before, they were absolutely confidant of what they needed to do, and they were supplying far more information to the controllers than is normally expected (or required). The pilot of an aircraft that has had an in-flight engine failure telling the controller their go-around plan before they do an emergency landing is unusual, but it's a welcome change, it helps keep everyone coordinated and on the same page. I'd be interested to know how many flight hours of experience the pilot and co-pilot of this aircraft had on this type of aircraft, I'm nearly certain that it's over 2500 hours for both of them and the pilot handling the radios during this emergency might have even up to 5000 hours. You can just tell they're extremely experienced with this aircraft type by how calm and confidant they sounded while handling this emergency. I guess if you don't want to read all that, I can boil it down to "These pilots sounded incredibly experienced, and they handled the emergency with the utmost of professionalism."
I'm a regional scum flying the E175. This is what we basically practice in the sim every year. You know what ATC will ask, so you will give it to them beforehand to reduce the back and forth, and significantly reduce workload. We always ask for straight out in case of a go-around, it a lot easier to do than turning in a low energy state with a dead engine. Also, a dead engine with autopilot on is pretty simple, take your time, run the checklist, and put it down.
Brilliantly done! Calm, cool and collected. No reason to get your knickers in a bunch, just get on the ground safe and sound! Pleased the outcome was a good one. Cheers for the video
Wow, very professionally done for both the pilot and controllers under a tense emergency condition. Both the pilots and controllers were very clear in their intentions and requests. Job very well done!
Damn that pilot was on point!!! He gave him everything he needed before he even asked. As calm as he was, you would think that shit happens to him everyday 😂 Great job!
The DL A319-321 fleet are generally in excellent condition. They are getting new A321s including NEO models. I would assume they’ll get some A320 NEOs as well. The DL 757s are still an icon of the airline to me, but sadly they are getting very old. I had a flight delayed recently for a 757 with autopilot issues and another flight where the IFE on one side of the plane stopped working.
Oh wow, finally one of these in my hometown. They practically flew over my house. Ironically was just searching GRR to MSP flights for potential Summer Games Done Quick dates right before watching this.
Very calm and professional. I would have lost my $hit. I don't fly anymore. I did it once to fort Lauderdale Florida back in the 1980s and I swore if I lived that one way flight I would never fly again.
These people brought their A-game. Wonder what kind of engine failure, it seemed a clear cut off decision with no troubleshooting or re-light attempts.
Did I miss it, or maybe it was not on the recording: neither Approach nor Tower gave the altimeter value to the pilots when coming back? Is that normal procedure? I was wondering since it seemed the weather was a bit of an issue. I may be wrong. Thank you.
Chicago Center may have given it to them around 1:55 because you couldn't hear the controller on that frequency. They cleared them down to 9000 so it's likely that they said the altimeter in that clearance.
Some communications were not captured on the recording. While the altimeter would normally be repeated at a couple points in this situation, it most likely remained the same. The flight stayed in a small geographic area and never got near 18,000 feet where they would change to standard pressure. Most likely never needed to adjust it during the flight. Regardless, the ATIS would also have it and most likely one of the uncaptured audio clips gave the current altimeter.
What would a pilot tell passengers in this kind of event? “A few technical issues, need to return etc.” while up in the air and then more details once landed?
Mechanical issues (etc.) not a big deal, landing just in case They probably wouldnt mention engine failure as people would flip, not knowing the planes are designed to withstand an engine failure with no issues
I though pilots were not supposed to turn into the dead engine. Why did they make several lefts, into the dead left engine? All involved did great comms, though.
Wow, a pilot that declare s an emergency, and says number of souls on board & fuel left all together without having to be asked. Wondering why all (or at least more than just this pilot), don't do this.
@@YouveBeenMiddled It can also accumulate on trees, especially those on mountain tops and in areas of high wind. Super cool to see rime ice on trees, not cool to see it on your plane.
As a pilot, your odds of experiencing an engine malfunction of some kind is roughly 1 in 4000 hours of flying. That doesn't mean at 4000 hours you're going to have a failure, you have about a 60% probability of having had one. At 10,000 hours it would make it 90% chance. For reference, an airline pilot will on average have 18,000-22,000 hours when they retire after about 40 years of flying, some much more. Despite all of this, I have a friend who is an airline pilot and haven't had a single engine problem in 30 years of flying.
I had an engine issue about 6 months into my airline career. Not a failure though. I had another issue once when I was a flight instructor, also not an actual failure. ~6000 hours
Interesting. On our ferries, we use x/5. 5/5 is crystal clear. 4/5 copy with some interference issues. 1/5 and 2/5 is message not copied due to excessive noise.
Great job by the aircrew...but WHY do the pilots have to repeat nature of emergency, souls and fuel EVERY. DAMN. TIME. Isn't that supposed to be relayed when the controller hands them off to the next one?
Opposite actually, you'll only have thrust on the right wing which makes the left one dragging behind so the plane tends to yaw to the left which in turn makes right turns harder.
Turbine transport category aircraft do not have a critical engine (in that whichever engine fails has a greater effect on performance), therefore, it doesn't matter which direction the turn is.
@@Boffin55 That's an interesting and perfectly logical perspective. Easier turning into the dead engine but smarter to turn into the good engine. I'm just confused about the comment above yours because they are implying the extra drag isn't a factor.
@@ihateusernamesgrrr What they mean by "there is no critical engine" is that while losing an engine does impact the performance of the aircraft significantly, the performance of all systems is maintained at a level such that the flight envelope of the aircraft is not limited in any way other than a likely loss in climb performance. Even then, ETOPS certified aircraft such as this type (and nearly 100% of all types of aircraft used by the major airlines these days are ETOPS certified to some degree) must be able to lose an engine and still climb at a rate of at least 1000 feet per minute, with the aircraft loaded to the maximum weight it can safely take off at, even if they lost that engine at the exact moment during the takeoff roll that the aircraft hits the velocity at which it can no longer reject the takeoff safely. In other words, on an ETOPS certified aircraft there is no "unsafe zone" of performance where the aircraft "can fly" but "can't do some things", other than like I noted, the loss in climb performance (but as I also noted, that climb performance will still meet or exceed a 1000 foot per minute climb rate with one engine). Additionally, the control surfaces of the aircraft are proportioned such that you will get some adverse yaw from losing an engine, but it will not be sufficient to prevent the aircraft from maneuvering normally. Usually this means that twin engine aircraft that have no critical engine but have wing mounted engines will have a larger than strictly required vertical stabilizer and rudder, and maybe also larger than strictly required ailerons. This ensures that there is always sufficient control authority to maintain control over the aircraft, despite the application of the adverse yaw torque from the assymetric thrust. This is much less of a problem when the engines are mounted on the sides of the tail of the aircraft, because the engines simply have a shorter lever arm to act on meaning that even if the thrust was the same the resulting adverse yaw torque would be lesser. As a result, airliners with twin engines mounted in the tail usually have a proportionally smaller vertical stabilizer than similarly sized aircraft with the engines mounted in nacelles below the wing.
@@jayschafer1760 Too bad they're in the shop all the time getting "fixed". That's why the Airbus' nickname is "The Chryslers of the Skies". Ask any pilot who flies them. The A380 is in for maintenance more than its flying.
I don't know if this is possible, but if so, would you be able to remove all the BEEEEEEEPS throughout these videos? I had to listen to this one on the lowest possible volume to make it bearable.
@@sylviaelse5086 Why? It wouldn't have changed anything. Pilots were busy and so kept communications short. ATC knows an engine failure equates to an emergency in the US. (US does not use pan pan pan = urgency) Given a choice between saying engine failure and declaring an emergency, engine failure actually gives more information.
@@loudidier3891 Google FAA pan pan and you will clearly see that the FAA does specify the use of pan pan, as it does mayday. US pilots just don't do what the FAA says. ATC can declare an emergency on behalf of an aircraft, but won't do so as a mater of course, and until an emergency is declared, ATC cannot give the aircraft priority.
"The University of Southern California's school of social work will no longer use the word “field” in its curriculum, saying it may have racist “connotations.”"... How long until FAA makes the same change with the phrase "heading back to the field"?
![[ ออกกอง ] วัยหนุ่ม 2544 โลกหลังลูกกรง..ทัวร์กองถ่ายหนังใน "คุกของจริง" | JUSTดูIT.](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vB--aOkZCpw/mqdefault.jpg)
That pilot was sharp. Great job.
Agreed! Alternate missed instructions, coordination for post landing inspection on top of helping get checklists done! Outstanding job!
Great FO
Exactly what I was thinking. Very professional, polite, calm. Great pilot and air traffic control handled it beautifully as well. 👍
yeah! got all areas covered bruh!
@@BrewCityChaser I don't hear what you're hearing. Pilot was never rude, nor do I detect any annoyance from ATC at all. Pilot clearly communicated their needs and intentions, and answered ATC's queries. Both sides got the job done without confusion.
Haha the pilot is great. Returning for the emergency and still passing the pirep to the controller. Great work!
I caught that too. "There was a touch of icing on climb out, we've lost the left engine, can I get a little warm up on the coffee?"
@@BrewCityChaser sucks to be the ATC then. He's not the one with the engine out.
@@BrewCityChaser Easily one of the most professional interactions on the internet but somehow you have a hard-on against it
Outstanding professionalism by the pilots, ATC and everyone else I suspect. I was particularly impressed by the pilot when he notified ATC about go around request. The crew was thinking well ahead as they should be. 😅
Pilot and atc have their shit together. Give them a gold star ✌️
Great capture Victor!
Just EXACTLY like they are professionally trained to do EVERY year! Bravo!
Is it standard training to pass along pireps during an emergency procedure?
@@spelldaddy5386 That definitely gets you extra points :D
The professionalism is impressive.
Very nicely done! He even called out his go around pan..
yes every approach is to a go around unless landing is a good option
his go around pan pan pan? :)
@@zachansen8293 I feel like the chances of a go around being a pan declaration are slim 🥺 although, if it's possible, it's probably happened lol
@@TeemarkConvair - that’s not really true.
As a current center controller, hearing that pilot declare an emergency and give ATC the pertinent information that we need in one transmission makes me so happy. Great job by everyone!
This is by far one of the most professional interactions by the crew and ATC. Great job 👏
Top notch work! Very well handled. love the pilots describing their plan for Balked landing, clear and concise. Happy to fly with them any day ! 👏
Agree! Having missed approach instructions ready-to-go...that's being ahead of the aircraft! Kudos to copilot and controller on that.
Shouldn’t be trying to land somewhere if there is a risk of a missed approach, when single engine. I don’t mean to be dismissive when I say this, but the choice of airport, type of approach, etc, should be evaluated such that a missed approach is not going to happen. It is common to expect a pilot, in such a situation, to remind ATC of their higher approach speed, longer landing distance, and to ask ATC not to be allowing anyone to depart before they land in order to reduce the risk of debris on the runway, or a delayed take off leading to a go around.
@@EdOeuna Lol… there is a “risk” of a missed approach wherever they attempt to land.
@@Primus54 - the risk is minimised by airmanship and a stable approach. If you think there is a realistic reason for a go around, especially when OEI, then you’re at the wrong airport or flying the wrong approach.
@@EdOeuna There is literally a checklist requirement to set up for a missed approach in every landing… emergency or otherwise. The communication is not an indication of a heightened expectation due to conditions at the airport, but on the aircraft’s issues.
Great job all around. Calm, cool, and collected
The calm professionalism of these pilots never ceases to amaze me. Engine out on climb and he sounds like he's still reporting the weather conditions!
This is one of the best interactions I have heard for a while. Just another day at the office. Flight crew planning ahead at all times.
Nothing restores my faith in humanity quite like listening to a professional calmly head off a mass casualty event.
Uh, if by that you mean fly an airplane in a way that is well within spec long enough to return to the airport, then sure. I guess. Airplanes are designed to be able to fly on one engine. The only reason this is classified as an emergency landing is because it has to be classified as that. There was nothing unsafe about flying like this at all. He just needed to get on the ground because, if he loses another engine, it actually becomes an emergency.
In your way of thinking, any pilot who flies an airplane exactly the way it's intended is saving hundreds of lives with every single by the book landing.... 🥺
@@since1876 Do you know the cause of the first engine failing while it's happening? If it's due to fuel the other will follow shortly. Just because they're designed to fly with one doesn't make it less of an emergency
@@zach6639 until he has lost the other engine, he still has an engine, dummy. Therefore, it's not an actual emergency until it is. Nothing about my last reply was incorrect.
I should clarify that, as I expect you to not have much mental capacity: at this point, the call is a pan pan. That means there's been a mechanical failure but it's not a life threatening emergency. Radio traffic should be silent during a pan declaration.
**IF** the rest of the engines fail, it becomes a mayday call. At that point, this plane will be the top priority for landing.
It's important to understand when a call is urgent and when it isn't. If you're getting on the radio and screaming mayday just because you lost one engine, you're gonna get a number to copy down.
@@since1876 Tell me you're a 16 year old wannabe pilot without telling me you're a 16 year wannabe pilot. Congratulations, you've watched a few live ATC videos. He declared an emergency because it's an emergency
@@since1876Every loss of required redundancy is defined by law as an emergency. Planes with three or four engines are legally not considered emergency aircraft after losing an engine, twin engine aircraft are. US ATC still treats aircraft with more than two engines as an emergency after one fails.
th-cam.com/video/Ezc6F0Zph6o/w-d-xo.html
www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-121/subpart-T/section-121.565
This pilot sounds like they've had this happen to them before, they were absolutely confidant of what they needed to do, and they were supplying far more information to the controllers than is normally expected (or required).
The pilot of an aircraft that has had an in-flight engine failure telling the controller their go-around plan before they do an emergency landing is unusual, but it's a welcome change, it helps keep everyone coordinated and on the same page.
I'd be interested to know how many flight hours of experience the pilot and co-pilot of this aircraft had on this type of aircraft, I'm nearly certain that it's over 2500 hours for both of them and the pilot handling the radios during this emergency might have even up to 5000 hours.
You can just tell they're extremely experienced with this aircraft type by how calm and confidant they sounded while handling this emergency.
I guess if you don't want to read all that, I can boil it down to "These pilots sounded incredibly experienced, and they handled the emergency with the utmost of professionalism."
I'm a regional scum flying the E175. This is what we basically practice in the sim every year. You know what ATC will ask, so you will give it to them beforehand to reduce the back and forth, and significantly reduce workload. We always ask for straight out in case of a go-around, it a lot easier to do than turning in a low energy state with a dead engine. Also, a dead engine with autopilot on is pretty simple, take your time, run the checklist, and put it down.
Textbook! Fantastic! Great job to the pilots, controllers, and emergency crews!
This pilot was awesome, always ahead.
Brilliantly done! Calm, cool and collected. No reason to get your knickers in a bunch, just get on the ground safe and sound! Pleased the outcome was a good one. Cheers for the video
This was super clean. Bravo.
Some real heads up action by all!
This pilot is sharp and a pro. ATC excellent as well.
Top notch by all, esp the editor. Well done!
Thanks
That man was so calm it was like he flew with one engine out all the time.
Or at least simulating it a few times every year for the past 20.
Thanks for posting with the animations!
Puts my mind at ease that pilots and ATC and Tower take these issues in stride.
Wow, very professionally done for both the pilot and controllers under a tense emergency condition. Both the pilots and controllers were very clear in their intentions and requests. Job very well done!
Great job guys.
Great Lakes controllers are always great to talk to!
Calm, cool and collected. Props.
Jets, actually. :)
Damn that pilot was on point!!! He gave him everything he needed before he even asked. As calm as he was, you would think that shit happens to him everyday 😂 Great job!
Great job all around. These A320s were great planes for NWA and Delta. But with some approaching 35 years old, there seems to be more issues recently.
The DL A319-321 fleet are generally in excellent condition. They are getting new A321s including NEO models. I would assume they’ll get some A320 NEOs as well. The DL 757s are still an icon of the airline to me, but sadly they are getting very old. I had a flight delayed recently for a 757 with autopilot issues and another flight where the IFE on one side of the plane stopped working.
Military level calmness right there.
Worst time for radio problems.
Super professional Delta 2706 pilot.
Oh wow, finally one of these in my hometown. They practically flew over my house. Ironically was just searching GRR to MSP flights for potential Summer Games Done Quick dates right before watching this.
Why can everyone be this professional in their work like this pilot. That was a master class.
Kudos to the pilots..... seemed like an unusually compressed workload... well done
Man, can I request that this guy me the captain of all my flights, please?
I rarely get to see these in my home state.
So excited.
It’s probably good to not to, considering VASAviation posts accidents/emergencies…
Sim training pays off.
🏆Top shelf aviator ...outstanding coms
Is this an ATC recording? It seems a plane recording, the microphone is Incredible xD
Very calm and professional. I would have lost my $hit. I don't fly anymore. I did it once to fort Lauderdale Florida back in the 1980s and I swore if I lived that one way flight I would never fly again.
Jus another day at work for that pilot.
Great CRM and communication all around.
Putting the weak radio signal in small text was amusing ...
Finally one who noticed that
That's one clear mic on the Delta
Guy had everything ready to go anticipating what he knew they’d ask. Getting on with the task.
That was a pilot on top of his game.
Aviate, navigate, Communicate ! 3 most important words
Damn that was professional.
very profesional by all, great listening to it. 👍👍
Inspiring.
Pilot is doing a good job of disctating his own fate, the ATC gets it!
5:25 "Okay, we're-OPE-we're descending..."
Definitely from Grand Rapids 😂
Not the Pilot 1st rodeo! Outstanding job by Delta pilots
This is the coolest fucking pilot on planet earth. This guy can perform my heart transplant.
There is no need to drop the "F bomb" on a civilized conversion.
@@peterferryskipper I can say whatever the fuck I want with a smile on my face, and I won’t be the uncivilized one
Text book comm.s by all! Take care!
These people brought their A-game. Wonder what kind of engine failure, it seemed a clear cut off decision with no troubleshooting or re-light attempts.
Not this "AIRMANS" first rodeo.
That pilot was as cool as a cucumber
Did I miss it, or maybe it was not on the recording: neither Approach nor Tower gave the altimeter value to the pilots when coming back? Is that normal procedure?
I was wondering since it seemed the weather was a bit of an issue. I may be wrong.
Thank you.
Chicago Center may have given it to them around 1:55 because you couldn't hear the controller on that frequency. They cleared them down to 9000 so it's likely that they said the altimeter in that clearance.
Some communications were not captured on the recording. While the altimeter would normally be repeated at a couple points in this situation, it most likely remained the same. The flight stayed in a small geographic area and never got near 18,000 feet where they would change to standard pressure. Most likely never needed to adjust it during the flight.
Regardless, the ATIS would also have it and most likely one of the uncaptured audio clips gave the current altimeter.
@@jazzi_0453 Thank you
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Thank you
What would a pilot tell passengers in this kind of event? “A few technical issues, need to return etc.” while up in the air and then more details once landed?
Mechanical issues (etc.) not a big deal, landing just in case
They probably wouldnt mention engine failure as people would flip, not knowing the planes are designed to withstand an engine failure with no issues
That is called “being ahead of the airplane”
Take a shot every time the pilot says and one more thing
Great iob
I though pilots were not supposed to turn into the dead engine. Why did they make several lefts, into the dead left engine? All involved did great comms, though.
That’s for light piston twins really. On larger commercial aircraft you, sometimes, have no choice, plus excess thrust helps.
Delta is the best
Wow, a pilot that declare s an emergency, and says number of souls on board & fuel left all together without having to be asked. Wondering why all (or at least more than just this pilot), don't do this.
Sounds to me like an FAA test to check efficiency of local atc facilities.........???
What is the ATC referring to when he warns the pilot of reported “rime” around 4000ft? Thanks.
Icing. Not caused by precipitation, but super-cooled clouds meeting the differential pressure surfaces of the wings & pitot tubes.
Rime is a type of ice that can accumulate on the aircraft. Frosty and opaque looking.
@@YouveBeenMiddled It can also accumulate on trees, especially those on mountain tops and in areas of high wind. Super cool to see rime ice on trees, not cool to see it on your plane.
what happened to the engine? bird strike?
I’d want this guy piloting my aircraft
seems to be an engine failure every day
It feels like the pilot was military prior.
If you're a pilot for 20+ years what are the odds of this happening to you?
As a pilot, your odds of experiencing an engine malfunction of some kind is roughly 1 in 4000 hours of flying. That doesn't mean at 4000 hours you're going to have a failure, you have about a 60% probability of having had one. At 10,000 hours it would make it 90% chance. For reference, an airline pilot will on average have 18,000-22,000 hours when they retire after about 40 years of flying, some much more. Despite all of this, I have a friend who is an airline pilot and haven't had a single engine problem in 30 years of flying.
I had an engine issue about 6 months into my airline career. Not a failure though. I had another issue once when I was a flight instructor, also not an actual failure. ~6000 hours
What does you're about 4 by 4 mean?
Basically the quality of the radio signal. 4 x 4 means "readable with some difficulty" and 5 x 5 means "clearly readable and loud"
@@w3kn Ohh i see now, thank you for explanation :)
Interesting. On our ferries, we use x/5. 5/5 is crystal clear. 4/5 copy with some interference issues. 1/5 and 2/5 is message not copied due to excessive noise.
@@peterferryskipper That's why I was curious, after all 4/4 and 5/5 are exactly the same :)
Nice job Delta Captain! ATC has got to do something to IMPROVE THEIR RADIOS!
The radios are crystal clear in the aircraft. LiveATC is recorded by amateur enthusiasts off site on the ground.
@robo931 The pilot replied 4/4 which is not crystal clear. After some sort of adjustment by ATC, the radio com was deemed to be 5/5 again.
@@peterferryskipper don’t think OP was talking about what happened at 5:58.
@@peterferryskipper also, he screwed up that report since it would be 4 by 5 as it’s a scale of 1-5 with 5/5 being the best signal strength.
@@prorobo That's correct.
Great job by the aircrew...but WHY do the pilots have to repeat nature of emergency, souls and fuel EVERY. DAMN. TIME. Isn't that supposed to be relayed when the controller hands them off to the next one?
Lol I know that pisses me off too.
I'm no aviation expert, but with your left engine out, is it easier and less stressful on the aircraft to make right turns when possible?
Opposite actually, you'll only have thrust on the right wing which makes the left one dragging behind so the plane tends to yaw to the left which in turn makes right turns harder.
Turbine transport category aircraft do not have a critical engine (in that whichever engine fails has a greater effect on performance), therefore, it doesn't matter which direction the turn is.
preferable to not turn into the dead engine, you don't want to get into a turn you can't get out of
@@Boffin55 That's an interesting and perfectly logical perspective. Easier turning into the dead engine but smarter to turn into the good engine.
I'm just confused about the comment above yours because they are implying the extra drag isn't a factor.
@@ihateusernamesgrrr What they mean by "there is no critical engine" is that while losing an engine does impact the performance of the aircraft significantly, the performance of all systems is maintained at a level such that the flight envelope of the aircraft is not limited in any way other than a likely loss in climb performance.
Even then, ETOPS certified aircraft such as this type (and nearly 100% of all types of aircraft used by the major airlines these days are ETOPS certified to some degree) must be able to lose an engine and still climb at a rate of at least 1000 feet per minute, with the aircraft loaded to the maximum weight it can safely take off at, even if they lost that engine at the exact moment during the takeoff roll that the aircraft hits the velocity at which it can no longer reject the takeoff safely.
In other words, on an ETOPS certified aircraft there is no "unsafe zone" of performance where the aircraft "can fly" but "can't do some things", other than like I noted, the loss in climb performance (but as I also noted, that climb performance will still meet or exceed a 1000 foot per minute climb rate with one engine).
Additionally, the control surfaces of the aircraft are proportioned such that you will get some adverse yaw from losing an engine, but it will not be sufficient to prevent the aircraft from maneuvering normally. Usually this means that twin engine aircraft that have no critical engine but have wing mounted engines will have a larger than strictly required vertical stabilizer and rudder, and maybe also larger than strictly required ailerons. This ensures that there is always sufficient control authority to maintain control over the aircraft, despite the application of the adverse yaw torque from the assymetric thrust.
This is much less of a problem when the engines are mounted on the sides of the tail of the aircraft, because the engines simply have a shorter lever arm to act on meaning that even if the thrust was the same the resulting adverse yaw torque would be lesser. As a result, airliners with twin engines mounted in the tail usually have a proportionally smaller vertical stabilizer than similarly sized aircraft with the engines mounted in nacelles below the wing.
I thought you were supposed to turn into the good engine to avoid a spin?
Depends on the aircraft type
need conversation from Yeti Airlines crash today
Pros
I see that the rules of frazeology and communication in the US are much more free than in Europe.
Another Airbus issue! Hard to believe (sarcasm).
Airbus like Boeing make aircraft not engines,
Now I know how they got the term, "scarebus".
I mean, it's not like the A320 series of planes is one of the most produced and flown airliners ever (sarcasm)...
@@jayschafer1760 Too bad they're in the shop all the time getting "fixed". That's why the Airbus' nickname is "The Chryslers of the Skies". Ask any pilot who flies them. The A380 is in for maintenance more than its flying.
I don't know if this is possible, but if so, would you be able to remove all the BEEEEEEEPS throughout these videos? I had to listen to this one on the lowest possible volume to make it bearable.
co-pilot was quiet
Co-pilot was probably flying...
One Talk, the other flies. ...usually.
Phew.
DABJU? That's racist. 😀
The emergency declaration came thirty seconds late. I won't even comment on the usual US pilot waffle.
Is there is a time limit when they are suppose to declare an emergency? Never heard that one.
@@saxmanb777 They should have declared the emergency during their first communication about the engine failure.
@@sylviaelse5086 Why? It wouldn't have changed anything. Pilots were busy and so kept communications short. ATC knows an engine failure equates to an emergency in the US. (US does not use pan pan pan = urgency) Given a choice between saying engine failure and declaring an emergency, engine failure actually gives more information.
@@loudidier3891 Google FAA pan pan and you will clearly see that the FAA does specify the use of pan pan, as it does mayday. US pilots just don't do what the FAA says.
ATC can declare an emergency on behalf of an aircraft, but won't do so as a mater of course, and until an emergency is declared, ATC cannot give the aircraft priority.
"The University of Southern California's school of social work will no longer use the word “field” in its curriculum, saying it may have racist “connotations.”"... How long until FAA makes the same change with the phrase "heading back to the field"?
It's not an official phrase anyway
The subtext does not have the same correlation in aviation. Also what a weird space to kick off this debate
Going to sell the word field like crack. Cause people will be having withdrawals from it.
@@obfuscatethecode5696 Some would call that comment... Way out of the left field.
We should probably ban cotton too for its "racist connotations". Both in the word form and your shirt.