Nice job all around! Something the FAI approach controller said that was very helpful: 'The holding is on the missed approach'. When you are dealing with an emergency, looking through your charts for a fix is just one more task that adds to workload. By telling the crew where to find it, the controller took some of that workload off the crew's shoulders. As a controller you might think this is almost insignificant, but little things that reduce workload and add to situational awareness are a huge help.
WOW! I’m retired now, but I flew N318UP several weeks after UPS took delivery new from Boeing. We practiced the exact scenario in the simulator many times, but I never had a failure in like they successfully concluded. Hats off to the crew. I did have a faulty engine fuel control unit that (unknown to us) was leaking severely. We shut the engine down and returned to Louisville. We landed right at max landing weight. The heat from the brakes melted the safety fuse plugs in the wheels giving us flat tires on the mains. Full thrust on the remaining engine could not get us the last 50 feet to the gate.
It's remarkable to me that these planes fly well enough on a single engine that they're like "Screw this place, we're just going to go somewhere nicer."
Been waiting for a video that showed this. I live in Anchorage and heard about this shortly after it happened. The flight did not pass near my home, so I didn't get to hear the compressor stalls. I was surprised they chose to divert to Fairbanks, but considering the weather that day and that they needed to burn fuel anyway, it made sense. This is a great example about how planes can fly with an engine failure. Sure, it's easier in cold weather, but hopefully it can put some minds at ease.
Holy shit, hearing the old ace combat soundtrack and noises while that intro info was being shown was a truly transcendent moment of nostalgia, thank you for that!
None of the music or sounds are from Ace Combat - I composed the music and the sounds are mostly royalty free/creative commons. Do you have a link to the Ace Combat music you're thinking of?
@@AirTrafficVisualised unfortunately I do not, I just have a vague memory of something that sounded extremely similar to that opening but during one of the final missions of an ace combat game I had on my old ps2 as a kid
I saw the flames coming out of its right engine while filling up at costco in south anchorage. Sounded like loud gunshots. Had a thick ceiling of clouds and the plane just dipped below the clouds for about 20 seconds.
I flew this airplane, the B-767-300, for 15 years and cannot understand why these pilots did not DUMP FUEL rather than burn it with the engines. They could have been on the ground in much less than the 45 minutes to one hour these stated. Other than that, these guys were very cool and competent in an emergency situation, the sign of true professionals. Well done.
Being in Alaska could be part of the reason for not dumping. Could you imagine the environmentalists losing their minds over a major shipping company dumping fuel over vast forests? Talk about a PR nightmare.
@@marek4792 The fuel dumping system on the 767-300 has 2 nozzles, one on each wing trailing edge. These nozzles have devices in them that converts liquid fuel into a vapor. So, when fuel is being dumped, if you could see the airplane from below and behind, you would see 2 vapor trails coming from the wings, and not raw fuel. The conversion of fuel to vapor is to allow it to evaporate before it hits the ground or at worst, the fuel would be in very fine droplets.
This is especially cool for me because that map with ANC also shows where I grew up (a tiny little community across the inlet). And as soon as they said Fairbanks had better weather I was "Yep." Anchorage has some of the WORST airport weather. It has, for example, more days of fog than days without, and yet is the largest seaplane airport in the country... :P
Thanks for watching. The semi-transparent captions indicate supposed comms where the context gives a strong indication of what was probably said. They're usually added to ease understanding of how events played out.
This is my first time watching a video on this channel. It seems much better than most VASaviation ATC videos, in graphics and especially in captioned text. Great job. 👍
@@singleproppilot you know, I'm sitting here reading these comments thinking, are they being serious? Do people actually think an aircraft will INTENTIONALLY take off with one engine for a ferry flight???
@@Dom-yv4nq I think people get mixed up on the terminology. They may not understand the difference between a non-revenue flight for repositioning verses a non-revenue flight flown under a special flight permit (ferry flight). Some three and four engine airplanes have been ferried with one engine inoperative, but it’s very rare, and it’s not allowed at all with a two engine airplane.
Broadly speaking yes, the same regulations and maintenance standards apply whether you're carrying freight or people (and don't forget that cargo pilots still count as people on board!).
Why did the pilots decide to burn fuel instead of dumping fuel, wouldn’t it get them quicker to destination? Great video and edits btw. and kudos to the crew & ATC
Due to the fuel required for the flight across the Pacific, the aircraft was above its maximum landing weight initially. For an emergency such as this where the aircraft is controllable and stable, it's better to burn fuel to get to an safe landing weight than risk damaging the aircraft in an overweight landing.
they were most likely well above their maximum landing weight. On big airplanes, you can take off at a much higher weight than is permitted for landing.
It Depends On the engine in the U.S. Most Pilots are taught to turn the opposite way of the dead engine, so if your number 1 engine is out you would turn the way of the 2nd engine. so if your left engine is out you turn right
@@drcroll yeah, especially important with twin turboprop aircraft and at low speed. The controller actually said it the wrong way around. He asked if they wanted right turns only.
@@qb1rdman I’m an ATP/MEI and fly an MU2. That’s not really a thing, except to a small extent with underpowered piston twins and even then only when they get too slow. It’s especially not an issue with a jet.
@@mtnairpilot It actually is "a thing". It's simple match and physics. Regardless, good on you for scoring a seat in an MU2. You skills and CRM will be leaps and bounds above your peers. Enjoy.
So for the ferry flight back to Louisville, was it flown by actual UPS pilots or test pilots from Boeing? And i'm assuming they flew it back on one engine right?
I thought even ferry flights were illegal with one functional engine. In the days of triples and quads, that's exactly what they would do for one bad engine, but no more.
Did they perform a runway check before they reopened it? There could be debris fallen out of the failed engine and I had an impression, that they just reopened the runway too fast....
I work at UPS at DFW and I witnessed 2 feeder planes crashing One of the smaller ones hit the other one while we were backing up our jet. That was the craziest thing I’ve ever seen in eight years I’ve been there
The weather and wind conditions were better, they had it listed as their takeoff alternate which is selected by dispatch to be used in this exact situation, if they need to turn back and the weather at the departure airport is poor.
UPS usually maintains their plans very well, I'm surprised they had an engine failure. The pilots and flight controller folks all sound so calm, like it any normal day.
every man made object can fail at any time no matter how well maintained. The pilots are very heavily trained on these kinds of events, the ATC has no reason to be excited, he is safe in a office on the ground. Part of their job is to be calm, something they also train for, as an excited controller is of little help to the pilots.
@@JPF941 I'm not a panicky person, but inside my own head, if this was me, I might be screaming "OH GOD, we are all going to die". ha ha ha. There were a few planes jumbo jets, that had issues with the tails, and they went out of control, but the pilots were able to get them back under control and land. Later they determined it was a motor and a bar - link that controlled the tail of the plain. I was flying and we were approaching the airport to land, the pilot came on and said "I don't want to alarm anyone, but we are having a little issue with a part of the plane that helps us fly it, so if when we land you see the fire brigade racing down the runway along side the plane don't worry it is just a precaution". Everyone around us was a calm as can be like it was any other day. We landed with out incident, but I kept thinking it was the rudder tail issue. I didn't look online or anything as to what happened, I was just happy we had a smooth as silk landing. And I agree the pilots are well trained to be calm, cool and collected, especially UPS pilots, as I would think most of them have many years experience, as UPS pays them well, they don't work that many days out of the month, and I would think most of them are well pensioned - and well invested in the company. Besides UPS is like the post office, if you are an employee, you practically have to kill someone before you are fired. Unfortunately they have outsourced a lot of employees to other countries and they are doing the work of UPS employees, but are 'hired and employeed' by the outsourced company and not UPS, so if they get fired, well UPS didn't technically fire anyone. It's all about the benjimens.
The aircraft is 25 years old. It won't have its original engines at that age, but there is a good chance the engines are of the same vintage. As engines get that old, there is a learning about what needs close inspection and monitoring.
I find it so odd the UPS captain decided to go to Fairbanks. That's a hell of a hike for an emergency B767-3F w/ one engine haha gol lee if they lost the other engine it would have been a bad call. In that situation its better just to put it down fast at the nearest airport even if a little over weight, come on now lol but maybe its UPS"s dangerous policy
As noted in the introductory notes, the weather at Anchorage was quite poor at the time. The crew likely didn't want to risk having to perform a single-engine go-around at Anchorage.
there are three categories for weight (light, medium and heavy) based on take off weight. this is designed to prevent wake turbulence from a heavier aircraft causing a lighter aircraft to become unstabilized. you would never put a light or medium aircraft behind a heavy because of that. its just a way to communicated size to atc to keep track or whats what.
7:58 Not a pilot so possibly incorrect remark -- if I was down to one engine I would opt to dump fuel and land sooner rather than stay airborne and burn fuel.
(not a pilot either, just watch a lot of these) There are a couple factors at play here: 1. This is an ETOPS rated aircraft, the lowest of which allows for 75 miles of travel on 1 engine, so not extremely urgent). 2. The aircraft was above max landing weight, so they had to get rid of fuel somehow, and dumping fuel requires special conditions and time. 3. The weather was better at Fairbanks. 4. It sounded like Fairbanks is a planned divert airport for UPS anyway While I was a little surprised they didn't immediately turn back as well (as was UPS104 from the sounds of it), it seems to make sense given the circumstances
@@davidmontville4885 Fair point, I was just looking at the lowest ETOPS certification. And I was actually wrong on the units. The shortest certification is for 75 minutes, not miles as I previously thought, so sorry for that screw up. Judging by their planned destination of Tokyo Narita, they're likely certified much higher than the 75 minimum
It can be very serious in some cases, but a big jet airplane like the 767 has tons of power even on one engine. I work for UPS and our 767s are certified for ETOPS 180, meaning they can legally fly on one engine over water with no place to land for 180 minutes, or 3 hours, just in case of a failure like this.
@@singleproppilot Now you tell me. I owned a little house about 1/3rd of mile from the takeoff end of the Shreveport Regional airport. Planes would take off and go over my house at maybe 100 feet. The noise was deafening and scary. The airport authority hired contractors to soundproof my home. It worked too..Except when I opened my door from silence to the scream of jet engines. I sold it, certain that it was only a matter of time before one fell from the sky.
The plane is designed to be able to fly with one engine. And not only that, it is designed to be able to lift with only one engine. So the plane can be fully loaded and when passing V1 (the place on the runway where you take the decision of GO or NO go) the engine can go out completely and you can still take off and climb (although not that raid climb as with two engines of course).
Being cargo aircraft run away cargo on take off is the worst case, chances of coming out of it is pretty slim. Chances are very low it can happen but has happened before with national 747 and a dc8 I believe.
Hmm, did the aircraft and controllers understand what was going on? Did the aircraft and crew receive the needed services? The answer to all these things is yes.
@@N1120A Is it OK if I drink a bottle of whiskey, and then drive, if I don't cause an accident? The question to be asked is not whether, in the event, the use of non-standard terminology had an adverse effect, but whether it might have.
@@sylviaelse5086 standard phraseology exists to assure a language barrier does not interfere with communications. The controllers and pilots are all speaking their native languages
![LANDING GEAR MALFUNCTION Leads To EMERGENCY Landing at Los Angeles [ATC audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2oxVVCt_iAw/mqdefault.jpg)
![LANDING GEAR MALFUNCTION Leads To EMERGENCY Landing at Los Angeles [ATC audio]](/img/tr.png)
![ENGINE FAILURE Sparks Fire at Sydney Airport; Qantas 737 Forced into Emergency Landing [ATC audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zXNl27enI-c/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] British Airways B747 engine surges on takeoff!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EWAsQ3qldo8/mqdefault.jpg)
I was the anchorage departure controller working this lol hope I did an alright job, glad everyone was safe in the end
Thanks for commenting! How did you come across the video? And did I get the transcriptions correct? I think you did a stellar job!
You did great sir, thanks for your service
Nice job all around! Something the FAI approach controller said that was very helpful: 'The holding is on the missed approach'. When you are dealing with an emergency, looking through your charts for a fix is just one more task that adds to workload. By telling the crew where to find it, the controller took some of that workload off the crew's shoulders. As a controller you might think this is almost insignificant, but little things that reduce workload and add to situational awareness are a huge help.
I think you did a fabulous job. Thanks for all you do!
Nice work!
I like how UPS104 checks up on UPS108
WOW! I’m retired now, but I flew N318UP several weeks after UPS took delivery new from Boeing. We practiced the exact scenario in the simulator many times, but I never had a failure in like they successfully concluded. Hats off to the crew. I did have a faulty engine fuel control unit that (unknown to us) was leaking severely. We shut the engine down and returned to Louisville. We landed right at max landing weight. The heat from the brakes melted the safety fuse plugs in the wheels giving us flat tires on the mains. Full thrust on the remaining engine could not get us the last 50 feet to the gate.
Thanks for sharing Rex! Always surreal hearing from people who have been involved (let alone flown) with incident aircraft in the past.
You sound like one cool customer... Congrats sir!
Great teamwork by UPS104 checking on 108
Lookin' out for company crews. 😎
It's remarkable to me that these planes fly well enough on a single engine that they're like "Screw this place, we're just going to go somewhere nicer."
I recently started following a number of such ATC channels.
Gotta say the presentations here are tops.
Well done, everyone!
Been waiting for a video that showed this. I live in Anchorage and heard about this shortly after it happened. The flight did not pass near my home, so I didn't get to hear the compressor stalls. I was surprised they chose to divert to Fairbanks, but considering the weather that day and that they needed to burn fuel anyway, it made sense.
This is a great example about how planes can fly with an engine failure. Sure, it's easier in cold weather, but hopefully it can put some minds at ease.
That approach controller… super considerate kudos
Holy shit, hearing the old ace combat soundtrack and noises while that intro info was being shown was a truly transcendent moment of nostalgia, thank you for that!
None of the music or sounds are from Ace Combat - I composed the music and the sounds are mostly royalty free/creative commons. Do you have a link to the Ace Combat music you're thinking of?
@@AirTrafficVisualised unfortunately I do not, I just have a vague memory of something that sounded extremely similar to that opening but during one of the final missions of an ace combat game I had on my old ps2 as a kid
I saw the flames coming out of its right engine while filling up at costco in south anchorage. Sounded like loud gunshots. Had a thick ceiling of clouds and the plane just dipped below the clouds for about 20 seconds.
Sounds like a surge
it filled up at costco?
@@daktarioskarvannederhosen2568 No, I was filling up at Costco when it flew overhead
@@hunterkern7232 😁😂that idiot Daktari…
@@hunterkern7232 r/wooooosh
Excellent video. thoroughly enjoyed all the coordination. Keep up the great work.
Thank you very much!
Kudos to all involved for getting this aircraft safely on the ground. 👍✈✈👍
That, boys and girls, is how professionals handle stress. Well done kids !!
It always fascinates me the how professional is everyone in the air communication. Even how that another airplane's pilot asked what happened.
One of the best produced videos of ATC/flight paths. Tip of the hat to ya for this.
Cheers Brandon, glad you enjoyed!
Love the subtle joke by the Fairbanks approach controller asking if the UPS plane wants right hand turns only.
Love your graphics, keep up the great work 👍
Just shows that in a modern ETOPS capable acft that an engine out is just not big deal. Baring of course an uncontained failure or fire.
Outstanding graphics and text. Love your channel.
Thank you kindly, glad you like the videos!
"I can vector you around, do you prefer right hand turns only?" Lol
Excellent video
Super clear graphics and super clear communications!
I live in anchorage. Was listen to live atc at the time
I flew this airplane, the B-767-300, for 15 years and cannot understand why these pilots did not DUMP FUEL rather than burn it with the engines. They could have been on the ground in much less than the 45 minutes to one hour these stated. Other than that, these guys were very cool and competent in an emergency situation, the sign of true professionals. Well done.
Being in Alaska could be part of the reason for not dumping. Could you imagine the environmentalists losing their minds over a major shipping company dumping fuel over vast forests? Talk about a PR nightmare.
@@marek4792 not really sure that this would be a priority over a plane in distress
@@marek4792 The fuel dumping system on the 767-300 has 2 nozzles, one on each wing trailing edge. These nozzles have devices in them that converts liquid fuel into a vapor. So, when fuel is being dumped, if you could see the airplane from below and behind, you would see 2 vapor trails coming from the wings, and not raw fuel. The conversion of fuel to vapor is to allow it to evaporate before it hits the ground or at worst, the fuel would be in very fine droplets.
i thought the same if you have flames why would you not want to get down immediately.
This is especially cool for me because that map with ANC also shows where I grew up (a tiny little community across the inlet). And as soon as they said Fairbanks had better weather I was "Yep." Anchorage has some of the WORST airport weather. It has, for example, more days of fog than days without, and yet is the largest seaplane airport in the country... :P
Excellent presentation. Question: are the darkened portions of the coms supposed or just unheard?
Thanks for watching. The semi-transparent captions indicate supposed comms where the context gives a strong indication of what was probably said. They're usually added to ease understanding of how events played out.
Probably a member of the public was recording the audio and was not in a position to receive the aircraft transmissions at those times
very detailed transcript! excellent !
I love a happy ending!
So that’s why my package never arrived. I ordered a volleyball but it never came. Actually my cousins ice skates were never delivered either. 🤔
Is Charley Foxtrot Charley 2582 a Canadian Military aircraft?
Yes it is. Call sign 'Canforce'. It was a C130
I like the different look!
yeah 07L and 07R have some serious terrain on the departure end too
5:39 How do you know what was said when you don't have audio? Is there a transcript somewhere or are you guessing from context?
This is my first time watching a video on this channel. It seems much better than most VASaviation ATC videos, in graphics and especially in captioned text. Great job. 👍
Thanks for the kind words, glad you like the content!
How is the aircraft ferried all the way to Louisville with its failed right engine?
I’m not sure why the video says this. The engine was replaced in Fairbanks.
@@singleproppilot you know, I'm sitting here reading these comments thinking, are they being serious? Do people actually think an aircraft will INTENTIONALLY take off with one engine for a ferry flight???
@@Dom-yv4nq I think people get mixed up on the terminology. They may not understand the difference between a non-revenue flight for repositioning verses a non-revenue flight flown under a special flight permit (ferry flight). Some three and four engine airplanes have been ferried with one engine inoperative, but it’s very rare, and it’s not allowed at all with a two engine airplane.
@@singleproppilot don't know how anyone would expect a 2 engine acft to even attempt a TO, with a failure possible with the operating engine.
So they decided to just fly on one engine to fairbanks mainly because of fuel weight?
Do courier companies maintain their aircraft to the same level as passenger carriers?
Broadly speaking yes, the same regulations and maintenance standards apply whether you're carrying freight or people (and don't forget that cargo pilots still count as people on board!).
@@AirTrafficVisualised Fair comment
Why did the pilots decide to burn fuel instead of dumping fuel, wouldn’t it get them quicker to destination? Great video and edits btw. and kudos to the crew & ATC
I have a question: Why did the UPS need to burn fuel instead of simply landing?
Due to the fuel required for the flight across the Pacific, the aircraft was above its maximum landing weight initially. For an emergency such as this where the aircraft is controllable and stable, it's better to burn fuel to get to an safe landing weight than risk damaging the aircraft in an overweight landing.
@@AirTrafficVisualised Ah, thank you
they were most likely well above their maximum landing weight. On big airplanes, you can take off at a much higher weight than is permitted for landing.
How do I send you a screen shot of a flight to do? Sept 3rd 2022 ATN3416 emergency landing with all the bells and whistles
I don't know why controllers seem to think that an aircraft with an engine out (particularly a jet) has trouble turning in one direction vs another.
It Depends On the engine in the U.S. Most Pilots are taught to turn the opposite way of the dead engine, so if your number 1 engine is out you would turn the way of the 2nd engine. so if your left engine is out you turn right
@@drcroll yeah, especially important with twin turboprop aircraft and at low speed. The controller actually said it the wrong way around. He asked if they wanted right turns only.
@@drcroll Bingo. One engine, especially on take-off, means lower speeds. And in a turn the "inside" wind goes slower than the "outside" wing.
@@qb1rdman I’m an ATP/MEI and fly an MU2. That’s not really a thing, except to a small extent with underpowered piston twins and even then only when they get too slow. It’s especially not an issue with a jet.
@@mtnairpilot It actually is "a thing". It's simple match and physics. Regardless, good on you for scoring a seat in an MU2. You skills and CRM will be leaps and bounds above your peers. Enjoy.
This is brilliant... i m now a subscriber
Welcome aboard!
Nice job going to a take off alternate..even though none required Good judgment is 90% of the game
Agreed, very professionally handled by this crew. 👏
Delivered 1/14/2013, Line 1044
How does an aircraft get *ferried*?
A ferry flight is one where the aircraft is flown empty to position it for maintenance, scheduling, delivery, etc.: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferry_flying
the pilots' balls of steel were not accounted for in the aircraft weight check before departure, leading to the engine failure at take off
So for the ferry flight back to Louisville, was it flown by actual UPS pilots or test pilots from Boeing? And i'm assuming they flew it back on one engine right?
Based on the climb profile heading to Louisville I believe both engines were operating leaving Fairbanks.
I thought even ferry flights were illegal with one functional engine. In the days of triples and quads, that's exactly what they would do for one bad engine, but no more.
Great video, thanks 👍🏽
Did they perform a runway check before they reopened it? There could be debris fallen out of the failed engine and I had an impression, that they just reopened the runway too fast....
I am pretty sure that is what Ops1 was doing as he went the length of the runaway behind the aircraft.
I work at UPS at DFW and I witnessed 2 feeder planes crashing One of the smaller ones hit the other one while we were backing up our jet. That was the craziest thing I’ve ever seen in eight years I’ve been there
THAT was hilarious lmao
Any idea why they choose Fairbank but not anchorage.
The weather and wind conditions were better, they had it listed as their takeoff alternate which is selected by dispatch to be used in this exact situation, if they need to turn back and the weather at the departure airport is poor.
You don't want to be doing a single engine go around at high wait and low vis.
Take off alternates have been around for decades. Legal requirement
Easier setup for the situation
weather
@@davidwarren202 "high wait" lol
UPS usually maintains their plans very well, I'm surprised they had an engine failure. The pilots and flight controller folks all sound so calm, like it any normal day.
Even very well maintained aircraft can suffer failures.
every man made object can fail at any time no matter how well maintained. The pilots are very heavily trained on these kinds of events, the ATC has no reason to be excited, he is safe in a office on the ground. Part of their job is to be calm, something they also train for, as an excited controller is of little help to the pilots.
@@JPF941 I'm not a panicky person, but inside my own head, if this was me, I might be screaming "OH GOD, we are all going to die". ha ha ha. There were a few planes jumbo jets, that had issues with the tails, and they went out of control, but the pilots were able to get them back under control and land. Later they determined it was a motor and a bar - link that controlled the tail of the plain. I was flying and we were approaching the airport to land, the pilot came on and said "I don't want to alarm anyone, but we are having a little issue with a part of the plane that helps us fly it, so if when we land you see the fire brigade racing down the runway along side the plane don't worry it is just a precaution". Everyone around us was a calm as can be like it was any other day. We landed with out incident, but I kept thinking it was the rudder tail issue. I didn't look online or anything as to what happened, I was just happy we had a smooth as silk landing. And I agree the pilots are well trained to be calm, cool and collected, especially UPS pilots, as I would think most of them have many years experience, as UPS pays them well, they don't work that many days out of the month, and I would think most of them are well pensioned - and well invested in the company. Besides UPS is like the post office, if you are an employee, you practically have to kill someone before you are fired. Unfortunately they have outsourced a lot of employees to other countries and they are doing the work of UPS employees, but are 'hired and employeed' by the outsourced company and not UPS, so if they get fired, well UPS didn't technically fire anyone. It's all about the benjimens.
The aircraft is 25 years old. It won't have its original engines at that age, but there is a good chance the engines are of the same vintage. As engines get that old, there is a learning about what needs close inspection and monitoring.
This plane flew over our house but could not see it because of cloud cover. I remember the popping sound though.
Lots of Anchorage natives commenting here, love to see it! Hope the video gave you a bit more insight into what occurred.
I find it so odd the UPS captain decided to go to Fairbanks. That's a hell of a hike for an emergency B767-3F w/ one engine haha gol lee if they lost the other engine it would have been a bad call. In that situation its better just to put it down fast at the nearest airport even if a little over weight, come on now lol but maybe its UPS"s dangerous policy
As noted in the introductory notes, the weather at Anchorage was quite poor at the time. The crew likely didn't want to risk having to perform a single-engine go-around at Anchorage.
@@AirTrafficVisualised Yeah thats understandable, still very risky going to Fairbanks
Very interesting.
Them pilots need a raise… that 300k a year they make for flying 6 months out of the year isn’t nearly enough.
a joke I hope
@@losttale1 Definitely a joke…
What is meant by "Heavy"
there are three categories for weight (light, medium and heavy) based on take off weight. this is designed to prevent wake turbulence from a heavier aircraft causing a lighter aircraft to become unstabilized. you would never put a light or medium aircraft behind a heavy because of that. its just a way to communicated size to atc to keep track or whats what.
Wise move to go to F. Better weather and they did have to burn fuel anyway. Win-Win so to say.
After their engine was replaced, it took 650 gallons of glycol to deice them.
So that's why my package was late.
Another reason I use UPS.
7:58 Not a pilot so possibly incorrect remark -- if I was down to one engine I would opt to dump fuel and land sooner rather than stay airborne and burn fuel.
(not a pilot either, just watch a lot of these) There are a couple factors at play here: 1. This is an ETOPS rated aircraft, the lowest of which allows for 75 miles of travel on 1 engine, so not extremely urgent). 2. The aircraft was above max landing weight, so they had to get rid of fuel somehow, and dumping fuel requires special conditions and time. 3. The weather was better at Fairbanks. 4. It sounded like Fairbanks is a planned divert airport for UPS anyway
While I was a little surprised they didn't immediately turn back as well (as was UPS104 from the sounds of it), it seems to make sense given the circumstances
@@thomaswodarek1257 But Fairbanks is much farther than 75 miles from Anchorage.
@@davidmontville4885 Fair point, I was just looking at the lowest ETOPS certification. And I was actually wrong on the units. The shortest certification is for 75 minutes, not miles as I previously thought, so sorry for that screw up. Judging by their planned destination of Tokyo Narita, they're likely certified much higher than the 75 minimum
@@davidmontville4885 And also I'm not a pilot, so I could be entirely wrong
@@thomaswodarek1257 Yep, Fairbanks in 75 minutes would be quite doable.
Most chilling to hear: #SOB
Ppl would have shittin themselves if this was a passenger plane
I'm no pilot but it seems like an engine failure at take off would be the worst thing that could happen.
It can be very serious in some cases, but a big jet airplane like the 767 has tons of power even on one engine. I work for UPS and our 767s are certified for ETOPS 180, meaning they can legally fly on one engine over water with no place to land for 180 minutes, or 3 hours, just in case of a failure like this.
@@singleproppilot Now you tell me. I owned a little house about 1/3rd of mile from the takeoff end of the Shreveport Regional airport. Planes would take off and go over my house at maybe 100 feet. The noise was deafening and scary. The airport authority hired contractors to soundproof my home. It worked too..Except when I opened my door from silence to the scream of jet engines. I sold it, certain that it was only a matter of time before one fell from the sky.
The plane is designed to be able to fly with one engine. And not only that, it is designed to be able to lift with only one engine. So the plane can be fully loaded and when passing V1 (the place on the runway where you take the decision of GO or NO go) the engine can go out completely and you can still take off and climb (although not that raid climb as with two engines of course).
Being cargo aircraft run away cargo on take off is the worst case, chances of coming out of it is pretty slim. Chances are very low it can happen but has happened before with national 747 and a dc8 I believe.
no, fire on board is the worst thing that can happen
Mayday Mayday Mayday or Declaring Emergency!!!!
KRNKL!!! 😂
And Trump needs to be speaker of the house whos with that mann
Back to non-standard terminology, I see.
Hmm, did the aircraft and controllers understand what was going on? Did the aircraft and crew receive the needed services? The answer to all these things is yes.
@@N1120A Is it OK if I drink a bottle of whiskey, and then drive, if I don't cause an accident?
The question to be asked is not whether, in the event, the use of non-standard terminology had an adverse effect, but whether it might have.
@@sylviaelse5086 standard phraseology exists to assure a language barrier does not interfere with communications. The controllers and pilots are all speaking their native languages
@@N1120A Here's an example where non-standard terminology lead to confusion amongst native speakers.
th-cam.com/video/-sQuHnrJu1I/w-d-xo.html
Excellent video