Airplane almost runs out of fuel during flight control emergency at New York Kennedy. Real ATC
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ก.ย. 2024
- THIS VIDEO IS A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATION IN FLIGHT:
31-MAY-2024. A Delta Air Lines Airbus A320 (A320), registration N320US, performing flight DAL1166 / DL1166 from Austin-Bergstrom International Airport, TX (USA) to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (USA) being on final at Kennedy Airport reported flight control issue, declared an emergency and requested delay vectors in the area to work out the problem. While there were running through the checklist the flight crew declared minimum fuel and requested landing at Kennedy Airport. Subsequently the airplane landed safely on runway 31 left with higher than normal speed.
Join me on Patreon: / you_can_see_atc
#realatc #aviation #airtrafficcontrol
_______________
Timestamps:
00:17 Delta 1166 is approaching to New York Kennedy Airport
00:54 The flight crew goes around and declares an emergency due to flight control issue
05:59 The pilots declare minimum fuel and start the approach
09:34 The airplane was transferred to the frequency of New York Tower controller
10:09 Landing at New York Kennedy Airport. Communications on the ground
_______________
THE VALUE OF THIS VIDEO:
THE MAIN VALUE IS EDUCATION. This reconstruction will be useful for actual or future air traffic controllers and pilots, people who plan to connect life with aviation, who like aviation. With help of this video reconstruction you’ll learn how to use radiotelephony rules, Aviation English language and general English language (for people whose native language is not English) in situation in flight, which was shown. THE MAIN REASON I DO THIS IS TO HELP PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND EVERY EMERGENCY SITUATION, EVERY WORD AND EVERY MOVE OF AIRCRAFT.
SOURCES OF MATERIAL, LICENSES AND PERMISSIONS:
Source of communications - www.liveatc.net/ (I have a permission (Letter) for commercial use of radio communications from LiveATC.net).
Map, aerial pictures (License (ODbL) ©OpenStreetMap -www.openstreet...) Permission for commercial use, royalty-free use.
Radar screen (In new versions of videos) - Made by author.
Text version of communication - Made by Author.
Video editing - Made by author.
HOW I DO VIDEOS:
1) I monitor media, airspace, looking for any non-standard, emergency and interesting situation.
2) I find communications of ATC unit for the period of time I need.
3) I take only phrases between air traffic controller and selected flight.
4) I find a flight path of selected aircraft.
5) I make an animation (early couple of videos don’t have animation) of flight path and aircraft, where the aircraft goes on his route.
6) When I edit video I put phrases of communications to specific points in video (in tandem with animation).
7) Together with my comments (voice and text) I edit and make a reconstruction of emergency, non-standard and interesting situation in flight.
I really like the pilot’s handling here. 1. Assuming nothing, identifying as minimum fuel emergency aircraft with each controller. 2. Direct and assertive about what she needs.
Absolutely! We're taught to relay the problem to ATC like we'd explain the problem and our requirements to the cabin crew using something called a NITS brief. They ticked all of the items in the NITS in their communications with ATC so it was *VERY* effective comms from the pilot monitoring.
We use a NITS to brief 3 different groups usually in this order (ATC, then Cabin Crew, then Passengers and adjust the specifics for the intended audience)...
N (Nature): We have a flight control problem, specifically a slats jam.
I (Intentions): Our intentions are to enter a hold to complete any checklists and then make an approach to 32L in JFK
T (Time): We should be ready to make an approach in 10 minutes
S (Special Instructions): We're going to need a longer final approach to configure and will make a precautionary landing so could the fire services follow us onto the gate.
It's a great tool as it covers what's going to happen and more usefully, what the flight crew want from ATC/Cabin Crew or what the passengers should expect.
They did not assert what they needed. Then they questioned ATC's actions, vectoring them outside ZACHS precisely as they requested.
@@JohnSmith-zi9or @JohnSmith-zi9or Yes they did... at 6:27.
Then ATC got rather excited (unnecessarily - never a PAN/MAYDAY for fuel) about the captain declaring 'MIN FUEL' and started that minute of wasted back and fourth about where they wanted to make the approach from when they'd clearly 'asserted' (your words) at 6:27 where they'd need to start the approach from.
Crew comms: 4/4
ATC comms: 2.5/4
Job well done!
@@easyjet8749 No. Crew comms were confusing as F. We're not an emergency. We will need to declare an emergency.
They were asked what they wanted. The made a request. Then ATC cleared them for that. Then they questioned the instructions they were given which were what they asked for.
"We need to run a long checklist" means nothing to ATC.
"We need a long final" means nothing to ATC.
Better, "We need delay vectors for 10 minutes to run checklist." "We need a 15 mile final."
BUT IF YOU DO REQUEST THAT, don't question ATC when they vector you for that.
They requested vectors to join then questioned the vector. Annoying.
I'm sorry, as an airline Captain, former instructor, former line check airman and 25+ years in this flying business, the pilots' radio communications weren't good. They were confusing about what they wanted.
@@JohnSmith-zi9or I followed it and was continually aware of the crews mental model for how they were planning to handle the scenario, which is the literal point of communication...
ATC seemed rather difficult from my pespective. They ask simply for delaying vectors and then ATC reply by asking them if they want to enter a hold.
At the point it occurs they don't have an exact figure on how long it's going to take and left alone, it shouldn't take a competent crew very long (which it didn't).
They asked for a 15-20 mile final and then ATC started asking about waypoint ZACHS, requiring them to work out/check an approximate distance (additional unnecessary workload). Just vector them to the distance they requested, the rest is unnecessary RT promtped by ATC whils't they're still trying to brief and run their checklists.
The situation evolved and they upgraded their status at the appropriate points,although I'll accept a PAN/MAYDAY would be far better terminology than declaring an emergency than the odd american parlance, although their minimum fuel call was spot on.
ATC asked again about the faster approach speed at 9:03 despite them saying it would be a longer landing roll (faster speed) to a normal landing at 5:19.
This current trainer is willing to forgive a few sloppy remarks given ATC clearly wanted to push them to do what was convenient for ATC rather than listen and provide precisely what they'd already requested.
Maybe things have changed since your day, but to me they made it suitably clear throughout what they wanted/needed and then ATC repeatedly questioned them on their requests offering alternative options that achieved the same result anyway.
FWIW: Personally I'd go-around, declare a pan and request to enter the hold in the vacinity of the 15-20 mile final and sort it all out there but that's a situational awareness /workload management pointer rather than a comms issue. My perfect call would be "Pan Pan... Delta 1234 with a flight control issue, request to enter the hold near a 20 mile final. Standby for further".
I do think your expectations aren't meeting reality though, and as a 'former check airman' I have presumed you'd be cognisant of that? The startle factor of a flight control issue is going to need a period of time to fully comprehend and come up with a suitable plan. You seem to be expecting them to have all of that information from their initial call which is frankly, unreasonable. This wasn't the sim, they didn't expect anything was going to happen when they started the approach. YMMV.
Well handled by everybody. Only gripe I have with this situation is that they have an emergency aircraft that's also minimum fuel coming in and still send out departures on their designated runway.
Yes, I understand that JFK is an extremely busy airport, but as somebody else has already commented, all it takes is one rejected takeoff for whatever reason, and best case (yikes!) you'll send the emergency aircraft with almost no fuel into a go-around, worst case you have a crash with hundreds of dead people on your hands.
Yeah, that struck me as odd.
All for a 15 minute delay for departures.
You wouldn't be saying that if you were on the plane that was denied take-off when there was lots of room.
@@craig7350 I'm pretty sure I'd be okay waiting a few minutes if I knew there was a dual emergency aircraft on short final.
@@craig7350 I typically have a drink in hand prior to takeoff, and I schedule my travel such that even unreasonable delays don't adversely affect my life, so 15 minutes isn't going to bother me. Thanks for asking.
I wish that the network news covered stories like this because the general public who hasn't flown aircraft before should be made to understand how frequent inflight emergencies are without there being a disaster
I do agree with that sentiment. Many of us who did a lot of flying for business and so forth I have no idea how many times something comes up in the cockpit in the pilots just handle it. We never know about it. We just go down and struggle for our luggage and find a ride to the hotel without even understanding the complications and difficulty, that’s so many pilots have to deal with on a daily basis. About 15 years ago, I was on a flight to Reagan, and the pilot calmly announced that our landing was going to be slightly delayed. It was dark and we were circling and made several left and right turns. After about 20 minutes or so of this maneuvering, we landed and got off the aircraft safely. I overheard the two guys in the cockpit talking to a ground crewmember about the situation. Apparently, we had a gear problem as in one of the gear did not go down. They never let us know that and they never lost their cool. there are tons of thousands of pilots like that that don’t lose it they don’t give up. They don’t panic. They keep it together and make sure all of us land safely every time.
Extraordinary professionalism all round. So encouraging.
Both pilots sound very competent. Clear, concise and questions atc to clarify instructions.
Excellent situational awareness too. From the outset they set expectations, warming ATC up to the length of their checklist. Reminding ATC of their status at each checkin with the next controller. Tightly monitoring their fuel and calling in as it was becoming more pressing. I liked the clarification check over a heading; not just following instructions but querying when they were unsure of the reason. Through all of this, they sounded in control, measured, they knew what they were doing. Professional and efficient.
Not really, from the first few communications they don't clearly say what they want from the controller.
@@aeromatt Arguably they didn't know what they wanted at that point as they were busy diagnosing the situation. JFK might not have been a suitable airport to land at given the degredation in flight control status.
Outside ZACHS please. No wait, at ZACHS. Uh, vectors to final now please! I guess that min fuel was a concern after all.
Almost like the pilots were taking turns talking to the ATC and asking for different things.
An understandable mixup - heading to final vs heading to ZACHS to join final. She misunderstood his initial question but it’s easy to see why given the wording.
@@hotsoup1001that’s exactly what happens
Good job crew!
As soon as I hear 5400Lbs, I thought: There's no time for that "long" checklist.
This is actually a good reason to ask for fuel in time (not just pounds) when an emergency is declared, to force the pilots to break any potential fixation on long checklists and re-evaluate the situation
@@vasilivhAbsolutely! UA173 flew around in circles troubleshooting a landing gear light with airport in sight the whole time and crashed due to fuel starvation.
I was kind of surprised ATC didn't say anything about fuel when he heard 5400lbs.
@@matthewa8713they don't know, and it's not their job
For an a320, how long in minutes is 5400lbs?
EDIT: Google says 6400lbs/hour on average. Yikes.
in the UK, the assigned runway is closed to all traffic until the emergency aircraft has arrived, and we have far fewer runways (typically 2), with some smaller airports configured for single runway operation. it doesn’t make sense to clear a departing aircraft when there are plenty of other runways available to switch departures to.
literally 10 runways in new york suitable for landing within 5 minutes flight
@@Tips-wt2ok not sure if you noticed but the plane in question required the longest runway. atc should be able to accommodate the requirement
@@Tips-wt2okSo redirect non emergency aircraft to those and keep a sterile runway for the emergency aircraft. Safety is No.1 priority, always.
5400# of gas at 2000 feet at the start of this would be a min fuel situation in my book.
Question for DAL pilots. Do ya'll use time to calculate min and emergency fuel? Or a fixed amount of fuel?
@@JohnSmith-zi9orThe Airbus calculates reserve fuel dynamically. There’s also a fixed number for min and emergency fuel in the book. It’s much lower than 5400lbs. 5400 is enough for an approach, a go around, and another approach without landing at the book value of min fuel. So this really wasn’t a big deal fuel wise. It’s just a precautionary declaration.
@@gump1119 Great input, thanks!
Sorry, this isn’t “almost running out of fuel.” Fuel emergency was never declared, nor was it required. 5400lbs is enough to go around, come back for another approach, and still land with final reserves intact.
actually, the plane was almost out of fuel on landing
they were stuck at 2000 flying level with part of the slats out, not your normal fuel consumption I guess.
@@Belchmaster41 Source?
One of the worst sensations a pilot can experience is when, during the final approach, they know that a go-around is not an option.
Minimum fuel doesn't mean a go around isn't an option. It just means that if they have to go around then it will likely become a fuel emergency.
Minimum fuel is not an emergency, it’s merely an advisory.
Whew that pilot is cool as a cucumber
I heard the checklist is long
Yes, that's what she said. I think I heard her say that they needed a long straight in to buy time to get the slats to come out further.
5400lbs is only 2400kgs, 2.4 tonnes. That’s minimum fuel right there
It is extremely concerning to me that ATC didn't hold departures on the runway assigned to the emergency aircraft that has declared the emergency, clearly stated a need for a long final, and also communicated minimum fuel. If for any reason there was a rejected takeoff, that could have had major adverse consequences, all for the sake of a 15 minute delay on departure.
Several similar comments. Consensus is you are correct.
I'd guess more like a 5-minute delay. And, yeah, that seemed odd. I get that JFK is busy, but, personally, I think just holding the departure a few minutes is the safer course of action. An unnecessary go-around in this situation could significantly reduce safety of the flight and increase stress on the already-busy crew, especially since they'd likely be needing to go around with less lift than normal and they'd likely need to fly the circuit back around with more drag than normal and it would be a longer circuit than normal in order to set back up for the longer final.
America for you.
When you have an incoming emergency aircraft and with min fuel, should the ATC clear another plane for takeoff just prior to the landing? What if the plane taking off has to reject and stop on the runway? I'd say it's better to delay 2-3 minutes the departures and ensure the emergency aircraft has the runway clear, right?
There are other runways if they need one.
@@N1120A Not really, given the nature of the emergency and their fuel status.
I agree. I’m surprised they didn’t quarantine the runway. I’ve seen this previously for nyc airports, I don’t know whether this is policy. In the UK the allocated runway is not used until the arrival of the emergency aircraft.
because declaring minimum fuel confers no special treatment by ATC, that's why.
You can unless the airplane declares a fuel emergency, which they did not. Had this flight been forced to go around, the next time they likely would declare a fuel emergency and the runway would be cleared.
Great job! Thanks.
Nothing about this suggests that they "almost run out of fuel", that is not what declaring "min fuel" means. Stop making up false click bait.
Is it normal in the US to issue a landing clearance when another aircraft is yet to depart? How can two aircraft be "cleared" for the same runway at a given time?
Yes, they’ll clear you with a caveat-“cleared to land, one in position to roll” is an example. Or they’ll clear you to land “number X”.
If that traffic becomes a factor, they’ll cancel landing clearance.
We just do things a little differently here. Works for us.
@@C420sailor I see, thank you. Seems somewhat risky. In such a system, the two aircraft are just one failed or missed radio transmission away from a potentially serious incident.
They must have had a pretty lengthy checklist to run through.
As long as they landed safely all the other bs doesn’t matter
Not going to lie but this made my heart pound towards then end when he asked her turn right. But otherwise great job. They are still running that checklist however.
They're going to be running that checklist through dinner tomorrow.
Are you all familiar with the slats checklist?
So many commenters on here praising how this was handled with professionalism. We aren't an emergency. Oh but we are an emergency. We're low on fuel. No wait, minimum fuel. We'll take vectors outside ZACHS. Don't clear us to ZACHS, we'll take vectors outside ZACHS. Wait, why are we on a heading? We are minimum fuel.
This comment should be pinned!
They landed safely with an emergency, that's all it matters.
…your point?
@@michaelculpepper3845 They didn't sound confidence inspiring to me. They gave controllers confusing information. They were given what they requested but then questioned the controller over giving them what they requested.
It's just a slat failure, we're not an emergency. Looks at checklist: might as well be an emergency.
We don't have a lot of fuel to work with. A bit later: we need a direct approach now or we will run into mayday fuel territory.
We'd like a heading to join, instead of figuring the 90° angle out ourselves. We can accept a heading that has us join inside ZACHS, though, no need to extend for that.
Min fuel means they hit their minimums before needing to divert or the minimums to land if they didnt require an alternate. That means they needed no further delay. This wasn't Emirates situation at YVR where they needed to immediately fly a VFR circuit in the case of a go around. They just needed no delay. The crew handled this quite well, regardless of what comment section incels want to say
Clearing departing traffic for takeoff while they were on final wasn't a wise decision given the circumstances.
Not sure if it differs in the US, but in Europe, a minimum fuel call explicitly means they don't have fuel to divert and are committing to the airport they've designated.
@easyjet8749 minimum fuel means either you are into your IFR mins at the airport, or you will be at the diversion airport. In this case, the weather at JFK was VFR , so it is likely they didn't have an alternate and they went into mins
@@N1120A They're saying that for legal puposes, they've either burned their Alternate fuel, or are now intending to use it at JFK, which given the weather, was a legal decision.
You couldn't commit to land at an airport that didn't have weather above any applicable IFR minimums. I think you're confusing IMC with VMC, the flight here remains an IFR flight and IFR fuel planning rules apply (unless they formally 'cancel IFR'). 'Minimum fuel' does not account for any diversion elsewhere, they were 'minimum fuel for JFK' after which any delay would mean they'd need to declare a PAN or a MAYDAY.
Here’s what the FAA has to say.
www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-11/INFO_08004.pdf
Well done, ladies!!
lmao one of them was a younger male
Im in love with this crew. ATC a bit slow on the plot with repeating questions unnecessarily i thought
That is a pretty close to minimum fuel landing even if everything went normal. Was this a diversion/alternate landing? Else this is really a questionable flight and should be investigated. If 1 more thing went wrong, they would have gone through the swiss cheese model to disaster.
standard airlines squeezing pennies....
It’s not even close to actual min fuel. It’s a precautionary declaration.
Hat tip to the Broad Squad..
Minimum fuel is not an emergency. Mayday fuel is
How many times did they say long approach and long runway. Poor on all sides.
Girls rule!!!
Why is everyone called Roger? 😂
In before the all the idiots screaming DEI because the pilots were female. They did a great job clearly communicating with the ATC and provided relevant information quickly. Besides a few stutters, which are completely understandable given the dual emergency situation, there's nothing to criticize, in my opinion.
Lmao one was female the other sounded like a gay male or trans female
Hahaha both female? The other one was definitely a gay guy
Their only error IMO was communicating the fuel remaining in lbs rather than minutes.
@@briansmyla8696 ATC specifically asked for fuel remaining in lbs. And the pilots specifically requested delay vectors; they still landed without ever having to declare a fuel emergency.
how about land the plane? quote from earlier "legend says they are still running checklists" hahahaha
Flaps or slats problems in approach will normally mean you have fuel issues, and you don’t have all the time in the world to do the checklist. It can be done pretty quickly if u r familiar with it, which you should. One lap in the hold, that’s all it takes to make sure u can land in the intended runway, determine your landing configuration and approach speed. Then brief about a possible go-around and then go for it. If u have to do that checklist as if it was the first time u see it, you need half an hour of reading and chatting
My guess -
The long flight had to zig and zag for thunderstorms more than the WX forecast
... thereby using more fuel than anticipated.
or they just squeezing pennies....
@@Tips-wt2ok Untrue Tips...
Safety is job one at every U.S. airline.
Captains at all airlines may and do take on "Captain's Fuel"
...an amount of fuel beyond the requirement of having 45 mins of fuel left upon landing.
I've flown a ton as a pilot and pax from TX or the South to the Northeast ...it can get dodgy due to unforecast thunderstorms.
Cheers.
@@MarcPagan they are 100% squeezing pennies planning to land a A321 with only 5400lbs of fuel. that is craaaaazy low!
Classic case of a minor issue that almost turns into a disaster.
ATC asked them if direct Zacks, or they could have gotten another 10 miles
@@jamescollier3 They did answer OK to the direct Zacks, then got pissy when he turned them direct Zacks.
@@briansmyla8696 Nope; they were headed direct to ZACKS, then they turned them to the right, away from the airport. I think there was a miscommunication. ATC thought they wanted to be heading to the runway at ZACHS, while the pilots wanted to turn just inside ZACKS, which is what ended up happening.
This emergency reminds me of the UAL DC8 fatal accident while approaching PDX with a landing gear issue.
All three crew members were so involved with that checklist that when the gear issued was solved, they did not have enough fuel to reach the airport. The result ended in a fatal accident.
Checklists may be long, but you must be familiar with them to run them quickly when needed.
@@briansmyla8696 and here we see one of the problems women face in these sort of situations. She didn't sound "pissy" at all. She questioned the instructions they were given. ATC explained why. She said they would prefer something different. ATC gave them that. Nobody got "pissy".
Sure love the salty incels in this comment section...
Let's see this exact same dialoge play out with male-sounding voices and see the incels praise them. I hope this channel pitches male voices high or female voices low occasionally just to screw with those kinds of people.
I'm sure they were real in your mind.
When I heard two female pilots on 1166 I figured that EEOC created the “maintenance issue”
Best controllers in the world.
I am not really sure what to think of this scenario. It doesnt seem that the flight deck had much confidence in navigating the situation judging by the interactions with ATC. What would this crew do with an engine failure? It's concerning at the very least.
Engine failures are simple 🤷🏻♂️
Flight control issue..declare an emergency, it’s free and interesting that controller asks for fuel in pounds. Fuel should always be expressed in “time”. Irrelevant how many pounds.
not irrelevant for firefighting
Whats the point of declaring minimum fuel when you already declared a mayday?
You really need an answer for that?
It's a completely different type of emergency. ATC needs to be aware of both emergencies.
@@janeryan2709 Actually declaring minimum fuel is not an emergency situation as per ICAO.
It means deviating an alternate is not an option any more, u r committed to land there and there is a chance u might get into mayday fuel. So a heads up for ATC
@@user-microburst That's NOT what it means.
land this shit already! the fuel load is a much bigger situation than the stuck slats! and they just keep on flying vectors relatively far away from the airport with no worries in the world!
Americas best pilots at work!
They should ideally stick with one dedicated frequency during an emergency. There were so many handovers here. The crew already have a high workload and could do without the constant frequency changes.. did very well though
lol, meanwhile air canada pilots park on runway for same issue
Wasn't that a Flaps issue? And their brakes were hot and this aircraft was lite with low fuel meaning brakes were not hot?
@@mcshamer same issue , for obvious safety reasons - always gtfo of the runway unless disabled
What a mess! The pilot monitoring (guess) saying "slat thing" got me at first.. the pilot flying (guess) having to step up on the radio too..
After they said "min fuel", the Tower, to complete the party: "one departure prior to your arrival".
Wtf? They are really rolling the dices..
The long non normal check list was made even MUCH longer by so many vectors and TALKING and bad workload management. Why pilots don’t request a holding, keep ATC at bay and on standby. Once you finish your procedure give CLEAR and short request to ATC of what you need. Not even the MAYDAY call was according to ICAO standards. Small problem, made a big one for no reason. 🤦🏻♂️
You do not see that all that back and forth you criticise was 30 seconds combined, max, while the whole emergency took at least 30 minutes. So it is marginal and no real problem. This way at least every body was on the same page...
Well the video shows more than 30 seconds of trash talk.
After listening to this, I won't be flying Delta anytime soon. She was ok initially but got worse as it went on, and he was a hot panicked mess right from the start! I'm glad they made it down safely, but it sounded like they're both fresh out of school. He dropped his call sign after the first call, and she got worse over time...slat thing??? Yea, I don't know what's going on over at Delta, but I don't want to be part of the story.
Greyhound doesn't want you....they have a no curmudgeon policy.
If you think any other US domestic airline is any better, you're in for a rude surprise lol
This captain at Europes largest Airbus operator thinks they did a grand job. Whilst some of the phrases are slightly different, their comms was excellent throughout. They conveyed their problem, aircraft fuel state, urgency level, requirements perfectly.
Current frequent-flyer and pilot consensus seems to be that it doesn't get any better than Delta for safety these days. Sorry to deliver bad news, but aviation has sunk that low.
@@KennethAGrimm When did you last fly and how many commercial hours do you hold in order to be able to judge this as a failure?
What a mess... Where's the CRM!? Captain talking over the co-pilot, who seems very nervous about the situation. Declare an emergency with only 5,400 pounds of fuel!? Then declare "minimum fuel"... and if you need to "go around"?! Good thing I wasn't on board...
Lucky you weren't on board, because they likely don't have a toddler booster seat.
The emergency was a flap malfunction, not the fuel. (They still need to watch their fuel, though.)
Yeah, both people on the radio seemed not ideal CRM, but otherwise seemed fine.
USA, the only country in the world who refuses to use ICAO standard phraseology.
By listening to the lack of professionalism on the junior member of the flight crew, it’s clear this is a DEI hire. They are minimum fuel because they cannot work a checklist in a timely fashion. Also, I might ask what professional pilot would actually use a reference to “slats thing”. This is why I am fearful of flying in the modern era with these inexperienced pilot teams who are hired for one reason, what they are, not what they can do.
Women... Running vehicles until they are empty since they were allowed to "drive" 😂. All jokes aside, excellent communication. Well done.
pilot sounds like she's 12. yikes
You can tell her age by the pitch of her voice? Impressive
The dude pilot sounds even younger
@yesitsme-qr1nt disagree. Think captain is a dude
@@Ndub1036 Nah, the other one is older, she's the grandmother of the prodigy schoolgirl.
That “12 year old” was calm and a rock star…….
Legend says they are still running really long check lists
hahahahahahaha
😂
Was somebody singing smooth operator in the cabin?
They are STILL going through check list as of today
whaT is goING AT AIrBUS thEsE Days? i CAN'T bELiEVE HOw bAd the qUALiTy Is. /s
There's always time to run a checklist. Just be quick about it and mind the bits and bobs
There's more to managing an emergeny than running a checklist. They'll be discussing alternative airports, weather conditions etc.
It seems to me the airlines and perhaps the FAA (although I am not familiar with Part 121) has created such strict pilot procedures in dealing with emergencies and malfunctions that it seems to take command decisions away from captains. I understand the importance of following emergency procedures checklists but I don’t like that I get the impression that pilots must complete checklists no matter what. Yes, emergency action steps that must be completed are essential. But long drawn out troubleshooting checklists that could distract from checking fuel or are completed in spite of the seriousness of the emergency or fuel status does not pass the common sense test. A pilot should be able to quickly compute airspeed and runway length needed for approach with stuck or failed slats/flaps and land without jeopardizing fuel exhaustion and flameout. But it seems these long drawn out checklists are the standard operating procedure.
I recall the aircraft in Denver that blew a #2 engine scattering a cowling and other parts in the suburbs. The engine could have been on fire for a time. Yet landing had to be delayed until the precious checklist was completed.
Massive disagree. I'm a captain on that type and the checklists need to be done properly and a thorough brief of how to fly the approach is crucial, along with the threats and errors that will affect (high approach speed with gusty headwinds, not to mention unusual landing attitudes and the risks of tailstrikes).
Why rush it, go around due to an ommision, not briefed the required go around config (found in the checklist, good luck finding a line pilot that knows that) and making a hash of it straight into a mayday for low fuel.
This was a routine failure with a checklist CUSTOM MADE for it (unlike your fan cowl scenario). The point of checklists is often to either secure a damaged system to prevent further problem, or restore a degraded system into a better configuration. Your idea of what is expected vs what is sensible is rather outdated. A commercial pilot learns pretty quickly that there is so rarely ever a cause to rush. There's better methods than making it up as you go along to get it on the ground faster. The industry has learned that the hard way.
I agree with @easyjet8749 that following checklists is essential, however, many checklists need revisions for concurring emergency breakouts. In this case. a breakout to abbreviated checklist if min fuel, rather than trying every possible trick to re-engage the slats. Or, in Sully's case, a breakout for low-altitude in the engine restart checklist. (I think they may have added that one now.)
A slat failure is not a "we must get on the ground now" emergency (unlike, say, an onboard fire.) It's a "we need to look through this methodically and figure out what the safest way to execute this approach is given the condition of our aircraft" emergency. The VAST majority of non-medical emergencies are the latter type, not the former. Unnecessarily hurrying and skipping steps has caused a lot more accidents than it has prevented. Of course, pilots know the difference between those types of emergencies. If they had a fire on board or fumes in the flight deck or some such thing, they would of course be planning to get on the ground ASAP.
Also, remember that "minimum fuel" is just an advisory. It's just to let ATC know that if the cause delays for you, then you'll likely end up needing to declare emergency fuel and so they should plan accordingly to try to avoid that.
Checklists are there because commercial aircraft are immensely complex machines and no one can remember everything that needs to be done in every specific situation. They are precious, in this case as precious as the 167 souls on board. You only ignore the checklist when the ground is approaching fast and you need to find a clearing in the forest. This plane is flying just fine and they need to configure it for an unusual landing. Only an idiot would try to do that without a checklist.
Those of you who replied to my comment are correct but I feel I may have misled you to thinking there is no need for checklists. There absolutely is a need for checklists and I agree on complex multi-engine commercial aircraft getting an understanding of what has failed and what that failure means for continued operation or landing is imperative. I’ve never been a fan of delaying landing for the sake of inflight troubleshooting when troubleshooting should be left to maintenance personnel. However many emergency procedures include troubleshooting steps as part of aircraft configuration such as manual operation of a subsystem. Having been a helicopter pilot for decades in one of the most complex helicopters in our military I can say that for new pilots, my instruction to them on land as soon as possible emergencies was that when in doubt, get it on the ground. If you screw up the immediate action steps to the emergency procedure but land, we’ll have a talk about it but they would not be in trouble. On the other hand I have had students that were so involved in getting the simulated emergency identified and performing the emergency procedure by the checklist, that they would have crashed because they forgot the most important step: aviate!
4:00 should read "157 souls on board."
Both pilots sound junior and incompetent.
Agreed. Sounds like a delta DEI crew. Thats going to get me a lot hate.
@@fivesfilmsbecause you sound like a racist when you bring up ethnicity/gender irrelevantly? Yeah you sound racist.
Why do they sound incompetent? You try dealing with a potential loss of flight control and not stutter a couple times. Their read backs were fine, they communicated with the ATC and gave them all relevant information.
@@fivesfilmsgrow up. Your type hears a female voice and screams "DEI" like a bunch of sheep.
I'm sure you're an independent thinker, though.
Care to explain more on that?
Wow, this is how to turn a minor issue into a massive DRAMA! There is no way a slats issue is a Mayday situation (if that's what emergency means, because who knows as it is not an ICAO or FAA recognised term). Why would you request vectors instead of holding when you're trying to complete a long checklist, crazy decision making. Then the whole discussion about a vector to final, my god that was painful to listen to. The pilots need to calm down, slow down, listen to what ATC are saying, and make better decisions next time when faced with such a minor issue.