Yeah would have expected a more assertive attitude from a commercial pilot. There have absolutely been cases where general aviation pilots have needlessly crashed and died because they didn't clearly communicate the urgency to land to ATC.
Fuel leak declared. ATC proceeds to bring flight down in altitude and away from airport, before asking if it's a big leak or not? Then asks if fuel leak will affect her runway. How about immediately determining if leak will affect the plane returning to the ground?
They calculate an average burn rate. There are a lot of factors but the computer or a good pilot knows. I can still tell you the KC-130J; our average was 5k per hour.
@@FlySafe1000 But how much are such figures worth, having a possible fuel leak? Wouldn't there be the risk atc or even pilots underestimate a possible imminent fuel emergency if the figures say there is still sufficient endurance?
@@rutgerw. After the Air Transat flight 216 incident, pilots are (supposed to be ) more aware of the danger of cross-feeding into a fuel leak. So the main risk is losing an engine, which is itself an emergency, but should not be a disaster.
In this case the pilots just looked at the fuel gauge and use the same number displayed in pounds, remove the decimal and that roughly converts to minutes for the 737. It doesn’t need to be exact, fuel leak or not.
@@rutgerw.In a fuel leak, I would have thought they would isolate the engine (shut it down) but not sure based on ATC's question and fuel on the runway.
The controller shouldn’t have to ask a pilot if they would like to declare an emergency. I don’t understand what the hang up is with some pilots and declaring an emergency. Is there some kind of peer pressure not to?
the pilots are running checklists so they dont really know yet. ATC basically gives them a handout to make it simpler for the pilots as they get priority and less load.
Situations like that can be very dynamic. The Pilot flying may have had to take over the radios, then possibly the Captain may need to speak with the company or cabin crew occasionally.
Newark is a busy airport, and in the US runways are used for normal traffic right up to the point the emergency aircraft is on finals. So the controller wants to know what speeds they can safely maintain, so that separation is maintained with traffic we don't see on these videos
I don’t know about commercial airplanes, but I feel like if they just left Newark and only had 2 hours and 40 minutes of fuel onboard, that was probably a big loss of fuel at first before they started shutting things down and closing things off.
@@Icey240sx In addition to the short flight, there are many alternate airports around Norfolk (and New York) so they won't need significant alternate reserves.
There are some misunderstandings here. fuel onboard at the gate is normally 134 % of the fuel burn expected. Airplanes never land with ZERO fuel in the tanks even if you go to your destination, hold, and then go to an alternate Airport. Airline flight planners have been planning flights for decades, so they have quite a databank of history to use in planning flights. Any fuel lost due to fuel leaks adds to the consumption of fuel over flight segments, and is a threat to safety of flight. Since the crew knows the consumption rate of fuel at different altitudes, speeds, and wind conditions without leaks or fuel loss.
After 20 years of flying, I can tell you that ATC is getting dumber and dumber. The FAA hires based on checks in the box, not merit and thinking people. There is a lot of asking the same questions and talking way too much. Asking airspeed, then telling them to fly, to much talking. It's an EMER, so it's up to the PIC, and if ATC needs to modify, then make the request. The pilot at the end of the comms, sounds like me. I was terrible and still am.
@@saxmanb777but they were already communicating. And the point more generally is that pilots in the US really just have shoddy phraseology and often don't use standard communication. It's more of a friendly conversation than a standardized process. So much room for ambiguity. It is aviate, navigate, communicate, but that is not an excuse for shoddy radio use.
@@alex2143 doesn’t matter. If I can’t think about information that needs to be conveyed to ATC right then I’ll tell them to standby and make sure the aircraft is in a positive flight condition. Maybe something came up and they needed to…fly the plane.
The pilot communicated all that he needed to at that time. No need to get all dramatic about using such terminology when the situation doesn't require it.
Running out fuel in that populated area would be a stressful situation. Seems like that happened in the 70's or 80's.
HAPPENS ALL THE TIME, NOT AN ISSUE
1990: Avianca flight 052 crashed in NY due to fuel exhaustion.
2:00 I guess the 160 minutes don't take in consideration the leak.
Was he waiting to be invited to declare an emergency?
Yeah would have expected a more assertive attitude from a commercial pilot. There have absolutely been cases where general aviation pilots have needlessly crashed and died because they didn't clearly communicate the urgency to land to ATC.
Fuel leak declared. ATC proceeds to bring flight down in altitude and away from airport, before asking if it's a big leak or not? Then asks if fuel leak will affect her runway.
How about immediately determining if leak will affect the plane returning to the ground?
How is the fuel in minutes determined; based on current fuel flow and would it thus fully take into account the effect of a suspected leak?
They calculate an average burn rate. There are a lot of factors but the computer or a good pilot knows. I can still tell you the KC-130J; our average was 5k per hour.
@@FlySafe1000 But how much are such figures worth, having a possible fuel leak? Wouldn't there be the risk atc or even pilots underestimate a possible imminent fuel emergency if the figures say there is still sufficient endurance?
@@rutgerw. After the Air Transat flight 216 incident, pilots are (supposed to be ) more aware of the danger of cross-feeding into a fuel leak. So the main risk is losing an engine, which is itself an emergency, but should not be a disaster.
In this case the pilots just looked at the fuel gauge and use the same number displayed in pounds, remove the decimal and that roughly converts to minutes for the 737. It doesn’t need to be exact, fuel leak or not.
@@rutgerw.In a fuel leak, I would have thought they would isolate the engine (shut it down) but not sure based on ATC's question and fuel on the runway.
Multiple times…..Controller….persons on board. Pilot….77 souls on board. That controller doesn’t believe in souls.
The controller shouldn’t have to ask a pilot if they would like to declare an emergency. I don’t understand what the hang up is with some pilots and declaring an emergency. Is there some kind of peer pressure not to?
Only happens in US
No. Every one on TH-cam just thinks that’s the case.
the pilots are running checklists so they dont really know yet. ATC basically gives them a handout to make it simpler for the pilots as they get priority and less load.
I’m curious why both pilots were alternating on comms. I thought one flew and the other handled the radio.
Situations like that can be very dynamic. The Pilot flying may have had to take over the radios, then possibly the Captain may need to speak with the company or cabin crew occasionally.
Thanks.
@@pirahna432 and the comms here on the video are not in real time, it is edited. So they have plenty of time to decide who does what and when.
They alternate on the radios as they deal with various aspects of flying and the emergency.
Thanks all. I’m just an aviation enthusiast. I always like learning new things
2000ft seems so close to ground...
Why did the controller ask them about their airspeed at some point?
Probably to maintain separation with other aircraft.
@@herbicidal1 Might have also had some interesting winds at their altitude
Newark is a busy airport, and in the US runways are used for normal traffic right up to the point the emergency aircraft is on finals. So the controller wants to know what speeds they can safely maintain, so that separation is maintained with traffic we don't see on these videos
I don’t know about commercial airplanes, but I feel like if they just left Newark and only had 2 hours and 40 minutes of fuel onboard, that was probably a big loss of fuel at first before they started shutting things down and closing things off.
I don’t know much about how fuel loads work but I fly from Norfolk to New York regularly and it’s about a 40 minute to an hour flight
@@Icey240sx In addition to the short flight, there are many alternate airports around Norfolk (and New York) so they won't need significant alternate reserves.
What is basis reported at 700..?
I think they meant bases, as in cloud bases at 700ft
So the gas cap was loose or auto vent stuck open?
Probably some technical issues as the aircraft was on the ground for 2 days after landing. But this only my guess.
Could be anything...leaks in the tanks, pipes, pumps, engines.
There are some misunderstandings here. fuel onboard at the gate is normally 134 % of the fuel burn expected. Airplanes never land with ZERO fuel in the tanks even if you go to your destination, hold, and then go to an alternate Airport. Airline flight planners have been planning flights for decades, so they have quite a databank of history to use in planning flights. Any fuel lost due to fuel leaks adds to the consumption of fuel over flight segments, and is a threat to safety of flight. Since the crew knows the consumption rate of fuel at different altitudes, speeds, and wind conditions without leaks or fuel loss.
Was it just me or was that like 3 runway changes in a row for the ILS approach? Seemed confusing
You.
After 20 years of flying, I can tell you that ATC is getting dumber and dumber. The FAA hires based on checks in the box, not merit and thinking people. There is a lot of asking the same questions and talking way too much. Asking airspeed, then telling them to fly, to much talking. It's an EMER, so it's up to the PIC, and if ATC needs to modify, then make the request. The pilot at the end of the comms, sounds like me. I was terrible and still am.
We need an age limit raise!
How many planes have you piled up?
Declare may day or pan before you tell the controller standby one! It takes few seconds FFS
Maybe they were not sure they even had an issue at first?
Communication comes last.
@@saxmanb777but they were already communicating. And the point more generally is that pilots in the US really just have shoddy phraseology and often don't use standard communication. It's more of a friendly conversation than a standardized process. So much room for ambiguity.
It is aviate, navigate, communicate, but that is not an excuse for shoddy radio use.
@@alex2143 doesn’t matter. If I can’t think about information that needs to be conveyed to ATC right then I’ll tell them to standby and make sure the aircraft is in a positive flight condition. Maybe something came up and they needed to…fly the plane.
The pilot communicated all that he needed to at that time. No need to get all dramatic about using such terminology when the situation doesn't require it.