That's not a problem. I assume the MD11 could also run off of a single source of power, but that creates a single point of failure which you don't want in the sky
the Commuter flight and lay over for me going to Chicago got hit by lightning right beside my window seat. The Black Woman beside me tried to crush my hand. I simply looked at her and said. (If there was a hole in this Airplane? We would have been a deck of cards at 400 MPH and 33 Thousand feet. We are Good.) Warmest hug when on the ground. Moms. I will find a way to have the SUN rise in the West for just You.
@@alphasiera1757 FedEx and UPS doesn't plan to retire their MC-10's or MD-11's anytime soon, their reasoning is it's cheaper to maintain and fuel a more expensive to run jet like them, then it is to buy brand new jets such as the 787 or A350, and have to change up their maintainence departments and such
I had this exact same thing happen. It’s not an “emergency” in the manner that most may think. Everything on the jet is working normally and there is no significant degradation of capability, unless the weather is very, very bad. If the last generator were to quit, that becomes a very significant problem, and most jets like this one (I drive this same jet) have less than 30 minutes to get on the ground. When it happened to me, I was over Memphis, during the FedEx busy time. There were no issues at all working in with traffic. Again, all a “precautionary landing”. Declaring an emergency does two major things. Alerts ATC there is an issue and special services are being requested. It gives the Captain legal authority to do what he needs to in order to get on the ground. For the crew, that approach and landing were as normal as all the others they have done.
To be fair, does't the captain always have legal authority (and the responsibility) to ensure the safety of the aircraft and those aboard it? If ATC tells a non-emergency aircraft to do a barrel-roll the captain would most likely not attempt it despite not having declared an emergency :P
"If the last generator were to quit, that becomes a very significant problem, and most jets like this one (I drive this same jet) have less than 30 minutes to get on the ground." I guess if this were to happen, it would be to completely turn off electrical power and glide as far as possible util the altitude is too low to be "safe" then use those ~30minutes left
Coming out of Lisbon one day we had the left generator go on vacation (quite). The APU was fine until the Azores, then the APU also went on Vacation(quite), later found a gasket on the oil cap was damaged,thus APU oil was blown over board. We declared an emergency and landed in the Azores. Wonderful place, glad to visit the islands. We were flying a 757.
Really nice presentation - I like how you styled the greyed out subtitles for the transmission that was lost. I also really appreciate not cutting out audio to sensationalise the emergency like other channels do!
Great job with your use of different fonts to convey waypoints, frequencies, etc.. I also really like your voiceovers at the beginning. You’ve instantly become my favorite ATC channel.
On the 1983 day of my Private Pilot check-ride in a C-150, I left my check-ride airport as the sun was going over the horizon. I had a 40 minute flight from Rutherford County, NC airport back to my home base in Boone, NC. (at that time) an unlighted grass strip in the Appalachian Mountains. About halfway home I had a complete electrical failure... mind you now, I'm a rookie w/ a dripping wet PP license. I got back and the one street light at the tie-down corner of the airport was my only light. I held my flashlight in my mouth and kept it focused on the airspeed indicator, remembering that my flaps don't work, kept my speed up about 5 kts higher than usual and made an uneventful landing. I taxied back to tiedown, an some of the other plane owners were there and quizzed me about my landing lights and nav lights being out. I got a commendation from them all. 25 years later, it happened again in a Piper Archer (At least I had flaps) that I was ferrying back from maintenance at night. Now, as an Instructor, I "overemphasize" the importance of having a small flashlight at hand (not in a bag), and perhaps a portable navigator of some type if going to far reaching destinations. AND... when things go wrong... JUST FLY THE PLANE!!!
They weren’t really in immediate danger, so long as the remaining electric source continued to work. It’s just not considered a safe idea to run with just one layer of redundancy, hence the emergency landing.
It is, necessary. In all formats of training, staying calm is key. Doing enough training allows you to stay calm. Little to no training is when panic sets in. Being calm is absolutely paramount to assess the situation
Pilots always amaze me with their ability to keep cool and calm during just about any emergency. That's why they're pilots: you want a level head in the cockpit if/when things go wrong. Were it me, I'd strap on a parachute and bail out. Which is why you do not want ME as your pilot!
that's amazing, the emergency hardly caused any disruption to the rest of the traffic. two flights got in ahead of them and it sounds like the next one behind them didn't have to go around either.
Way to go ATC for the ballet @5:19 - gorgeous congruence, even with one in an emergency state - Hats off! (and yes, as someone mentioned pucker factor 8...mercy)
Pucker factor 8 on that one. I went NORDO when electrical system failed in a C172 (heavy, lol) in the middle of a Class B. I managed to call the tower on my cell phone and got clearance to land. Good thing that plane had slick mags.
I wouldn't have guessed that some 767s don't have APU. Very nice presentation here, especially the captions. They are much more accurate than vas aviation.
Noted the addition of "Emergency aircraft" onto the new radio contact with approach. We all know that this information has been lost during handoff between controllers.
I didn't hear it but somewhere on this flight I think the pilots had switched to the emergency squawk code in which case any controller can see their emergency status on their screens.
@@TianarTruegard I didn't hear it either but the video was likely edited before it was posted. I used to listen to ATC in the Monterey Bay area (California) pretty much every day. I heard normal traffic every day but a few times I'd catch something unusual. I could also pick up ATC of planes talking to Oakland Center. One thing that stuck in my memory was that airline pilots would sometime be told to "Delete the Boulder (speed) restriction" and the pilots often confirmed with "Drop the rock" but it took me a while to understand the slang. Back in the seventies I was fortunate to be able to visit with controllers in Palo Alto, Salinas, Monterey, and El Cajon. I don't know if that's still possible.
After the Hudson 737 landing, it's amazing to me that they continue allowing planes to fly with a non-working APU. Captain Sully's starting the APU was credited as the #1 technical thing that saved them, as it restored their electrical power even with all engines out. A broken APU should be a non-airworthy state.
APU can be deferred as long as 2 IDG are operational. also etops certified aircraft will have its etops status downgraded. fun fact the 747 apu is incapable of stating in flight.
But how many times do aircraft have dual engine failures? The answer is almost never. There are far for planes flying with a broken APU than aircraft that have had dual engine flameout
Dec '78 on Delta TriStar from W. Palm Beach on ATL to ATL leg via DTW, O'hare, Cleveland, Philly, directed to JFK but rejected for Marrietta, GA where ran outta gas, kicked RAT out gliding back to ATL. They let us land 1st, Capt parked at open AMR gate saying, "Welcome to Atlanta...again!" Liner in Detroit had crashed in front us sliding sideways until gear crushed all due to ice storm paralyzing USA!. Capt USAF Reserve!
My concern in these incidents, where I understand ATC still want to get other planes in, but if one of the planes they’re squeezing in before the emergency aircraft has an issue on the runway, that runway is now no longer available to the emergency aircraft and god knows what problems that could cause in certain emergencies. Arguably in some emergencies the pilots could decide that if the aircraft ahead (which had no problems prior to landing) has had an issue at the end of the runway but is still on it, but they haven’t got an option to go around, that the best option is to go against ATC and land on that runway despite there being another aircraft on it at the end. Obviously this wouldn’t work if the other aircraft is well within the normal landing distances. But if you’ve got no engines, a fire or whatever, it’s better to get down and perhaps do a runway excursion to avoid the problem aircraft ahead or have a collision with it, than try go around and fall out of the sky. But again, brings back the Russian roulette of hoping all aircraft you squeeze in perfect their landings and don’t have any issues or delays on landing. Obviously in this case it wasn’t necessarily AS time critical as a fire/no engines (still urgent), and they could’ve gone around and likely found an alternative landing, but still seems risky. I would want to preserve that runway when the emergency aircraft is about to begin their approach. But again, they have to balance the logistics of the airport and getting other aircraft down and not having other emergencies in the way of emergency fuel being declared and so on. I think in the serious outcomes the ATC should just advise the wait is a minimum of x time based on how long it’ll take the emergency aircraft to get from wherever they are and until landing, and that aircraft can decide whether they can hold for that long or divert.
@@ndbiet They did declare an emergency (mayday). Depending on the aircraft, complete electrical failure could leave them unable to control the aircraft and crash at worst, or unable to communicate at best. Granted, they still had 1 generator operational and there are batteries on aircraft as well, but those only last a few minutes if all generators fail. If a pilot declares an emergency ((assuming its legitimate)), ATC is supposed to give them priority, period. It could have gotten rather messy if that runway wasn't clear for the emergency aircraft when they landed.
@@TianarTruegard I agree! If one of those two aircraft didn't clear the runway on time it would had caused the distressed airplane to go-around...instead ATC decided to ask the following aircraft to go-around...
This is one of those things where something has to happen unfortunately. Where this is a major factor in a large incident, enough so that the protocol will change. As sad as that sounds, aviation history proves all the strict rules we already have are written in blood.
It really baffled me when they turned back and there were two aircraft ahead of them in quite a tight sequence, and actually asking them to reduce speed. Emergency means emergency, no matter the kind...
Always wonder why you’d want to return to a busy INTL airport like LAX in an emergency, when Point Mugu was right there to the northeast. I guess company has resources there, mechanics and the like.
Magu was below them 19000 feet. ATC would have had to vector them out quite a ways to give them time to descend, so Magu isn't really a more efficient airport to land at, not to mention its military airfield which isn't set up for commercial airliners and passengers. Generally pilots will opt for the large airport which has longer runways, company support and good fire and rescue. There are time and no-time emergencies. A fire would be a no-time emergency. You get it on the ground as soon as you can. This electrical problem was not a no-time emergency.
I'm always shocked at how many professional pilots do not use proper terminology when declaring an emergency. The FAA says: EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS An emergency can be either a Distress or an Urgency condition as defined in the “Pilot/Controller Glossary.” A pilot who encounters a Distress condition should declare an emergency by beginning the initial communication with the word “Mayday,” preferably repeated three times. For an Urgency condition, the word “Pan‐Pan” should be used in the same manner. If the words “Mayday” or “Pan-Pan” are not used but you believe an emergency or an urgent situation exists, handle it as though it were an emergency.
if the pilot started by saying Mayday first thing, he wouldn't have had to subtle ask ATC to hurry up for a return heading "ahhhh, so can we expect to come back on 6s or 7s?" LOL
It's quite peculiar, American (that is the country, not the airline) crews seem very reticent to use the word "mayday", much preferring the nomenclature "we'd like to declare an emergency". Crews in other parts of the world (including similar Anglophone countries like the UK and Australia) exhibit no such reluctance - if you look at this video in Australia, the crew immediately declare a mayday: th-cam.com/video/Qq1GaN_1b-4/w-d-xo.html I'd be interested to hear from pilots what they think the difference might be.
@@AirTrafficVisualised The difference being no more than poor RT standards on display on a daily basis by US pilots. This was evident throughout the departure process prior to declaring an emergency.
I know the APU isn't "necessary" for flying the airplane, and I seem to recall other incidents when a non-functioning APU proved to be a problem. It's like belt and suspenders, and if both straps of your suspenders fail, you really need that belt. I think I'd consider the APU a necessity.
everytime they have an emergency they have to tell how many souls on board in case they need ground assistance it's pretty much procedure not necessarily bc it's something really bad
I can't believe how many armchair experts here apparently think LAX has only 1 runway. It's not exactly a grass strip out in the countryside. There are 4 parallel runways eastbound and this pilot chose 6R, so the other traffic were kept on the other runways. Its not like he was coming in wing a wing blown off and flames shooting out of his engines! The other traffic was miles ahead or behind him anyway, does everyone here understand the little airplane symbols in this graphic aren't actual size?
I haven't been on a plane in quite awhile. Towards the end with the planes all still on approach (same runway as far as I can tell?) I figured I would watch the clock and see how far apart they were upon landing. I figured maybe 15 minutes. It was about 3 to 4 minutes between landings - much closer than I expected! (Pretty impressive). The plane after the emergency plane was told to be ready to go around in case the plane had problems.
@@philduoos2961 - a lot more regularly at Heathrow. 40 to 45 and hour with the new time-based separation in light winds! nats.aero/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TBS_ReadMode.pdf
Actually there is - either pan pan or mayday. It seems that Canadian pilots are less likely to have the same reluctance to use these terms as American pilots have.
This was more of a precautionary landing than emergency, however the pilots did the prudent thing and declared an emergency. The single electrical source is more than enough to power the aircraft and both engines were operating normally. It would be a normal landing. The speeds the controller gave them were normal speeds that the aircraft would fly anyway. They were not delayed in any way.
@@griam7641 I understand they have normal speeds for landing, but procedure is for an aircraft that declares an emergency to be given priority. The crew can proceed to airport as fast as they can and slow just before landing. And 2 engines operating doesn’t mean everything ok. If he had lost the generator on other engine, he would be flying on batteries and/or with RAT. In that case, it’s get on ground ASAP. Very easy to fly an aircraft into ground with both engines running if you don’t have instruments powered by electricity.
@@jerryrichardson7815 All true. But he wasn’t given any vectors to be sequenced. He got direct to Ottes and he has to slow to land. The emergency was a generator out, not an engine fire. I don’t see the the controller did him any disservice. Ultimately the pilot can refuse the speed reduction.
I guess the problem is the ambiguity about emergencies in the US, as you declare an emergency and then state what the problem is. In ICAO-countries its pretty easy: "Pan Pan"" means: we have some issues but they are not immediately threatening the safety of the aircraft (so something like this) and there is "Mayday" wich means we need to land now immediately. Under a Mayday these speed restrictions would not be acceptable, in fact in europa after the emergency traffic is assigned a runway, even the traffic already on final have to go around to minimise the chances of having the runway closed due to an issue with a previousely landing aircraft. Under Pan-pan the runway is not closed and the aircraft is just sequenced in with priority like here
Well done FedEx crew, from a retired United pilot. Excellent job declaring an emergency. Many pilots just won’t do that. Very professional conduct. I flew the B-767-300 for 15 years. One dark and low IFR night I pushed back from the gate at Newark on my way to Istanbul, Turkey. After starting both engines, the right generator failed. Back at the gate I was told it would take several hours to change the generator but that it could be deferred because I could use the APU as a second generator. That meant flying across the North Atlantic at night on 2 generators. I refused to do that saying that if I lost the left engine, or the APU failed, I would be down to one generator and possibly one engine at night and 3 hours from land. I refused to take the airplane and the flight was canceled. Good captains play a game called “ What if?”, while bad ones play “ I hope not”. But I would have taken it on two generators as this FedEx crew did on a domestic flight. Well done again to these FedEx pilots!
All's well that ends well but if the outcome was different the question would have been why didn't the pilot or ATC suggest landing at Naval Air Station Fort Mugu. ATC should transfer every emergency to a dedicated person trained in CRM.
Why? If there’s an onboard fire or some such sure, but why would you go to an unfamiliar field at night that you likely don’t have charts for and is probably not in the aircraft database? Was Mugu open? What was their CFR status? Why not just go back to LAX which has multiple runways, all the CFR, the pilots are familiar with it, and they have support there? This was the supremely logical decision.
"APU" = Auxillary Power Unit, and is primarily used for electrical power on the ground and bleed air for starting the engines. All modern airline jets have them. Sometimes they break and are deferred until they can be fixed, which is what Tom's Travels is talking about. There are other ways to start the engine on the ground.
No, the aircraft was dispatched with the APU inop. When the right engine generator failed, they were down to a single source - the left engine's generator. The battery and RAT can supply power to some systems, but losing all other sources of electrical power would constitute a serious emergency.
There are 3 power sources, apu in rear, generator on each engine. Two of those failed in the flight. (apu likely before flight) Being down to one power source is not ideal.
Whether souls aboard are 3 or 300 - the pilot in command has a tremendous responsibility. Execution here may sound matter of fact - but the drills and training do that. Well done all around. No one lost, no bent airplanes.
![FedEx MD11 Makes EMERGENCY LANDING After Engine Problem [ATC audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U0bzFlGaWm4/mqdefault.jpg)
![FedEx MD11 Makes EMERGENCY LANDING After Engine Problem [ATC audio]](/img/tr.png)
![UPS ENGINE FAILURE on Takeoff [ATC audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_8wgp715wGU/mqdefault.jpg)
No panic. No nonsense. All parties laser-focused. This level of professionalism is a credit to both ATC and commercial pilots.
When ATC and an emergency aircraft "become as one" professionalism at its very best all round
You love to see that synergy.
I'm a 30 year retired Air Traffic Controller ~ military and civilian. You just typed a beautiful truth. < - - - -❤
That happened to me several times... but I flew the MD11 for FedEx with 3 generators, and, like Meatloaf, said "two out of three ain't bad."
That's not a problem. I assume the MD11 could also run off of a single source of power, but that creates a single point of failure which you don't want in the sky
the Commuter flight and lay over for me going to Chicago got hit by lightning right beside my window seat. The Black Woman beside me tried to crush my hand. I simply looked at her and said. (If there was a hole in this Airplane? We would have been a deck of cards at 400 MPH and 33 Thousand feet. We are Good.) Warmest hug when on the ground. Moms. I will find a way to have the SUN rise in the West for just You.
You just straight copy-pasted someone else's comment...
Wow you still fly md11, wonder how long it will be in service since it has a high jet gas consumption
@@alphasiera1757 FedEx and UPS doesn't plan to retire their MC-10's or MD-11's anytime soon, their reasoning is it's cheaper to maintain and fuel a more expensive to run jet like them, then it is to buy brand new jets such as the 787 or A350, and have to change up their maintainence departments and such
I had this exact same thing happen. It’s not an “emergency” in the manner that most may think. Everything on the jet is working normally and there is no significant degradation of capability, unless the weather is very, very bad.
If the last generator were to quit, that becomes a very significant problem, and most jets like this one (I drive this same jet) have less than 30 minutes to get on the ground.
When it happened to me, I was over Memphis, during the FedEx busy time. There were no issues at all working in with traffic. Again, all a “precautionary landing”. Declaring an emergency does two major things.
Alerts ATC there is an issue and special services are being requested.
It gives the Captain legal authority to do what he needs to in order to get on the ground.
For the crew, that approach and landing were as normal as all the others they have done.
To be fair, does't the captain always have legal authority (and the responsibility) to ensure the safety of the aircraft and those aboard it?
If ATC tells a non-emergency aircraft to do a barrel-roll the captain would most likely not attempt it despite not having declared an emergency :P
Im not sure how it is on the 767, maybe you can confirm, but isn't the Ram Air turbine also producing some electricity.
"If the last generator were to quit, that becomes a very significant problem, and most jets like this one (I drive this same jet) have less than 30 minutes to get on the ground."
I guess if this were to happen, it would be to completely turn off electrical power and glide as far as possible util the altitude is too low to be "safe" then use those ~30minutes left
Not to be picky or rude but, don't you fly an airplane?
You declare the emergency to prevent the emergency. And that’s why aviation is the safest mode of transit in the world.
I have zero interest in aviation but you've made these videos interesting and informative enough to keep me on a binge of them. Bravo
Glad you're enjoying the videos!
One of us. One of us. One of us.
Same
Coming out of Lisbon one day we had the left generator go on vacation (quite). The APU was fine until the Azores, then the APU also went on Vacation(quite), later found a gasket on the oil cap was damaged,thus APU oil was blown over board. We declared an emergency and landed in the Azores. Wonderful place, glad to visit the islands. We were flying a 757.
so you went on vacation too ^^ (quite)
Really nice presentation - I like how you styled the greyed out subtitles for the transmission that was lost. I also really appreciate not cutting out audio to sensationalise the emergency like other channels do!
I agree, it was a pleasure to watch
Great job with your use of different fonts to convey waypoints, frequencies, etc.. I also really like your voiceovers at the beginning. You’ve instantly become my favorite ATC channel.
Thanks very much!
On the 1983 day of my Private Pilot check-ride in a C-150, I left my check-ride airport as the sun was going over the horizon. I had a 40 minute flight from Rutherford County, NC airport back to my home base in Boone, NC. (at that time) an unlighted grass strip in the Appalachian Mountains. About halfway home I had a complete electrical failure... mind you now, I'm a rookie w/ a dripping wet PP license. I got back and the one street light at the tie-down corner of the airport was my only light. I held my flashlight in my mouth and kept it focused on the airspeed indicator, remembering that my flaps don't work, kept my speed up about 5 kts higher than usual and made an uneventful landing. I taxied back to tiedown, an some of the other plane owners were there and quizzed me about my landing lights and nav lights being out. I got a commendation from them all. 25 years later, it happened again in a Piper Archer (At least I had flaps) that I was ferrying back from maintenance at night. Now, as an Instructor, I "overemphasize" the importance of having a small flashlight at hand (not in a bag), and perhaps a portable navigator of some type if going to far reaching destinations. AND... when things go wrong... JUST FLY THE PLANE!!!
Yeah never occured to me.. Cessna electric flaps.. rather have the J-bar flaps.
its also amazing to hear how calm they are in these situations.
You can thank the Flight Simulators.
They weren’t really in immediate danger, so long as the remaining electric source continued to work. It’s just not considered a safe idea to run with just one layer of redundancy, hence the emergency landing.
It is, necessary. In all formats of training, staying calm is key. Doing enough training allows you to stay calm. Little to no training is when panic sets in. Being calm is absolutely paramount to assess the situation
Man… PERFECT video. I love your editing style and all the information you give on screen. I wouldn’t change a thing. Keep it up!
Thanks very much for the kind comment! 😊
@@AirTrafficVisualised Of course! You’ve got a new sub
The visual is very well done on every aspect in this video. Good job!
Merci beaucoup!
Pilots always amaze me with their ability to keep cool and calm during just about any emergency. That's why they're pilots: you want a level head in the cockpit if/when things go wrong. Were it me, I'd strap on a parachute and bail out. Which is why you do not want ME as your pilot!
Well it wasn't a real, real emergency.. just if that last generator failed then you've got a real problem.
What a nice way to display all this.
Thank you!
Yes, it was *great*!!!
that's amazing, the emergency hardly caused any disruption to the rest of the traffic. two flights got in ahead of them and it sounds like the next one behind them didn't have to go around either.
Well done on all parts; Crew and ATC.
I've seen videos from several ATC channels. The way you present everything is by far the best. BY FAR.
Thanks very much!
Thank you for the visualizations, makes it easier for people like me to understand what the codes means!
Way to go ATC for the ballet @5:19 - gorgeous congruence, even with one in an emergency state - Hats off! (and yes, as someone mentioned pucker factor 8...mercy)
Not what you want to deal with at the end of your night shift, but they were ready!
Pucker factor 8 on that one. I went NORDO when electrical system failed in a C172 (heavy, lol) in the middle of a Class B. I managed to call the tower on my cell phone and got clearance to land. Good thing that plane had slick mags.
Thanks for sharing your experience! Regardless of the size of the plane, when systems start failing it's a sub-optimal day for the pilot(s)!
No issue the plane still has 1 power source plus 3 hydraulic generators
...and batteries.
@@elmin2323 Nope, no HDGs.
@@donjet5371 ok arm chair expert
What made it so interesting for me was being able to follow it on the map .
Pilot so calm, good training.
Scary stuff right there!! Glad they were able to return and safely land!! Kudos!! Love the visualizations, ATVisualized!! 👍✈✈👍
Nothing scary about it
This one wasn't scary. It was just "better land in a good airport than the other power source failing and then being in a real issue"
What a great concept for a channel. This is an excellent way to present various incidents from a unique perspective.
Thanks very much, glad you enjoyed the video!
Excellent pilot control with cool calm professionalism. 👍
Imagine running on single source power and still having the presence of mind to wish everyone good morning.
Hopefully it doesn't happen so often that they're use to it... lol
Well done Crew! Excellent visualisation!
I wouldn't have guessed that some 767s don't have APU.
Very nice presentation here, especially the captions. They are much more accurate than vas aviation.
They 100% have APUs. It however can be mel'd, meaning they can still fly with it inoperative.
These are so much better than the VASAviation videos.
My first time watching your channel, outstanding graphics, audio and clarity.
Cheers Dan, glad you enjoyed the video!
Hi, this is when professionals handle the situation. Excellent work, guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The atc guys handled that amazingly! great job!
Great video, glad worked out good and landed safely ✈️💯🤜🤛
So calm.
I love a happy ending so glad they made it back safe ♥️🙏🏽
New to channel. I like your visuals compared to other channels. Keep up the good work.
Thanks, will do!
Anytime I visit SoCal I go to LAX and watch the airliners come and go.
Noted the addition of "Emergency aircraft" onto the new radio contact with approach. We all know that this information has been lost during handoff between controllers.
I didn't hear it but somewhere on this flight I think the pilots had switched to the emergency squawk code in which case any controller can see their emergency status on their screens.
@@nemo227 One thing I didn't notice, they weren't told to enter an emergency squawk code on their transponder.
@@TianarTruegard I didn't hear it either but the video was likely edited before it was posted. I used to listen to ATC in the Monterey Bay area (California) pretty much every day. I heard normal traffic every day but a few times I'd catch something unusual. I could also pick up ATC of planes talking to Oakland Center. One thing that stuck in my memory was that airline pilots would sometime be told to "Delete the Boulder (speed) restriction" and the pilots often confirmed with "Drop the rock" but it took me a while to understand the slang. Back in the seventies I was fortunate to be able to visit with controllers in Palo Alto, Salinas, Monterey, and El Cajon. I don't know if that's still possible.
Had that happen to me several times... but I flew the MD11 for FedEx, with 3 generators, and like Meatloaf said "two out of three ain't bad".
MD-11 has 4 generators. 3 engines plus the APU.
@@Ces999919822 two out of four ain't bad?
@@ChrisC7498_ not real good and not real bad. Better than the 76 being down to 1 gen.
23k subscribers? This channel is going to boom in a few weeks.
It'd be nice, but ATV's been around for nearly seven years so I'm not holding my breath! 😁
@@AirTrafficVisualised yes but you had been blessed by the TH-cam algorithm.
Things went sideways close to the same spot where Alaska 261 went down in Jan. 2000.
Not so much sideways, more like inverted.
Excellent Job on all Parties
After the Hudson 737 landing, it's amazing to me that they continue allowing planes to fly with a non-working APU. Captain Sully's starting the APU was credited as the #1 technical thing that saved them, as it restored their electrical power even with all engines out. A broken APU should be a non-airworthy state.
APU can be deferred as long as 2 IDG are operational. also etops certified aircraft will have its etops status downgraded. fun fact the 747 apu is incapable of stating in flight.
It was an Airbus.
But how many times do aircraft have dual engine failures? The answer is almost never. There are far for planes flying with a broken APU than aircraft that have had dual engine flameout
There's a reason the ram air turbine exists
@@ArmyofSeaturtles -400 and -800 can’t, but 1-3 can
These visuals are amazing
Thanks very much, glad you liked the video!
@@AirTrafficVisualised tatics and skill
All the wait and YOU twits get me on a Defective Airplane. great!
All the wait? You? Me?
Good management! Well done!
Interesting. Calm and smooth.
Even for cargo I think a RAT to drop for aux power should be implemented by carriers and the Pilots Union could get it done.
Completely agree with you
All of Amazons 767s have RATs
Dec '78 on Delta TriStar from W. Palm Beach on ATL to ATL leg via DTW, O'hare, Cleveland, Philly, directed to JFK but rejected for Marrietta, GA where ran outta gas, kicked RAT out gliding back to ATL. They let us land 1st, Capt parked at open AMR gate saying, "Welcome to Atlanta...again!" Liner in Detroit had crashed in front us sliding sideways until gear crushed all due to ice storm paralyzing USA!. Capt USAF Reserve!
So calm!
My concern in these incidents, where I understand ATC still want to get other planes in, but if one of the planes they’re squeezing in before the emergency aircraft has an issue on the runway, that runway is now no longer available to the emergency aircraft and god knows what problems that could cause in certain emergencies. Arguably in some emergencies the pilots could decide that if the aircraft ahead (which had no problems prior to landing) has had an issue at the end of the runway but is still on it, but they haven’t got an option to go around, that the best option is to go against ATC and land on that runway despite there being another aircraft on it at the end. Obviously this wouldn’t work if the other aircraft is well within the normal landing distances. But if you’ve got no engines, a fire or whatever, it’s better to get down and perhaps do a runway excursion to avoid the problem aircraft ahead or have a collision with it, than try go around and fall out of the sky.
But again, brings back the Russian roulette of hoping all aircraft you squeeze in perfect their landings and don’t have any issues or delays on landing. Obviously in this case it wasn’t necessarily AS time critical as a fire/no engines (still urgent), and they could’ve gone around and likely found an alternative landing, but still seems risky. I would want to preserve that runway when the emergency aircraft is about to begin their approach.
But again, they have to balance the logistics of the airport and getting other aircraft down and not having other emergencies in the way of emergency fuel being declared and so on. I think in the serious outcomes the ATC should just advise the wait is a minimum of x time based on how long it’ll take the emergency aircraft to get from wherever they are and until landing, and that aircraft can decide whether they can hold for that long or divert.
It seem the pilot still have control and has not declare a Mayday and quite calm so it is reasonable why ATC allow this to happen
@@ndbiet They did declare an emergency (mayday). Depending on the aircraft, complete electrical failure could leave them unable to control the aircraft and crash at worst, or unable to communicate at best. Granted, they still had 1 generator operational and there are batteries on aircraft as well, but those only last a few minutes if all generators fail. If a pilot declares an emergency ((assuming its legitimate)), ATC is supposed to give them priority, period. It could have gotten rather messy if that runway wasn't clear for the emergency aircraft when they landed.
@@TianarTruegard I agree! If one of those two aircraft didn't clear the runway on time it would had caused the distressed airplane to go-around...instead ATC decided to ask the following aircraft to go-around...
This is one of those things where something has to happen unfortunately. Where this is a major factor in a large incident, enough so that the protocol will change. As sad as that sounds, aviation history proves all the strict rules we already have are written in blood.
It really baffled me when they turned back and there were two aircraft ahead of them in quite a tight sequence, and actually asking them to reduce speed. Emergency means emergency, no matter the kind...
When this happened to me I installed the spare APU...added thrust adjusters on both wings...
ah so this is why my pkg was delayed by 1 day :D
Great call by the pilots. You lose two of three electric generation, that’s a no go. Great ATC handling.
Amazing video, great graphs and illustration.
Thanks, really pleased people are enjoying this one.
Always wonder why you’d want to return to a busy INTL airport like LAX in an emergency, when Point Mugu was right there to the northeast. I guess company has resources there, mechanics and the like.
Keep in mind that this was at 5am local time - the aircraft you see on the display represents the total traffic into and out of LAX at the time.
Magu was below them 19000 feet. ATC would have had to vector them out quite a ways to give them time to descend, so Magu isn't really a more efficient airport to land at, not to mention its military airfield which isn't set up for commercial airliners and passengers. Generally pilots will opt for the large airport which has longer runways, company support and good fire and rescue.
There are time and no-time emergencies. A fire would be a no-time emergency. You get it on the ground as soon as you can. This electrical problem was not a no-time emergency.
I'm always shocked at how many professional pilots do not use proper terminology when declaring an emergency. The FAA says: EMERGENCY DETERMINATIONS
An emergency can be either a Distress or an Urgency condition as defined in the “Pilot/Controller Glossary.”
A pilot who encounters a Distress condition should declare an emergency by beginning the initial communication with the word “Mayday,” preferably repeated three times. For an Urgency condition, the word “Pan‐Pan” should be used in the same manner.
If the words “Mayday” or “Pan-Pan” are not used but you believe an emergency or an urgent situation exists, handle it as though it were an emergency.
if the pilot started by saying Mayday first thing, he wouldn't have had to subtle ask ATC to hurry up for a return heading "ahhhh, so can we expect to come back on 6s or 7s?" LOL
It's quite peculiar, American (that is the country, not the airline) crews seem very reticent to use the word "mayday", much preferring the nomenclature "we'd like to declare an emergency". Crews in other parts of the world (including similar Anglophone countries like the UK and Australia) exhibit no such reluctance - if you look at this video in Australia, the crew immediately declare a mayday: th-cam.com/video/Qq1GaN_1b-4/w-d-xo.html
I'd be interested to hear from pilots what they think the difference might be.
@@AirTrafficVisualised
The difference being no more than poor RT standards on display on a daily basis by US pilots. This was evident throughout the departure process prior to declaring an emergency.
Beat me to it! Lazy, inefficient RT!
He had to call twice. If he’d started with a pan pan or a mayday he’d have had immediate attention. Seconds matter in aviation
Scary stuff!! Glad all ok!
Phone notification: Your package is on the way, but its running late
I know the APU isn't "necessary" for flying the airplane, and I seem to recall other incidents when a non-functioning APU proved to be a problem. It's like belt and suspenders, and if both straps of your suspenders fail, you really need that belt. I think I'd consider the APU a necessity.
That pilot sounded pretty calm. Imagine reporting you have three "souls" on board. That would freak me out if I had to utter those words.
everytime they have an emergency they have to tell how many souls on board in case they need ground assistance it's pretty much procedure not necessarily bc it's something really bad
I guess all the saving money on not repairing the apu didn't playoff. Nice job by the crew!
The APU is operable. Just for some reason it wont starts (normally the APU are shut off after the engines had started).
I love a happy ending!
I can't believe how many armchair experts here apparently think LAX has only 1 runway. It's not exactly a grass strip out in the countryside. There are 4 parallel runways eastbound and this pilot chose 6R, so the other traffic were kept on the other runways. Its not like he was coming in wing a wing blown off and flames shooting out of his engines! The other traffic was miles ahead or behind him anyway, does everyone here understand the little airplane symbols in this graphic aren't actual size?
I haven't been on a plane in quite awhile. Towards the end with the planes all still on approach (same runway as far as I can tell?) I figured I would watch the clock and see how far apart they were upon landing. I figured maybe 15 minutes. It was about 3 to 4 minutes between landings - much closer than I expected! (Pretty impressive). The plane after the emergency plane was told to be ready to go around in case the plane had problems.
@@philduoos2961 - a lot more regularly at Heathrow. 40 to 45 and hour with the new time-based separation in light winds! nats.aero/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/TBS_ReadMode.pdf
If there was only a way to declare an emergency using only a few words, while being absolutely clear what's your problem and intentions.
Actually there is - either pan pan or mayday. It seems that Canadian pilots are less likely to have the same reluctance to use these terms as American pilots have.
Am I the only one who's never seen runway's running in opposing directions operational at the same time like that?
Subscribed!
Great graphics!
Thank you very much!
Great job!
Thank you! Cheers!
I wonder if the pilot alerted all the nervous Amazon Prime customers while landing. "This is your delivery driver speaking..."
Likely due to maintenance oversight to keep amazon profits high.
What happened to giving emergency aircraft priority, not slowing them down behind traffic??
This was more of a precautionary landing than emergency, however the pilots did the prudent thing and declared an emergency. The single electrical source is more than enough to power the aircraft and both engines were operating normally. It would be a normal landing. The speeds the controller gave them were normal speeds that the aircraft would fly anyway. They were not delayed in any way.
@@griam7641 The pilots had declared an emergency. It's not for ATC to second-guess them.
@@griam7641 I understand they have normal speeds for landing, but procedure is for an aircraft that declares an emergency to be given priority. The crew can proceed to airport as fast as they can and slow just before landing. And 2 engines operating doesn’t mean everything ok. If he had lost the generator on other engine, he would be flying on batteries and/or with RAT. In that case, it’s get on ground ASAP. Very easy to fly an aircraft into ground with both engines running if you don’t have instruments powered by electricity.
@@jerryrichardson7815 All true. But he wasn’t given any vectors to be sequenced. He got direct to Ottes and he has to slow to land. The emergency was a generator out, not an engine fire. I don’t see the the controller did him any disservice. Ultimately the pilot can refuse the speed reduction.
I guess the problem is the ambiguity about emergencies in the US, as you declare an emergency and then state what the problem is.
In ICAO-countries its pretty easy: "Pan Pan"" means: we have some issues but they are not immediately threatening the safety of the aircraft (so something like this) and there is "Mayday" wich means we need to land now immediately. Under a Mayday these speed restrictions would not be acceptable, in fact in europa after the emergency traffic is assigned a runway, even the traffic already on final have to go around to minimise the chances of having the runway closed due to an issue with a previousely landing aircraft. Under Pan-pan the runway is not closed and the aircraft is just sequenced in with priority like here
Well done FedEx crew, from a retired United pilot. Excellent job declaring an emergency. Many pilots just won’t do that. Very professional conduct. I flew the B-767-300 for 15 years. One dark and low IFR night I pushed back from the gate at Newark on my way to Istanbul, Turkey. After starting both engines, the right generator failed. Back at the gate I was told it would take several hours to change the generator but that it could be deferred because I could use the APU as a second generator. That meant flying across the North Atlantic at night on 2 generators. I refused to do that saying that if I lost the left engine, or the APU failed, I would be down to one generator and possibly one engine at night and 3 hours from land. I refused to take the airplane and the flight was canceled. Good captains play a game called “ What if?”, while bad ones play “ I hope not”. But I would have taken it on two generators as this FedEx crew did on a domestic flight. Well done again to these FedEx pilots!
Thee Souls onboard.. Jeez
All's well that ends well but if the outcome was different the question would have been why didn't the pilot or ATC suggest landing at Naval Air Station Fort Mugu. ATC should transfer every emergency to a dedicated person trained in CRM.
Why? If there’s an onboard fire or some such sure, but why would you go to an unfamiliar field at night that you likely don’t have charts for and is probably not in the aircraft database? Was Mugu open? What was their CFR status? Why not just go back to LAX which has multiple runways, all the CFR, the pilots are familiar with it, and they have support there? This was the supremely logical decision.
No turbulence at all. 💝
Good content
I always don't like how they ask for number of "souls" on board. Always makes it ominous.
Are apu’s normally missing on a 767? Do these use a battery for a apu?
APU was likely not working which is permitted for a period of time
"APU" = Auxillary Power Unit, and is primarily used for electrical power on the ground and bleed air for starting the engines. All modern airline jets have them. Sometimes they break and are deferred until they can be fixed, which is what Tom's Travels is talking about. There are other ways to start the engine on the ground.
probably inoperative
So, all 767 don't have the hydraulically driven generator?
Would they use the Ram Air Turbine if they lost the last generator?
I don't know how it is for commercial aviation but I feel like the apu should be mandatory to be working 100% specifically for reasons like this
Roger that, red dog. Goldilocks is in the house and we are go for launch, 1917, heavy 😂
I'm spoiled flying the the queen with 4 generators.
isn't this Air Transport International (ATI)? or are they flying for Amazon
This aircraft is operated by Air Transport International on behalf of Amazon Prime Air.
God damn: verify info Lima, crossing intersection with altitude, and cleared to land. Bruh, we got an emergency lol
„Have a Great flight“ lmfao
Good video, new sub. Thanks
So, they still had one electrical source, plus the battery, plus the ram air turbine, and both engines, correct?
No, the aircraft was dispatched with the APU inop. When the right engine generator failed, they were down to a single source - the left engine's generator. The battery and RAT can supply power to some systems, but losing all other sources of electrical power would constitute a serious emergency.
Did the crew order a new generator and APU on Arizona prime on the way back to the airport?
I cringe every time I hear an aircraft declare an emergency, and the tower forgets to ask: souls on board and fuel. Kudos to the pilot.
There are 3 power sources, apu in rear, generator on each engine. Two of those failed in the flight. (apu likely before flight) Being down to one power source is not ideal.
It's not the first problem that kills you.
How do you do it. Subbed btw.
So my coco-butter body wash delayed? 🛀
There's more to prime, a truckload more.
Whether souls aboard are 3 or 300 - the pilot in command has a tremendous responsibility. Execution here may sound matter of fact - but the drills and training do that.
Well done all around. No one lost, no bent airplanes.
It looked like they were already close to land why didn't they just land there?
Couldn't they land at the Naval Air Station? They were right there.
Boeing 767s are like 10,000 years old. I think the 767s for Delta average 30 years of age.