Pilot's TERRIFYING Engine Explosion In Flight!

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
  • The engine EXPLODED shortly after takeoff on United 328 flying from Denver to Hawaii. Passengers witnessed the engine fire as the pilots had to figure out the safest way to get the plane back on the ground as soon as possible.
    If you enjoyed this video, you should watch this other one about a cargo FIRE on a FedEx plane!
    • Pilot's Worst Nightmar...
    Subscribe to the channel
    👉 / @pilot-debrief
    #unitedairlines #aviation #pilotdebrief
    This channel is for entertainment purposes only and represents solely my opinion and not the opinion, views, or position of anyone else.

Комментарии • 117

  • @toportime
    @toportime 8 месяцев назад +10

    Kudos to that pilot for remaining so calm and colletec. Kudos to all of them.

  • @Kylefassbinderful
    @Kylefassbinderful 9 месяцев назад +17

    pilot has amazing composure, inspiring actually.

  • @1roanstephen
    @1roanstephen 8 месяцев назад +27

    I love the way you present and the lessons you teach through your videos. I am glad I found your channel. Although it has been over 40 years since I last flew an F-4, these bring back many vivid memories of things that In either witnessed or experienced in my own jet.

    • @jimdavis6833
      @jimdavis6833 2 месяца назад

      It's been 44 years since I worked on the Phantom II. Maybe we crossed paths somewhere. Tan Son Nhat, Eglin, Kadena, and Moody, in that order. Retired in Feb.,1980.

    • @1roanstephen
      @1roanstephen 2 месяца назад

      @@jimdavis6833 I was in Kadena a few times (stationed in the PI and Kunsan). Was at Moody from 1979 to1982 in the 339th Squadron. Perhaps we met there.

    • @jimdavis6833
      @jimdavis6833 2 месяца назад

      @@1roanstephen It's possible, because I was at Moody from Mar. 1977 to Dec. 1979, also in the 339th. I was a MSGT at that time, and retired from there. I went to Red Flag 3 times with the 339th, TDY to Panama (Howard AFB) once, and to Patrick and Eglin once each. The last 3 all in 1979.

    • @1roanstephen
      @1roanstephen 2 месяца назад

      @@jimdavis6833 Well, if I didn't meet you then its good to meet you now. I was a Capt then and a WSO

    • @jimdavis6833
      @jimdavis6833 2 месяца назад

      @@1roanstephen Copy that.

  • @bertg.6056
    @bertg.6056 9 месяцев назад +13

    Another outstanding presentation, Hoover. Thanks !

  • @williamsegal156
    @williamsegal156 10 месяцев назад +8

    Thank You Hoover. Really enjoy Your presentations.

  • @reneehey123
    @reneehey123 3 месяца назад +2

    I’d want to be on any plane that Hoover flies. He sounds so knowledgeable and competent. Great presentations!

  • @DBR00
    @DBR00 Год назад +9

    Great and clear communication. You explain in simple terms for the aviation buffs like me! Thanks.

  • @MNBluestater
    @MNBluestater 9 месяцев назад +8

    Though the NTSB report does not reference information as to cabin emergency preparations, with experience as a flight attendant, communicating to the pilots any visual information as to the status of the fire on the engine, and flight deck coordination with ATC and for all crew on board.

  • @elizabethjackson4708
    @elizabethjackson4708 7 месяцев назад +6

    I thought I heard them say “Mahalo” and then it was confirmed when I heard the flight was going to Honolulu 🌺

    • @JasonEngman
      @JasonEngman 7 месяцев назад +1

      Yup! Got it wrong in the subtitles not "so long" but essentially "thank you" ("mahalo")

  • @stavrosk.2868
    @stavrosk.2868 10 месяцев назад +14

    Smooth, professional. Great pilots and ATF.

  • @insylem
    @insylem 10 месяцев назад +5

    Landing heavy will use up more runway, landing with one engine means one thrust reverser and more runway also

  • @sirmichael7155
    @sirmichael7155 5 месяцев назад +1

    Wow. It even blew its propeller off❗️

  • @Rww930
    @Rww930 2 месяца назад

    Former ARFF Bat chief....it was always the best when we could talk directly to the aircraft

  • @bkailua1224
    @bkailua1224 7 месяцев назад +3

    Nice debrief

  • @joycedudzinski9415
    @joycedudzinski9415 9 месяцев назад +3

    Well, that was a short vacation...

    • @tin2001
      @tin2001 5 месяцев назад +1

      That kid that kept asking "are we there yet" before they even closed the doors is feeling a bit guilty, I imagine 😂

  • @dinahphillips2136
    @dinahphillips2136 2 месяца назад

    I would love to have a debrief of LANSA 502

  • @loong111
    @loong111 7 месяцев назад +3

    Thinking of becoming a pilot just for the lingo.

    • @577buttfan
      @577buttfan 7 месяцев назад +3

      Dont forget the sunglasses and youtube videos.

    • @tin2001
      @tin2001 5 месяцев назад

      ​@@577buttfan
      I've never been friends with regular sunglasses... I've been thinking of getting some aviators to see if they work better for me, but I feel like I'd be a fraud without the pilot licence or a police motorbike to go with them.

    • @ScubaDude1960
      @ScubaDude1960 Месяц назад

      And the hat. Don't forget the hat.

  • @RFI-DE
    @RFI-DE 4 месяца назад

    I like to see that radar antenna rotating on that tower building.(like at 8:10)
    Unfortunately that antenna has already been removed as that airport has been closed.
    It was the Tegel tower (EDDT/TXL) of Berlin, Germany.

  • @kickedinthecalfbyacow7549
    @kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 8 месяцев назад

    I was surprised that they didn’t have an emergency procedure prescribed by the company

  • @TheTransporter007
    @TheTransporter007 6 месяцев назад

    That T7's number 2 motor *REALLY* went boom. Blade off failure I imagine.
    UAL/Boeing haven't had much luck since this incident either, have they?

  • @CandyGirl44
    @CandyGirl44 9 месяцев назад +1

    Unless this is an old video, what's with the metal fatigue and fanblades breaking and messing the engine up? This is the second or third time this issue seems to be making its appearance.

    • @Chellz801
      @Chellz801 8 месяцев назад

      This is an older incident back when a few of those happened in a row

  • @denisbeaumont738
    @denisbeaumont738 6 месяцев назад

    Good job

  • @thomash2806
    @thomash2806 10 месяцев назад +5

    Oh dear! Are your eyes OK? They look sore…

  • @troyelich9307
    @troyelich9307 7 месяцев назад +2

    What does "heavy" mean?

    • @okflyer777
      @okflyer777 6 месяцев назад +5

      Aircraft using "heavy" in their callsign applies to planes that have maximum gross weights of 300,000 pounds or more.

    • @debbie4503
      @debbie4503 5 месяцев назад

      ​@@okflyer777 Thank you. I have been wondering what that meant. I wasn't the one who asked you, but you answered my question. 🙂

    • @tin2001
      @tin2001 5 месяцев назад +1

      The reason is due to wake turbulence being much worse when a heavy comes through. Adding "heavy" to the callsign allows ATC and other pilots to be aware of the potential issues.
      A380 gets an even better suffix, BTW... They're "super".

  • @perryrose8843
    @perryrose8843 9 месяцев назад +19

    You got FAR 91.3 in your pocket use it. Don't beg for ATC to give you permission to fly the airplane , Tell ATC what you are doing and what you want.

  • @1Aviator71
    @1Aviator71 3 месяца назад

    Between 2:34 and 2:49 you refer to the burning power plant as both an engine and a motor. You are very precise in all your videos, I really dont get your insistence on using the word motor. Not criticizing, just wondering.

  • @davidmay5338
    @davidmay5338 3 месяца назад

    Wait a Boeing aircraft blew an engine? A 777 to boot? Guess it's lucky the doors stayed on.

  • @insylem
    @insylem 10 месяцев назад +1

    I thought they were supposed to say "Mayday" three times

    • @TheTruthKiwi
      @TheTruthKiwi 9 месяцев назад +9

      Yeah, ATC should've ignored the call. 😂

    • @tin2001
      @tin2001 5 месяцев назад

      One is enough. 3 times is to get attention, especially at distance where the radio signal is weaker and might not be clear.

  • @gnarthdarkanen7464
    @gnarthdarkanen7464 Год назад +3

    Okay... I know this is an older post and all... BUT there's an awful LOT of talk about aircraft in trouble on take-off, and just whipping a 180 to turn back to the same runway they just took off from...
    Then we hear about Cap'n "Sully" Sullenberger and the famous conversation after the Miracle on the Hudson incident, where it sounds (at least from some published sources) like they WANTED him to try to glide the 180 back turn to land where he'd just taken off...
    AND over on the "Air Safety Institute" (pretty great channel on YT for aviation buffs) there's quite a set of videos about "the impossible turn" and the many shortcomings of trying an emergency turn-back landing... AND while some aircraft can make it, even reliably, from 500 feet at the time of crisis, there are many more that simply can't even at twice the altitude... Maybe I'm just confused by the internet's usual contrary nature. For every site you find some supposedly "good information" based on credible sources, I can also find at least a half dozen sites with contradictory "good information" from sources just as credible...
    AND admittedly, the Air Safety Institute is more about General Aviation Safety than necessarily the operations and procedures of commercial pilots... SO I'm wondering what exactly IS the recommendation (or the majority trend in recommendations) for an airborne emergency on take-off for the commercial bunch??? I'm fairly sure there's got to be some prescription based on altitudes at the time of crisis, and some flexibility based on the over-all condition of the plane (say one engine of four out versus one of two or all engines out, etc...) It would just be interesting to have some relative idea of where the line's drawn as to what's probably "do-able" in a jetliner and how far "they" (those mysterious powers that be) have planned ahead already based on the historical abilities of getting planes back on the ground in one piece under crisis.
    Somehow, if a Cessna 172 is going to make it back from 500 feet at the point of crisis, "but just barely" then I'm going to have trouble believing a 747 is going to do so well from the same point... even only one of four engines inoperative... At least, not in just so many syllables... and with 2 or 3 out, it's probably just not having it... BUT that's just the "first impression"... ;o)

    • @richguitarmusic6781
      @richguitarmusic6781 Год назад +1

      That's a LOT of "Blah, blah blah," to ask a simple question. 🤷🤔

    • @gnarthdarkanen7464
      @gnarthdarkanen7464 Год назад

      @@richguitarmusic6781 AND YOU wasted so little to say NOTHING AT ALL... Congrat's... I guess? ;o)

    • @richguitarmusic6781
      @richguitarmusic6781 Год назад

      @@gnarthdarkanen7464 I made a statement about how LONG your comment was. If you thought it was "nothing," why did you bother to reply? 🤷🤔

    • @richguitarmusic6781
      @richguitarmusic6781 Год назад +2

      Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. The reason for my comment is that I get annoyed by people who write a whole term paper instead of posting just a simple comment in the COMMENT section. Getting your point across with a brief comment is a valuable skill. 🤷🤔
      If you want to respond, please do so without using insults. Thank you. ✌️😎

    • @gnarthdarkanen7464
      @gnarthdarkanen7464 Год назад

      @@richguitarmusic6781 You certain wasted enough time to come back onto a comment NOBODY made you even click the first time.
      The angry voices are in YOUR head, not mine. Right down to the details of you getting annoyed at great walls of text in the comments sections... if someone wants to pound away for 5 minutes or half an hour as their passtime, what is it, REALLY to you?
      I couldn't possibly give less of a sh*t about a faceless irritable mook with another fake-ass handle masquerading like a know-it-all in the comments of YT. I only bother because this is FUN... you do know what FUN is... an enjoyable way to kill a few minutes??? perhaps???
      AND I DO mean a few minutes quite literally. You may struggle to bang out a dozen words or so in the same span, making your tall tail of brevity over precision believable in your head, but again... that's YOUR problem. Brevity sacrifices wit... wisdom... and the attention to details.
      Read or don't. It's literally no skin off my ass. ;o)

  • @chrisberlin1552
    @chrisberlin1552 8 месяцев назад

    Hoover, you look tired brother…

  • @mikefendel
    @mikefendel 5 месяцев назад

    Hoover....I love what you do but I take issue with a couple of things. First off, while the first voice from the cockpit was a bit anxious, please don't title major airline stories using the word TERRIFYING. I belive the first mistake was they chose to turn into the good engine when asked left or right turn. The second voice from the cockpit in my impression was the Captain after gaining control of the A/C he turned it over to the FO and took over managing the emergency which was a good move. I would have turned right, gone north downwind for runway 16R and called for cross wind with checklist complete and ready to land. I believe the FO was somewhat inexperienced in handling emergencies and was quite anxious in his radio calls. An overweight landing in a 777 is not a big deal and is often advisable rather than taking the time to dump fuel. Glad it all worked out well and yes, the controllers totally supported the crew in an excellent way on this one.

    • @thecopoetics4308
      @thecopoetics4308 5 месяцев назад +1

      I heard the engine explode from inside my house . It was pretty terrifying.

  • @gregdrmax
    @gregdrmax 9 месяцев назад

    Actually, I hear the first pilot reporting as being scared. His speech is broken, because he can not think clearly. Shocked, more like it.

  • @Trebor_I
    @Trebor_I 9 месяцев назад +2

    Motors are electric, anything with combustion is an engine.

    • @guyseeten2755
      @guyseeten2755 6 месяцев назад +3

      Motor and engine are interchangeable in standard English.

    • @Trebor_I
      @Trebor_I 6 месяцев назад

      @@guyseeten2755 To engineers who work on electrical systems or combustion machines, they are very different.

    • @tin2001
      @tin2001 5 месяцев назад +1

      ​@@guyseeten2755
      Not fully. Engine implies combustion. Motor means something that creates motion. So it's interchangeable one way but not always the other way.

    • @JacksonWestfall
      @JacksonWestfall 3 месяца назад

      @@tin2001Energy/motion cannot be created or destroyed. It is merely transferred or converted. In the case of an engine, it is chemical energy converted to mechanical energy.

  • @KB10GL
    @KB10GL 10 месяцев назад +1

    Please, .... the engine did not "EXPLODE". Hand grenades explode, C3, C4, gelignite & TNT explode, as do military bombs & failed space rockets on launch, but the engine did not explode. It suffered a catastrophic in flight failure.
    I just hate these click bait descriptions.

    • @ipcamtalk4314
      @ipcamtalk4314 9 месяцев назад +3

      relax bro....

    • @gummansgubbe6225
      @gummansgubbe6225 9 месяцев назад +2

      An explosion is a rapid expansion in volume of a given amount of matter associated with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with the generation of high temperatures and release of high-pressure gases. Explosions may also be generated by a slower expansion that would normally not be forceful, but is not allowed to expand, so that when whatever is containing the expansion is broken by the pressure that builds as the matter inside tries to expand, the matter expands forcefully. An example of this is a volcanic eruption created by the expansion of magma in a magma chamber as it rises to the surface. Supersonic explosions created by high explosives are known as detonations and travel through shock waves. Subsonic explosions are created by low explosives through a slower combustion process known as deflagration.

    • @KB10GL
      @KB10GL 9 месяцев назад

      @@gummansgubbe6225 Contrary to popular belief, the fuel charge in a car's combustion chamber does not explode, it burns across the compressed fuel charge very very quickly, even at extreme RPM. If conditions are wrong, a portion of the fuel charge may spontaneously combust [called engine knock] & if allowed to continue, will destroy an engine quite quickly.
      Additionally, the powder charge in a modern round of firearm ammunition does not "explode". It too burns with a flame front through the powder charge. A very fast burn to be sure & like the IC engine, if too little powder is used with too much air space in the rifle case, then the flame front can flash across the surface of the charge causing spontaneous combustion of the whole. [explode] The pressure rise can excede the mechanical strength of the breach, destroying the firearm & injuring the shooter.
      Explosion, it has a very distinct definition.

    • @bkailua1224
      @bkailua1224 7 месяцев назад +1

      In the true sense of high explosives detonating, no it did not detonate. MW dictionary defines explode as:
      ": to burst forth with sudden violence or noise from internal energy:" The jet engine has very high internal energy due to a lot of heavy parts rotating as a very high speed. so it really does explode if it comes apart catastrophically At the airline I worked for we talked about engine failures and we would say a jet engine either just stops running and slows to a stop or they "explode" and parts fly all over the place and do external damage. There seems to very little in between. Pilots tend to use as few words as possible to describe something so saying "it exploded" takes a lot less words than "it suffered a catastrophic in flight failure" We do this from many years of talking on radios where you use as few words as possible to let others know what you are saying. When you read the NTSB report that comes out 6 months to years later you will most likely find the people who have months to come up with a reason will use the very long detailed descriptions using the exact terms for the event and give you many pages to read. But if I was talking to ATC just after takeoff and this happened and ATC asked what happened I would most likely say "right engine fire" and not say " our right engine suffered a catastrophic in flight failure and is on fire"

    • @thepapschmearmd
      @thepapschmearmd 7 месяцев назад +1

      Good lord this is why we can’t have nice things.

  • @stephenconnolly3018
    @stephenconnolly3018 10 месяцев назад

    One engine is on fire so we going to read a check list?

    • @KB10GL
      @KB10GL 10 месяцев назад +3

      The engine had a small persistent fire on a small part of it, but it wasn't 'on fire.' If the engine itself was 'on fire' then they would have been looking at the possibility of a structural failure of the engine mounting pylon, & at worst, structural failure of the wing. Neither of those components was in any real danger. The aircraft is quite capable of operating to a suitable landing site on the remaining engine, so a QRH & check list read through would be entirely appropriate. [QRH = Quick Reference Handbook]

    • @thepapschmearmd
      @thepapschmearmd 7 месяцев назад +1

      Yes. They have checklists for a reason. There are fire suppression systems for the engines and you can fly with one engine.

    • @eric55406
      @eric55406 7 месяцев назад +1

      Yeah, they assessed they can fly on the good engine, and do the pre-landing checklist, so they make sure it's done safely. That's how they get all the passengers down safely even during an emergency.

  • @577buttfan
    @577buttfan 7 месяцев назад +2

    Do these fan blades get tested before they get changed in so many hours?

  • @u171098atgmail
    @u171098atgmail 7 месяцев назад

    he said Mahalo not so long. they're going to Hawaii at least that was the plan at first

  • @gtr1952
    @gtr1952 9 месяцев назад +7

    Its great to see everything worked the way it should! Those engines are so big its scary when they let go! The nacelle did a great job containing the shrapnel! 8-[ --gary

  • @chrisberlin1552
    @chrisberlin1552 8 месяцев назад

    Hoover, you look tired brother…

  • @kennyscarborough9374
    @kennyscarborough9374 8 месяцев назад +6

    Hoover,sure like to hear a debrief on the business jet crash at PBch.Int'l few years back,took the lives of several people including a physician (owner of a hair restoration company and some of his employees. It was rumored that plane ran out of fuel and a couple of gallons would have gotten all aboard safely to the runway as it crashed into the roof of the last building just before the runway,terrible tragedy... thanks for your insights!

  • @timbaggaley
    @timbaggaley Месяц назад +2

    Watch out Hoover, the last time I saw eyes like that the whole herd had to be destroyed!

  • @heyher_the_odd
    @heyher_the_odd 9 месяцев назад +6

    Advising that there is the possibility for turbulence out of DIA is like saying there is a possibility for the sun to rise in the east. There is NEVER no turbulence at DIA. Sitting up against the Rocky Mountains and up slope winds make for bumpy take off and landing. In all my decades living in CO and flying in and out of DIA and Stapleton, turbulence has always been a guarantee.

    • @lavkmr1
      @lavkmr1 9 месяцев назад

      👺

  • @zsolteditor
    @zsolteditor 15 дней назад

    At 08:59 "unfortunately no audio", in gaming people have the last 5 minutes replay (provided by Nvidia), what takes for aviation to just make the last 30 seconds avail for pilots as a replay on the sound part? I mean: You don't have to "say again" for the controller, is a faster way to rewind the last 30 seconds.. It's not rocket science i hope. The rewind button should stay near AP ON/OFF button.

  • @coreyandnathanielchartier3749
    @coreyandnathanielchartier3749 9 месяцев назад +2

    I didn't hear if they squawked 7700. That would have gotten the attention of the controllers immediately, without any need for words.

  • @Scott-kd4gs
    @Scott-kd4gs 5 месяцев назад +1

    The lack of USA radio discipline is astounding. Could hear the same thing with the recent Alaska flight. Its not that hard to be that little more professional

  • @nervouswreck392
    @nervouswreck392 8 месяцев назад +2

    GRATE description‼️✔️ YA☝️

  • @stevekirk8546
    @stevekirk8546 4 месяца назад +1

    It may be their job but the controller did a great job, gently prompting the aircrew about their intentions, giving them all options but subtly suggesting the probable best option. Excellent work all round.

  • @fabien9687
    @fabien9687 10 месяцев назад +10

    ATC did a great job

  • @TheRoguelement
    @TheRoguelement 5 месяцев назад

    I'm not sure how prudent dumping fuel is with an actual fire from the right engine ??????

  • @leonputh5543
    @leonputh5543 6 месяцев назад

    sore eyes?

  • @Capecodham
    @Capecodham 11 месяцев назад +1

    Controllers are pathetic slow to respond and then say, "say again."

    • @insylem
      @insylem 10 месяцев назад

      In all fairness the pilot did not make a proper mayday call. A proper mayday call is " Mayday Mayday Mayday ", not just " Mayday Mayday "

  • @Boodieman72
    @Boodieman72 Год назад +1

    Pilots are supposed to say Mayday 3 times, not twice. Motors are electric, fyi

    • @tbas8741
      @tbas8741 Год назад +1

      It's "For your information" not FYI.
      (same difference)

    • @julianbrelsford
      @julianbrelsford Год назад +1

      The common usage of the term motor does not specify whether or not it's an electric, rocket, piston, or other type of motor.
      "Ford Motor Company"
      "Ford Trimotor"
      "My motorboat has a two stroke motor"
      "Motorcycle"
      "Mo-ped is an abbreviation of motorized pedal-cycle"
      "He blew the motor on his race car"
      There are a lot of sources that indicate "common usage" is one of the best ways to determine the meaning of a word for general communication and in the case of "motor" dictionaries agree with this usage.

    • @Boodieman72
      @Boodieman72 Год назад

      @@julianbrelsford These are the definitions that come up when I look. "The engine converts various forms of fuels into mechanical force, while the motor transforms electrical energy into mechanical energy.”

    • @calvinbrowne2126
      @calvinbrowne2126 Год назад

      ​@Boodieman72 Cambridge, merriam-webster, Collins et al all disagree with you.

    • @GGOL
      @GGOL 10 месяцев назад

      All engines are motors, not all motors are engines.

  • @rvierra7235
    @rvierra7235 Год назад +3

    To this day, I wonder what the tower was doing when the tower did not acknowledge "engine out" "mayday".....

    • @tbas8741
      @tbas8741 Год назад +5

      talking to other planes, (just because we or even the mayday plane can't hear them the controller might have been talking to another plane 80+ miles away on other end of field out of range of LiveATC's receiver and mayday plane. )
      Or he could have simply taken his headset off for 2 seconds t scratch his head or something.
      or he could be handling Departures and Arrivals into same place on different frequencies (1 in each ear)

    • @rvierra7235
      @rvierra7235 Год назад +1

      @tbas8741 😂😅🤣😆 Let me guess...either Air Force or no service time at all??

    • @Capecodham
      @Capecodham 11 месяцев назад

      coffee

    • @lewiskelly14
      @lewiskelly14 11 месяцев назад +1

      If you think you can do better then apply

    • @Capecodham
      @Capecodham 11 месяцев назад

      @@lewiskelly14 Anyone who is paying attention can do better.

  • @db6784
    @db6784 11 месяцев назад +1

    What does the “heavy” mean in the call?

    • @evryhndlestakn
      @evryhndlestakn 10 месяцев назад +1

      It has passengers aboard.

    • @evryhndlestakn
      @evryhndlestakn 10 месяцев назад

      Or that is on an active passenger flight, that they have passengers, luggage, cargo & are fueled up hence "Heavy". Along those lines anyway but im not a professional.

    • @slithe2070
      @slithe2070 10 месяцев назад +1

      A plane over a certain size will always use heavy along with its call sign during atc communications.

    • @ccevideo
      @ccevideo 9 месяцев назад +7

      No offense to everyone but all these answers are wrong. Maximum weight at takeoff is the criteria whether an airplane uses the designation “heavy” or “super” in their call sign. In addition (and more importantly), the designation is designed so ATC will leave the appropriate distance for airplanes behind them due to the wake turbulence that is caused by planes designated as “heavy” or “super.” And while not used as a criteria (and ATC will always ask fuel and souls on board in the mayday call), heavy will let those around them know that they are carrying a lot of fuel. This plane just took off, so he is carrying max fuel for his designated flight plan and this is a risk he has to take into consideration when planning for his return landing.

    • @evryhndlestakn
      @evryhndlestakn 9 месяцев назад

      There you go.