A&P for the airline here. The airframe wasnt physically losing fuel, but the fuel totalizer had an issue giving erroneous indications. The aircraft landed with an analogue measurement of over 10k lbs of fuel. The crew had no way of knowing how much fuel they actually had in air. :P This exact issue was worked on this aircraft prior to this recording. No indication of an issue was found, crew didnt elaborate more than a sentence on it, all in writing... If you're a pilot or crew, give your mechanics as much information as you possibly can on any problem. It helps a great deal and enables us to do our job right and to keep you and your passengers safe.
Thanks for sharing GDAT! I was curious as to why it was loosing fuel at a rapid pace. I’m a technician, and you’re right! The more information given, the better chance to diagnose the problem faster and know what’s involved.
kinda like when office workers call IT and say "my computer's not working" and the tech says "so what does the error box say" and the users's all "IDK FIX IT"
"Not taking any chances" someone give this man a raise! I have no connection to the flight or its participants, but I couldnt imagine a better attitude to have to an unknown and potentially catastrophic situation.
Overweight landings are not that big of deal and are not something pilots worry about. In my experience with Boeings, if you just took off from the field then you most certainly can emergency return, heavy or not, and be completely safe. In an emergency where you don't have time, and this would qualify as one of those, you land overweight at an airfield and runway which would allow a successful overweight landing.
These RJs don't have max landing weights significantly below their max takeoff weight in the first place. It's a different matter than when you're flying a plane that carries hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel to fly nonstop to the other side of the world. Also, an A&P for the airline commented above that the aircraft wasn't actually losing any fuel, just the system that measures and totals the fuel was giving an inaccurate indication to the pilots.
Pilot did an excellent job and asking for exactly what he needed, direct to the airport with as short a final as possible. In a recent fatal Bonanza crash, the pilot accepted a four mile intercept, too far for them to make the runway. I would maintain altitude (if able), fly directly overhead an airport, then work out my approach. Gives you all the options, either circle down and land or fly out and back for a longer approach. Running out of energy prior to being over an airport isn't that helpful.
Which Bonanza crash was that? I believe you're making an apples and oranges comparison. These guys weren't a dual engine failure here, where they'd become a glider. Rather, they were merely making a return to their point of departure due to erroneous fuel amount indications. Air returns are VERY routine, I did several in my years at the airlines.
@@Cokie907 We now know what the cause of the "loss of fuel" was, but at the time, the crew did not know the cause. It would have been foolish for them to assume it was an instrument error. Fly it like you're running out of fuel, figure it out later. Sorry, but I tried to locate the Bonanza crash I was referring to, but couldn't locate it. They were vectored 4 miles out for an instrument approach but didn't make it to the airport.
I remember watching Swiss Flight 111 documentary and I was thinking the entire time, yes checklist are important but keep descending and get the damn thing on the ground. I like this Captains attitude, straight in no delay and not were going do a million checklist.
That sounded cool and professional on both sides, with the pilots taking no chances with their passengers and requesting immediate clearance to land, and the controllers rolling equipment and giving the pilots everything they asked for. My biggest question is why the controller would immediately clear a plane with a potential large fuel leak to taxi into the ramp, under its own power, closer to buildings and other aircraft? Shouldn't they have had them stop on the taxiway or even the runway to evaluate the condition of the aircraft, maybe run the "after-landing-while-leaking-hand-over-fist" checklist? I can only make an educated guess but I would think after such an emergency they would want to take steps such as turning off engines, fuel pumps, and batteries ASAP to prevent ignition sources, having the fire crew look for actual leaks, and evaluating whether they should evacuate. Even though it ultimately turned out not to be leaking, I'd think if I was a pilot in that situation, I would probably want the aircraft to be far away from anything else flammable until I knew for certain it was safe from a fuel fire.
@@df446 Well, yeah, the pilots don't HAVE to comply with unsafe instructions, but they did literally clear what I see as a potential (until proven otherwise) fireball into the ramp. That sounded unsafe to me, hence my question. Was that instruction a mistake on the controller's part, or am I missing something?
Your missing something here: CFR on the RWY would have verified an actual fuel leak which in this case was not an actual fuel leak or loss. There would have been verbal confirmation to the flight crew by CFR personnel.
@@alan_davis No, actually, there's a way to know if it's indicator or real. If the airplane is out of trim/flying unbalanced, it's real fuel leak. If the airplane flies balanced, it's an indicator issue.
Similiar like a incident of Airbus A330 Air Transat 236, but different with this that Blue streak can landed safely with stabilize of fuel and still running on both engine to return😌
This just goes to show you how the controller is uniquely stressed and intertwined into the thought process and decision making so much... in that it completely destroyed the controllers ability to give him that 270 degree heading (initially) while the most likely FO is watching the dwendling "life source" draining from the fuel gauges, as he questioned the 180 degree (090 heading) "away" from him ever walking the earth again. 😎 What I've always loved about Flying is that during Emergencies (I've had quite a few) there's nothing really else that shows you in real time "your worth, what you're made of, and your ability to cheat death" just once more. [I hate that I love it so, so much]. 🤔👨🏽✈️✈🌍🎯🏆
@@gnitaheid It's an idiom, yes, but it's very descriptive of the situation, and since the ATC in Jackson, Mississippi is comprised mostly of native English speakers, I imagine, not a problem. If the pilot were flying into Amsterdam or Paris, he might have used different terminology, but at this moment, "hand over fist" aptly described the situation as he saw it and clearly demonstrated the nature and urgency of the emergency to ATC.
0.42 into the video ... why does the pilot politely call their call sign and await ATC, instead of "Mayday, Mayday Mayday Blue Streak 5359" immediately?
Perhaps just habit of politely waiting for ATC? Assuring you actually have their attention before talking? I'd guess that as long as ATC has their headset on that the word "mayday" will get their attention quite quickly though.
How many times have we heard an aircrew make an all encompassing mayday call without first contacting the controller only for the controller to reply with "Last aircraft say again"? If you contact them first, you've got their attention, and they won't have to ask you to repeat all of your message.
@@df446 The whole purpose of MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY is to get the controllers attention and also the supervisor who is listening in. Then just the normal Blue Streak 5359.
There's a lot to this such as deferrals to the fuel system, were MLI's used, what did the fuel slip say. Bottom line though, 8600 pounds is NOT dwindling fuel unless you have a gash in the wing and its pouring out. Glad everything worked out just fine.
Maybe the weather demanded an ILS approach. Do you know otherwise? If you need the ILS, going in close and failing to intercept the glide path soon enough just makes things worse.
@@sylviaelse5086 weather was VMC and this was an emergency so they could have kept them tighter like the pilot requested and just fly the VISUAL all the way down.
@@aquilotti1987 In that case the pilot could have used his own navigation, and flown his desired visual approach. Once the emergency is declared, ATC are there to assist, not to direct.
@@816928 it’s 2 hours’ fuel assuming it’s not pouring out of the wing. Rather than figuring this out in the air, I concur with land, and then diagnose. Nobody is going to give you a gold star for Sherlock Holmesing the instrument failure assuming that’s what it is, and you will look really stupid if in fact it is a giant leak and you’re dead sticking a CRJ…
Instrument failure almost for certain, but if it says you're running out of fuel you don't second guess it. Worst case you have more fuel than you thought and that's not so bad.
@@816928 I think you're underestimating the risk of actually running out of fuel. If the chances are 5% that they really do have a major fuel leak is it worth diagnosing it vs just returning ASAP? That's preposterous and risking lives. Go back and figure it out on the ground.
Horrible controlling by approach (I'm a controller too). Airplane losing fuel rapidly, needs the shortest possible approach, and he's going to loop them all the way down and around to 34L? "We need 16L" oh okay, turn the opposite direction of the airport and waste a precious 5 minutes more. "Verify you want us to turn eastbound?" Oops, no turn westbound heading 270 and I'll set you up for a 50 mile final. The guy's a clown and if they airplane really was rapidly losing fuel, and the pilot was too trusting of ATC (good thing he caught all those controller mistakes), a lot of people would probably be dead.
I feel like the right answer in this case should be "Emergency plane. Direct airport. Altitude your discretion. What runway do you want". Obviously ATC has other planes, but they ideally move them in time.
I really enjoyed the pilot saying he was going to keep some altitude and not drop right down. I've heard the ATC bring emergency aircraft down and ( as a non-Pilot/ATC ) thought wouldn't you want to stay higher if worst case ( engine failure or run out of fuel ) scenario happened.
@@johnpollard4158 airports don’t run fuel, maintenance, or general airline operation. This had everything to do with something on the aircraft, the fuel totalizer.
@@saxmanb777 I think we need to talk about whoever coined the name of that system to be the “totalizer”. Yes I understand in English we CAN noun any verb, but we don’t HAVE TO… it’s not like summing a few numbers is such a unique task that it required a new name, like “fuel gauge” is pretty obvious if it showed total fuel what is going on there.
They were obviously losing fuel at a faster rate than normal on the climb to their cruising altitude. Pilot made a decision to come back instead of risking his aircraft or his passengers....made the right call.
A&P for the airline here.
The airframe wasnt physically losing fuel, but the fuel totalizer had an issue giving erroneous indications.
The aircraft landed with an analogue measurement of over 10k lbs of fuel. The crew had no way of knowing how much fuel they actually had in air. :P This exact issue was worked on this aircraft prior to this recording. No indication of an issue was found, crew didnt elaborate more than a sentence on it, all in writing...
If you're a pilot or crew, give your mechanics as much information as you possibly can on any problem. It helps a great deal and enables us to do our job right and to keep you and your passengers safe.
This needs to be a pinned comment.
Thanks for sharing GDAT!
I was curious as to why it was loosing fuel at a rapid pace. I’m a technician, and you’re right! The more information given, the better chance to diagnose the problem faster and know what’s involved.
kinda like when office workers call IT and say "my computer's not working" and the tech says "so what does the error box say" and the users's all "IDK FIX IT"
Thank you GDAT. I was wondering. I’ve never heard of anything like this happening with the crj series. That’s good info.
Thanks for the additional info. Bravo to the crew though ... don't mess with what looks like a potential massive fuel leak. but rather land asap.
"Not taking any chances"
someone give this man a raise! I have no connection to the flight or its participants, but I couldnt imagine a better attitude to have to an unknown and potentially catastrophic situation.
If you are the owner of the airline company you won't think like that.
thats you marco
@@xwhalerfanb776 I wish!!
@@marcospark2803 Glad you're not an airline pilot...
@@reubenmorris487 I thought you were going to say that glad I'm not the owner...
thats the mentality i want the pilots flying me to have.. good job everyone!
Much better than a pilot who gives up and prays. Lion Air JT610
Good SA on the pilot not blindly turning 090 as instructed, away from the airport. While the PIC has final authority, it’s a team effort.
Although it was an instrument issue, "not taking any chances" was the right attitude. Good communication throughout by the pilot and ATCs.
Woof that silence after 090 call by the ATC
Pilot did an amazing job!
Well I guess they didn't have to worry about Landing overweight.
Not necessarily... Need more info.
Overweight landings are not that big of deal and are not something pilots worry about. In my experience with Boeings, if you just took off from the field then you most certainly can emergency return, heavy or not, and be completely safe. In an emergency where you don't have time, and this would qualify as one of those, you land overweight at an airfield and runway which would allow a successful overweight landing.
These RJs don't have max landing weights significantly below their max takeoff weight in the first place. It's a different matter than when you're flying a plane that carries hundreds of thousands of pounds of fuel to fly nonstop to the other side of the world.
Also, an A&P for the airline commented above that the aircraft wasn't actually losing any fuel, just the system that measures and totals the fuel was giving an inaccurate indication to the pilots.
it's better to be blown on the ground than up in the air
There was nothing wrong with the fuel load. Inexperienced pilots. Good luck people
Excellent pilot. Respected ATC but insisted without exception in getting exactly what was needed in the situation to keep everyone safe.
Pilot did an excellent job and asking for exactly what he needed, direct to the airport with as short a final as possible. In a recent fatal Bonanza crash, the pilot accepted a four mile intercept, too far for them to make the runway. I would maintain altitude (if able), fly directly overhead an airport, then work out my approach. Gives you all the options, either circle down and land or fly out and back for a longer approach. Running out of energy prior to being over an airport isn't that helpful.
Which Bonanza crash was that? I believe you're making an apples and oranges comparison. These guys weren't a dual engine failure here, where they'd become a glider. Rather, they were merely making a return to their point of departure due to erroneous fuel amount indications. Air returns are VERY routine, I did several in my years at the airlines.
@@Cokie907 We now know what the cause of the "loss of fuel" was, but at the time, the crew did not know the cause. It would have been foolish for them to assume it was an instrument error. Fly it like you're running out of fuel, figure it out later. Sorry, but I tried to locate the Bonanza crash I was referring to, but couldn't locate it. They were vectored 4 miles out for an instrument approach but didn't make it to the airport.
Controller, "Descend and maintain 4000"
I yelled "No!" at my computer.
Pilot, "were gonna keep it high for the moment". Best pilot call, ever.
Then they pulled the power back and the fuel reappeared. Push the power up and it disappears. The mental lightbulb never went off.
Pilot: We need to go as close to straight in as possible.
ATC: Okay, left turn 090
...
Pilot: You want to try that again?
The absolute definition of a panic vector
Great SA by the pilots and made their own decisions and questioned ATC when needed - sounded like they were squared away!
Very good job by the ATC and pilots. Good video too.
I was just curious how long it took to land after the mayday call
Great team work all around. super job by all.
"Hes coming right at us!" Airplane.
Great work everyone.
Any news on what actually caused the fuel loss? An actual leak or bad instrumentation? Glad they got that puppy down fast regardless of the issue.
I didn't see any news on that situation.
Fuel totalizer issue. Crew had no proper indication. Made a primary comment.
I remember watching Swiss Flight 111 documentary and I was thinking the entire time, yes checklist are important but keep descending and get the damn thing on the ground. I like this Captains attitude, straight in no delay and not were going do a million checklist.
That sounded cool and professional on both sides, with the pilots taking no chances with their passengers and requesting immediate clearance to land, and the controllers rolling equipment and giving the pilots everything they asked for.
My biggest question is why the controller would immediately clear a plane with a potential large fuel leak to taxi into the ramp, under its own power, closer to buildings and other aircraft? Shouldn't they have had them stop on the taxiway or even the runway to evaluate the condition of the aircraft, maybe run the "after-landing-while-leaking-hand-over-fist" checklist?
I can only make an educated guess but I would think after such an emergency they would want to take steps such as turning off engines, fuel pumps, and batteries ASAP to prevent ignition sources, having the fire crew look for actual leaks, and evaluating whether they should evacuate.
Even though it ultimately turned out not to be leaking, I'd think if I was a pilot in that situation, I would probably want the aircraft to be far away from anything else flammable until I knew for certain it was safe from a fuel fire.
It's not up to the controller.
@@df446 Well, yeah, the pilots don't HAVE to comply with unsafe instructions, but they did literally clear what I see as a potential (until proven otherwise) fireball into the ramp. That sounded unsafe to me, hence my question. Was that instruction a mistake on the controller's part, or am I missing something?
Your missing something here: CFR on the RWY would have verified an actual fuel leak which in this case was not an actual fuel leak or loss. There would have been verbal confirmation to the flight crew by CFR personnel.
Wow scary stuff!
Losing fuel that fast must be an indicator issue
Why? Even if that would be the case, it would be still wise to go back.
@@cptcrogge I made an assumption. Did my comment suggest otherwise?
@DUK2K your assumption is entirely correct, but we don't assume - if the instrument says low fuel, we take it as accurate.
@@alan_davis No, actually, there's a way to know if it's indicator or real. If the airplane is out of trim/flying unbalanced, it's real fuel leak. If the airplane flies balanced, it's an indicator issue.
Look up GoJet fuel leak on RUclips. See the video. It could be a real leak that quickly. ruclips.net/video/YOtOILfPV3Y/видео.html
Similiar like a incident of Airbus A330 Air Transat 236, but different with this that Blue streak can landed safely with stabilize of fuel and still running on both engine to return😌
And didn't cross feed to dump all the fuel out of the hole!
Actually a completely different incident, no fuel loss here.
"We are losing fuel hand over fist"
AKA Chemtrails have been activated
This just goes to show you how the controller is uniquely stressed and intertwined into the thought process and decision making so much... in that it completely destroyed the controllers ability to give him that 270 degree heading (initially) while the most likely FO is watching the dwendling "life source" draining from the fuel gauges, as he questioned the 180 degree (090 heading) "away" from him ever walking the earth again. 😎
What I've always loved about Flying is that during Emergencies (I've had quite a few) there's nothing really else that shows you in real time "your worth, what you're made of, and your ability to cheat death" just once more. [I hate that I love it so, so much]. 🤔👨🏽✈️✈🌍🎯🏆
is "hand over fist" a correct terminology? not native english speaker will not understand.
@@gnitaheid It's an idiom, yes, but it's very descriptive of the situation, and since the ATC in Jackson, Mississippi is comprised mostly of native English speakers, I imagine, not a problem. If the pilot were flying into Amsterdam or Paris, he might have used different terminology, but at this moment, "hand over fist" aptly described the situation as he saw it and clearly demonstrated the nature and urgency of the emergency to ATC.
Western WA has been striped massively the past several days.
@@gnitaheid What would you prefer ? We got fuel pissing out our arse ? LOL
ANOTHER Canadian plane not having a Good Day, eh.
0.42 into the video ... why does the pilot politely call their call sign and await ATC, instead of "Mayday, Mayday Mayday Blue Streak 5359" immediately?
Perhaps just habit of politely waiting for ATC? Assuring you actually have their attention before talking? I'd guess that as long as ATC has their headset on that the word "mayday" will get their attention quite quickly though.
How many times have we heard an aircrew make an all encompassing mayday call without first contacting the controller only for the controller to reply with "Last aircraft say again"? If you contact them first, you've got their attention, and they won't have to ask you to repeat all of your message.
@@df446 The whole purpose of MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY is to get the controllers attention and also the supervisor who is listening in. Then just the normal Blue Streak 5359.
I know so many lives would have been saved if they had done it like this.
Why you can hear in his voice he's worried.
Why give up altitude before understanding the full picture? Isn't altitude - time?
The measurements were off because the pilot has such huge balls.
There's a lot to this such as deferrals to the fuel system, were MLI's used, what did the fuel slip say. Bottom line though, 8600 pounds is NOT dwindling fuel unless you have a gash in the wing and its pouring out. Glad everything worked out just fine.
Brownstreak Airlines
“Not taking any chances” = boss level flying
Pilots asked to keep it tight on the turn and atc confirmed, but at the need they still made them shoot the ILS wth is that!!?
Maybe the weather demanded an ILS approach. Do you know otherwise? If you need the ILS, going in close and failing to intercept the glide path soon enough just makes things worse.
@@sylviaelse5086 weather was VMC and this was an emergency so they could have kept them tighter like the pilot requested and just fly the VISUAL all the way down.
@@aquilotti1987 In that case the pilot could have used his own navigation, and flown his desired visual approach. Once the emergency is declared, ATC are there to assist, not to direct.
The weather at the time was barely at minimums. If i recall around 400 overcast
But was it a true fuel loss or was it a indicator failure ? Do airline pilots even know how to distinguish between the two?
Trust the instruments, if they say no fuel you assume no fuel.
Another person here claims it was instrumentation and the previous crew had only made a minor note of the issue. So, no real fuel loss.
@@816928 it’s 2 hours’ fuel assuming it’s not pouring out of the wing. Rather than figuring this out in the air, I concur with land, and then diagnose. Nobody is going to give you a gold star for Sherlock Holmesing the instrument failure assuming that’s what it is, and you will look really stupid if in fact it is a giant leak and you’re dead sticking a CRJ…
Instrument failure almost for certain, but if it says you're running out of fuel you don't second guess it. Worst case you have more fuel than you thought and that's not so bad.
@@816928 I think you're underestimating the risk of actually running out of fuel. If the chances are 5% that they really do have a major fuel leak is it worth diagnosing it vs just returning ASAP? That's preposterous and risking lives. Go back and figure it out on the ground.
Horrible controlling by approach (I'm a controller too). Airplane losing fuel rapidly, needs the shortest possible approach, and he's going to loop them all the way down and around to 34L? "We need 16L" oh okay, turn the opposite direction of the airport and waste a precious 5 minutes more. "Verify you want us to turn eastbound?" Oops, no turn westbound heading 270 and I'll set you up for a 50 mile final. The guy's a clown and if they airplane really was rapidly losing fuel, and the pilot was too trusting of ATC (good thing he caught all those controller mistakes), a lot of people would probably be dead.
Whatever.
I feel like the right answer in this case should be "Emergency plane. Direct airport. Altitude your discretion. What runway do you want". Obviously ATC has other planes, but they ideally move them in time.
Agree, I would want a vector direct to the airport.
and asking them to drop to 4000 right off the bat was also suspect.
I really enjoyed the pilot saying he was going to keep some altitude and not drop right down. I've heard the ATC bring emergency aircraft down and ( as a non-Pilot/ATC ) thought wouldn't you want to stay higher if worst case ( engine failure or run out of fuel ) scenario happened.
D E I
HAHAHAHAAA
If fuel services and maintenance are reflective of the overall management of that airport, I'd walk before I flew from there.
Airport, fuel services and maintenance are entirely separate things.
@@alan_davis well, if either one is governed by the management of that airport, it's bound to be a disaster.
@@johnpollard4158 airports don’t run fuel, maintenance, or general airline operation. This had everything to do with something on the aircraft, the fuel totalizer.
Really it would be best to never fly in a plane at all ever.
@@saxmanb777 I think we need to talk about whoever coined the name of that system to be the “totalizer”. Yes I understand in English we CAN noun any verb, but we don’t HAVE TO… it’s not like summing a few numbers is such a unique task that it required a new name, like “fuel gauge” is pretty obvious if it showed total fuel what is going on there.
Doesn’t every plane lose fuel in flight? Overreaction by the crew.
They were obviously losing fuel at a faster rate than normal on the climb to their cruising altitude. Pilot made a decision to come back instead of risking his aircraft or his passengers....made the right call.
😂😂😂
@@brianbaldwin7554 relax, it’s a yoke
😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Really brianbaldwin7554? You found absolutely no humor in that comment?
Mayday, Mayday, Mayday We Need to return back to the airport. We departed without the proper fuel load 😎
THEESE are posted almost every single day, starting to look fake to me
This is not a fake.
avherald.com/h?article=5049c498&opt=2048
What a bizarre comment.
With ~100,000 flights every day, this happens every day.
Thousands of flights a day, a few technical errors here and there are expected. Most won't ever make it onto RUclips because they're just that boring.
You know how many planes are in the sky right now right?