This is why this is my favorite Aviation channel, there are so many incidents like this that we wouldn't have known or gotten a deep explanation about. Thank you for your work!
Two and a half tons of fuel for a large jet like this is barely enough to start a campfire. They cut it way too close. The flight crew did everything right *except* for failing to call MAYDAY for priority clearance. This is still a real problem because many pilots are reticent to call MAYDAY unless the crap is really hitting the fan--and by that time it's often too late.
@@wafikiri_ That does make more sense, but judging by what the controllers said, "need emergency declared", looks like the pilots merely followed the advice. Edit: Curious, would a PAN be considered enough emergency for this situation?
@@empireoflizards The PAN call is generally used when short of fuel or any other urgent condition that requires priority but not immediate danger. It is called three times, and so should the full call sign of the flight, like in the MAYDAY call. By the way, MAYDAY was composed from the French contraction "m'aider" ("help me") for English speakers to approximately pronounce it.
@@wafikiri_ Seems reasonable. Perhaps it boils down to what the pilots interpreted what the controllers would allow under the circumstances...with the potential runway obstruction and all. In other words, it becomes a game of 'cover your ass' and the controllers wanted a bona fide 'emergency' to let them land, even if the risk was minimal. Thus, IF something went wrong, the controllers wanted something strong to justify the clearance. That's the legalistic world we live in, so that's my theory anyway.
I was thinking that but didn't want to make a comment since I'm not a pilot. Seems like ACT would have straightened out all the other aircraft quickly then. One reason I assume some pilots want to avoid declaring emergency to avoid bunch of paperwork. I listened to some other flight incident where a less experience pilot avoided declaring emergency for way too long, due possibly to overconfidence.
It seems that something is very wrong when a commercial plane's approved alternate airport is closed with its tower unmanned -- effectively meaning that there is no alternate.
Don’t worry - no amount of laziness or beaurocratic decisions will keep a plane from landing when it runs out of fuel - if the plane had diverted, it’d still have been able to land. It may have ended with more pieces once everything stopped, but they could still land. Hell, I know of a time a plane landed of an occupied runway, deliberately ignoring the multiple vehicles tending to a stuck airplane. 😉 - Vetting of alternates ought to include similar attention to detail as vetting of destination airports - ‘Will we be able to take off after?’ ‘Is the runway long enough to land?’, ‘Will we be arrested for illegally entering the country?’, etc. you are, in effect, “Planning to land there, should circumstances disrupt your plan A for the flight.”
Any passenger who books a flight into a remote, small population destination needs to understand the greater risk he might be taking. Sometimes when the flight gets there, some of the airport's equipment is out for repairs. Nighttime arrival only adds to the risk as the runway lights may not be working..
@@geoh7777 Iceland is small and remote, but it's a developed country with considerable air traffic giving its geographical location. Not like flying a puddle jumper into a tiny settlement in the wilds of Alaska.
So Iceland air was operating their planes with the diversion airport unavailable because it was closed for a significant number of hours overnight? Being an island far from another alternate I would think this does not put the pilots in a great position if something did go wrong, as it did here. Pure luck that something worse didn't happen before this incident.
It seems like they should be adding enough fuel to not only make the alternate airport, but also allow enough time for it to open. Otherwise, it’s not much of an alternate.
@@tumslucks9781 Yea.. that is true.. but .. well A310 have a very long range.. so its not really suitable for short and fat routes. A310 is very similar to the 757-200 and the A300 is very similar to the 757-300 in both range and capacity. The ultimate irony is that those sort of middle of the market aircraft entered the in service month apart (well at least the A310 contra 757-200). But also exit production basically the same time. 2004 for 757 and 2007 for the A300. Making the market empty very sudden. (I guess that the A321Neo picked up some of the slack. The A321Neo actually fits one more row of seats compare to the 757-200 despite being shorter. The LR actually match the -200 in range. The 757-300 remain unmatched until airbus make a A322.While if the A321 neo would be strechwed with 8 rows, it would almost prectly match the 757-300 in capacity and range and would match the A321XLR in MTOW
@@LuLeBe The A322 would not be any heavier than the A321XLR. It would have shorter range. Probably about 1500km shorter than XLR. The fuselage of A321 is both wider and taller than of 757, and the A322 would be a bit shorter than the 757-300 (due to new galley, toilet and seat design, as well as shorter cockpit). So structurally for the fuselage it would not be a problem Its also worth saying that the front, tale and wing section of the fuselage is made in 3 different part and joined together. There would only need to ad length at the two ends and the middle would be unchanged. This is no different than how A318*, A319, A320 and A321 is different from each other today. I would suggest the main reason why Airbus is not doing it is due to backlog. A other reason might be low sales of 757-300. But i would sugest that it would probobly not be the case any more due to 767 as well as the A300 is of the market, so a A322 would have no competitor
Far too many times it takes a disaster to make improvements/changes for safety; however, often times a 'near miss' or other incident where no one is hurt can also be an impetus for needed improvements. We often don't hear about them but glad this was one such case. Another well done video, MACI!
This feels like such a simple situation relatively, in which everything should have been straightforward, but in which also, the authorities and regulations failed everyone in every way.
I went to Iceland as a kid, and the flight there got rather interesting due to heavy fog...and then an obstruction on the runway, so the plane had to quickly abort it's landing and fly to a different, less foggy airport.
I don't understand why the flight crew didn't declare a fuel emergency sooner. They even had to be bounced into doing so by ATC. It is ALSO surprising (and NOT in a good way) that communications between Keflavic and Reykjuvik airports were so SHOCKINGLY poor. Moreover, communications between different ATCs was ALSO shockingly poor. Another great video - many thanks!
Lots of paper if you declare an emergency. Pilots won't declare an emergency if they don't have to. In this case the pilots didn't need to declare an emergency until ATC denied the landing. As for why the main domestic airport wasn't even open yet still listed as a diversion airport. Baffles me.
@@benwilson6145 That's inaccurate, there was no more or less risk of a collision due to the emergency declaration. The controller was rightly asserting that he could not grant permission to land when the runway was occupied, unless the pilots declared an emergency. If the runway had been unoccupied, the flight was probably outside the technical limits for a low fuel emergency, just that they couldn't make it to the alternate.
Much good a diversion airport does you if your blocked primary airport are the only one cleared of ice within, what, 800 km to the Faroe Islands? Thankfully turned out to be not that bad, however. This sounded like a real horror story for a while.
Iceland has two longer runways that Reykjavik airport has. Akureyri and Egilsstadir. Most likely atleast Akureyri should have been operational. But maybe too far away for the remaining fuel, but reachable if they divert as soon as the first plane gets into trouble and blocks the runway.
This was blown way out of proportion! Having the jet/vehicles at the very end of the Rwy would be like have a shortened Rwy by means of Rwy works. As long as the remaining Rwy length was sufficient then there should be no additional risk! Remove all personal just as a safety precaution but just land!
Thank you for another video. Is that Iceland Air's livery? All white? I agree with other comments, they should have called a MAYDAY. Thanks again for the video!
Mayday call can only be made when you've utilized ALL fuel planned for the alternate. Probably not the case here. There's another verbiage for this scenario -'minimum fuel' but I don't think they used it in this scenario because the controller wanted them to use Mayday, which is the highest order of emergency.
In 1983, when I was 12, I flew with my mother from JFK to Luxembourg on Iceland Air. The flight had a stop over in Reykjavik, which at the time I believe was an international airport. I’m pretty sure (it was a long time ago) that the runway was covered with packed snow when we landed. I know for certain that when we deplaned at the very small terminal there was packed snow on the ground. On the return flight, which also stopped in Reykjavik, the weather was rainy and the runway was only wet.
So it seems that Iceland should not be allowed to have any commercial airline traffic as they only have one working airport at night? Something is wrong in Iceland. Why didn’t the pilots declare a fuel Mayday? Why didn’t the airport push the other aircraft off the runway with a bulldozer?
Iceland is not like the US or other large countries. It has a population of less than 400,000 people so there is not a continuous stream of air traffic and I imagine there is only a skeletal staff at particularly quiet times - ground crew, ATC etc.
Evacuating the passengers and crew of the BAE125 would have been an obvious thing to do, even if there wasn't an inbound at Bingo. What were they supposed to achieve by staying on board? If anything, by lightening the aircraft, it would have eased the movement of the machine by reducing weight. If there's a stuck object at the far end of the runway, a collision would at worst have wiped out the 757's nosegear, and squashed the obstacle. If there's no one in it, that's just a financial loss.
A full on "slide down the slides, everyone out right away" style evacuation causes injuries, so without an obvious threat they wouldn't have reason to do it. As for other options for getting people off if such options exist, I lack knowledge to comment.
This airport( keflavik) needs to clear the other runway. They are the only airport around and they can't bother to keep up 2 runways? And tow the plane that skid off immediately. or at the very least get all the vehicles off the runway till this plane lands. In essence they had nothing for any plane in emergency. Poor management of the airport. Well managed by the pilots. Also, too low a margin for fuel if headwinds can be a problem. The airlines should not be cutting it so close when a plane is flying to such a remote location without many other landing options.
It's strange that this was an emergency, but it was; they would have had 60 seconds of flying fuel if they'd have waited. However, I wonder why the Reykjavík airport was not open as an untowered airport. Was the surface unsafe? (I suppose it would be)
What a massive goof up! It sounds like a small little thing. Almost a "just in a day of work" for aviation. But that's only because it all worked out in the end. Avaition incidents should always be looked at from the lens of "What could have happened" along with "What actually happened". Only then one can truly grasp the scale of what needs to be done.
I don't understand the title of this article - where did the pilot have to "risk" anything? The airplane at the end of the runway was no more a risk than landing on a slightly shorter runway, which the airplane could have managed anyway given its low near empty (of fuel) weight. However, the pilot did take a risk by not stopping to refuel enroute, which he could have easily done, in order to provide himself a safety margin.
The risk involved- 1. Declaring Mayday and accepting the responsibility to utilize an occupied rwy. This is far from normal Ops. 2. Slippery rwys are not easy to land and control the aircraft.
Overall, the Pilots didn't have the weather information for ""possible headwinds". But, professional pilots along with a good controller got them down. At worst, they #1- run out of fuel in the air, or, # 2- steer off of the runway. I think selecting #2 was, by far, the better choice.😎
In 50 years of jet flying I would say it wasn’t that big a deal. If you are the captain and you know you can stop on the runway available and you have no good alternatives you tell the controller I am going to land on it. No other opinions are needed. You land and everyone is safe. That’s why you are the captain.
4:55 ~ This is where the pilots borked up because at THIS point, they should have declared a Pan-Pan, but didn't. I can't help but feel as though the blame lies on the pilots for this one.... At the very least, they should have informed ATC they were 'fuel critical' but didn't, so once again, this in on the pilots.
Whenever a pan pan pan, may day, etc is declared there should be a notification system say a colored light or huge screen in the control room that let's everyone know if the situation. That way at shift change the incoming crew should be aware. How the incoming crew was not told this hey was low on fuel is bonkers. Isn't there a system like this in these control towers?
We live in an era of billionaires and trillionaires and an airport says it has to not de-ice an airport runway for cost cutting reasons. The world has gone mad.
Really? So my original comment was too much truth; then my second comment goes against your agenda and exposes your ridiculous overbearing censorship and you delete that one too? nice job!
2-1/2 tons of fuel. That's 5,000 pounds. If this was a 737, that would be enough to taxi, takeoff, and get up to cruising altitude. And maybe stay up there for a little while. In a gas-guzzling _757?_ Especially if it's a full flight, with every seat filled & a full cargo hold? I rather doubt they could even make it to cruising altitude. And this is WITHOUT having emerg reserves.
they were on the approach to Keflavik from the south. Reykjavik also has two active runways, and if they had diverted to Reykjavik they would have presumably approached from the north-west since other approaches would involve flying over population centers which wouldn’t be ideal in an emergency (then there’s also noise regulations but i’m sure those could be forgiven). diverting and lining up with the runway also takes some time, 10 minutes sounds reasonable to me, maybe even a bit generous (disclaimer i’m not a pilot, just familiar with the area)
@@benediktkr That is of cause true, but it is sort of "downhill" the whole way so it should use verry little fuel, if pretty much none. (I don´t know if its true for Iceland, but no Sweden and Norway we have this thing called green approach where a computer calculate all the winds and glide distance in detail and time. It pre calculate the landing time down to a second 2 or 3 hours before landing. Then the computer control the throttle slowing the plane down and when sufficiently close, putting the engine in close to idle then glide in. (not all airlines got the system)
Well if the planexwas off runway it would have made bern easy to get other vehicles off they should have told first plane go on grass have you noticed after sn emergency they improve best tomimptove things beforehand
Fuel emergency stories tell the real truth about how pilots are trained to push profitability to the absolute limit. It goes against the brainwashing about caring about safety. Money is the most important thing, safety is a close second. They will continue to make them more flimsy and lightweight. They only have killed a few people with engine disintegrations, they could probably save some money using cheaper engine cowling. They're getting there. Boeing is also using way too much material on their horizontal stabilizer. They obviously made it too strong, because Airbus have had their horizontal stabilizer ripped completely off by excessive pilot inputs.
should there had been a "m'aidez" (mayday) call at the outset the position of the inbound flight would have become a threat to the reputation of the attendant Tower's AC's. Thankfully this all came through in a sensible and safe manner. Thank you.
That is not a crew thing, this is a dispatch thing. Also it’s a perfectly normal amount of fuel. planes are planned for fuel to get to destination plus alternate plus 45 mins of extra fuel at cruise legally, but then the airline usually adds an extra 30-60 mins of fuel on board in case something happens like having to hold or conducting a missed and second approach or higher than planned headwind. That happened in this case with a hold, but because it took so much time to clear the runway in addition to the situation in Reykjavik that this ended up being the only option. The fuel on board was actually the thing that was the least wreckless of the entire situation.
I’m surprised an aviation expert is writing Icelandair as “Iceland Air”. Sorry I worked for their London office a while back and this error absolutely grates on me! 🙈 Your pronunciation of Reykjavik, 70% of the time, is rather off too. Sorry.
unless you are natively icelandic you’re never going to get the pronunciation correct, and that’s okay. and i’ve heard much worse, and that’s also okay. nobody is offended by this.
This is why this is my favorite Aviation channel, there are so many incidents like this that we wouldn't have known or gotten a deep explanation about. Thank you for your work!
Two and a half tons of fuel for a large jet like this is barely enough to start a campfire. They cut it way too close. The flight crew did everything right *except* for failing to call MAYDAY for priority clearance. This is still a real problem because many pilots are reticent to call MAYDAY unless the crap is really hitting the fan--and by that time it's often too late.
The right call should have been PAN, indicating urgency; MAYDAY is for distress, which didn't happen.
@@wafikiri_ That does make more sense, but judging by what the controllers said, "need emergency declared", looks like the pilots merely followed the advice.
Edit: Curious, would a PAN be considered enough emergency for this situation?
@@empireoflizards The PAN call is generally used when short of fuel or any other urgent condition that requires priority but not immediate danger. It is called three times, and so should the full call sign of the flight, like in the MAYDAY call.
By the way, MAYDAY was composed from the French contraction "m'aider" ("help me") for English speakers to approximately pronounce it.
@@wafikiri_ Seems reasonable. Perhaps it boils down to what the pilots interpreted what the controllers would allow under the circumstances...with the potential runway obstruction and all. In other words, it becomes a game of 'cover your ass' and the controllers wanted a bona fide 'emergency' to let them land, even if the risk was minimal. Thus, IF something went wrong, the controllers wanted something strong to justify the clearance. That's the legalistic world we live in, so that's my theory anyway.
I was thinking that but didn't want to make a comment since I'm not a pilot. Seems like ACT would have straightened out all the other aircraft quickly then. One reason I assume some pilots want to avoid declaring emergency to avoid bunch of paperwork. I listened to some other flight incident where a less experience pilot avoided declaring emergency for way too long, due possibly to overconfidence.
It seems that something is very wrong when a commercial plane's approved alternate airport is closed with its tower unmanned -- effectively meaning that there is no alternate.
Don’t worry - no amount of laziness or beaurocratic decisions will keep a plane from landing when it runs out of fuel - if the plane had diverted, it’d still have been able to land. It may have ended with more pieces once everything stopped, but they could still land. Hell, I know of a time a plane landed of an occupied runway, deliberately ignoring the multiple vehicles tending to a stuck airplane. 😉
-
Vetting of alternates ought to include similar attention to detail as vetting of destination airports - ‘Will we be able to take off after?’ ‘Is the runway long enough to land?’, ‘Will we be arrested for illegally entering the country?’, etc. you are, in effect, “Planning to land there, should circumstances disrupt your plan A for the flight.”
I agree, why are they even able to register an alternate that is scheduled to be closed with no ATC at the planned arrival time?
Glasgow is commonly used as an alternate for Reykjavik
Any passenger who books a flight into a remote, small population destination needs to understand the greater risk he might be taking.
Sometimes when the flight gets there, some of the airport's equipment is out for repairs. Nighttime arrival only adds to the risk as the runway lights may not be working..
@@geoh7777 Iceland is small and remote, but it's a developed country with considerable air traffic giving its geographical location.
Not like flying a puddle jumper into a tiny settlement in the wilds of Alaska.
All the holes in the Swiss cheese where aligned but the IceAir pilots managed to negotiate them for a safe landing anyway. Respect!
This was very much a "Fuck you I'm coming in" moment.
TOTALLY
Im a moron
“Try and stop me”
"Ready or not, here we come."
Hold my beer
So Iceland air was operating their planes with the diversion airport unavailable because it was closed for a significant number of hours overnight? Being an island far from another alternate I would think this does not put the pilots in a great position if something did go wrong, as it did here. Pure luck that something worse didn't happen before this incident.
It seems like they should be adding enough fuel to not only make the alternate airport, but also allow enough time for it to open. Otherwise, it’s not much of an alternate.
"The 757 is perfectly suited for this kind of long and skinny operation"
I see what you did there, sir
Like the A300 is for fat and short.
@@matsv201
The A300 and 757 have equal length.
The A310 is short and fat.
@@tumslucks9781 Yea.. that is true.. but .. well A310 have a very long range.. so its not really suitable for short and fat routes.
A310 is very similar to the 757-200 and the A300 is very similar to the 757-300 in both range and capacity.
The ultimate irony is that those sort of middle of the market aircraft entered the in service month apart (well at least the A310 contra 757-200).
But also exit production basically the same time. 2004 for 757 and 2007 for the A300. Making the market empty very sudden.
(I guess that the A321Neo picked up some of the slack. The A321Neo actually fits one more row of seats compare to the 757-200 despite being shorter. The LR actually match the -200 in range.
The 757-300 remain unmatched until airbus make a A322.While if the A321 neo would be strechwed with 8 rows, it would almost prectly match the 757-300 in capacity and range and would match the A321XLR in MTOW
@@matsv201I believe an A322 is impossible due to the wing design, which can’t support a heavier aircraft.
@@LuLeBe The A322 would not be any heavier than the A321XLR. It would have shorter range. Probably about 1500km shorter than XLR.
The fuselage of A321 is both wider and taller than of 757, and the A322 would be a bit shorter than the 757-300 (due to new galley, toilet and seat design, as well as shorter cockpit). So structurally for the fuselage it would not be a problem
Its also worth saying that the front, tale and wing section of the fuselage is made in 3 different part and joined together. There would only need to ad length at the two ends and the middle would be unchanged. This is no different than how A318*, A319, A320 and A321 is different from each other today.
I would suggest the main reason why Airbus is not doing it is due to backlog. A other reason might be low sales of 757-300. But i would sugest that it would probobly not be the case any more due to 767 as well as the A300 is of the market, so a A322 would have no competitor
Far too many times it takes a disaster to make improvements/changes for safety; however, often times a 'near miss' or other incident where no one is hurt can also be an impetus for needed improvements. We often don't hear about them but glad this was one such case. Another well done video, MACI!
This feels like such a simple situation relatively, in which everything should have been straightforward, but in which also, the authorities and regulations failed everyone in every way.
I went to Iceland as a kid, and the flight there got rather interesting due to heavy fog...and then an obstruction on the runway, so the plane had to quickly abort it's landing and fly to a different, less foggy airport.
I don't understand why the flight crew didn't declare a fuel emergency sooner. They even had to be bounced into doing so by ATC. It is ALSO surprising (and NOT in a good way) that communications between Keflavic and Reykjuvik airports were so SHOCKINGLY poor. Moreover, communications between different ATCs was ALSO shockingly poor.
Another great video - many thanks!
Lots of paper if you declare an emergency. Pilots won't declare an emergency if they don't have to.
In this case the pilots didn't need to declare an emergency until ATC denied the landing.
As for why the main domestic airport wasn't even open yet still listed as a diversion airport. Baffles me.
@@6th_Army Lots of paperwork, lets risk a catastrophic collision instead!
@@benwilson6145 That's inaccurate, there was no more or less risk of a collision due to the emergency declaration. The controller was rightly asserting that he could not grant permission to land when the runway was occupied, unless the pilots declared an emergency. If the runway had been unoccupied, the flight was probably outside the technical limits for a low fuel emergency, just that they couldn't make it to the alternate.
Another episode of great story telling. Thanks.
Agree
THIS........ 🙌🏾the word I crave on a Saturday 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Nice work 👍🏾
Excellent as always. Glad you’re back.
Much good a diversion airport does you if your blocked primary airport are the only one cleared of ice within, what, 800 km to the Faroe Islands?
Thankfully turned out to be not that bad, however. This sounded like a real horror story for a while.
Iceland has two longer runways that Reykjavik airport has. Akureyri and Egilsstadir. Most likely atleast Akureyri should have been operational. But maybe too far away for the remaining fuel, but reachable if they divert as soon as the first plane gets into trouble and blocks the runway.
I got a sweat up listening to this. Phew!
This was blown way out of proportion! Having the jet/vehicles at the very end of the Rwy would be like have a shortened Rwy by means of Rwy works. As long as the remaining Rwy length was sufficient then there should be no additional risk! Remove all personal just as a safety precaution but just land!
That if there is ice at the runway and 757 slides too long and hits the first plane and bursts into flames?
@@RoyalMelaseeing as the disabled A/C was right at the end of the Rwy then the Ldg B757 would have run off the end of the Rwy anyway!
It's not blown out of proportion
It's this way to avoid situations where this isn't the basic minimum for everyone involved
Hey man, good to see youre still making content. Algorithm brought me back around
Subscribe! 😏
Another fascinating video documentary as always.
With a just eat fat burger advert at the end 😂
Damn man not the Just Flight "freemium" thats some nostalgia right there
... You wanna trade fsx addons? 👀👀👀
This guy I noticed is not posting much lately unless I'm not getting any notifications.
Thank you for another video. Is that Iceland Air's livery? All white? I agree with other comments, they should have called a MAYDAY. Thanks again for the video!
I’m not a pilot or anything but why didn’t they declare an emergency sooner?
I think that means a lot more hassle, including an interview with Chief Pilot., these things are not good for career progression
I don't think as a passenger in the stranded aircraft I would want to know!
Mayday call can only be made when you've utilized ALL fuel planned for the alternate. Probably not the case here. There's another verbiage for this scenario -'minimum fuel' but I don't think they used it in this scenario because the controller wanted them to use Mayday, which is the highest order of emergency.
They had not YET become min.fuel.
How did they get this flightplan accepted with an alternate which is closed.
Excellent video
Would it cost a lot to put electric heaters in the run way to keep it from ice and snow? Cheaper and easier on the environment?
do they change back and forth with what game they use from what planes each has?
I don't think so. It looks like Microsoft flight sim.
We had excellent flights on IcelandAir on our way to and from Ireland September 2020.
Where was the cockiness mentioned in the thumbnail? Did i niss sometbing or is that just intentional clickbait?
In 1983, when I was 12, I flew with my mother from JFK to Luxembourg on Iceland Air. The flight had a stop over in Reykjavik, which at the time I believe was an international airport. I’m pretty sure (it was a long time ago) that the runway was covered with packed snow when we landed. I know for certain that when we deplaned at the very small terminal there was packed snow on the ground. On the return flight, which also stopped in Reykjavik, the weather was rainy and the runway was only wet.
So it seems that Iceland should not be allowed to have any commercial airline traffic as they only have one working airport at night? Something is wrong in Iceland. Why didn’t the pilots declare a fuel Mayday? Why didn’t the airport push the other aircraft off the runway with a bulldozer?
Iceland is not like the US or other large countries. It has a population of less than 400,000 people so there is not a continuous stream of air traffic and I imagine there is only a skeletal staff at particularly quiet times - ground crew, ATC etc.
No nighttime commercial traffic, maybe?
Evacuating the passengers and crew of the BAE125 would have been an obvious thing to do, even if there wasn't an inbound at Bingo. What were they supposed to achieve by staying on board? If anything, by lightening the aircraft, it would have eased the movement of the machine by reducing weight. If there's a stuck object at the far end of the runway, a collision would at worst have wiped out the 757's nosegear, and squashed the obstacle. If there's no one in it, that's just a financial loss.
A full on "slide down the slides, everyone out right away" style evacuation causes injuries, so without an obvious threat they wouldn't have reason to do it. As for other options for getting people off if such options exist, I lack knowledge to comment.
@@Necro3Monk A bae125 is a business jet with onboard stairs. They all could have walked off the plane in 60 seconds.
@@vociferon-heraldofthewinte7763 Got it, so getting off right away makes sense.
Not many ground collisions at runways have ended well. Tokyo this year, LAX or Milan in the past...
Does heated runways sound like a good idea 💡 🤔
This airport( keflavik) needs to clear the other runway. They are the only airport around and they can't bother to keep up 2 runways? And tow the plane that skid off immediately. or at the very least get all the vehicles off the runway till this plane lands. In essence they had nothing for any plane in emergency. Poor management of the airport.
Well managed by the pilots.
Also, too low a margin for fuel if headwinds can be a problem. The airlines should not be cutting it so close when a plane is flying to such a remote location without many other landing options.
Excellent video!
Is this flight gear?
I don't think so. FlightGear (I've played it) is **far** more rudimentary. Even the advanced simulations are bush league.
I’d have loved to have heard the 757 crew reactions when they found out the tower cleared a landing on the runway they were occupying.
You mean the 125?
He returns
It's strange that this was an emergency, but it was; they would have had 60 seconds of flying fuel if they'd have waited.
However, I wonder why the Reykjavík airport was not open as an untowered airport. Was the surface unsafe? (I suppose it would be)
Iceland has free geothermal energy. That should be used to heat runways during winter so they would not freeze.
And how tf would they do that?
So they're so cheap they could only keep one runway open? In Iceland? Wow!!??
Sounds like this airport is "Special" 😮😮😮😮
Is it just me, or does the narrator sound like Luke from Modern Family? 😁
That 757 had a lopsided ring on its nose, which made it look a bit odd.
What a massive goof up!
It sounds like a small little thing. Almost a "just in a day of work" for aviation.
But that's only because it all worked out in the end. Avaition incidents should always be looked at from the lens of "What could have happened" along with "What actually happened".
Only then one can truly grasp the scale of what needs to be done.
I don't understand the title of this article - where did the pilot have to "risk" anything? The airplane at the end of the runway was no more a risk than landing on a slightly shorter runway, which the airplane could have managed anyway given its low near empty (of fuel) weight. However, the pilot did take a risk by not stopping to refuel enroute, which he could have easily done, in order to provide himself a safety margin.
The risk involved- 1. Declaring Mayday and accepting the responsibility to utilize an occupied rwy. This is far from normal Ops.
2. Slippery rwys are not easy to land and control the aircraft.
Overall, the Pilots didn't have the weather information for ""possible headwinds". But, professional pilots along with a good controller got them down. At worst, they #1- run out of fuel in the air, or, # 2- steer off of the runway. I think selecting #2 was, by far, the better choice.😎
In 50 years of jet flying I would say it wasn’t that big a deal. If you are the captain and you know you can stop on the runway available and you have no good alternatives you tell the controller I am going to land on it. No other opinions are needed. You land and everyone is safe. That’s why you are the captain.
Hopefully you are no longer flying!
The controller hand over should have never happened until the plane landed.
This is every time you go into land , what is the big deal ?
4:55 ~ This is where the pilots borked up because at THIS point, they should have declared a Pan-Pan, but didn't. I can't help but feel as though the blame lies on the pilots for this one....
At the very least, they should have informed ATC they were 'fuel critical' but didn't, so once again, this in on the pilots.
Whenever a pan pan pan, may day, etc is declared there should be a notification system say a colored light or huge screen in the control room that let's everyone know if the situation. That way at shift change the incoming crew should be aware. How the incoming crew was not told this hey was low on fuel is bonkers. Isn't there a system like this in these control towers?
We live in an era of billionaires and trillionaires and an airport says it has to not de-ice an airport runway for cost cutting reasons. The world has gone mad.
How many of them reside in iceland though? The icelandic socialists can't grift from the wealthy masses that don't exist there.
There are no trillionaires (at least not in USD), the richest people in the world come in at just under 200bn.
Interesting, my comment gets censored... little too honest I guess.
@@TheDapperDog402 My heart bleeds for them!
Really? So my original comment was too much truth; then my second comment goes against your agenda and exposes your ridiculous overbearing censorship and you delete that one too? nice job!
jesus mayday mayday mayday fuel emergency
The ATC could have ordered a tug to get the BAE off the runway onto taxiway N. Why didn’t they do so?
At 9:03, sudden appearance of additional trees. Huh?
The 77 does not land it could be forced to ditch in the Atlantic ocean, so let’s get down to runway before it rains fuel
Brilliant! and lets not tell any one about the fuel emergency
Wondering why they don’t just ‘fill ‘er up’ so you always leave with a full tank so this doesn’t happen?
They need to upload more fuel for all those overweight customers and charge accordingly . Or make them lose weight before a flight😅😅
Oh Lord, if it could go wrong it did, those pilots were freakin awesome, everyone else not so much!!!🙏✨👌🛬👍🥰
Except they failed in there first job to ensure passenger safety. The Pilots were morons
@@benwilson6145 They are not at fault for every poorly maintained airport and every decision others make.They did insure the passenger safety.
Jeez, it only takes 10 minutes, max, to get a tug and pull the problem aircraft out of the way. Why didn't they do this???
2-1/2 tons of fuel. That's 5,000 pounds.
If this was a 737, that would be enough to taxi, takeoff, and get up to cruising altitude. And maybe stay up there for a little while.
In a gas-guzzling _757?_
Especially if it's a full flight, with every seat filled & a full cargo hold?
I rather doubt they could even make it to cruising altitude.
And this is WITHOUT having emerg reserves.
Bet they carried more fuel the next flight.
It's NOT "Ray-zhah-vik"; it's "RAY-kyuh-vik".
It’s also not Iceland Air, it’s Icelandair!
doesn't sound like they are very effective at evacuating a runway or willing to try it
Something don´t ad up. Keflavik and Reykjavik airport is right on top of each other. Its 3 minute flight time between them
they were on the approach to Keflavik from the south. Reykjavik also has two active runways, and if they had diverted to Reykjavik they would have presumably approached from the north-west since other approaches would involve flying over population centers which wouldn’t be ideal in an emergency (then there’s also noise regulations but i’m sure those could be forgiven). diverting and lining up with the runway also takes some time, 10 minutes sounds reasonable to me, maybe even a bit generous (disclaimer i’m not a pilot, just familiar with the area)
@@benediktkr That is of cause true, but it is sort of "downhill" the whole way so it should use verry little fuel, if pretty much none.
(I don´t know if its true for Iceland, but no Sweden and Norway we have this thing called green approach where a computer calculate all the winds and glide distance in detail and time. It pre calculate the landing time down to a second 2 or 3 hours before landing. Then the computer control the throttle slowing the plane down and when sufficiently close, putting the engine in close to idle then glide in. (not all airlines got the system)
And sll that stress comes with the salsry.
Could'nt ther plane land from the other end of the landing strip ? ? ? 🤔
Well if the planexwas off runway it would have made bern easy to get other vehicles off they should have told first plane go on grass have you noticed after sn emergency they improve best tomimptove things beforehand
I don't get it. Just evacuate the BAE 125 and get the emergency vehicles off the runway....a 757 needs to land!! Should have taken 5 minutes tops.
Except the Iceland air Pilot failed to declare an emergecy!
Getting the vehicles off yes. But evacuating, in an icy runway? No 5 min job!
@@jennifera4350 You know it was a small business jet right? Holds 8 - 14 people. Just lower the steps and walk off the plane.
The engines are pronounced R B 2 11 not R B 2 1 1.
MINI!!!!
Fuel emergency stories tell the real truth about how pilots are trained to push profitability to the absolute limit. It goes against the brainwashing about caring about safety. Money is the most important thing, safety is a close second. They will continue to make them more flimsy and lightweight. They only have killed a few people with engine disintegrations, they could probably save some money using cheaper engine cowling. They're getting there. Boeing is also using way too much material on their horizontal stabilizer. They obviously made it too strong, because Airbus have had their horizontal stabilizer ripped completely off by excessive pilot inputs.
should there had been a "m'aidez" (mayday) call at the outset the position of the inbound flight would have become a threat to the reputation of the attendant Tower's AC's.
Thankfully this all came through in a sensible and safe manner. Thank you.
The crew was wreckless in their estimate of fuel required for this trip. Two tons more fuel was a better estimate!
That is not a crew thing, this is a dispatch thing. Also it’s a perfectly normal amount of fuel. planes are planned for fuel to get to destination plus alternate plus 45 mins of extra fuel at cruise legally, but then the airline usually adds an extra 30-60 mins of fuel on board in case something happens like having to hold or conducting a missed and second approach or higher than planned headwind. That happened in this case with a hold, but because it took so much time to clear the runway in addition to the situation in Reykjavik that this ended up being the only option. The fuel on board was actually the thing that was the least wreckless of the entire situation.
@@Rindiculousfun So you are telling us that the Pilot does not make the decision on the amount of fuel onboard!!!!!!!!!
I’m surprised an aviation expert is writing Icelandair as “Iceland Air”. Sorry I worked for their London office a while back and this error absolutely grates on me! 🙈
Your pronunciation of Reykjavik, 70% of the time, is rather off too. Sorry.
unless you are natively icelandic you’re never going to get the pronunciation correct, and that’s okay. and i’ve heard much worse, and that’s also okay. nobody is offended by this.
Cost saving measures creating safety hazards (AGAIN!)
[Cue the facepalm] ~ ruclips.net/video/ahrBOvz1jzA/видео.html