ENGINE FAILURE During takeoff from Chicago O'Hare. VIVA Airbus A320. REAL ATC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 мар 2024
- On February 18, 2024.
A VivaAerobus Airbus A320 registration XA-VAU, performing flight VIV543from Chicago O'Hare International Airport (KORD) to Guadalajara Don Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla International Airport (MMGL) shortly after take-off was informed by the air traffic controller about the smoke out of the left engine. The flight crew declared PAN-PAN, reported left engine failure and requested return to Chicago O’Hare Airport.
Main playlists:
EMERGENCY - • EMERGENCY
REAL ATC - • REAL ATC
CRASHES - • Crashes
If you enjoyed please support channel by subscribing and hitting the notification bell to get notified on new uploads.
Source of communications: www.liveatc.net (usage permission)
#REALATC #AIRTRAFFICCONTROLL #AVIATION 
Авто/Мото
what is so good about the aviation industry is that everyone involved in a flight is a resource that the crew can use, the ATC are assisting everyway possible and become another cockpit crew member and everybody sole aim is a safe landing of he aircraft ... I wish every industry took this attitude.
As a former airline employee these are interesting, but what's really funny is the armchair FAA investigators that no nothing about aircraft posting such absurd comments. Wild stuff now about Boeing, engines and so on with little to no facts. Think these "experts" realize there's 100,000 flights PER DAY around the world? To be sure there are problems to address, but if these NTSB wannabees were even remotely correct, we'd have birds going down every day. You will die from a driver on their phone, or similar, LONG before you'll be in a crash. The fact is these anomalies occur somewhere each and every day, without incident. Would be nice to see more rational thoughtful comments, but they serve some purpose I guess for a chuckle.
Well, that was clearly an A320 MAX because if something wrong goes on the plane then it has to be a MAX, right? Sarcasm aside, I'd say we have media sensationalism to thank for that - you know, outlandish stories about how brave pilots have completed a very rare, dangerous and difficult maneuver of... good ol' crosswind landing
Well sure, I didn't mean to imply this incident involved Boeing but have just heard a lot about them obviously. Of course, I'd fly today and tomorrow, on Boeing or Airbus no problem. Wish I could fly everywhere honestly, the grocery, Dr, anywhere. People driving these days is the scary part of getting around. PEACE@@rilmar2137
Yeah I got a flat tire once and I never went on a tirade about minorities working at Dodge. Because I'm awesome.
Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.
Exactly in that order. Priority left to right.
We have never heard that before.
@@RLTtizME I sense sarcasm(?) Correct me if I'm wrong
@@RLTtizME Hopefully you are joking !
.
@@GA-in4mw of course
Yep
Very professionally handled by everyone involved on the radio //
Alaska Air didn’t manufacture or install that door either. What they did do was land the plane safely.
What are you talking about? Two different planes, two different problems. Focus!
@@hj8272 Since that happened, it's been more like 10 different planes, 10 different problems, but I get what you're saying
Nice work pilots and ACT
I am super proud of the voice and person at the beginning and the end of landing this plane!! Good job to the entire ATC TEAM!!
Saw this plane in our AA hangar. Engine tailpipe had all kinds of metal chunks. Yikes!
A layman with a question here: If your engine is smoking, why is it not best to land immediately versus flying around doing checklists?
Loss of one engine is not an emergency, if it is not a time issue its always better to follow the checklist routine //
@@freibert Smoke means fire, though, right?
there are fire extinguishers in the engine and with the fuel cut off it becomes a single engine landing issue@@countryfucius
I think there's also a behavioral / psychological reason. You run checklists so you don't forget something in the heat of the moment, and it also slows things down and gets everyone thinking straight again and not panicking. The checklists are pre thought out so the pilots don't have to consider every contingency for every special case in the heat of the moment with something wrong with the plane. Like someone else said, single engine operation isn't really that big of a deal. The planes are designed to fly 3 hours (if not longer) on a single engine, so doing a couple of holding pattern laps close to the airport is no big deal at all.
@@countryfucius Not necessarily - the engine will be shut down, separated from all other systems, and in case of a fire there are tools to put it out automatically //
Aviation week ✈ thank God everyone is safe 🙏🏻
Elvis has left the building! 😊
When a pilot says "we called the company" how do they technically do that? Voice on specific frequency not monitored here? Or some text based system?
Both. Text messaging between the aircraft and ground (usually ops) via ACARS was rolled out around 1978.
WHAT NOT UAL?
hope you all understand that Airbus does not manufacture engines. This is an issue with the engine and not the structure of the aircraft.
😅
Yes it’s Boeing that makes the engines
@@j700jam4 boeing have quality issues all over the company. Go read FAA audit reports.
this is very comforting information, please keep this in mind as your hurtle towards the future scene of the plane crash.
@@brin6449 sure, will do.
They only required half the runway if the visuals are right. For an overweight landing, do they just brake as hard as possible even if it means damaging the gear or was that the expected/normal landing distance?
I don't think the visuals can be taken literally here, but usually with an A320 on such a long runway, you would brake quite softly in order to not cause further damage. And normally, takeoff weight and max landing weight is not that far apart on the A320. Sometimes, takeoff weight is even beneath max landing weight because a short-haul plane doesn't have that much fuel onboard. It gets more critical with long-haul planes and a big fuel load, but most of those planes have fuel dumping systems.
And braking isn't that critical anyway. Those planes have to be able to reject a takeoff safely which could possibly happen at maximum takeoff weight. So those brakes are made to handle a big load. It is the touchdown that causes more of a problem because you are not supposed to touchdown above maximum landing weight. But in most cases, maintenance will do the mandatory structural inspection afterwards, find nothing and put the plane back into service after engine repairs. So not a big deal in the end.
Why did the emergency tag not get declared at Pan Pan? The communication was clearly an issue here, but i guess the airspace just allowed flying around.
Well, the plane wasn’t Boeing, so this story won’t get any media traction….
Aviation week ✈️ thank God everyone is safe 🙏🏻
Question. With the left engine (#1) wouldn't it be easier to make L.H. turns than right hand? I've only flown single engines.
As a guess, I'd say that there'd be a lot less air traffic to the north of ORD -- not that much traffic to Northern Ontario (or Siberia!) -- than in any other direction, so it'd be much simpler to manage separation and limit disruption to other traffic during a hold in an emergency.
I think it's safe to say that, while there is of course asymmetric thrust losing one of two, non-centre-line motors, such an airplane will still be quite able to turn any which way minus one engine. 🙂
There is no critical engine problem in a jet - unlike a twin prop plane. Therefore the A320 will happily turn in any direction with one engine working.
This doesn't fit the narrative.
their destination was not Las Vegas, was it?
Bright light city gonna set my soul on fire.
Viva Las Vegas!
The departure more sounds like he's the one flying than the pilots do lol
We're gonna need you to go ahead and move your desk back, we've got to put some, uh, noisy servers in here.... great. Oh, actually, we're gonna need to move your workstation to the basement next to the boiler. While you're down there, between ATC radio calls, can you go ahead and take care of the rats down there too? Greaaaaaat
Viva is owned by Mexican bus company. They have to fly Airbus
For once not a Boeing
Kinda weird ATC didn’t know #1 engine is the left.
Atc knew. It’s just a clarification
This Airbus identifies as a Boeing.
A US ATC understands the international PAN PAN, there is hope
ATC probably has parents from Europe or something. 😂 Otherwise, we would have had several "say agains".
Almost, except the controller says "we will declare an emergency for you". A PAN PAN call IS a declaration of an emergency. The 2 states of emergency are urgency (PAN PAN) and distress (MAYDAY).
Also didn't try to turn him into a dead engine, he's a keeper.
Yeah because no US ATC understands PAN PAN. *rolls his eyes*
@@hughjardon5101 According to the FAA website PANPAN is for an urgent condition and MAYDAY is used for emergency
a320
Wait...Whaaat? That must have been one of those Boeing made Airbus's.
Neither Boeing nor Airbus make engines!
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA………😑😑😑😑😑
Eveb Scarebus is having problems !!! ! DUUUHHHH!!!!!!!
hey its not a boeing
Well it doesn’t seem to matter if it’s a Boeing aircraft. Everyone blames Boeing for everything regardless.
Cool heads prevail.
Isn't ATC aware that a PAN PAN is an emergency call?
It’s not. Pan Pan is a distress call, meaning that you need assistance but you are not declaring an emergency. Mayday Mayday Mayday is the proper phraseology for declaring an emergency, which the crew never did. That’s why ATC declared the emergency for them.
PAN PAN is not emergency. Mayday is.
PAN PAN is just requesting higher priority.
I'm no means an expert but why have the aircraft fly over heavy populated areas? .ost approaches from the south y over the lake I believe
Yawn 😮
As a layperson this scares me. Too chill imo and language issues.
Nothing to be worried about, being chill is important and they did everything right.
crazy take, would you not want your pilots to be chill during an emergency?
they should just retire the Boeing a320 max-1000
Once was already too much.
Back to the Sopwith Camels!!
Brrr pt pt brrr pt...pt brrr pt pt...ptbrrrr
Too much time lost to translation.
When?
@@malahammer 0:57, 1:53 just said north instead of 360, 2:37 using non-standard nomenclature, 2:57 completely missed the question and just said "Roger", 4:27 reported fuel in tons then changed to kg, 5:37 what does "do a performance" mean? Calculate the expected braking action on landing? 8:35 didn't announce "Emergency Aircraft" when coming up on a new frequency. 10:22 didn't announce "Emergency Aircraft" when coming up on a new frequency. Always glad to see a positive outcome, but you could hear the delays while translating before speaking.
I think fuel in tons is correct actually. He was meaning metric tonnes rather than 2000lb's@@easternpa2
the outcome really begs to differ. this sounds like a normal day at work
If you are referring to English apparently not being the first language of the flight crew, I agree. I only listened to the first few minutes but there were several instances where the flight crew was not answering the questions asked and perhaps did not understand them (even accounting for situational stress), such as "do you want to hold at OBK or do you want us (effectively: to take navigational responsibility off your hands) to vector you around?"
The unfazed response from ATC suggests that's nothing unusual.
If it’s a Boeing I’m not going . they should just retire the Boeing a320 max-1000
Yeah , right , go to slappin’ up there . Goin’ to be A - OK ✅ no problem sir ! Don’t be scared …😮
7000 !
So, the pilot's original plan after running his checklist was to sit there like a lemon, instead of informing ATC of his intentions. Just as well ATC told him.
That was just too long in the air for me if I’m seeing this on the plane 😮, child I fly myself and I know I would not have done 😮 race laps, if it’s just engine failure many thing can go wrong flying with one. Weight and all. The ATC was ready on the first lap. But the tbh it’s sad to see so much wild things happening on airplanes when America has always had the best in the world with no issues or one every blue moon!! Just from 2023- March 14 2024 it’s been over 56 plane incidents / crashes like never before seen. WHATS GOING ON 😮 😮😮😮😮😮😮😢
"I"M NOT FLYING ON A BOEING !!!!" ... oh wait.
That lot will be in hiding.....fuming.
Came here to say exactly that.
Irrelevent . It was an engine issue . Nothing to do with Airbus Industries.
@@pauldunn5978 Bingo! Neither Airbus or Boeing makes the engines on the aircraft.
@@genecook6014 Well DUUUUUUUUHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!
DON'T YOU DARE going on about DEI nonsense. Good job!!! (A bit too much radio comms from the ground.) High fives all around.
wait wait wait, I thought only Boeings had problems.
Don't forget all the Embraer also :)
Aidan Scarebus has lots of problems too just not as much Bull$HITn blabbed about it !!!
English skills do suck at times....
1:52
"We will declare an emergency for you"....? He's already called PAN, were ATC asleep at their desk or something? *Before people keep saying "Pan isn't an emergency!" go read what section of the AIM (chapter 6) that it comes under...
Pan Pan is a distress call, meaning that you need assistance but you are not declaring an emergency. Mayday Mayday Mayday is the proper phraseology for declaring an emergency, which the crew never did. That’s why ATC declared the emergency for them.
Pan is not an emergency.
PAN PAN is not an emergency; I suggest you go back to school kid. PAN PAN is just requesting higher priority. You might have it confused with MAYDAY.
@@ElitistMagiICAO disagrees with you mate. Pan-pan is an urgent call indicating non immediate threat to life, Mayday is immediate threat to life. Go back to playing flight sim and leave the realities of aviation to people who actually fly.
@@abrahamcasanova9901"Declaring an emergency" isn't ICAO phraseology. Read Chapter 6 of your copy of the AIM. Pan indicates distress which is covered by the emergency section of the publication.