Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
[REAL ATC] Emirates B777 with EMERGENCY FUEL at Vancouver!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 авг 2016
- Do you want to get into the VASAviation team?
Send an email to VASAviation1@gmail.com :)
Follow @VASAviation on TWITTER to get all the news about the channel and more! :D --- / vasaviation
Please, give a big LIKE to support and for more videos like this!! :)
****MAIN PLAYLISTS-****
[REAL ATC] (Emergencies or crashes) -- www.youtube.co...
[REAL ATC] (No emergencies) --- • REAL ATC (No emergency)
[FUNNY ATC] --- • FUNNY ATC
[VASAviation MEETINGS] --- • VASAviation MEETINGS
[HOW DOES IT WORK?] --- • ATC RADAR + UNTRIMMED ...
[FLIGHT SIMULATION] --- • FS2004
[ATC SIMULATION] --- • ATC SIMULATORS
****MOST VIEWED VIDEOS****
-American Airlines CAPTAIN DIES IN FLIGHT • [REAL ATC] American Ai...
-MD-80 DELTA CRASH at La Guardia Airport HD • [REAL ATC] MD-80 DELTA...
-FlyDubai CRASH at Rostov-on-Don (Russia) • Video
-Delta and Southwest VERY CLOSE CALL on takeoff • [REAL ATC] Delta and S...
-"Our door FLEW OFF the aircraft!!!" @SFO • [REAL ATC] "Our door F...
-Air France BOMB THREAT AND F-15 ESCORT • [REAL ATC] Air France ...
-Aircraft INTERCEPTED by MILITARY F-16 at SUPER BOWL!! • [REAL ATC] Aircraft IN...
Feel free to comment your opinion always being respectful and not insulting or offending anyone. This is a channel where we all must learn from everyone! :) #Emirates #B777 #Emergency
![[REAL ATC] JFK airport has TWO SIMULTANEOUS EMERGENCIES!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FBQD12Ti-cE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] JFK airport has TWO SIMULTANEOUS EMERGENCIES!](/img/tr.png)
![[REAL ATC] Cessna 206 is FORCED TO LAND at a MILITARY AIR BASE!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k5YGdNJqbO0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Baby Kia - WYG (feat. LAZER DIM 700) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/avlLsOH_oJc/mqdefault.jpg)
The professionalism and calm of the controllers and pilots always impresses me.
Ingleprop Noosegarm We should probably appreciate it more than we do.
when your entrusted with the lives of hundreds of people aswell as thousands of dollars of equipment you have to be calm under pressure, one wrong knock of a button could cause a disaster.
It's not a big deal for me either, i am naturally calm lol...I don't understand why people loses there mind in certain situation, it does nothing than just make the situation worse
***** I freak out.
elton john beacuse they are highly trained.
The mic quality of atc is amazing!
100,000 watt transmitters
Us Canadian are lit
Its their recording.
VHF communication
And that's a lot of amps!
Some people have said, "if it's really an emergency, why not go to the closest airport?". I think in this case, Vancouver was probably the right call, even if we ignore the inconvenience of landing a 777 full of passengers in Victoria and focus purely on safety. They were no doubt high and fast at the time. They say the only thing a jet does quickly is cruise. It was going to take them a long time to get low and slow for landing wherever they went. A closer airport may not be practically closer if your speed and altitude are what's keeping you away, not the map distance. 30 minutes of fuel should be plenty to reach Vancouver. They would have been part way through the checklist to land there already. It's their alternate, so they know something about it and are well prepared for that landing already. They're in the right position to land there most easily. Vancouver is the biggest airport around there, with the longest runway and best emergency services. For many reasons, it's the place to land if you have the choice, and with 30 minutes of fuel they certainly did. In an emergency, a controller should offer options, which he did, but he's not in the cockpit, and often not even a pilot. He doesn't know their situation or what's best for them.
Did they need to declare an emergency? Maybe not, but I don't know their airline procedures. They may have been required to. Not declaring an emergency isn't necessarily doing the controllers any favours either. 30 minutes is not a lot of fuel in any plane, let alone a big jet. If they don't declare an emergency, but say they're low on fuel, now the controller has to deal with a lot of ambiguity. Declaring an emergency makes things very clear to everyone. The controller now knows exactly what to do. Mayday isn't a four letter word. It exists for a reason, and your wings don't have to fall off before you use it.
It's not so much about them being high and fast vs low and slow... They had set up for Vancouver and that would have taken 10+ minutes just to set up the plane for a landing in that airport and it is soooo important to take the time to discuss/brief/check the approach. It's a massive runway, they have probably been there before, the airport has two parallel into-wind runways so if for some reason one runway were to suddenly close, they have options. They are at the point where they are committing to one airport. ATC thinks it's being helpful to offer these options as they think that fuel is the biggest concern, for the pilots, getting it right is the biggest concern. It is a better decision to take it slowly and get it right when there is 30 minutes of fuel remaining, rather than to rush it into somewhere that they don't even know if it is large enough to land/accomodate their aircraft. If they go around, they've probably killed 15 minutes of fuel meaning they are literally running on fumes. That is far more a worse decision than to take another 2-3 minutes flying to a sure thing (eg Vancouver).
I can tell you that you would much rather commit to a large multi-runway airport than somewhere that is 10-15 miles closer. That is probably 2-3 minutes extra flight time (in the descent, so not particularly fuel hungry). The name of the game is to get it right rather than rush it into a nearer option. If they have already setup for vancouver, then assuming the weather is reasonable, it is more than likely their best bet! Although committing to vancouver was always debatableas in this instance, there is a good chance of windshear with that wind - but that's another story, but I appreciate it's a long flight so fuel planning is tricky - but you can always offload passengers/cargo and take more fuel...
A little food for thought for the youtubers!
They were set up for Vancouver, they knew the frequencies and taxiways and probably already saw the chart with the map of the area or maybe was to the airport before. They knew they can reach it so they did not need to divert, they just needed to land without being stuck in circuit. Changing the airfield was not needed and it would take time to set up everything and there would be increased risk of making a mistake.
It was an a380-800
Miles Harrison also, i imagine that if they only have 1 shot at landing, they would like to land in an airport that they know well, they may have been well acquainted with YVR, even if it takes them 10 minutes more to get there, a go around would also take 10 minutes, so they dont have fuel for a go around anyway
Plus, Vancouver is an amazing city so in the case of extended wait times it would be a good city to explore LOL
The "number of souls on board" question is always a bit chilling. I understand it's just SOP in any emergency situation, but it does add a certain gravity to the situation when the question is asked.
What is 'hazmat'?....stand for what?
John Doe thanks sir....
Yeah, I'm sure there are less dramatical ways to refer to people and it does sound weird and unprofessional.
lordofentropy It's a tricky way to determine if the plane carries undead so that emergency services can prepare for a zombie apocalypse
yes it always gives me chills
You are required to declare mayday fuel when calculations indicate than the landing will ocurr with less than 30 minutes of fuel remaining (at a fuel flow that corresponds to holding speed at 1500ft agl).
If the everyone’s mic would be as clear as these two, aviation would be a hell of a lot easier
Americans got them Xbox microphones, you can’t even hear half the shit they say
Any idea which microphones these ATC controllers and pilots are using? What makes them so clear? Or is it the radios?
@@connorspies it's the radios, needs to be like that for the best ratio of quality and radius
Safer, too.
😂😂@@SomePerson_Online
-Flying an airplane running on fumes while carrying 367 souls
-Still tells tower operator to have a good day
What a G
welllll.... in this case, "running of fumes" is more like "enough fuel to fly for 10-20 more minutes."
@@DanielKezar that is pretty damn close to running on fumes... Planes are required to carry diversion, reserve, taxi and contingency fuel. Thats normally more than 1 hour of extra fuel. So yeah 10minutes left in the tank is a damn close call.
@@simonbecker748 yeah but its not literally running on fumes. theres plenty of fuel left to make a safe landing or even go around if need be.
@grace calis.. good day is said to indicate end of conversation on that frequency and freq change will take place.
Haha, fumes. About 4 tonnes or 1300 gal of fuel in this case.
I guess these are all the things the passengers never know about? Scary stuff.
well it is kinda serious when there is a "mayday"
thats gonna be an incident report my friend.
That's just the terminology they are using to declare an emergency. You can tell the ATCs are treating them like a standard emergency aircraft, nothing special.
I don't think so. "Mayday" is actually a very reserved term and only used when the situation is dire and immediate danger is near. The reason why the ATCs are not reacting to it and seemingly treating the "mayday" as standard emergency is because they are well trained to remain calm, so that they can provide calculated directions to the pilots.
Agreed. Could have used PAN
Imagine the guy filling up the fuel tank afterwards lol probably like oh man they were pretty low
super professional communication
If you know you have enough to make the emergency destination, you have nothing to fear. ^_^
imagine all the things that happen in the cockpit while you’re probably in the back chilling , enjoying a movie and sipping apple martinis 🍸
You are very correct, this was a 14/15 hour flight so even with two captains and two first officers on the flight deck it would still have been a high work load. Declaring an emergency MAYDAY or PAN gives them priority in landing and choice of airport.
The emirates pilot was really planning a head when he asked for right down wind for another approach in case of missed approach 👍
For people that keep saying: "30mins fuel shouldn't be a mayday call but panpan" or "I think that 30mins fuel is not an emergency" ...... You are wrong! Once you reach the reserve fuel which are the last 30mins of fuel... You ("have to") should declare emergency.
Minsy Min thanks for your reply. So 30 min fuel is acceptable to declare mayday.
If I already saw the fuel are less no longer then 60 or 45 min shouldn’t I send out pan pan call to let ATC know?
Or I can only call mayday when I hit 30 min?
I’m still learning , I’m very appreciate your answer.
@@s123001234 at 30 mins of fuel left it's mandatory to declare an emergency before that you can advise the atc that you are low fuel but no need for emergency
JustKilian
So, no panpan call but will advise to let atc know low fuel situation before too late.
Thank you for your time.😄
Lucas Chuang no once pilots think there fuel is coming to about 45-50 mins and they are still not on or close to being established on an ils then they would say whatever approach emirates 229 50 mins of fuel left do you have eta the atc will respond and depending on the anwser eiter the pilots will declare emergency or atc will give them priority even without them actually declaring emergency if atc is still letting aircraft go first then the pilots will have to declare emergency what u are suggesting is imagine pilots have all engine failure and is plumeting down to earth the pilots will tell atc when they are 20ft from the ground lol anwsering ur question ofcource the pilots will tell atc prior to them declaring emergency
@@justkilian7795 Can you give me a link to regulations that state that?
The communication between the pilots and the Controllers was so amazing!
I also love how they always repeat the 'command' and the plane number "Emirates 229", of course it is to ensure no confusion occurs between the pilots and ATC, but it's so cool to see as an outsider.
It's mandatory to repeat a clearance.
Amazing professionalism and calm by both Control and the Emirates flight!
The phraseology is strong with this one :)
Meessa thinks people are gonna fly.
Phraseology & proficiency... In opposite to some other ATCOs on that continent ;)
As it should be!
A bunch of RUclips pilots & air traffic controllers??? On RUclips?.. Typicallll 🤦🏼♂️😂
Mayday what? Are you declearing an emergency?
This is why standards in English language in aviation is necessary.
listerone normally where the send their pilots for trainning
@listerone This time its asian, the pilots Korean.
@Benj P not funny at all
English is necessary period. If you're a millennial that can't speak English, go back to mexico
@@kevinc6369 there's millions of people in mexico who speak absolutely fluent english you sad ignorant shit.
I fly out of Victoria Regularly, Usually its on Dash-8's with connections in either Vancouver or Seattle. Its a very small International Airport(its only international because of its proximity and select routes into the states). I cant imagine them trying to process a 777 full of passengers. 737 are about the largest aircraft regularly serviced in Victoria.
"When you have a minute, can I have your souls on board and fuel remaining?"
"Too many and not enough..."
(light-hearted comment from someone who was 'in the job' for 30 odd years - yes, they were really odd!!!) 😉
What amazes me is how pilots and co-pilots can communicate with various ATC Controllers having to remember and repeat all of the settings spoken, performing the functions the settings call for, yet still pay attention to the already difficult task of actually flying the plane. This does not even include the dizzying task of performing all of this when things go south and systems break down or shutdown. I wonder how many pilots are on edge most of the time even though I guess one gets used to these things in training and through experience.
That is exactly why is fun to fly bro, so many thing happening so fast and if you make mistake you are done , is like motocross once you take off you better know how to land jaja.
@@RobertoAlvarado-ok6kq There is a famous saying: you don't have to takeoff but you do have to land
At least they have a pilot and copilot. Try handling an emergency in a military fighter jet when you are all by yourself
@@johnmiller6044 Being good enough to be a fighter pilot has always amazed me. I guess the intense training that they go through prepares them for anything. I could never be one as I don't believe I'm smart enough.
What do they mean by “heavy”
I salute the professionalism in both the pilots and ATC crew. If I was a passenger and somehow aware of the situation I would have 10 less finger nails.
Ive fallen in love woth this channel. Never would have thought just listening would be so insightful
Thanks everyone for your birthday wishes today! I'm so pleased and greatful to have so many people supporting me and my job here in RUclips! :)
As asked via Twitter, this Emirates video was the most voted one and here it is! Hope you enjoy it and LIKE it!! :D
Feliz Cumpleaños
Happy Birthday!
Buon compleanno!
You're doing a great job, you deserve all the birthday wishes you can get.
Great video!
生日快乐！
Emirates pilots handled the emergency better than most other emergencies I've noticed
Anybody that flies intercontinental heavies are going to be high flight hour extreme competence type people in most airlines.
+BollocksUtwat not asiana
Propel 2015 thats why Emirates are opening there own flying school that will accommodate a private jet to fly through training. They are sick of people coming there for the money and then leaving later onwards so they encouraging now people settled down in Dubai wether they are nationals or not to train and work with them
danlank I
Why did they leave with not enough fuel?
Perfect communication and animation.
I've been listening to ATCs from US, Canada and Australia and noticed that the ATCs from US speak faster and is less clear than those from the other two countries.
I can understanding Canadian ATCs perfectly fine, but sometimes I struggling listening to American ones.
UruElle the problem n the US they don't use ICAO rules and also not clear atc with pilots.
It's probably because of heavy airspace congestion in the US compared to other countries.
I've heard that many American ATCs end up accepting Airservices Australia ATC jobs because the lack of airway congestion makes the job a lot easier.
URU: The problem is flight congest has gotten so heavy. Even I have trouble following many controllers on these videos. It wasn't this bad 25 years ago.
The airways are much busier in the US compared to Canada. The busiest airport in Canads, CYYZ Toronto-Pearson, only has the passenger flow of a mid sized US airport.
listerone The hell are you talking about?
Perfect emergency landing. Calm and professional
Something about radio conversation that keeps you listening.
It's a Canadian thing ;). The magic
The reason for the mayday is it shows the gravity of the situation. Too many times there are crashes when the pilots don’t and they’re just put “in line”.
I think you're missing some words
This kind of reminds me of Avianca flight 052 (i think) where they never did declare a state a emergency when they had only minutes left of fuel and ended up crashing very badly after a missed approach. This is why standard communications are so important. I'm actually going over language and communications on the international scale at school right now so this is very relevant
LaMia 2933, they crashed in Medellin, Colombia.
@@JuanPerez-vv5lk Avianca Flight 52 crashed near JFK in 1990.
I flew on Emirates once, safe to say it was the best airline I've been in. Nice videos btw.
Excellent professionalism on both ends. Congrats to all involved!
my ex wife was on that flight so -1 soul and +1 hazard ;)
lol. savage
LOOOL Dang
r/murderedbywords
LMAOOOO -- Kaboooom!
Rumour has it you siphoned some gas from that plane 😉
canadians are polite
Jack Yu except jacques villeneuve
Im sorry, are we too polite? Sorry about that
The way it should be
Agreed! :)
-"Cleared to land, rwy08r, sorry"
-"Roger, sorry"
-"Sorry"
-"Sorry
The graphic shows the aircraft missing approach and turning right downwind 08R but that didn't happen, it was just discussed.
Great people, great system and it works beautifully.
simply making the decision to transfer oneself from one titled aircraft type to another type of aircraft means that you are not only no longer interested in flying say the 777 fleet, but you are condemned by the carrier's scheduling office to 80 hours of what should be intense observation and training by senior pilots of your new type, and it would very likely be on the other pilots flight schedule to deal with that particular flight as a training event since their partner is not equipped to be trusted alone due to their unfamiliarity with the systems.
Absolute professionalism in this video. Tough situation to get to Seattle and not be able to land. Going to Vancouver was the right call. Switching to Victoria would have been a more difficult move although closer. They would have had to fly a bit further to set up for runway 09 in Victoria anyways. Abbotsford was an option but with the current fuel level Vancouver was a perfect choice. Well done in my opinion. And YVR ATC was their typical professional selves.
The RWY at Victoria is pretty small also they’re less capable of handling a full 777
Henry Jiang yep very true, YVR was a great call.
In a jet, it isn't as simple as just turning and 'you'd be set up'.
Plus Victoria is an island, which means it would be a lot more expensive and complicated if they had to bus people to their final destination, requiring the use of a ferry.
[EDIT: I totally misread the comment I replied to. Sorry Miles. I'll edit to make it make a little more sense! ]@@milesaharrison -It's not just a matter of turning though..- Miles is on-point. The pilots would have had approach plates and procedures set up for YVR at this point. Repeated switching without cause, could introduce additional errors.. Someone more in-the-know might be able to clarify, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have declared alternates for situations like this.. And at the very least they may have had a conversation with their operations group about post-landing handling of passenger, luggage, cargo, and aircraft.. In short, there a lot more wheels in motion than just pointing the aircraft somewhere different.. So, not super-simple to just turn the jet.. :)
These videos are so good!
Thank youu!!! :)
I love how they declared mayday right away. There was a terrible crash in the past where pilots were put in a hold and were hesitant to declare fuel emergency.
Avianca 052 :(
Atc's mic quality is really nice
UAE229: MAAAAAYDAAAAY. NEED TO LAND RIGHT NOW.
Approach: Ok. We've got Victoria and Abbotsford for you.
UAE229: Nah. Vancouver is fine. We wouldn't be caught dead on hippie island or cowfartville.
Made me laugh harder than I'd like to admit
only possible explanation Lol
I'm dead HAHAHA
My Uncle Howard Williams was an ATC at Abbotsford in the 1970's. He also owned a diary.
At 2:11 I believe the ATC says "one half hour fuel". In the on-screen captions this is transcribed as "1h30", which I don't think is correct (this would be pronounced "one _and a_ half hour fuel"). Of course, the wording is unclear, which is why the pilot clarifies "half an hour; 30 minutes".
one half hour fuel will be understood as 1h and 30 mins- that was his understanding imho.
They just violated their reserve fuel a bit. They need a reserve of 45 minutes. They said they had 30 mins fuel left c5 mins before landing. So they were short 20 mins of fuel and landed with 25 mins fuel. ie they used about half their reserve - which is of itself a serious issue. But as far as being a "you are all about to die emergency" they had 6x the fuel they needed to land.
45 minutes reserve is FAA requirements for US registered aircraft operating domestically. ICAO rules for aircraft operating internationally (including US aircraft flying overseas) is a 30 minute final reserve.
Out of all the reasons for a mayday call this is probably the best case scenario - everything's still together, nothing's on fire, and they just need to land right now...
MINIMUM FUEL: landing fuel be very close to final reserve fuel. Any change in routing may result in fuel emergency.
MAYDAY FUEL : landing will be less than the planned final reserve fuel (typically 30 minutes).
No, you don't need to be left with just with final reserve to go mayday. You declare emergency a lot earlier than that. The "minimum diversion fuel" is the sum of final reserve plus alternate fuel. That's the figure you enter in the CDU in the "reserves" box in the perf init page. If you ever have less thaan minimum diversion, you declare emergency.
@@palonazo that is not true. Mayday fuel is only declared when you are within the 30 minutes of fuel remaining (45 for domestic US flights)
@@As_A________Commenter
Th
at's not correct. You don't need to wait to be using your final reserve to call mayday. If expected fuel on landing at the nearest suitable airport will be less than final reserve you HAVE to go mayday.
0:24 this is the calmest "mayday" i ever heard while an emergency situation..
It only becomes and emergency when they hit exactly 30 mins of fuel, they are relatively safe if they are allowed to land right away and that is the point. They are so close in and have enough for a few passes.
Disliking a vid does not cover “ I don’t like this”.
Nice presentation, appreciate your time getting us this.
Thanks!
Excellent communication. Things could go south fast but the crew didn't ponce around, declared a fuel emergency and everyone helped to get the plane down in good order.
Think bout how crazy calm and cool they are with 367 on-board, 12k elev and to land within bout 2.5 min of the elevation change. Everyone had their shit together on this day. With the exception of whom ever planned the amount of fuel... This shot of whiskey is for you!!!
I don't think there was any issues with the fuel boarded.
yes in the USA one needs to delegate a second airport on each route such as Portland for Sea-Tac. Then calculate the fuel load for a diversion from Sea-Tac to Portland at the ATC decision after arriving in Sea-Tac region. Expect a 45 minute delay at Portland before crashing or going down. That is supposed to be the fuel load on all US based flights are supposed to be fueled for at least. Safety.
happy brithday man great video
This was excellent communication and team work.
30 minutes of fuel remaining is the official level for a low fuel emergency. Everyone, pilots and ATC, performed very professionally during this incident, and this from a retired Boeing 767 pilot who has flown into Vancouver many times. I have also landed a Boeing 737 at Victoria in 1985 and recall the runway would have been very short for a B-777, so good call from the Emirates crew to not land there.
A few thoughts:
First, fuel requirements are a justifiable plan based on weather on getting to destination, from destination to alternate, and still having 45 minutes in the tanks. I see nothing in this video which suggests that such a plan was not in place.
Secondly, every airline has its own different regulations on what a certain aircraft can and cannot do in situations where there is an alternative. Having held for a while at Seattle before their missed approach, the conclusion was probably that they would have to declare a fuel emergency before being able to land in the conditions at Seattle, and therefore it was sensible to divert to calmer winds and make the emergency landing there.
Thirdly, the fact that they were insistent on going to Vancouver during this segment, and by the looks of it were declaring an emergency for the first time during this video, suggests to me that they were simply at the point where they would be below 45 minutes on touchdown even with priority handling, rather than the 30 minutes remaining stated. It might equally have been a desire to touch down on the longest runway possible (perfectly sensible with a strong tailwind). Victoria was obviously too short for a 777 even in ideal conditions, Abbotsford a good 600 metres shorter than Vancouver or Seattle).
Curious why you say they had a tailwind?
Two of the landing options which were considered in this video involved headwinds, two tailwinds (all with very little crosswind component).
My point is that runway length and direction were factors, and that the reason Vancouver was chosen is that all the cards seemed to align, with the exception of fuel. And by the looks of it they dipped below the 45 minutes remaining fuel at Vancouver due to the missed approach at Seattle. Normally in a divert situation it's either to do with the length of holding time, otherwise you're convinced to divert by ATC on approach. To attempt a landing at your first choice airport and then divert afterwards is unusual by comparison.
that explains a lot, thank you
HornetGamer Does 777 need more runway than 747?
+Brendan McCullough
Important caveat: I'm not a professional pilot nor an engineer, and do not want my interest to be mistaken for expertise.
That said, to answer your question in just about all circumstances 747 needs more runway than a 777.
However you'd need to be in particularly dire straights to choose to land either plane at Victoria, because the minimum takeoff runway length for all 777s is quite a bit longer than 7000 feet. Takeoff length does not equal landing length, and I'm sure it was possible (in 2013 a Boeing 747 cargo plane landed on a 6100ft runway in Kansas, having mistaken it for a military base with parallel 12000ft runways). But for obvious reasons landing on a runway you can perform a routine take off from is a good idea. Even in emergency conditions you wouldn't choose to land on a runway shorter than you've ever landed that plane on before, if another option were available.
Abbotsford was long enough for a landing in most circumstances (at 9600ft), and would have been chosen if Vancouver were much further away. But in a fuel emergency where a go-around is a realistic possibility, preparedness, familiarity with airport and additional runway to work with are all factors that probably made Vancouver the smarter choice. Had they diverted to Abbotsford and decided that they weren't comfortable with it, I suspect diverting to Vancouver would no longer have been an option.
Great video. Everyone kept a cool head in a serious situation. Did the flight end up refueling and make its final to Seattle?
One would assume so
No, it was trapped at Vancouver forever
Some people say it's still taxing on its fumes.
Wonder how much YVR charged Emirates for an unscheduled landing?
I believe the poor pilots have to work as baggage handlers for 2 weeks as punishment...
I see a lot of people complaining that closer airports where passed over. Keep in mind that closer doesn't mean quicker to get to as you still have to descend. If you have to cover ground you may as well do it to get to the most suitable airfield. On top of that you have to prepare the aircraft for the specific airport you are going to and calculate landing performance, review the approach, etc. Given all these factors landing at the closest airport might actually take longer than going to the one planned. The decent performance is fairly set in stone. At 12,000 ft it will take about 36 miles to descend.
Just to add, imagining they had to land at an unknown airport it is still probably advisable to hold even at emergency fuel to do some landing calculations and check the airport restrictions. Don't want to have to go around and not know the altitude restriction and hit a mountain.
I think it is because they expect pilots to listen to ATC's instructions, however they fail to know the roles switch in an emergency, that the captain has full authority and in addition the ATC is required to give the aircraft multiple options for their consideration some of which they may not even know about so that they can make the best decision, even, as in this case, it is not the right thing to do.
And of course, due to nature of emergencies, the ATC doesn't necassarily know everything. For example, he gives alternates and specifies with runways on their heading in case they lose engine power for example, it was very considered and a good job. losing engine power would naturally throw out other safety concerns such as go around too. They can't assume to know everything yet both the pilot and ATC- a fuel leak for example could be a cause of a fuel emergency.
Thank you VASAviation another great video, every word spoken between pilot and air traffic could be heard clearly, but my most favourite video has to be your (Aer Lingus) one.
lol the graphic shows a missed approach but they were saying incase of one
I think he was trying to illustrate to people that don’t know what a downwind missed approach is but...
We have a MAYDAY fuel condition but we still want Vancouver so we can get to the bar at our hotel a little sooner. Thanks for the alternates though.
They were barely any closer and they were set up for vancouver. If you are landing in a new runway you would preferably hold for a while and calculate your approach such as what brakes you need, flap levels, go around altitude, and many other factors. It would be much safer at this point to land at their alternate there.
Also this was their alternate, so they missed their hotel by quite a way.
Canadians are such sweet people, just north of a rowdy neighbour! Jokes apart, the sheer skills and professionalism of Aviation professionals (Pilots, ATC) is humbling
Living in Canada is like living above a crack den
Currently flying back & forth between DCA & Dubai Monthly due to spouse military deployment on Emirates. By far one of the best flights Ive been on internationally. That's saying alot since I am now on my 3rd double book passport, so I have done alot of flying.
I bet those pilots had some forms to fill in.
Probably excused by the fact that they also went around at YVR.
Tower: “sir, I can offer you 2 airports which are closer to you”
Pilot: “nah, we are going to Vancouver. I have cashback from my credit card at a hotel I will be staying. Thanks for the offer though”
"Yo we can actually literally die rn"
"Damn, u good?"
"Lmao yeah thanks"
Wow these guys did an awesome job handling that. They didn't miss a beat through the whole thing.
I've been to all three airports mentioned here. I used to live in Langley, BC which is next to Abbotsford. I miss going to the annual Abbotsford airshow. Good memories.
Michael500ca Same! Grew up next to Abbotsford my first gliding operations were at that airport. Then moved to Victoria where my home airport now is and now work as a flight instructor
My Uncle Howard Williams was an ATC at Abbotsford in the 1970's.
very professional work!
OMG... I was on that flight!!!!
It was very windy in Seattle. Diverted to Vancouver then flew back to Seattle after refueling and weather improving.
they did not allow us to disembark in Vancouver and we were not parked at a gate. We parked at a remote stand for about three hours.
@@ayadabukhamsin4477 Did you get free peanuts while waiting?
"How many souls on board?"
"Well let's see, 362 souls and 5 gingers"
i remeber that day i was the ground handling lead hand for this flight that day.operations couldnt get a gate for it so they had to land on the westpad that day.
that's good. did you remember not to leave them to rot?
martin theiss why would I leave them to rot?all they did was stayed at the westpad for no longer than 40 mins they refueled up and went back to Seattle. It was in April when this occured
that's cool. by the way about Seattle, what does the YVR ground crews think about the man last Friday who decided to take a Dash 8?
martin theiss that was a very unfortunate and sad moment. It was an eye opener for majority of us who are always vigilant when we are coming in the cross ways of an aircraft. It is kinda iffy when a plane has to abort landing at yvr (could be mechanical issues or pilot error).
I remember a few years back we had a Philippines airlines a340-300 was coming to yvr and had landing gear issues. Thankfully the plane landed safely and they had medical staff and firefighters waiting just incase it crashed or run off the runway.
In responses to "souls on board?" query, I would love to hear a pilot give a number and then add "plus four red-heads."
But I guess humor would be low on the list in such situations.
You can get in trouble for it, but captains do it with their first officers occasionally when not in a crisis.
Very very good comms. One of the best I've ever heard.
what a calmness between the pilot and the ATC are very very impressive to the point of impressive the should teach the nxt gens of pilot how to be calm like this in emergency situations. + must be case study (at all flight schools around the globe )
If they had a fuel emergency, why did they decline the nearest airport possible?
Sometimes when you are already committed to one airport or runway its hardier to go for a close airport due to your altitude so it would just be easier to go for the one that you are already setup for.
There are several factors that are involved. IF it was an absolutely time critical emergency they absolutely would have landed at the nearest suitable field. However, the crew KNEW that they had enough to make YVR so once they had a plan they continued to work that. Other factors involve: Victoria or Abbotsford (what if they land somewhere where there isn't even a tow bar to push a 777 off the gate! it happens.) are not as well equiped to handle heavy traffic. Emirates would have their own, or at least a code share partner in YVR with ground support. You have to consider, what are you going to do with 376 people who just landed in a city they weren't planning on being in. Lots to consider.
It would have taken more time to calculate performance, get set up, briefed, and configured for a different airport than it would be to fly to the alternate they planned
Ananias Andrada because the alternate airport will be decided even before they took of from departure airport so for any arrangements to be done will be easier in the alternate airport. at 30 minutes fuel was enough to reach alternate so the captain decided to continue. at the 30 minute fuel is calculated to be operated at 1500 feet altitude but the aircraft was not in a holding patters and flying above 1500 where fuel consumption is less.
bvestationfan Victoria is the capital of British Columbia. how is that bumfuck nowhere? Additionally, they don't just throw out random nearby airports whenever an aircraft declares an emergency. They checked which airports had the capacity to handle his aircraft, airports in bumfuck nowhere are going to typically be smaller GA fields that don't have the capacity to handle large aircraft.
“Attention crews at stations” the PA from the flight deck I was eager and afraid of hearing.
I wonder if they made a NITS for the crew or just a “guys, secure now!”
I don't know much about a/c ATC communications - but everyone here sounded impressively professional at least to me. Nice video thanks.
basically there are at least 3 persons involved in any standard approach. One, a regional area controller, handles an airspace of some length (such as Reno NV in the area handled by an ATC south of Oakland CA), then as the plane sets up to report they are ready to land an approach controller at said airport lines up the planes safely to secure local landing order. As they are about to land they switch to a ground tarmac lead who basically is the ATC looking at anything going on the ground such as ambulance calls to authority vehicle safety checks to planes moving into takeoff areas.
30 minutes fuel is 250 miles...a couple of round trips between Seattle and Vancouver.
It sounds like a lot. But what if there are some ifs and buts on the way and they end of running out of fuel. I am glad that who ever fly the planes has margins. Just in time is bound to be a disaster at some point.
I wonder how often this sort of emergency actually happens and passengers are never told?
You do not want to know.
Very seldom, I can assure you that.
Today, airlines replace weight of fuel with weight of passengers more sharply than did before the 1980s.
Cost of fuel is massively higher. And It was way more dangerous carrying the amount of fuel they did then xD
Watching air crash investigations of planes crashing because they were too low on fuel, makes me feel a lot better when I see stuff like this when pilots are acutely aware and properly declare emergencies to get landed.
Nice job ... the controller did his job.. gave them optio the pilots did their jobs knowing their speed and altitude that possibly a smaller airport would not have been a smart move and they knew to take everything in consideration and continue to go to a bigger airport.. so nice job all of them
They did not do a downwind missed approach as illustrated in the video. They only pre-secured permission to do that just-in-case because the official missed approach for ils08r would have required more fuel burn before a second attempt at landing.
So they really went around and proceed to the right downwind back to 08R?
No, they landed on their first attempt. The animation is to explain the right pattern they're asking for just in case
VASAviation - Ohh, wilco. Excellent video mate, love your work, greetings from Mexico.
Wilco???
13rdp Same meaning as "roger"
No, Wilco, means Will Comply, meaning that you understand the clearance and will stick to it.
You could have answer Roger.
Happy skies.
Seeing Captain Over, Roger Murdoch or Stryker going up the forward ladder is a Definite Mayday...
Emirates pilots are very professional... this one both ATC and Pilots must be commended.
I bet you will not understand what they're saying if there's no subtitle there
Would the passengers have been aware that their flight was a Mayday scenario? Obviously they knew they had been diverted. They probably would not need to know that, unless they did have to go around, in which case there may have been a danger if fuel became an issue.
No, they haven't been diverted. They would have been told about the situation if they had to divert.
I'm quite positive the pax were not told about this.
They would know something was up: approaching Seattle, descending, turning etc. then going back up and changing direction isnt normal. I would also suspect the flight crew had told them they were diverting. But they wouldn't know about the fuel situation.
Freakschwimmer first 2 seconds of the video tells you they had to divert from Seattle due to wind. I'm sure passengers would realize when they land in a different country than their ticket says.
I love how they refer to passengers as souls 🤟🏽
To distinguish them from dead people. It’s not unusual for commercial flights to be carrying dead people.
Victoria airport's longest runway is 7,000 feet. I'm guessing enough for a 777 to land on but not much room for error hence, a higher possibility for a go-around.
Even YXX is only 9500 feet. As soon as they requested 8R at YVR, it could be figured that YVR was their declared alternate, as they requested the longest runway there.
ATC "Fuel remaining?"
Pilot "Fuel remaining, NONE!"
Gimli glider?
@@theharper1 Exactly.
Hearing a pilot say “mayday” gives me chills. But kudos to these people esp Capt and F.O.
Was the reason Miscalculation? Or something?
They were planning to land at Seattle but had to divert to Vancouver due to weather
in addition to having to divert, they'd already attempted one landing at seatac which was spoiled by crosswinds. that probably ate up a lot of safety margin on its own.
Not surprised it's Canadian air space. Calm. Cool. professional
My fear on continuing to push into Vancouver is if anything went wrong with approach or landing, they will definitely run out of fuel on any high throttle go around. It would be a one time landing approach. The comfort of landing at the destination is big no doubt. Everyone goes about their plans, including aircraft/crew, without interruption--like nothing ever happened.
They were set up for it AND had a lot of altitude to loose, which is done on low power while I guess fuel time remaining is calculated for level flight (if not someone advise). So might be the flying distance would be the same with an extra around to get down to the closer strip
There are many other factors to consider to... runway length (to reduce the chance of a go around), emergency services available (in case a go around is not possible) and a big factor is pilots prefer a familiar landing and approach under these conditions. Having to consult charts to an unfamiliar runway only adds stess and increases the liklihood of human error. Regardless of weather they were familiar or not with this approach, they were already set for this course.
2:11 Vancouver Approach says "one half hour" (i.e., half an hour, 30 minutes), not "1h30" (i.e., one and a half hours, i.e., 90 minutes).
"one half hour" and "one and a half hours" can sound very similar. The recording is pretty clean and the pilots themselves felt it was necessary to indicate "30 minutes" so there was no confusion. A lot of English speaking regions don't say "one half hour" so that could be confusing. It would be rare, for instance, to say that in the US. We'd probably ask, one half hour as opposed to two or three half hours or half a half hour? Why add a quantity to something that can really only be that one thing to begin with? Sort of like saying "I drove one car to the store"...
I was just pointing out that the subtitles were wrong at that point (controller says "one half hour", subtitles say "1h30").
But, actually, my experience is that it's _only_ North Americans who say "one half hour"; in British English, it's always "half an hour".
"I drove one car to the store" is common to most languages. English is unusual in having the indefinite article "a". In most languages it is the same word as "one". I think in a field which needs as much clarity and lack of ambiguity as ATC, "one" is quite useful. The one letter vowel word "a" can get swallowed over the airwaves.
I would so love to be an ATC but apparently you have to have both eyes working properly.
I live for high pressure situations.
basically if planes cant handle 45 seconds a turn at Heathrow for an 18 hour shift, the world might fall into misery.
Professional crew for sure.
My god, they talk as fast as people that having an calm argument, but meaningful one.
what happens next? refuel, fly to seattle?
That's what I want know too. Passengers probably won't have Canadian visas so I guess they can't at least exit customs but what about the apron/terminal to change to another flight to Seattle? Btw Happy Birthday to +VASAviation
+GSjmak unscheduled landings are normally an exception. Since it's not the passengers choice to arrive there, they typically will allow passengers, if needed, to stay in YVR for a day. They probably refueled once the winds died down and flew to Seattle. But just saying if the winds stayed that way, the passengers would be disembarked and boarded once departure is ready.
Part of why they probably refueled and went to Seattle is that the plane itself was needed there. There was probably already another flight scheduled that needed that 777.
It is likely that the crew reached maximum duty and required rest. Chances are the people were put on other flights and the crew flew empty to the original destination. Also the people at their original destination had no airplane for their flight. They were either put on other flights and the crew waited there for the next flight or until the Vancouver crew flew the airplane to the original destination after their required rest.
A change of shorts for the pilots.
from my understanding declaring the mayday is necessary as they have now started into their emergency reserve is that correct?
no saying "mayday" is the absolute worst terrorism in ATC terminology. the decision has been made by the flight crew to say they are in so desperate danger, even the delay of a few minutes to allow for the closure of the approach taxiways would likely mean catastrophe. You might be asking for a Pan Pan Pan call. Yes, it is a serious alarm, but not yet to the point where things will go to hell immediately.
@@martintheiss743 The hell are you on about? If the plane wasn't able to get immediate landing it would have been a very, very bad situation, in which the plane would have become a glider until it eventually either lands or crashes. This is VERY acceptable for a mayday from what I've seen. A PAN-PAN is when you don't need immediate attention but would like to land soon, however a MAYDAY is when you need immediate landing or else the situation becomes extremely serious. With 30 minutes of fuel, if they had to wait or go around or even anything similar to that, they'd likely be on 10 to 5 minutes of fuel, and if they weren't able to land in that time, you'd get a very, very bad situation in which not even a MAYDAY could fix.
This YVR employee says AWESOME job ATC.
How good are the YVR facilities for unplanned 777 incursions like this?
@@martintheiss743 I only just saw your query.
The answer is superb. What ever happens YVR can handle it. In my time working there I've seen everything from plane crashes to misbehaving passengers to....... So I know If a plane is in trouble near the west coast of North America, YVR is the best airport to resolve the problem.
The calmness under pressure always impresses me , it reminds me of my sub days.