All HEADING SOURCES FAILED After Takeoff. Endeavor CRJ-900. REAL ATC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июн 2023
- 10 May 2023.
An Endeavor Air Canadair Regional Jet CRJ-900 registration N295PQ, performing flight EDV5145 from New York LaGuardia Airport (KLGA) to Savannah/Hilton Head International Airport (KSAV).
After departure from KLGA crew reported issue with maintaining heading and requested to stay in the area. Later the crew decided to divert to New York Kennedy International Airport (KJFK). Being under control of Kennedy Approach the pilots reported that all three heading sources were showing different data and the air traffic control service declared the emergency for them.
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
![[REAL ATC] FULL LOSS OF POWER at Miami International #KMIA](/img/1.gif)
Really appreciate the 180 in personality from the LGA controller once he realized they couldn't navigate. Extremely patient from that point on.. hopefully that put the flight crew a bit more at ease.
Both towers were incredibly patient. Those airports can be a nightmare.
5:40 I like that clarity, "Can you do 9000" "Yes" "Descend and maintain 9000". No assumption, after the question a direct and clear command is given.
As harsh as the NY area controllers can be, they are damn good at their jobs. Quite possibly the busiest airspace in the planet for commercial airliners (let me know if I am wrong though; excluding GA).
@@johnellis5828 No kidding. I remember the real-time depiction of the Miracle on the Hudson from takeoff to splashdown with the ATC and pilot radio interaction (on the Mentour Pilot channel), and ATC tried basically everything they could to get Cactus 1549 down safely, first to LaGuardia, then to Teterboro, then Newark. Ultimately the flight splashed down in the Hudson, but it definitely wasn't the ATC's fault that happened. (It wasn't the pilots' fault either; they were just dealt a bad situation and ditching was the only realistically viable option in the end.)
"Endeavor 5145, we're fuel critical now. We're still talking to company about going to JFK."
"Roger, and do you still have 73 souls onboard, or has that number changed?"
Can't help but like how polite the controllers and pilots are to each other.
And not to forget all this happening in the super busy New York area with hundreds of aircrafts in contact.
Surprised how reluctant the crew was to declare an emergency, even when asked by ATC. Kudos to all though for getting it back on the ground without drama.
Not everything is an emergency
@@Boodieman72n emergency does not mean you're out of control free falling into a mountain.
Declaring an emergency is it avoid that. It's for exactly these situations where you do not have full control of the aircraft, something is wrong, you need airspace cleared around you (as in right at the very start it was very much an emergency as they're crossing over other air paths), gets other aircraft to go around our hold short, and most importantly, gets all the ATC focused support they need, emergency services prepared given landing with full fuel tanks, etc etc etc etc etc.
For some reason they don't seem to use different levels of emergency anymore. In the old days this would have been a pan pan emergency, not a mayday emergency.
But still an emergency.
Oh, and they were requesting to divert to not only not their flight plan destination, but even a different airport from where they left, putting new dedicated focused load onto another airport, inserting a new arrival into a busy airport, and it looked like they were coming in to a perpendicular runway to what was being used thereby shutting down all takeoffs and landings from all JFK runways while they landed and got off the runway. Requiring all arriving aircraft to be given holding pattern vectors. Etc etc etc.
Yeah I agree. You could hear in the controllers voice near the beginning of this recording that he seemed perplexed that the pilots were having difficulty following his pretty standard directional instructions, which became quite urgent at one point….ATC requires prompt acknowledgement and compliance with such instructions for many reasons, especially in arguably the busiest airspace in the world, where maintaining separation would be challenging at times. So given the pilots were unable to rely on the directional info they receiving from their aircraft, I would think it absolutely was an emergency situation.
@@JKPilotI think they only realized once they started hearing the confusion. Seemed like they took the first few readoffs and assumed the plane did what it needed to, and only noticed something was off when they kept getting escalated directives.
Why PAN PAN PAN is not used in the USA? That is exactly what is appropriate for this situation.
The controllers did a great job. The female pilot needs her headset checked out. Can hear the guy just fine.
I suspect loose jacks or dirty plugs.
That was my thought
The people that receive and achieve these frequencies are on the ground somewhere. It'll sound different in the air.
@@aviay Comprehension of a problem is key to finding a wise response. Try again.
These commercial airline pilots are way too Afraid of declaring an emergency. I guess the company makes them afraid, Speak Up Lady!
They had already diverted to JFK airspace. What punishment does company impose on pilots for declaring an emergency???
If there is any punishment for declaring an emergency that company needs to be grounded until that policy is removed!!!!
companies don't punish but the regulating agency of that particular country investigates the matter deep inside the skin. All pilots are afraid of that
I guess it's a huge paperwork and administrative burden
Either way they should have at least declared pan pan when their heading was erratic
I also think Company has to much say in the matter. The pilots and ATC should be able to make decisions based on written policy and procedures, especially in an emergency. Lives could be at stake here, so what a suit at the ground says shouldn't matter in my humble opinion.
It makes no difference except to people with OCD.
Good to see the skills for a no compass approach are still in the tool box - well done to all
Evidently ILS was still working fine.
@@jamiehardt3061 It would be nice to know what they did to correct the issue... Did they have to reboot the flight computer? Switch gyros? and please fix the radio while its on the ground!! . :-) Glad they got them back down safely.
@@williamsteinhour4876It was probably an electromagnetic interference.
Controller did a great job. I’ve done a few GCA approaches, civilian at Military airports, excellent guidance from controllers.
Why does “ the Company” have the ability to direct action in this situation? Would have thought it would be pilots absolute decision?
That woman pilot really made me nervous! Maybe it was the bad radio.
I thought they had a regular compass between the two front windows.
Many planes do, but it technically isn’t required in some cases. I’m not sure about airliners, but for example the newer Piper Archer III’s with the G1000 have two magnetometers (maybe three? I need to check) to essentially digitize heading information for their primary flight display and backup instruments, which satisfies the requirement for magnetic compass. I know that many airliners have two to three Inertial Reference Units which may satisfy the requirement.
@@desertsaker196 I know Boeing still puts a standard compass on the dashboard of every new plane and it has a built in light.
@@mytech6779 Yeah and to my knowledge this CRJ should have that as well. I don't really know what happened here. Magnetic compasses only read truly correct in straight-and-level, unaccelerated flight. Maybe they weren't able to compensate for compass errors properly. Either that or a weird electrical failure caused by an exposed wire made the compass spin.
How do you know that compass is correct when two other systems are showing something different? Not saying it isn't but when you are getting multiple directions from multiple equipment, should always question and verify before trusting. I would have been asking the controller for actual headings more frequently to compare, at least to get an idea of the variance between actual and indicated headings on the different devices for future reference (assuming they are off by a continuous value). @@desertsaker196
Thank you for sharing. Politeness and professionalism during challenging circumstances throughout.
Her comms were terrible for sure. Reminded me of my comm school days being trained to hear low sound level and even thru static in the Corps in the mid 80's, I hated that crap, we were getting 10 digit gridits and stuff like that and being graded on it!
I have always admired my local public safety telecommunicators for picking out what we were saying while wearing self-contained breathing apparatus and breathing hard. I always trained our new personnel to enunciate properly, showing them how voices are affected by these factors.
Jerry Seinfeld's low talker was flying the plane. Sure the ATC dude agreed to wear the puffy shirt.
I really like to watch all these videos but miss to know what happened in fact, what are the reasons of the failures once safe landing have occured.
You can use the information on the tail number, date and flight number to research it. Waiting for that info would delay production.
All you have to do is to put one in Grid, one in True, and standby on Mag, and in the States you’ll have a healthy aircraft showing three different headings
Hearing "souls on board and fuel remaining in pounds" is the scariest question I ever got in a plane. It seems benign at first, until you realize they're asking how many bodies they're looking for and how big the boom is going to be...
I assume knowing the fuel state is more so ATC knows what they have to work with
well, you gotta hope for the best but prepare for the worst
@@seskal8595 They ask in pounds, even though pilots normally know time remaining.... that's very little to do with distance and more to do with impact
LGA 13 departure....you gotta switch from MAG mode to DG mode or that steel pier will give you an EFIS COMP MON HDG every time. At least in the -200 you had to do it that way.
Thanks controllers for getting them down ok. I’d say that flight crew learned a thing or two on this one
I would hate to be on that flight,the head set goes bad after a while...I worked for great lakes airlines the radio problem is caused by the mike only it would pick up a whisper
Was there any info on what would cause the issue? In combination with the strength of radio signal it would seem to indicate an electrical issue....that affected 3 heading indicators and radio....interesting.
My guess would be magnetic interference with all 3 data lines at the same time.
No idea if the radio was related, or just an issue with one pilots headset.
The plane was having an eMotional breakdown.
Question for any real pilot out there - why isn't the number of souls onboard a readily-available number? An emergency could arise at ANY time and ATC will keep hounding you until you have that number. PAX numbers are verified before a flight takes off anyway, and the pilots I've watched always say they have a piece of paper handy to write down taxi instructions, etc. Jotting that verified number down on that piece of paper seems like a no-brainer. I just think it makes sense as a "best practice" to avoid the constant and repeated back and forth about the number.
I'm not an airline pilot, but that number is not a number they generally need to fly the aircraft. The percentage of flights that declare emergencies is so minuscule that it wouldn't be justified to add that to their workload on every flight. The number is readily available from the flight attendants when it is needed.
They’re very busy. The SOB is in the FMS on that aircraft and takes a little time to find it.
@@ArtemkaPannat -- ATC doesn't have such a calculator because none exists. Not on a universal basis anyway. Each aircraft has different engines, different modifications, etc. So while the pilots have that data for their own aircraft, it is unlikely that it has been uploaded to a common database.
Of course there are general guidelines that can be used for approximations, which is why we don't hear much pushback from ATC when pilots report fuel in terms of flying time instead of as a quantity. (And the reason ATC is asking is because the info will be passed along to emergency responders, so they know how big the mess might be in a worst-case scenario. Emergency responders don't care about flying time -- they need to know how much might spill or burn.)
Aviate, Navigate and then communicate. It is not an important number for the pilots.
I have had 5 situations which could be classified as “emergencies” situations in my 4,500 hours in civilian aviation. I declared and emergency only twice. I lost an engine in a twin will directly over LAX, declared and landed without incident. Flying my turboprop (jet engine prop aircraft) at 22,000 over Flagstaff in the summer encountered severe ice in a otherwise beguine looking cloud (29 degrees F outside). Needing a fast descent I advised ATC that I was executing an Emergency descent for severe ice. The tower declared an emergency for me twice, once as a student pilot when on downwind in the pattern in a single engine plane, the throttle disconnect from the engine with a very low power setting, almost idle. I recall telling the tower, “ 34W request short approach, engine in idle no throttle… uh student pilot.” ATC: 34 whiskey cleared to land any runway. Glided to a smooth landing as we had practiced, instructor very happy, no FAA inquiry. Most dangerous was a wake turbulence encounter in clear calm weather on approach to PHX. After requesting extra spacing behind a jumbo jet to avoid wake turbulence- we were 9 instead of 3 miles in trail, the turbulence hit hard rolling the airplane almost inverted on final approach. The tower saw it happen. I was busy recovering from the upset “unusual attitude.” As I regained control loosing 500 feet of altitude and closer to the north runways than the South we were lined up for the tower said 21 R are you OK? 21R “we’ve been inverted, engine ok but may quit, not approved for inverted flight. Tower: 21R cleared to land any runway any taxiway, all aircraft emergency in progress taxi clear of all runways. The engine functioned normally and we landed smoothly on the north complex. I requested an FAA inquiry, which explained what happened. (Good story for another time- I was not at fault). Others were precautionary only for landing gear indicator light problems, both in twin engine aircraft. No incidents, violations or accidents in my long civilian career. Aviation, Navigate, Communicate in that order… civilian, military, commercial… you are trained for these situations.
Looks like a IRU issue? Perhaps not correctly initialized? But what about the compass heading? Why can't that be trusted?
Apparently all 3 showed different values. And none agreed with what heading ATC read.
Yeah, like @chistoperg2347 said....there was a compass as part of the three. Which led me to the theory that it could have been an electrical problem....ie: a short,where the path returning to your battery was somehow also throwing the magnetism off for the compass.
For starters, it indicates based on magnetic north - which, in NYC is *significantly* off from true north. So, if you forget that fact in the heat of the moment, or haven't checked the chart for the magnetic declination and are just comparing the numbers, it'll basically never agree. Likely they had one failed or misaligned INS, and were trying to use the compass to cross-check and figure out which one was correct. And then either the checklist reminded them of that, or company maintenance did, or they just figured out which one was correct based on the readouts from ATC, and switched off the bad INS, thus regaining autopilot and the ability to steer on their own.
What are the 3 heading sources? I think each pilot has an independent DG right? Is the 3rd source the magnetic compass? Or is it maybe a GPS?
What could cause all 3 to disagree? Maybe electrical, but seems like if there is aomething electicsl going on that is affecting both DGs then ir would be messing with other things too.
Depends on the airframe. You've always got a magnetic compass that *should* always be accurate, but fundamentally there's no reason that can't be physically busted in some relatively obscure manner - and, crucially - it's a magnetic compass. It points to magnetic north, not true north, and in New York that's actually quite a way off, certainly enough to get you yelled at by ATC if you try to fly by it checking charts frequently for the correct declination value and adding/subtracting as appropriate.
Airliners, you've usually got an inertial navigation system based around one or more gyroscopes - the same ones that run the HSI. This needs to be aligned on the ground to a known orientation. If the plane isn't parked and pointed in exactly the direction and position you think it is when you initialize the system, the INS system will think the plane is in a different place or direction versus where it really is. These systems also drift over time - usually not enough to matter for a short haul flight, but if they're doing multiple segments without restarting cold, a correction needs to be done periodically. In the olden days this would be manual based on charts, radio navigation aids and maps (or landing and parking at a stand with a known position and orientation) - in the modern era, the computer just consults GPS (if GPS is working)
I don't know CRJs well, but from what I understand the pilots are each looking at the output from two separate INS systems on their displays, which probably disagreed due to drift or a failure, which didn't correlate to the magnetic compass because of magnetic declination. Probably one of the two was right, but it was unclear which one, and the pilots just forgot about magnetic declination when cross checking the compass because, really, how often do you do that?
Later on, when they got the autopilot back up and started steering on their own, they had likely identified the failed INS and switched it off, at which point both displays and the autopilot would have defaulted to just using the one - but that number still disagreed with the magnetic compass.
@@EyeMWing The headings they were given were magnetic.. you can see that they differ from true north on the map, when they were asked to fly 90/180/270 headings. In other words, they're meant to fly what the magnetic compass is indicating.
Someone started pushback while the IRS was aligning.
Hey, can you find and make June 10 UAL1509 rejected TO at SFO??
Yep, I can make it.
Hey can you find JUne 10 UA1544 engine shutdown on take off?
Yep, I can make it)
Trouble shooting? Compasses out! Autopilot out? And talking to company? Sounds to me rather than get on the ground a plane that has some severe technical issues they are trying to create work arounds so they can continue to fly. Wtff?
Was surprised at how long it took to make a decision on whether (and where) to land. Does this company have to commence a board mtg to decide what to do with the plane???
I'm guessing they were probably trying to work out the logistics of which airport had company resources available to help with the situation and best deal with all the passengers.
While it is weird from a standpoint of "oh we have no idea where we are going, but hopefully nothing else will fail", the airplane will probably not fall out of the sky because a compass is not working.
So they decided that for passengers, crew and comapny it might be more convenient to get things organised beforehand.
Your smart ass commentary is interesting.
Does it seem like they burned 1100 pounds of fuel rather quickly (even at that low altitude)? (They went from 8600 lbs at 12:49 to 7500 lbs at 16:19)
They dumped fuel in the water.
What kind of airline culture takes away the captain’s responsibility to declare an emergency and act to save the flight? Or, on the other hand, was the captain not ready to be a captain and make command decisions? What if there was smoke or a fire on board would they to fly around waiting to get the company’s permission to declare an emergency and land?
The controllers did a fantastic job vectoring them around in that crowded airspace.
Lesson 5 in PPL-Training: Timed turns
ok capt presolo student pilot
@@flyerboy2594 Relax.... of course it was not meant seriously. They did a great job.
She did a damn good job speaking clearly though. Through that bad signal I could still understand her better than many other pilots and ATCs I have heard on radios. Actually crazy what a weak link this is in aviation. These radio messages can be as important as that 500 lives or more depend on it. One word or number wrong and it can already happen. And we still use ''simple'' radios. Where people can even still talk over each other without noticing it 😨
heading is one thing, clear radio would help too, I would have asked the male stay on radio female barely understandable
Was this a case early on of genuine static, radio problem or a softly spoken female that needs to speak deeper and louder to be heard above the static? Or a deaf
Controller?
With the clarity of the male pilot, I would suggest the female pilot's headset was giving problems. I suggest giving it the drop test when on the ground, preferably from a great height.
Who's flying this airplane, the pilots or some paper pusher at the company. The controllers were very helpful and patient.
The call to "Company" is for multiple reasons. 1 is to inform them of the problem and potentially get assistance on procedures that go beyond the onboard checklists to solve the issue. Second is for if they have to divert, what are the best options for getting passengers to connecting flights and maintenance facilities to best fix the issue. This allows the company to start the ground work required instead of waiting for the aircraft to get on the ground before hearing of the issue.
Endeavor Air is wholly owned by Delta and has 'Delta Connections' livery. These problems are troubling when taken together:
Poor radio (or mic) and no reliable heading indication: maintenance issues? Flight crew are indeciscive: Cost-cutting culture, lack of empowerment for safety decisions, and exhaustion? Flight crew are wordy: exhaustion and inexperience?
I agree that they need to have more power / authority to head back to the airport if the pilot wants, also, please train the female pilot to quickly convey information.
I suspect the wordiness was an attempt to work around the weak radio communications. Everybody'd trying to make the best of a bad situation.
they should have used the compass on the phone!
Since when did the pilots realize: "all three heading sources showing something different"?
The deputure has given them corrected heading three times. Did the pilots never check there sources and see the problem?
Even if they on approch, they just mention "an issue with the heading"
And then this "We I wait for the response of the company". If the instruments show differences, call a "pan pan pan" and tell the TWR what's going on.
Very strange behavior of the crew ....
Should have immediately declared an emergency if they lost the ability to navigate. The controllers did a great job getting them on course, but it would have helped them out to have the plane flagged as an emergency.
Ixnay on Pan Pan....Mr. Hindsight Know - It - All. Nobody uses Pan Pan anymore.
Shortly after takeoff, the cockpit is a very busy place, and cross-checking your instruments against the other pilot's is not a normal part of that process. Likely the ATC corrections were completely separate from how they found out there was a problem - they probably got kicked out of autopilot with an IRS Disagree warning and were starting to work the problem and hand fly at the same time, in very complex airspace, during a phase of flight with a high workload to begin with.
The 'talking to the company' part is a lot less nefarious than it sounds - by that point ATC has them in a safe holding pattern, and there is no danger of losing the ability to fly. Under those circumstances, you run your checklists to try to fix the problem, if that doesn't work you radio home and basically call tech support - maintenance, instructor pilots for the aircraft, whatever, who might be able to help you spot what you missed. If, at that point, there's definitely still a problem, and things are still safe with no immediate danger, you have the luxury of figuring out where to go - where the plane can be fixed, where there's another plane or some other accommodation for the passengers, etc. Any one of the 3 NYC area airports might have had what they needed, but it really wasn't going to make any difference to ATC or the aircrew which one they ultimately went to. And then the company will usually run performance numbers based on your current weight, weather and runways at the airport so you can set vref and such accurately - so the aircrew, who are very busy and stressed, doesn't have to to the calculations.
The reluctance to declare an emergency is a known psychological bias, and why in recent times American ATC has taken to doing it for pilots, like happened here.
No whisky compass either?
exactly
I am like number 301
Is it me or does her voice sound automated?
Ironically, I can’t hear this.
Sorry to sound like a newbie here, but for comms, if you've already been told that your transmissions are less than clear, shouldn't you be pronouncing numbers by the book, avoiding words like "fifty" and "forty"? The fire apparati in which I used to ride the right front seat had four-digit identifiers. On the radio, I always identified my rig (and my personal unit number) by saying each number individually. (Clearer, and fewer syllables as well.) Also, when having a problem in flight and starting to run checklists to work that problem, shouldn't an aviator at least call "pan-pan"? Like, if you can handle navigation by VFR, maybe it's not a MAYDAY yet, but if you can't navigate by landmarks because of the way your seat aligns you to your cockpit windows, then you're definitely blind, right? I'd put that in the bad category. If an airline wanted to give me a hard time for declaring an emergency, I'd be happy to shift my career to authoring articles and books about the airline's attitude.
Newbie here too, but She was saying all stuff digit by digit (headings, number of souls), except the flight number(?).
My guess is that's basically a formality when they are in the middle of comms and it wasn't really important to pronounce it by the book every time.
everyone did great, but i find it interesting how teh crew reports in hours almost everyone of these, and the ATC/ARFF want pounds. Seems like they should get that aligned to save precious seconds of comm
It's all about what matters to each of them. Pilots care about hours because that's how long it'll be before they fall out of the sky, and weight only matters to them when taking off and landing. ATC cares about weight because their emergency crews will need to know how much fuel is in the tanks.
A 2 person prop plane with 2 hours of fuel is vastly different from 2 hours of fuel for a passenger jet. The former will take like 1 hose to extinguish, while the latter will take several fire engines blasting foam for a good while.
Yes, pilots should give the pounds when asked by ATC, but when flying they're just concerned about the time it'll take to run out so giving the weight can easily slip their mind.
Hours makes more sense, as the reason for asking for fuel is to ensure that the plane is on the ground before they run out (check out United 173 crash). I think that now the fire response want it in pounds to determine how much foam they might need should there be a fire on the ground. I think both numbers are important, but the pounds considerably less so. Fire crews can just use the max fuel capacity of the aircraft type and make conservative assumptions that it is full instead of wasting pilot's time and focus on getting pounds.
Wow, assert your pic authority. Choose an airport and land, ask forgiveness later...
exactly.
It's time for this site to think about disabling the comments section. Same comments over and over again: "Why didn't the pilots declare an emergency?.", "Why don't they use PAN-PAN-PAN like in Europe?", "Why do the controllers pelt the pilots with questions while they're working on checklists?", even though it's been explained about 100 times that silences are trimmed out, "Female pilot": "female controller"; "diversity hire" "That controller should be fired"..."Why didn't they land at the closest airport?". Over and over again the same stuff, coming from people who couldn't do the job of a pilot or controller in a million years. Just tell the story, disable the comments.
Non-pilot so take this as you may.... When I go through the comments looking for a piece of info, I will (usually) stop at about 50 if I have not found someone answering the question I have. Or, if making a simple comment, will add that to someone already going on that line. In this case, yes, some should read the comments first, comment second. Some are saying female is too wordy and I agree but I ALSO think she is thinking aloud as they work the problem. So a balance there. But the question I was looking for was why the trouble with heading sources? I was thinking an electrical problem might create a magnetic anomaly and some agree but... still no clear consensus. Having the comments helps me out, even if many just ask the same question or make the same observations.... It just takes me longer to read through to find what I want, when I have limited time. So comments help and the loss of that help might affect a pilot's choices in the same situation. I can kind of see the same thing happening and a pilot saying to themselves "hey! I remember that comment on EDV5145 said 'xxxx yyyy' . Think I'll try that..." And it works. I know one person that has happened to. I bet there are a lot more...
It does not help YT / Google the "search company" does not have search function for comment section still and tends to show comments in weird order ... atleast there is RUclips Comment Search addon for those more tech savy :) (if you are interested to try it out) ... it would not help completely for sure because people are people but it would help atleast partially to reduce the clutter of everybody asking and not reading. Disabling comments is not way to go - its only frustrating, looks shady, does not help in any way really and removes usefull info from people who want to read or write something constructive.
PS: I agree those videos should have conclusion ... its interesting to see those weird stories what can happen but without ending its incomplete and a bit frustrating .. there are some guesses down there but it would be nice to know for sure
@@JanHavel Another thing to be aware of is that all channels that want lots of views/advertiser $$ require comments and likes to maintain their standing with RUclips. A lack of comments & likes for any reason can result in the channel not being seen by many viewers and therefore losing out on revenue.
Maybe just watch the video and not read the comments then if *you* are bothered by it. If you don't want to then don't... it doesn't make sense to force everybody to not be able to leave a comment on a video that is reviewing something just because you don't like it.
Ouuuuu, touchy!!!! Had your meds today?
These pilots don't know what is an emergency.
Get that pilot a new mic. Or she needs to speak into the mic.
I know the woman talking probably isn't a native English speaker, but man, at times she sounds like a computer talking.
Whats with this contacting the company crap ? Get the plane on the ground before anything else goes wrong and the company can sort it out AFTER the passengers are safe. Today's society has lost it's collective mind.
They were likely contacting company to get maintenance advice. Seems quite prudent to me. Why don’t you think they should do that?
Crew seemed more concerned with not causing problems to the company than with their own safety.
Corporate Pressure kills people.
Thats not it at all. When they are talking to "company" they are talking to an aircraft dispatcher who is fully certified and qualified just like the pilots and who is jointly responsible with the captain for the safe operation of the aircraft under the US regs part 121. They would also have on the line a highly qualified maintenenance technician who knows the avionics in that airplane extremely well. Between them they would trouble shoot the problem the airplane is having and attempt to reset the system and come up with the safest plan for the flight. It sounds like they were successful as they apparently regained their heading indications. They also decided together to divert the aicraft to JFK. It has longer runways than LGA and is able to take care of the passengers and has maintenance available for the aircraft. Corporate pressure has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, the system is designed to minimize that issue. Only the Captain and the Dispatcher can make that decision together. Not management. Also, ATC did their job very well, keeping them clear of other traffic, in a "no gyro" situation.
@@cfigrandpa8089 You correctly describe how it SHOULD be, GOOD for that, but;
That is not how corporate pressure works. No one will admit that on the frequency. It is something that works on the background, in the unconscious. We don't have access to those comms (Company Ops.) from what I know. (Are they being recorded in case of an Accident/Incident Investigation?)
That's why I stated that it SEEMED to me there was something to do with it. Only caveat I can find, IMO, is that the crew should have alerted ATC about the situation and then proceed to try and manage the situation ON BOARD. They forgot FOR A MOMENT that they were not the only plane on the air, but it us understandable even though it should be talked about and addressed always. Same for VFR flights that encounter adverse/diminishing weather conditions.
@@Andres_1970
I get your concern. And on first glacnce, it can seem that way. But the airlines these days put a great deal of effort into human factors and safety, such as Aeronautical Decision Making, Crew Resource Management, Safety Management Systems and extensive training, such as upset recovery.
The type of situation that the crew encountered, as far as we can tell, is one in which their heading indications were unreliable. If they are in IMC instrument conditions, this is a significant problem. First, they have to fly the aircraft, before anything else. Then they have to try to navigate, and only after that should they try to communicate. Their very first task, is to make sure that the aircraft remains in a safe attitude. Only after they feel that they are in control of the aircraft, should they advise ATC.
Regarding the company communications with the crew, yes they are recorded, but not available to the public. They get all kinds of operational information from their own company flight dispatch about safety issues, such as weather, delays, airport conditions, alternates, reroutes, etc, that ATC never sees. The crew can also have access to other resources through flight dispatch, such as technical experts, like here, or medical advice, or security, customer issues etc. This is all through the company radio. ATC’s main concern is traffic separation.
Management’s role in a situation like this is to support the crew, dispatch and other actors, to ensure that they have what they need. Both the Captain and the Dispatcher have the authority under the regulations to not accept what a particular manager may want them to do. Only they have the responsibility. And I have seen that done many times. They are both legally responsible to the FAA, as they are licensed by the FAA. Management may not be.
The system is set up that way exactly because of its effectiveness in protecting against the wrong kind of pressure from management. And it works.
You are a little dramatic there. Just relax.
the captain is more direct with his transmissions but the woman pilot makes it into a loooong speach, "...so the procedure we have is..." , "ma'am i dont need that stupid piece of unnecessary information, just get straight to the damn point!!"
How do you know that the male was the captain?
man these pilots need to compress their communication. too much talking.
Whatever happened to the compass?
Now for the critique.
00:50 "Barely readable.. static and broken up..."
If we are hearing what the controller is, the problem description is incorrect (except for barely readable). Better to report "insufficient audio gain. Speak louder or try another radio".
02:17, 04:05 Controller is quick on the transmit button. Poor practice. Wait for other station to finish, then press transmit.
05:22 "I was on the landline.. missed most of that.." Inexcusable. Busy sector and now you have an emergency flight. Where's your backup?
07:09 ".. does this altitude work.. (etc)." Unnecessary traffic. If they want it, they'll request it.
07:39 "We're going to vector you to JFK", this after the crew advised the controller earlier that they will advise when ready to go to JFK. Since the latter was what they were expecting, ATC has now introduced more workload. Poor form, at best.
08:31 New controller. "Fly heading 090" Abysmal lack of coordination. Inexcusable! More distraction for this crew.
10:39... Paragraphs when concise, short requests are best. More air time wasted.
10:58 "I'm just curious..." Crews are not here to satisfy your curiosity, not engage in troubleshooting with ATC. Crew is being very patient and courteous, despite.
12:47, 13:15 More paragraphs. Instead: "Endeavor 5145 say fuel in pounds" "Endeavor 5145 turn left, heading 270"
15:51 A more professional controller. Good comms skills.
16:14 More lack of coordination evidence!
18:02 Surprise. Another controller with good comms skills.
When talking to A.I. like this. Just ask, "what does it feel like to be dead"? When "she" replies, sounds good. You know it's not a person at all.
Sounds as if the plane is a P.O.S. and should be decommissioned.
Having ATC declare the emergency for you! Madness.
Ok armchair pilot 🤦♂️
the Canadian pilot speaks better English than the air traffic controller. but he's struggling...
That's odd....because hoser Canadians struggle with language overall.
Should ATC be on a phone call, or should they be paying attention to radio coms, was buddy calling his wife wondering if he should pick up a loaf of bread and a litre of milk?
ATCs call each other, specially in emergencies so that the next controller is aware of the issues when the plane is handed to them.
You’ve shown that you don’t know what the landline is in ATC context.
1) Not sure how the controller figured they made 3 mistakes, they acknowledged them all properly. 2) Something is wrong with the lady. I'm guessing English is not her first language (nothing wrong with that), but the nature and tone of her voice seems artificial. Maybe shes a robot. But I am guessing she's relatively new as a pilot and they are obviously busy in the cockpit with the issue.
All 3 headings they turned to at the start were wrong.
Noobs.
Way to much Automation on these airplanes, I've flown my Piper J 3. All over the East Coast with a whiskey compass.even have 1 trip to Oshkosh, cant believe even the compass failed.
Very "wordy" female pilot. Unusually so...
No ICAO comms language rules being followed.
Agree, but in an emergency, giving the crew some license is good. She was probably encouraged by the soliloquies from the LaGuardia controller!
Makes no difference whatsoever. Thanks for posting.
Does anyone have a picture of the female pilot?? I love her voice
I have her measurements. Will that help?
Lady pilots talk waaaay to much... blahblahblah... just say what you need or you're going to do and be quiet.
Female pilot talks a lot but doesn't really say anything.