SMOKE / FUMES ONBOARD | Air France Emergency Divert to Geneva
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 дек 2023
- Untrimmed version • SMOKE ONBOARD | Full A...
11/DEC/2023
Air France performing flight from Florence to Paris was enroute at FL340 when the pilots donned their oxygen masks, declared PANPAN due to smoke onboard and requested immediate descent to divert to Geneva.
____________
Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASAviation
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
Please, give a big LIKE to support and for more videos like this!! :)
Terrific job by all pilots and controllers. Swiss ATC always on point, so textbook!
Kudos to everyone!
Untrimmed version - being rendered. To be released soon.
thanks for working on the untrimmed version. Looking forward to it.
Did Swiss ATC upgrade the Air France PanPan call to a Mayday for the Pilots?
Probably, otherwhise the other aircraft on final would not have received a goaround presumably
Do you also happen to have an ATC recording from Dec 13 2023 ~17:00 when GVA was closed for hours due to a private jet which run off the runway? (I was on a flight that was diverted as a result...)
Air France declaring PANPAN but still making sure to be polite and telling the controller “good morning.”
Big props to the pilots and controllers for incredible organization. That was about as smooth as you could be for an emergency.
Wait until you see the untrimmed version with the full ATC radar. That was airplane ballet.
I like how, instead of trying to squeeze in another landing or two, the controllers simply cancel all approach and landing clearances and get everyone out of the way. In the US when you hear someone's going to land immediately ahead of an emergency, I always wonder what's going to happen if that aircraft has a problem on landing.
100% agree. US standards regarding handling of aircraft are likely to cause a serious accident sooner rather than later.
Just imagine having an aircraft stuck on the runway while you're on final with hydraulic or engine problems.
YES. Great observation. An outstanding job by the controllers and crew.
Well, both aircraft ended up diverting. I think there should be a mix between safe and efficiency
@@davidgraham7932 Well, a bunch of unnecessary canceled clearances and diversions are a safety hazard in their own right. Think of how congested the airspace will get if 15 landing clearances are canceled and everybody is swirling around in a hold among a steady stream of new arrivals...
It sounded like she wanted to go direct but had lots of altitude to get rid of
Yeah, they were pretty close to Geneva when they declared the PANPAN and wanted to divert to Geneva or Lyon. That must have been quite the decent rate :O
I read "attitude" and thought wait, what?
I often get the feeling that European pilots are much more assertive and more ready to tell ATC what they need and want in an emergency.
And ATC are very "clean" in their communication. I often listen to Schipol and Zürich
Maybe due to the way we learn to interact with atc, in ppl course we learn that atc is also here to inform and help. We also have an efficient SAR, you will find videos from the French air force sending a rafale to guide private pilots lost in clouds...
That’s your feeling but there’s no truth to your comment in the least. The United States works the safest, most efficient and most congested airspace in the entire world.
@@alexkoble9303I suppose that’s also your feeling and there’s no truth in there, you can’t factually determine what is and isn’t the most congested or complex or safest airspace in the world
@@peterpare8942 you actually can. That’s why my statement is factual and yours is garbage.
Europeans showing proper radio procedures again. I can't remember the last time I heard anyone mention that they were at minimum clean speed in the US, but I have heard it before. Fumes are very worrying because you can't be sure it's not something on fire causing the fumes. And... First after VASAviation.
You don't know what you're talking about
@@N1120A november registration number username, american detected
You mean like the Pan Pan call with no call sign?
I know griping about imaginary problems in US radio communications has become a popular meme in the comments and is a great way to get a handful of likes that boost one's self-esteem, but I don't think people in the US can declare they're at a minimum clean speed if they are never at minimum clean speed. I know that's why I've never heard or said it.
The calls were okay. Air Traffic Control could have been clearer and more concise. He said heading 200. Which had to be repeated and confirmed because he should say 2 0 0.
Indeed a terrific job by all pilots and controllers! Thank you very much for picking this incident up, about which I´m learning here for the first time.👍
Amazing job. If you have an actual fire in a cargo hold, I have been told you have around 20 minutes until the fire compromizes the structural integrity of the plane. So if you see fumes, you need to divert immediatly to the nearest airport
don't aircraft has something like water of extinctors? imagine just being in mid ocean and then you got a fire, 20 minutes wouldn't be sufficient to land in an airfield.
@@grxninesix I'm still trying to figure out how you see fumes. Maybe it's just me.
@@grxninesix most aircraft don't have much more than CO2 or Halon hand extinguishers. For metal fires (eg lithium) these are worse than useless. Water drench systems are not fitted because you then get hundreds of kg of free flowing water than can shift from forward to back or side to side, disrupting the centre of gravity, which will cause the aircraft to become unflyable and crash. In most cases, the only option is to fight the fire with extinguishers to delay spread while landing ASAP, then evacuating once stopped.
@@ryan0io You won't really see fumes (unless the fire is severe). What you will see is an alert on the flight panel indicating a fire on board.
fantastic comms!
If this was SFO everyone would have landed on time and a 737 would be trying to lift off just as the Air France were touching down.
Sounds safe
Yes, but there's only one runway at Geneva. It doesn't help.
@@CedricGniewek That wouldn't stop the SFO controllers from trying.
That's true. SFO is one of the worst, but we see the same in many US airports. Emergency aircraft inbound just a few miles out and one or two departures lined up ready to go before the emergency aircraft. They even do it with emergency aircraft running on one engine, with limited go-around thrust.
the french accent is cool
Unfortunately 120.305 is not available on ATCLive such as Tower and Apron. I hope that we could be able to listen to these next year ^^
Thanks for the video I don't need to download the liveatc archive for that one
'Cause since it's a major city, the tower surely have a rly wide coverage, and she thought she was still in it's radiu
Nicely handled by all involved. Thanks VAS for uploading.
A wee question, if I may. What are the negative numbers displayed as the plane is about to land? I'm guessing rate of descent, but it would be nice to know for sure.
Rate of descent
@@VASAviation Thought so. Many thanks for confirming.
350 is on the right and Geneva is on the left )
how often do pilots request ambulances on arrival. just happened to EIN 179 into DUB
Sorry about that. I had burritos before the flight ♨️
Once again European pilots and ATC demonstrate how radio coms should be handled … unlike those in the US.
:)
I wonder why the pilots called a PANPAN and not a Mayday.
I think because they need priority while they are troubleshooting, but the don't know where the smoke is coming from. If it was confirmed then they would escalate to a Mayday. It was controllers decision to get other aircraft out of the way, but with it being just a pan, it gives a little (just a little) more flexibility to the controllers.
@@tillycatcatand the controller converted the pan to a mayday requesting silence from all stations, isn't it?
@@sebl1987 yes, but that was another controller. And I think that made sense given how fast it can get wrong with fire in a plane.
What did "Milano Tower" have to do with any of this?
Probably it was the previous tower handling them before they flew out of the tower's control area and she forgot/didn't notice about that.
I don’t get how you can contact tower at cruising altitude.
Probably a simple mistake, the previous sector was Milano Control I think.
@@CedricGniewekUsually happens when one is approaching the high stress threshold.
@@CedricGniewek exactly.
Fumes were only in the cabin?
Hope the passagers didn't get too scared
Interesting, she asked vectors to the left side of the aircraft, the right side can go wherever it wishes to. They are 63 nm from Geneva, why think about going to Lyon 112 km further away?, and they haven't decided on an airport, yet?
Big assumption here but maybe she was like "no idea which airport is next to us on the left side of the aircraft but I want to go there"?
I think she just looked at the terrain map and wanted to turn left
So to their right would have been Mont Blanc at 4800m. If you want to decent quickly turning to the left would make more sense.
I can only speculate but I think the question between Geneva and lyon was exactly their distance. At FL340 it doesn't really make a difference if you go straight ahead to Lyon or if you make the turn like they did for Geneva.
There was a distinct change in tone/attitude of their ATC when male pilot/radio voice took over after initial female voice x 3+ interactions w/ATC’;.pls, comment away & I will await full untrimmed version.
I think you're hearing things that confirm your pre-defined biases.
I was on that flight and have been trying to know what the official statement was. For us, it was because of a (really strong) cheese-like odor coming from the backpack of a woman that was seated right behind me, and the backpack was in the overhead bin RIGHT ON TOP of me. The woman refused to let the crew open it and said it wasn’t cheese, but whatever it was it wasn’t illegal because I saw her later with the backpack when they were reassigning us all new flights to France. If someone knows whether it was actually that or something else, I’d like know
Why would other planes need to divert?
So they are on Oxygen masks but only Pan-Pan?
Yes, nothing wrong
Thought pan pan is small technical issues...
Same. The only thing I can come up with is company policy specifying when to use which call. The plane should have full auto land and oxygen so maybe the company doesn't consider that a full emergency? Still doesn't make sense as I type that.
PAN PAN is not necessarily for technical issues. It is for urgency conditions, defined as follows: "a condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of some person on board or within sight, but which does not require immediate assistance." MAYDAY is for distress conditions, defined as follows: "a condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and of requiring immediate assistance." (both definitions taken from ICAO Annex 10 Volume 2 Section 5.3.1.1).
An example for a non-technical PAN PAN might be a VFR pilot that got lost, but is in good visibility and has plenty of fuel. He certainly needs some assistance, but is not at a risk of crashing in the next few minutes. Or another example is anything urgent that doesn't concern your own aircraft, e.g. you see a burning ship and want to tell ATC so they can alert the coast guard or whoever is appropriate, that would be a PAN PAN call too.
I think fumes on board may well warrant a MAYDAY, certainly if it can't be ruled out that the source may be a fire. But ultimately it's up to the judgement of the pilots.
In the end it hardly matters much which one you use. Either one will get you the full attention of ATC and priority over all other traffic.
@@yarati4584 : in this case ATC clearly decided to ignore the silly pilots and escalate it to a mayday -- including deciding on Geneva for the pilots.
I think the smoke is from a frying pan, and with the masks, he had to repeat it😅
QF32 ex SIN only called a PAN-PAN-PAN
Strong fumes of garlic in this one...
Was someone on board blowing phat clouds of vape?
Yes probably the first officer
@@andyasdf2078 That's what the masks were actually being used for?
@@clqudy4750it wasn't a plane, it was an air france-themed flying shisha bar
I really don't think that's necessary to give missed approach to those two aircraft. The emergency aircraft is far away, I can understand the going around of following aircraft due to possible runway occupation, but why let the preceding ones go
What if one of those prior aircraft had a problem on the runway, tying it up? Now you've got an aircraft with a possible fire aboard, unable to land.
Clearing all traffic is a very good decision and appears to be automatic/standard procedure. Someone actually thought this through and wrote the procedures, then trained ATC properly, unlike in podunk, USA.
And both ended up diverting to Lyon
@@k1mgyso if an aircraft declare an emergency, and request a runway, from now on, no one can land on that runway. Even it's still hundreds of miles away? Is there a standard or SOP for this kind of situation?
@@VASAviation unlucky
@@michaelwei575yes and it is specific for each airport
That easyJet and emirates planes did not have to go around. They could have vacated the runway before the Air France landed.
Think standard procedure just in case one of the preceding planes has a technical on the runway and canˋt vacate anymore. Explain then the go around call to the airplane in distress…
@@stephanhaering7483horrible practice. Shutdown the whole damn airspace for an emergency hundreds of miles out. Lol
@@stephanhaering7483 but then, those preceding planes might have an emergency if they run out of fuel or have to do a second go around.
@@SYDAirlineEnthusiastalternates exist for a reason
Geneva is in middle of the alps montain, I think they want to make sure the emergency plane doesnt have to go around because the plane before has a issue. (and other plane can divert to Lyon for example which is not far away)
Hm no question about Fuel, and Souls on Board. How can they even handle such a situation without those informations? Those liberal europeans are a shame
air france has a bad safty record
Erm, no. Just because AFR447 happened, doesn’t mean it’s got a bad safety record
AF358 made me avoid Air France
Let’s not forget AF4590