I spotted several things here, that was really really good (and even if it seems like obvious it is not something that everyone do!): * Clearly telling about the problem and what their request was. * The classical Aviate - Navigate - Communicate was present in several areas: -- At first, they wanted to stay with tower (instead of switching and all that comes with it) so they could concentrate on flying. -- Reason for go around was not important at that moment. They wanted to fly the airplane, and if you have shaky air speed indicator, you need more focus on that - flying the airplane. * Clear requests all through. Height, place and more. * Caring for the airport and surround (can we hold here or is this fucking up your plans on the airport) * Other plane double checked what to do in a missed since they noticed that the by the book are had a plane in it. * Did a missed because... something was not as perfect as they would have wanted it to be. Better safe than sorry and they had a lot of tries regarding the fuel that was left so, no hurry. * Planning ahead with everything from missed to rolling out the end.
This comment is pretty much the best one on this video imo. Excellent summary, especially since many are asking about the go-around. They were still very heavy on fuel after all 👍
They planned to land at max landing weight but i think they hadn't burned it all off when commencing the approach and went around because they were still just above it.
@@lawrencewestby9229 Yes, you plan and need a "perfect" landing right on the numbers when at Max weight. With an airspeed indication problem you may also plan a faster than normal approach. Really no need to take chances with a fully functioning aircraft. Of course if you hit perfect landings as a pilot 99.9% of the time (and i know some who do!), you are certain to mess up the 0.1% of the time you need one!
Another possibility: they were landing the opposite side of the runway compared to the other flights. Maybe, the tailwind component got higher than expected?
Extremely professional behavior by all, concern for other aircraft in the area, and the other Wizzair having situational awareness of the holding flight was very unexpected and restores confidence that there are professionals still flying.
A320/321 can make overweight landing normally. the correct reason for holding is leveling off for troubleshooting after unreliable speed indication memory item applied. With respect to the pilots, they were giving ATC the option to send them some where for holding instead of requesting specific position for holding at specific altitude( that should have been stated during TO briefing). Commendability!
Very well handled by both tower and pilots. I just looked at a trip with Wizz Air two weeks ago to Bucharest, but their reviews are even worse than Ryanair (says a lot), so I decided to go with another airline. But, hearing this I have least have some confidence in their pilots skills! I may reconsider them for another trip later in the year because of this. If anything goes wrong, I will be happy to fly with these pilots. :-)
Nonsense! I actually prefer Wizz over Ryanair... Just because. I think they both have bad reviews because of people used to fly legacy airlines, often payed by their companies and so on, and because of the no-frills approach. But for my money, I always chosen low-cost to fly around Europe and kept the money to spend on a better hotel and other goodies. Never an issue.
I fly often from Köln or Dortmund (CGN & DTM) to Kyiv. I use WizzAir for more than 8 years now. I cannot complain. Most of the time they are on time. You don't have much legroom, but what do you want to expect when purchasing a ticket for less than 20€? Safety and good CRM seemt to be a standard in WizzAir policy.
Too bad that plane was shown taking off with no flaps or slats! Someone should have been getting a take-off configuration warning if that was accurate. At least it landed with flaps deployed in the recreation.
Well done by all the pilots, including the company traffic coming in to have the heads up enough to ask about MA procedures with regards to the holding aircraft. I’m guessing they went around because they weren’t quite at max landing weight (they’d be facing some questioning by maintenance and leadership as to why they landed above max landing weight for that problem). Well done Wizz Air pilots and all the controllers involved!
I had to look up "drum bun" - Romanian for "farewell" per google. Also the name of a very nice Romanian military march! Love the stuff I learn watching this channel!
"drum" means "way", i.e. "drum bun" literally translates to "way good" (meaning "have a good trip"); "la revedere": good bye (literally: to seeing again, same as "arrivederci" in italian; the latin origin (not slavic, as some believe) of romanian language is quite obvious here) multumimi: thanks in plural ("we thank")
Wiz 2AR was on the ball. Full marks for monitoring the airband and being aware of what was going on even while preparing their own approach. I'm a rank novice but recognise that as great airmanship. Bonus easter egg that I wasn't expecting.
I fly regulary with WizzAir from Germany Köln / Cologne (CGN) and Dortmund (DTM) to Kyiv (IEV). Technical problems can occour, but it is always good to know, that the Crew is working on a very high level. I am not afraid of a technical issue, but of wrong CRM. Seems like, not only in the Cabin but also in the Cockpit the level of proffessionality is high. Even if the flights are often very cheap. TIme to bock a flight now after some restrictions of Corona are lifted.
So did they ever tell the reason for the missed approach? Anyway, great professionalism by the Wizzair crew. They handled it perfectly and it was a pleasure listening to him.
I would love to know too, but mostly I'm thankful the pilots elected to go around rather than try to force through whatever condition they didn't like. The plane was flying fine from the sounds of it but I'd imagine caution is heightened when landing max weight OR with an airspeed indication problem, much less both.
I managed a similar situation, years ago. Kudos to everyone. For the atc: maybe if you say the radar speed to the pilot, now and then, you could even help more.
The incident aircraft indicates the incident is resolved but they need to hold to burn fuel. I'm guessing either they isolated the incorrect airspeed and set displays to give them accurate data. Did they not continue to destination due to rvsm or oceanic requirements for all systems to be operative or due to remaining fuel being inadequate after holding to isolate the erroneous airspeed?
Was flying at KSNA doing pattern work #1 plane for 20L in front of me lost power on take off from a touch and go under three hundred feet did a 180 and landed 20R. First emergency I’ve seen in person and the guy executed it perfectly would love to see the break down of it
Some of the Romaian ATCs' accents are (a lot) stronger then others. They are, however, easier to understand. Native english speaking ATCs usually talk way too fast and bind sounds and silables together so that even for a non-native speaker it can be at times difficult to understand. In this case the Approach ATC's enghlish is... suprisingly good and the accent wasn't that obvious, at least compared to the tower's.
4:04 this is doesn't make any sense the controller confirmed to execute the missed approach procedure in case of a go around and then he told them they will get vectors back for another approach in case of a go around.
Love the opening, however the reg is wrong, this was HA-LYV, not -LWI, also the animation shows an A321, whereas the incident aircraft was an A320, not to mention in the old livery.
We have already had this discussion and it seems FR24 has labelled the track wrong as there are other sources from the time it happened that state it was actually LWI. Not sure why FR24 labelled it wrong
That sounds dangerous in an commercial airliner setting. Unnecessarily putting lives at risk. Aerial refueling is generally only performed by the military.
Pumping the fuel is the dangerous part. Keeping the aircraft lines togather means either the aircrafts have to dock or be very precise by flying togather. The act of the pumping is also dangerous because of the fumes and how quickly it would need to be exchanged. Now personally, I think something like a fuel recovery pod, or some kind of neutralizer and ejector would be the way to go. IE mix something removable later into a special modular fuel tank, and eject it, or better yet, have something remove it by either a drone, or a parashute, then collected. It would have to be neutralized first and very difficult with the amount of planes in the air at any given time. Ejecting projectiles to other jet engines would be a major hazard, so maybe a special no fly zone
VASAviation - isn’t ATC’s information in Europe from mostly from transponders if the transponder is reporting info? I.e. if planes instruments are in error and transponding bad info, the info on ATC screen will also become unreliable? I have a vague memory of that being part of an accident long ago. Not that I know anything about airplanes and could be totally wrong, I just have a vague memory of seeing something like that in an airplane crash documentary.
Marko Nikolic I think I’ve found a reference to what I had a vague memory of; an 2011 safety warning on ATCs being fed incorrect data when airplane is in error mode and transponding garbage. Not sure if that problem is reliably remedied today. Perhaps a well trained ground controller can distinguish between transponded data and actual radar readings. “The controller decided to obtain an independent verification of aircraft’s Mode C from a third-party agency; he subsequently received confirmation that the displayed altitude on radar corresponded to that shown on No1 altimeter and the aircraft’s assigned flight level and he informed the pilot accordingly. It transpired however, that due to a faulty altimeter, the displayed altitude information was incorrect - the Mode C and No1 altimeter were both showing an altitude 2000 feet below the PC12’s actual level (as shown correctly on the No 2 altimeter).”
@Mircea Altitude is measured with air pressure (an accurate barometer). In order to know how high you are above sea level, you set your altimeter to the current air pressure (e.g. @9:04 you hear QNH 1020, which means 1020 mbar air pressure at sea level). The air pressure is important because the wrong setting could result in not enough clearance to high obstacles, e.g. mountains. Fast forward to international flight. Air pressures differ between regions. You don't want to correct your altimeter all the time. You don't want incorrect altimeter settings to result in collisions. In order to mitigate that, they change to "flight levels". They all set the altimeter to 1013 mbar and be done with it. It is no longer called "altitude" (as it refers to altitude above ground level) but "flight level" (where 4000ft would translate into FL40, dividing by 100). Some call it barometric altitude. There is always a regional rule on where to switch from "altitude" to "flight level". This is called transition altitude (above it, you must switch from altitude to flight level). There is also a transition level (where below it, you must switch to altitude). Sometimes this is high (e.g. in the presence of mountains). But even in the Netherlands, which is flat, it is 3500 ft / FL40. It can also differ between VFR and IFR. An example of a regional rule: www.lvnl.nl/eaip/2020-07-02-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html This procedure, of adjusting to QNH or 1013 will change the indicated altitude on your altimeter. In the past, incorrect altimeter readings have crashed a lot of planes, e.g. Turkish Airline 981.
VASAviation - well in that case they must have tagged the wrong registration to the track because the track is still available to view and it says HA-LYV
I see what you mean now. That is very strange. I have Gold subscription and I have checked the replay for that day. FR24 shows LWI in emergency but the history for LWI is empty and the emergency track is on LYV instead.
@@tomstravels520 The Aviation Herald (Report from May 24th, 2020 - please read more there) stated that it was HA-LWI performing Flight W6-3201 from Bucharest Otopeni to Stockholm who had the incident. HA-LYV as replacement reached Stockholm with a delay of 4:15 h.
Because it could be an indication of a larger problem and the problem could recur. You don't want to be the pilot who says oh okay, we're good, and then a larger problem surfaces at a much higher altitude and with no nearby runway to emergency land.
The main reason is because you don't know what it could be. Maybe the pitot tube was obstructed or there is a problem with the indicator itself. In those cases the issue could come back anytime while flying and it could be a fatal accident (there was already one accident for this kind of issue). Also because the flight was already burning fuel for come back. Even if the flight must have extra fuel for any kind of problem at landing, it could be unsafe to continuing flying with less fuel than normal because if there is any issue while landing (like missing approach, or long wait pattern) the pilots will not have a lot of error margin (there was also an accident for something like this. Not exactly the same but kind of) Edit: by the way, the accident about the speed indicator was the Birgenair Flight 301
Adding to the given reasons it even makes sense economicly to return to Bucharest because Wizz Air operates a base there and should have at least some maintainance there. Further they might have a spare plane at their base. There is no base in Sweden. The spare plane would have to fly to Sweden in both cases, since you will not depart when you have a fault in your speed system.
They only held for less than 1 hour, they just needed to reduce weight by about 2.5 tons or 6000 lbs. Many countries will not allow you to dump fuel unless you declare an emergency. And yes the A320 cannot dump fuel. Many airliners can’t.
How come? I think they were very good and clear. And personally I've had little to no trouble at all understanding heavy irish, indian, australian accents, even most of the chinese ones,
If airspeed is good enough to hold for hours, its good enough to continue to destination. Most companies allow overweight landing as this qualifies as an exceptional situation.
You’d only declare a mayday or emergency if there was risk to life. It was a safety problem but not necessarily a risk to life so Pan pan is the appropriate call
*Pan Pan is an emergency,* and gives essentially the same priority as a Mayday. In fact, the only thing that can preempt a Pan Pan _is_ a Mayday, which is why Pan Pan exists... for issues that are not immediately and urgently life-threatening, to help ATC prioritize in case multiple cases arise simultaneously.
The Pan call was appropriate; and honestly they really didn’t need to make that call either. And you could tell they were hesitant to even declare a Pan call.
Guessing the real reason for go-around was to burn off more fuel (you burn a lot of fuel executing a missed approach especially going into TOGA. I’d imagine the pilots also wanted to feel the airplane out in landing configuration to see which airspeed indicator is most reliable.
@@smartycummins2500 One other possibility is if they were touching down just a little further down the runway than they anticipated or wanted - especially if they're at max weight and have a potentially unreliable air speed indicator, this could be considered the prudent choice, just to make sure they have room to stop. But either way, it's nice to hear everyone staying calm and getting on with a solid job. :-)
![[REAL ATC] Brickyard SUFFERS TRIM RUNAWAY | CONTROL ISSUES at Atlanta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzoEsM0L2CM/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] Brickyard SUFFERS TRIM RUNAWAY | CONTROL ISSUES at Atlanta](/img/tr.png)
Seems unimportant but you don't want to lose your airspeed indications...
Pitot Static and Air Data Computer issues are always important since you cannot hear the hum in the biplane wing wires any more.
ATC pronunciation for the departure controller is quite sub-standard here. I understand English may not be their native language but...
Yeah you always have the stick shaker
Qingnan Duan this was an airbus. They don’t have them
Qingnan Duan - The one controlled by the ADC?
When your flight turns into a sightseeing tour of Bucharest instead
LMFAO
Looks kids! Big Ben, Parliament...
I spotted several things here, that was really really good (and even if it seems like obvious it is not something that everyone do!):
* Clearly telling about the problem and what their request was.
* The classical Aviate - Navigate - Communicate was present in several areas:
-- At first, they wanted to stay with tower (instead of switching and all that comes with it) so they could concentrate on flying.
-- Reason for go around was not important at that moment. They wanted to fly the airplane, and if you have shaky air speed indicator, you need more focus on that - flying the airplane.
* Clear requests all through. Height, place and more.
* Caring for the airport and surround (can we hold here or is this fucking up your plans on the airport)
* Other plane double checked what to do in a missed since they noticed that the by the book are had a plane in it.
* Did a missed because... something was not as perfect as they would have wanted it to be. Better safe than sorry and they had a lot of tries regarding the fuel that was left so, no hurry.
* Planning ahead with everything from missed to rolling out the end.
This comment is pretty much the best one on this video imo. Excellent summary, especially since many are asking about the go-around. They were still very heavy on fuel after all 👍
@@revenevan11 Thank you! Makes me happy to read!
This is one of my favorite channels on RUclips and the new beginning of this just gives me chills in all the best ways possible
Yeah it looked awesome.
Always making new things for the viewers trying to improve the content :)
They planned to land at max landing weight but i think they hadn't burned it all off when commencing the approach and went around because they were still just above it.
The other possibility I thought of was perhaps they were going to touch down a bit farther down the runway than they wanted considering the weight.
@@lawrencewestby9229 Yes, you plan and need a "perfect" landing right on the numbers when at Max weight. With an airspeed indication problem you may also plan a faster than normal approach. Really no need to take chances with a fully functioning aircraft. Of course if you hit perfect landings as a pilot 99.9% of the time (and i know some who do!), you are certain to mess up the 0.1% of the time you need one!
I agree with either contingency. In addition, no problem practicing a missed approach either.
Another possibility: they were landing the opposite side of the runway compared to the other flights. Maybe, the tailwind component got higher than expected?
@@murrmiaow wind at 290 should be fine for Runnway 26, shouldnt be?
Beautiful to see how the pilots handled this problem with so much professionalism. Great job by the pilots and as always a great video from you!
Thanks a lot!
Extremely professional behavior by all, concern for other aircraft in the area, and the other Wizzair having situational awareness of the holding flight was very unexpected and restores confidence that there are professionals still flying.
A great video and job! I was quite surprised to see so many Wizz flights at OTP. As if there were no other airlines.
A320/321 can make overweight landing normally. the correct reason for holding is leveling off for troubleshooting after unreliable speed indication memory item applied. With respect to the pilots, they were giving ATC the option to send them some where for holding instead of requesting specific position for holding at specific altitude( that should have been stated during TO briefing). Commendability!
Very well handled by both tower and pilots. I just looked at a trip with Wizz Air two weeks ago to Bucharest, but their reviews are even worse than Ryanair (says a lot), so I decided to go with another airline. But, hearing this I have least have some confidence in their pilots skills! I may reconsider them for another trip later in the year because of this. If anything goes wrong, I will be happy to fly with these pilots. :-)
Nonsense! I actually prefer Wizz over Ryanair... Just because. I think they both have bad reviews because of people used to fly legacy airlines, often payed by their companies and so on, and because of the no-frills approach. But for my money, I always chosen low-cost to fly around Europe and kept the money to spend on a better hotel and other goodies. Never an issue.
I fly often from Köln or Dortmund (CGN & DTM) to Kyiv. I use WizzAir for more than 8 years now. I cannot complain. Most of the time they are on time. You don't have much legroom, but what do you want to expect when purchasing a ticket for less than 20€? Safety and good CRM seemt to be a standard in WizzAir policy.
All communication is done in english, so everybody on the frequency can understand what is going on. Well done!
Ok love that opening.
Too bad that plane was shown taking off with no flaps or slats! Someone should have been getting a take-off configuration warning if that was accurate. At least it landed with flaps deployed in the recreation.
ATC is still waiting for the Go Around reason :D
Well done by all the pilots, including the company traffic coming in to have the heads up enough to ask about MA procedures with regards to the holding aircraft. I’m guessing they went around because they weren’t quite at max landing weight (they’d be facing some questioning by maintenance and leadership as to why they landed above max landing weight for that problem). Well done Wizz Air pilots and all the controllers involved!
I had to look up "drum bun" - Romanian for "farewell" per google. Also the name of a very nice Romanian military march! Love the stuff I learn watching this channel!
VASAviation also teaches languages :)
@@VASAviation Indeed! I'm looking forward to using "drum bun" in near future. :)
"drum" means "way", i.e. "drum bun" literally translates to "way good" (meaning "have a good trip");
"la revedere": good bye (literally: to seeing again, same as "arrivederci" in italian; the latin origin (not slavic, as some believe) of romanian language is quite obvious here)
multumimi: thanks in plural ("we thank")
And yea, somtimes they use ”LA RE” as a short for ”la revedere”
It's another way to say goodbye
I can't translate it directly
Wiz 2AR was on the ball. Full marks for monitoring the airband and being aware of what was going on even while preparing their own approach. I'm a rank novice but recognise that as great airmanship. Bonus easter egg that I wasn't expecting.
It's a good thing that aircrew and ATC operators are trained to such a very high standard, they are well worth the money they earn.
All right then, keep your secrets...
love the safe landings !! thks for the clip!
That opening was sick
wow this sounds much like AirFrance 447, frozen tubes if they had IAS issue...great pilots and great ATC
I fly regulary with WizzAir from Germany Köln / Cologne (CGN) and Dortmund (DTM) to Kyiv (IEV).
Technical problems can occour, but it is always good to know, that the Crew is working on a very high level. I am not afraid of a technical issue, but of wrong CRM. Seems like, not only in the Cabin but also in the Cockpit the level of proffessionality is high. Even if the flights are often very cheap.
TIme to bock a flight now after some restrictions of Corona are lifted.
Such a good pilot!
4:07 Checked the charts for LROP, the missed approach hold at OPT is at 3000 feet, 1000 feet below where WZZ6373 is holding.
You don't wanna join a holding 1000 below an emergency aircraft
VASAviation - it was not an emergency
2AR paying attention!
It’s like watching NASCAR. Left turn... left turn... left turn...
So did they ever tell the reason for the missed approach?
Anyway, great professionalism by the Wizzair crew. They handled it perfectly and it was a pleasure listening to him.
Not on frequency. Maybe on the phone thereafter
The guys haven't flown much due to the pandemic, so they wanted to get some more stick time and went around 😉
Do we know the reason for the go around? \m/
They never said on frequency
I would love to know too, but mostly I'm thankful the pilots elected to go around rather than try to force through whatever condition they didn't like. The plane was flying fine from the sounds of it but I'd imagine caution is heightened when landing max weight OR with an airspeed indication problem, much less both.
Landing conditions may not have been right with a maximum landing weight touchdown. Luckily, this had been planned before the approach.
Great job from the ATC and Pilots, all of them are Romanian. La revedere !
I managed a similar situation, years ago. Kudos to everyone. For the atc: maybe if you say the radar speed to the pilot, now and then, you could even help more.
Can we get ATC from when that C-17 Accidentally landed at the wrong airport in sep, 2012?
The incident aircraft indicates the incident is resolved but they need to hold to burn fuel. I'm guessing either they isolated the incorrect airspeed and set displays to give them accurate data. Did they not continue to destination due to rvsm or oceanic requirements for all systems to be operative or due to remaining fuel being inadequate after holding to isolate the erroneous airspeed?
My first flight HA-LWI 🙂✈
Boiler elado! 😁
Got an ad at the start of the video for Jet2Holidays. Riiiight.....
Was flying at KSNA doing pattern work #1 plane for 20L in front of me lost power on take off from a touch and go under three hundred feet did a 180 and landed 20R. First emergency I’ve seen in person and the guy executed it perfectly would love to see the break down of it
Don’t you mean 02L if he took off from 20L and then did 180?
Date and time?
Thomas Mortimore yes
My bad
VASAviation - 7/24/20 around 3-4 pm
why he do on this case for a special altidude in case of miss approach?
Bucharest Approach's English...
I know right? It sounds kinda like an American accent even
@@willduan4869 maybe he earns more in OTP than in ORD or JFK xd
@@HappyStoriesForKidsButNotOnly nah, the Romanian accent can be heard quite clearly.
@@willduan4869 I can understand him a lot better than most of the American ATCs I hear on these videos!
Some of the Romaian ATCs' accents are (a lot) stronger then others.
They are, however, easier to understand. Native english speaking ATCs usually talk way too fast and bind sounds and silables together so that even for a non-native speaker it can be at times difficult to understand.
In this case the Approach ATC's enghlish is... suprisingly good and the accent wasn't that obvious, at least compared to the tower's.
I still want to know the exact reason for the go around.
4:04 this is doesn't make any sense the controller confirmed to execute the missed approach procedure in case of a go around and then he told them they will get vectors back for another approach in case of a go around.
It does. Follow the standard but expect vectors at some point
Their clearance is to follow standard missed app, vectors are to be expected only.
0:24 Stockhold! 😂😂 More like Stockholm (Arlanda)
Do they have to comply with the sterile cockpit rules during the hold?
Barceman 1003 yes
For passengers gotta be a boring flight. Glad they were cautious.
Love the opening, however the reg is wrong, this was HA-LYV, not -LWI, also the animation shows an A321, whereas the incident aircraft was an A320, not to mention in the old livery.
We have already had this discussion and it seems FR24 has labelled the track wrong as there are other sources from the time it happened that state it was actually LWI. Not sure why FR24 labelled it wrong
We have already discussed this. The aircraft with the emergency was LWI
@@VASAviation My bad, probably missed that part.
There is aerial refueling...why not aerial "unfueling" so it's not wasted?
That sounds dangerous in an commercial airliner setting. Unnecessarily putting lives at risk. Aerial refueling is generally only performed by the military.
What commercial aircraft have aerial refuelling?
@@tomstravels520 None. Some can't even dump fuel.
Pumping the fuel is the dangerous part. Keeping the aircraft lines togather means either the aircrafts have to dock or be very precise by flying togather. The act of the pumping is also dangerous because of the fumes and how quickly it would need to be exchanged.
Now personally, I think something like a fuel recovery pod, or some kind of neutralizer and ejector would be the way to go. IE mix something removable later into a special modular fuel tank, and eject it, or better yet, have something remove it by either a drone, or a parashute, then collected. It would have to be neutralized first and very difficult with the amount of planes in the air at any given time. Ejecting projectiles to other jet engines would be a major hazard, so maybe a special no fly zone
Keith _ huh? Do you really think what you said is logical at all?
Can someone explain why didn't the pilots go to dump fuel?
This aircraft cannot dump fuel
Reason for the missed approach?
Unknown
Thanks
Why does this aircraft's P&W sound like a NEO?
Maybe because it's not p&w and it's not a neo? 😁
2 missed approaches - bad weather at the moment?
One missed approach by Wizzair
Couldn't ATC verify their airspeed so they could verify which instruments were working correctly ? Couldn't they get AS from a GPS app ?
ATC usually just gets Groundspeed
@@VASAviation Yeah, I guess. You can't get actual air speed with GPS unless there is no wind.
VASAviation - isn’t ATC’s information in Europe from mostly from transponders if the transponder is reporting info? I.e. if planes instruments are in error and transponding bad info, the info on ATC screen will also become unreliable? I have a vague memory of that being part of an accident long ago. Not that I know anything about airplanes and could be totally wrong, I just have a vague memory of seeing something like that in an airplane crash documentary.
randomgeocacher it should be a mixture of primary and secondary radars combined with ads-b
Marko Nikolic I think I’ve found a reference to what I had a vague memory of; an 2011 safety warning on ATCs being fed incorrect data when airplane is in error mode and transponding garbage. Not sure if that problem is reliably remedied today. Perhaps a well trained ground controller can distinguish between transponded data and actual radar readings.
“The controller decided to obtain an independent verification of aircraft’s Mode C from a third-party agency; he subsequently received confirmation that the displayed altitude on radar corresponded to that shown on No1 altimeter and the aircraft’s assigned flight level and he informed the pilot accordingly. It transpired however, that due to a faulty altimeter, the displayed altitude information was incorrect - the Mode C and No1 altimeter were both showing an altitude 2000 feet below the PC12’s actual level (as shown correctly on the No 2 altimeter).”
See how the pilot hesitates about the transition altitude (@1:10 it requests FL40 but gets back an altitude of 4000 feet)
@Mircea Altitude is measured with air pressure (an accurate barometer). In order to know how high you are above sea level, you set your altimeter to the current air pressure (e.g. @9:04 you hear QNH 1020, which means 1020 mbar air pressure at sea level). The air pressure is important because the wrong setting could result in not enough clearance to high obstacles, e.g. mountains.
Fast forward to international flight. Air pressures differ between regions. You don't want to correct your altimeter all the time. You don't want incorrect altimeter settings to result in collisions. In order to mitigate that, they change to "flight levels". They all set the altimeter to 1013 mbar and be done with it. It is no longer called "altitude" (as it refers to altitude above ground level) but "flight level" (where 4000ft would translate into FL40, dividing by 100). Some call it barometric altitude.
There is always a regional rule on where to switch from "altitude" to "flight level". This is called transition altitude (above it, you must switch from altitude to flight level). There is also a transition level (where below it, you must switch to altitude). Sometimes this is high (e.g. in the presence of mountains). But even in the Netherlands, which is flat, it is 3500 ft / FL40. It can also differ between VFR and IFR. An example of a regional rule: www.lvnl.nl/eaip/2020-07-02-AIRAC/html/index-en-GB.html
This procedure, of adjusting to QNH or 1013 will change the indicated altitude on your altimeter. In the past, incorrect altimeter readings have crashed a lot of planes, e.g. Turkish Airline 981.
ESSA = Stockholm, Sweden
"Wind 290 at 4"
Then why on Earth is 08L the active runway?
4 knots
@@VASAviation That's indeed not much, almost calm, it'd just make more sense (with the context I have) to switch over to 26.
Why 26? Preference is 08
@@VASAviation Any why's that?
Think you have the wrong reg and airport. According to Flightradar24 it was HA-LYV and it was going to Stockholm Skavsta (ESKN)
Incorrect. This was HA-LWI
VASAviation - well in that case they must have tagged the wrong registration to the track because the track is still available to view and it says HA-LYV
I see what you mean now. That is very strange. I have Gold subscription and I have checked the replay for that day. FR24 shows LWI in emergency but the history for LWI is empty and the emergency track is on LYV instead.
VASAviation - yes same subscription. That’s why I was convinced it was LYV as for me it shows (on phone app) that LWI didn’t fly that day
@@tomstravels520 The Aviation Herald (Report from May 24th, 2020 - please read more there) stated that it was HA-LWI performing Flight W6-3201 from Bucharest Otopeni to Stockholm who had the incident. HA-LYV as replacement reached Stockholm with a delay of 4:15 h.
I see where their name comes from now 😂
that plane took a wizz
3:26 "the problem is now solved" - if it's fixed why return to the field?
Because it could be an indication of a larger problem and the problem could recur. You don't want to be the pilot who says oh okay, we're good, and then a larger problem surfaces at a much higher altitude and with no nearby runway to emergency land.
The main reason is because you don't know what it could be. Maybe the pitot tube was obstructed or there is a problem with the indicator itself. In those cases the issue could come back anytime while flying and it could be a fatal accident (there was already one accident for this kind of issue).
Also because the flight was already burning fuel for come back. Even if the flight must have extra fuel for any kind of problem at landing, it could be unsafe to continuing flying with less fuel than normal because if there is any issue while landing (like missing approach, or long wait pattern) the pilots will not have a lot of error margin (there was also an accident for something like this. Not exactly the same but kind of)
Edit: by the way, the accident about the speed indicator was the Birgenair Flight 301
exactly 🤷🏻♂️
Adding to the given reasons it even makes sense economicly to return to Bucharest because Wizz Air operates a base there and should have at least some maintainance there. Further they might have a spare plane at their base. There is no base in Sweden. The spare plane would have to fly to Sweden in both cases, since you will not depart when you have a fault in your speed system.
@@jpzv_old Air France 447 was also brought down because the pilots reacted poorly to non-functional air speed indicators.
Can anyone explain why they held for 2.5 hours instead of requesting a fuel dumping at a higher altitude? Those poor, passengers!
The Airbus A320 doesn’t have fuel jettison.
Because the A320 can’t dump fuel
They only held for less than 1 hour, they just needed to reduce weight by about 2.5 tons or 6000 lbs. Many countries will not allow you to dump fuel unless you declare an emergency. And yes the A320 cannot dump fuel. Many airliners can’t.
Made it eventually then!
I glad someone can understand those accents...without captions I wouldn't have understood a word.
How come? I think they were very good and clear. And personally I've had little to no trouble at all understanding heavy irish, indian, australian accents, even most of the chinese ones,
wizzair? that paint job though.....and the name....soooo, there is alot of pissing going on in those planes....
If airspeed is good enough to hold for hours, its good enough to continue to destination.
Most companies allow overweight landing as this qualifies as an exceptional situation.
Stockhold? The capital of Sweden you mean?
That's Støckhøld :P
yes
what a problem xD
Thats a A321. Just fyi.
WIZZAIR? Good grief!
I thought English was the international language for aviation but the very first air traffic control voice was stretching that concept.
Wizzair? What a horrible name. Are you sure that's a fuel dump?
No it’s not a fuel dump it’s a fuel burn. A320 can’t dump fuel
@@tomstravels520 I know...it was a joke , but if i have to explain it....
6/10
Should have declared an emergency
You’d only declare a mayday or emergency if there was risk to life. It was a safety problem but not necessarily a risk to life so Pan pan is the appropriate call
*Pan Pan is an emergency,* and gives essentially the same priority as a Mayday. In fact, the only thing that can preempt a Pan Pan _is_ a Mayday, which is why Pan Pan exists... for issues that are not immediately and urgently life-threatening, to help ATC prioritize in case multiple cases arise simultaneously.
The Pan call was appropriate; and honestly they really didn’t need to make that call either. And you could tell they were hesitant to even declare a Pan call.
Guessing the real reason for go-around was to burn off more fuel (you burn a lot of fuel executing a missed approach especially going into TOGA. I’d imagine the pilots also wanted to feel the airplane out in landing configuration to see which airspeed indicator is most reliable.
That can be a guess indeed
VASAviation - just a guess! Always fun to guess! Safe flying man, I’m a CFII in South Carolina
@@smartycummins2500 One other possibility is if they were touching down just a little further down the runway than they anticipated or wanted - especially if they're at max weight and have a potentially unreliable air speed indicator, this could be considered the prudent choice, just to make sure they have room to stop. But either way, it's nice to hear everyone staying calm and getting on with a solid job. :-)