JBU169 took off runway 13R at around 20:00Z, so definitely not night time. Charge that burned fuel and delay to that Airport vehicles driver!!!---- (kidding. Better be safe.... Well done)
Kidding or not, the vehicle occupant saw something and reported it. Good call! Dubious decision to continue the flight IMHO, that was a substantial piece of FOD and looking like it fell from the aircraft it likely got kicked up pretty hard on the runway. Who knows what damage it may have done! Anyway, I guess you fly an uber-low cost airline and get go-itis. Glad all ended well on this occasion.
I wonder if they ever determined what and where that piece came from, since it was determined not to even be an aircraft part. Could it have been a piece of FOD that the aircraft may have run over and dislodged off the runway so it appeared to fall from the aircraft.
@@BillySugger1965 Even if it didn't fall off they either hit it or it was sucked into the air with the takeoff turbulence. Definitely something to tell someone about.
@@BillySugger1965 Well the plane has been flying normally before and since and they had no indications of anything wrong, so I wonder why that gets labeled as uber low cost (JetBlue isn't) or go-itis.
It is a mechanical part (possibly like a hydraulic ram) that pushes and pulls another part such as a lever to control the operation of a component such as brakes, flaps etc. Basically, your leg or arm is an actuator.
Smaller debris than that's destroyed aircraft - both by falling off a plane (it's a stretch, but china airlines flight 120) or by leaping up from the runway to strike some other plane (Continental flight 55 lost a part-> Air France 4590 found the lost part)
I don’t know what else Car 97 could do other than to report he saw what looked like a part falling from the plane taking off. Obviously the faster it is retrieved and positively identified, the better.
That's interesting. I wonder what it was? Perhaps "Actuator" was an incorrect designation. So either it was already on the runway and Jetblue hit it making it bounce and appear to fall off, or it was something other than an aircraft part, perhaps a tool, that was left lying on the aircraft and fell off during takeoff. Either case, I would think a precautionary inspection of the aircraft would be in order. But what do I know?
It’s actually good to know the ground true is vigilant, as frustrating as it might be. We don’t want to hear somebody saw something AFTER a critical incident. See something, say something…..still
It was probably on or near the runway and was kicked into the air as the plane went over it. It's an odd one, though. I wonder what it was and how it got there...
@@thomasdalton1508Lot of ground vehicles in and around the runways at JFK for a variety of tasks. Easily couldve broken off of one of them and not been found. Especially for something like a car brake where you might only notice you have a problem when you try braking a few thousand feet down the runway
@@jyggalag169 Indeed, there are various ways it could have got there. It would be interesting to know. Brake actuators don't usually fall off cars, though (or planes for that matter). I think that's probably a red herring. The pilot was just speculating and was probably deliberately thinking of the worst thing it could be. If it were an aileron actuator, for example, he would probably have noticed the ailerons not working properly, so he could rule that out, but there is no way to test the brakes in flight. I expect there are a lot of actuators on tugs, so it might have been from one of them.
@@jyggalag169 Likely from heavy equipment. Dozers, plows, sweepers, and mowers all use actuators to lift and lower their equipment. I'd speculate that it come from one of those.
Hey i know this one, happend to listen at that moment to tower atc at jfk. If i can remember a plane waiting for departure reported the incident first to the controller.
I'm surprised they initially kept climbing with a report that something had fallen off the plane. If there is any possibility of a structural problem, you should stop the climb and avoid pressurising the aircraft. It's unlikely to be anything structural (the structural components are usually very securely attached), but you never know.
@@Moo2oob Sure, but you can climb to 10,000 feet without pressurising. That's high enough to recover from a problem. They were well above that and continuing to climb.
@@thomasdalton1508 "10k ft is high enough to recover from a problem" would have to depend on both the type of problem and distance to a suitable runway to know this, no?
@@The_Noticer_of_Things You can deliberately stay close to the runway, so that's not an issue. If you get into a spin or something and can't recover in 10,000 feet, you realistically aren't going to recover at all, so there isn't much point worrying about that.
I wonder why according to the track it appears the aircraft flew a holding pattern right after departure, before they were even made aware of any potential problems?
I think the video missed some communications, or at least I don't recall departure/centre informing the aircraft of the incident. The first time JBU169 spoke in the video was them informing ATC about the incident at around 2:00. Or at least I don't think JBU was on tower freq anymore
Well, good outcome. But a few things to consider: - a metal piece of your wind allegedly comes still. So you have a possible aerodynamically impaired aircraft. You’re at an altitude where everything is safe. Why on earth would you still climb way higher than this, where aerodynamics do change quite a bit? - That jump to the conclusion that it was a brake actuator is mind blowing. Especially given the fact, that is came „off the wing“. There are multiple actuators for each flight control surface - being flaps, spoilers or ailerons. Each of them could possibly end catastrophic.
To be fair all atc told them at that point was that it appeared to be an actuator. It’s unknown if CAR97’s message about it being off the wing was passed on to JB197. So assuming the worst isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Note the phrasing "We have to assume it's a brake actuator". The pilot is doing the right thing here and planning based on the worst-case scenario, even if it's not the most likely one.
The pilot also knows that if an entire actuator from a system that was currently in use fell off he would most likely have an indication on his display. So he assumes it must be from a system that was not used during takeoff and climb out. Which narrows it down to pretty much just the brakes. I want to add that if the actuator had been from the brakes he probably would have gotten a indication anyway... But he knew for a fact the flight controls were functioning because he was using them.
Uhhh so what was it then? Why is a non-aircraft part falling from the aircraft? How does a non-aircraft part fall from an airplane? Someone threw it out the window?
You never really know what a particular ATC controller knows about aircraft systems. It's not like talking to another pilot. The worst one I've heard was a private pilot flying in the weather when the vacuum pump fails and he loses his gyro instruments. He keeps telling ATC "I'm no gyro!" when given headings but the controller clearly doesn't understand what that means. A bunch of back and forth ensues until the pilot abandons the formal "no gyro" phraseology and just explains that he can't fly headings. Ohhh, now the controller understands.
Controllers are supposed to know what types of emergency a plane can have, though... There are specific procedures they are trained to use to help no gyro planes. Telling them when to start and stop turns. That controller needed some remedial training.
overweight landing is just an inspection. They have no idea what just fell off so it is probably better to return to the field and land. Getting down to lower altitude will also burn fuel faster, giving them a lower landing weight.
Known risk vs unknown risk. Given their weight they can calculate a landing distance under the worst-case assumption it’s part of the brakes, and then safely make that atypical landing. Or they can roll the dice and fly around burning fuel hoping the part isn’t one of the bits that keeps the plane in the sky.
That comment made my day. 🙏🏻🙃🙅🏻♀️ And in case the emoji with the crossed arms means something I'm not aware of, that's not what I meant. It just looked like a marshaller... Seemed appropriate.
It could have been FOD on the runway that was kicked up by the jet blast on takeoff, which may have given the impression that it was something falling from the aircraft depending on the point of view.
The Concorde was brought down by a piece of a FOD from a prior departure. The FOD that appeared to have fallen off might have been from a prior departure, kicked up by the ground effect of JetBlue's takeoff roll or the blast of the engine. We'll have to wait for the NTSB to figure out what it was.
RUclips keeps deleting my subscription here and won't let me Resubscribe! I watch this channel often but can't keep subscribed. Please tell RUclips to STOP 🛑 deleting my subscription.
But are you going to be an overweight landing? You just talked about being an overweight landing but I wasn’t paying attention cause I was googling what an actuator is
Morale of the story: If chunks of metal are seen coming off your aircraft, don't ask questions or dilly-dally about. Just turn around and land as soon as possible. There are very rarely few second chances in aviation and, in this case and the case of piloting airliners, it's not only your life on the line, but 100+ passenger lives on the line. It's best to be safe than sorry.
Well that's a cluster eff. WTF. If someone sees something fall off a plane, you report that immediately instead of whatever this was. And if it didn't fall off an effing plane you don't say it did! car96 is gonna have a phone number to call for possible car deviation
No. You speak up, even if you're not sure. 1. If it had been something from the JetBlue aircraft, it could have resulted in a fatal crash. Even if it were the brake actuator the pilots feared that it might be, that could have resulted in the aircraft overrunning the runway and failing to stop before hitting a building. Plenty of people died when aircraft ran off runways. 2. They still needed to close the runway to clear the FOD off. There are several air disasters (including the Concord crash in Paris) that started with the aircraft running over/injecting FOD. Car 96 and/or Car 97 did exactly what they were supposed to do, even though the FOD turned out to be a nothing burger for JetBlue. Always better to be safe and inconvenience your passengers than dismiss a possible issue and kill everyone on board.
Who knows what he saw, it might have got kicked up into the air by the landing or even bounced off the aircraft. I'm more amazed the car even saw it in the first place.
Got to love some random guy on the internet who wasn’t even there criticizing actions taken to ensure the safety of passengers, crew and aircraft. Did it turn out to be nothing? Sure. But nobody knew that the time.
@@davidpearson3304yes, people like him can save lives, people who stay silent can cause disaster, but there will be always "smarter" people later, who can know for "sure" this wasn't aircraft part
@@vipvip-tf9rw you petty sheep. I don't object to him saying something, I object to the slowness and the incorrect claim that he saw it fall off the plane. and I'm right.
These controllers! OMG! Stop hiring DEI. “Let us know” look controller, you let him know what they find. I mean comon. Anything outside the norm and they sound hopless
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
JBU169 took off runway 13R at around 20:00Z, so definitely not night time. Charge that burned fuel and delay to that Airport vehicles driver!!!---- (kidding. Better be safe.... Well done)
Charge it to apron services, they are likely unactuated at this time.
Kidding or not, the vehicle occupant saw something and reported it. Good call! Dubious decision to continue the flight IMHO, that was a substantial piece of FOD and looking like it fell from the aircraft it likely got kicked up pretty hard on the runway. Who knows what damage it may have done! Anyway, I guess you fly an uber-low cost airline and get go-itis. Glad all ended well on this occasion.
I wonder if they ever determined what and where that piece came from, since it was determined not to even be an aircraft part. Could it have been a piece of FOD that the aircraft may have run over and dislodged off the runway so it appeared to fall from the aircraft.
@@BillySugger1965 Even if it didn't fall off they either hit it or it was sucked into the air with the takeoff turbulence. Definitely something to tell someone about.
@@BillySugger1965 Well the plane has been flying normally before and since and they had no indications of anything wrong, so I wonder why that gets labeled as uber low cost (JetBlue isn't) or go-itis.
Actually we were hoping that you would let us know
Better safe than sorry, but damn. I can only imagine that pilot's frustration that didn't come out over frequency.
"Like a brake actuator?"
"I'm not sure. I don't know what an actuator is. Let me know."
Better the pilot know that the controller lacks information than assume anything that might be inaccurate.
Be thankful someone is watching and saw something unusual.
Pilot was about to step outside and check
I don’t even know what an actuator does
It actuates
actually?
in actuality
It is a mechanical part (possibly like a hydraulic ram) that pushes and pulls another part such as a lever to control the operation of a component such as brakes, flaps etc. Basically, your leg or arm is an actuator.
@@davidhandyman7571 no
Actuate: v. To make an unlikely story more believable, prefacing with "actually", or punctuating a doubtful crowd with "that's no joke".
So it sounds like the part was already on the runway, and someone just noticed when JBU hit it?
Smaller debris than that's destroyed aircraft - both by falling off a plane (it's a stretch, but china airlines flight 120) or by leaping up from the runway to strike some other plane (Continental flight 55 lost a part-> Air France 4590 found the lost part)
my thoughts as well
I don’t know what else Car 97 could do other than to report he saw what looked like a part falling from the plane taking off. Obviously the faster it is retrieved and positively identified, the better.
It’s a good thing when everyone does their job, and makes correct decisions with the information available.
That's interesting. I wonder what it was? Perhaps "Actuator" was an incorrect designation. So either it was already on the runway and Jetblue hit it making it bounce and appear to fall off, or it was something other than an aircraft part, perhaps a tool, that was left lying on the aircraft and fell off during takeoff. Either case, I would think a precautionary inspection of the aircraft would be in order. But what do I know?
JFK Ground talking to car 97 the way little Timmy talked to Lassie
It’s actually good to know the ground true is vigilant, as frustrating as it might be. We don’t want to hear somebody saw something AFTER a critical incident. See something, say something…..still
I've never seen a gonculator of this type before 🙂
An actuator that is not an aircraft part fell off the wing during takeoff?
It was probably on or near the runway and was kicked into the air as the plane went over it. It's an odd one, though. I wonder what it was and how it got there...
@@thomasdalton1508Lot of ground vehicles in and around the runways at JFK for a variety of tasks. Easily couldve broken off of one of them and not been found. Especially for something like a car brake where you might only notice you have a problem when you try braking a few thousand feet down the runway
@@jyggalag169 Indeed, there are various ways it could have got there. It would be interesting to know. Brake actuators don't usually fall off cars, though (or planes for that matter). I think that's probably a red herring. The pilot was just speculating and was probably deliberately thinking of the worst thing it could be. If it were an aileron actuator, for example, he would probably have noticed the ailerons not working properly, so he could rule that out, but there is no way to test the brakes in flight. I expect there are a lot of actuators on tugs, so it might have been from one of them.
@@jyggalag169wouldn’t be surprised, some of those vehicles are held together with duct tape from all the rust.
@@jyggalag169 Likely from heavy equipment. Dozers, plows, sweepers, and mowers all use actuators to lift and lower their equipment. I'd speculate that it come from one of those.
Hey i know this one, happend to listen at that moment to tower atc at jfk. If i can remember a plane waiting for departure reported the incident first to the controller.
Strange situation - turns out to be the right decision from JetBlue crew because the aircraft has flown normally since the incident. How weird.
I'm surprised they initially kept climbing with a report that something had fallen off the plane. If there is any possibility of a structural problem, you should stop the climb and avoid pressurising the aircraft. It's unlikely to be anything structural (the structural components are usually very securely attached), but you never know.
The flip side to that argument is that you want some altitude to be able to recover from anything that arises.
@@Moo2oob Sure, but you can climb to 10,000 feet without pressurising. That's high enough to recover from a problem. They were well above that and continuing to climb.
@@thomasdalton1508 "10k ft is high enough to recover from a problem" would have to depend on both the type of problem and distance to a suitable runway to know this, no?
@@The_Noticer_of_Things You can deliberately stay close to the runway, so that's not an issue. If you get into a spin or something and can't recover in 10,000 feet, you realistically aren't going to recover at all, so there isn't much point worrying about that.
Somebody left a cordless screwdriver in the gear bay. 😶🌫
JFK's got it all!
It truly is a circus every day.....
If it wasn’t an aircraft part my guess is that someone from maintenance left a tool on the wheel well of the plane?
I see the wacky track for JetBlue 169 on Flight Aware.
The jet darned sure hit it on takeoff though.
Ground crew have little tiny walkie talkie radios and they are super hard to hear
I wonder why according to the track it appears the aircraft flew a holding pattern right after departure, before they were even made aware of any potential problems?
I think the video missed some communications, or at least I don't recall departure/centre informing the aircraft of the incident. The first time JBU169 spoke in the video was them informing ATC about the incident at around 2:00. Or at least I don't think JBU was on tower freq anymore
Can you do a video on DAL2120 from LAS to LAX that returned yesterday due to a flaps issue?
Already working on it
It wouldn't be a brake actuator unless the whole wheel assy fell off.
Car 97, child of Charlie Brown’s teacher.
Canceling the emergency….Priceless
Well, good outcome. But a few things to consider:
- a metal piece of your wind allegedly comes still. So you have a possible aerodynamically impaired aircraft. You’re at an altitude where everything is safe. Why on earth would you still climb way higher than this, where aerodynamics do change quite a bit?
- That jump to the conclusion that it was a brake actuator is mind blowing. Especially given the fact, that is came „off the wing“. There are multiple actuators for each flight control surface - being flaps, spoilers or ailerons. Each of them could possibly end catastrophic.
To be fair all atc told them at that point was that it appeared to be an actuator. It’s unknown if CAR97’s message about it being off the wing was passed on to JB197. So assuming the worst isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Note the phrasing "We have to assume it's a brake actuator". The pilot is doing the right thing here and planning based on the worst-case scenario, even if it's not the most likely one.
The pilot also knows that if an entire actuator from a system that was currently in use fell off he would most likely have an indication on his display. So he assumes it must be from a system that was not used during takeoff and climb out. Which narrows it down to pretty much just the brakes.
I want to add that if the actuator had been from the brakes he probably would have gotten a indication anyway... But he knew for a fact the flight controls were functioning because he was using them.
Sounds like kicked up FOD but better outcome than the Concorde
How I knew before reading the summary of this video that this flight was going to do DR.
Very professional Jetblue!
Jesus, Jetblue!
Been a jet mechanic for 30 years. Wtf is a brake actuator?
So how did they see a piece of something that's not from and aircraft fall off an aircraft ? 🤔
It was probably kicked up by the tires from the ground and was seen falling back down.
@@xxmrrickxxAnd hit what in the process? Dubious choice to continue en route IMHO.
@@BillySugger1965 Doesn't hit anything. Simply just went into the air and falls back. The car saw it when it was falling back.
Possible car driver deviation. AAA may need to investigate.
they need the telephone number lol
At least it wasn't the left phalange.
😂😂
Uhhh so what was it then? Why is a non-aircraft part falling from the aircraft? How does a non-aircraft part fall from an airplane? Someone threw it out the window?
So a piece of metal is on the runway that isn't even an aircraft part. UFOs???
Maintenance cars, fire trucks, runway lighting vehicles and even snowplows (in winter)
Would love to see a pic of the FOD
@@frankb.1284 so how'd it fall off the wing? Wonder what the ground personnel actually saw.
Is the tinfoil hat too tight?
@@KeVIn-pm7pust fu u sound moronic 🤡
“CHUNK OF METAL” “OFF” in caps is a little clickbaity for the non event
Huh ... a working actuator achieves self-actuation and self-actualization at the very same time.
We'll se ya, sooner than expected lol
Were the pilots of Air France 012 in vehicle? They need a number to call. 😂
I heard Declaring an emergency and overweight all in one breathe and I don’t have a boom in my ear
Thank god wasn’t another Boeing or another united
jet blue - its not even an airplane part.
Me - why is your plane made of parts from Napa?
TFOA report. Never a good day.
Odd.
Now it’s Airbus 🤦♂️
You never really know what a particular ATC controller knows about aircraft systems. It's not like talking to another pilot. The worst one I've heard was a private pilot flying in the weather when the vacuum pump fails and he loses his gyro instruments. He keeps telling ATC "I'm no gyro!" when given headings but the controller clearly doesn't understand what that means. A bunch of back and forth ensues until the pilot abandons the formal "no gyro" phraseology and just explains that he can't fly headings. Ohhh, now the controller understands.
You know my fancy compass failed, can't fly numbers:Pilot
Controllers are supposed to know what types of emergency a plane can have, though... There are specific procedures they are trained to use to help no gyro planes. Telling them when to start and stop turns. That controller needed some remedial training.
N123, this will be a no gyro turn, turn left
Why land overweight when aircraft is flying perfectly and concerns about braking capabilities?
overweight landing is just an inspection. They have no idea what just fell off so it is probably better to return to the field and land. Getting down to lower altitude will also burn fuel faster, giving them a lower landing weight.
@@ThanhPham96 But why land overweight at all, vs circling to burn more fuel or dump some, to get below the "overweight" threshold?
@DaddyBeanDaddyBean When they circle too much, they might get dizzy.
@@rudiklein well we can't have that. 😂
Known risk vs unknown risk. Given their weight they can calculate a landing distance under the worst-case assumption it’s part of the brakes, and then safely make that atypical landing. Or they can roll the dice and fly around burning fuel hoping the part isn’t one of the bits that keeps the plane in the sky.
Would love to listen to ATC across the world but i guess not all ATC Coms. are public...
Unfortunately not
All ATC can be listened to, but in places like UK, you can be charged if caught... 🇬🇧
@@fredfred2363 They sure have got their bits in quite the draconian vice over there.
My eyes lol, I thought Chunk of meat fell out from Jetblue lmao
All's well that ends well. 😊
AI has gotten so advanced it’s stowing away in airplane landing gear now.
That comment made my day. 🙏🏻🙃🙅🏻♀️
And in case the emoji with the crossed arms means something I'm not aware of, that's not what I meant. It just looked like a marshaller... Seemed appropriate.
The guy who witnessed it said he saw it fell off from the right side of the plane, so how can it not be a part of the plane?
It could have been FOD on the runway that was kicked up by the jet blast on takeoff, which may have given the impression that it was something falling from the aircraft depending on the point of view.
bardo0007 "Eye witnesses" have been proven to be far from accurate !!!
The Concorde was brought down by a piece of a FOD from a prior departure. The FOD that appeared to have fallen off might have been from a prior departure, kicked up by the ground effect of JetBlue's takeoff roll or the blast of the engine. We'll have to wait for the NTSB to figure out what it was.
RUclips keeps deleting my subscription here and won't let me Resubscribe! I watch this channel often but can't keep subscribed. Please tell RUclips to STOP 🛑 deleting my subscription.
Just asking, how many times would Boeing have been mentioned and in the title had the aircraft been a Boeing??
Pilot: "..we'd like to declare an emergency"
ATC: "You said you are declaring an emergency, right?"
THEY.DECLARED.AN.EMERGENCY 🤦♂️
Given their typical reply is "say again," I'd say this is an improvement
Pilot: Mayday Mayday Mayday
ATC: say again, are you declaring an emergency?
Pilot: (face-palm)
But are you going to be an overweight landing? You just talked about being an overweight landing but I wasn’t paying attention cause I was googling what an actuator is
Why isn't this another on frequency love story? Oh, shit, it's JFK.
Typical airbus
Morale of the story: If chunks of metal are seen coming off your aircraft, don't ask questions or dilly-dally about. Just turn around and land as soon as possible. There are very rarely few second chances in aviation and, in this case and the case of piloting airliners, it's not only your life on the line, but 100+ passenger lives on the line. It's best to be safe than sorry.
Well that's a cluster eff. WTF. If someone sees something fall off a plane, you report that immediately instead of whatever this was. And if it didn't fall off an effing plane you don't say it did! car96 is gonna have a phone number to call for possible car deviation
No. You speak up, even if you're not sure.
1. If it had been something from the JetBlue aircraft, it could have resulted in a fatal crash. Even if it were the brake actuator the pilots feared that it might be, that could have resulted in the aircraft overrunning the runway and failing to stop before hitting a building. Plenty of people died when aircraft ran off runways.
2. They still needed to close the runway to clear the FOD off. There are several air disasters (including the Concord crash in Paris) that started with the aircraft running over/injecting FOD.
Car 96 and/or Car 97 did exactly what they were supposed to do, even though the FOD turned out to be a nothing burger for JetBlue. Always better to be safe and inconvenience your passengers than dismiss a possible issue and kill everyone on board.
Who knows what he saw, it might have got kicked up into the air by the landing or even bounced off the aircraft. I'm more amazed the car even saw it in the first place.
Got to love some random guy on the internet who wasn’t even there criticizing actions taken to ensure the safety of passengers, crew and aircraft. Did it turn out to be nothing? Sure. But nobody knew that the time.
@@davidpearson3304yes, people like him can save lives, people who stay silent can cause disaster, but there will be always "smarter" people later, who can know for "sure" this wasn't aircraft part
@@vipvip-tf9rw you petty sheep. I don't object to him saying something, I object to the slowness and the incorrect claim that he saw it fall off the plane. and I'm right.
These controllers! OMG! Stop hiring DEI. “Let us know” look controller, you let him know what they find. I mean comon. Anything outside the norm and they sound hopless