Engine Failure / Fire during Takeoff | United B777 Rejects Takeoff at SFO
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июн 2023
- 05/JUN/2023
United B777 performing flight from SFO to Honolulu was rolling for takeoff when the pilots rejected reporting a right engine failure and possible fire.
_______________
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/
![[REAL ATC] Brickyard E170 BOTH ENGINES FAILED enroute | Diverts to Nashville!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bCkdZq4nfYE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] Brickyard E170 BOTH ENGINES FAILED enroute | Diverts to Nashville!](/img/tr.png)
![[REAL ATC] FULL LOSS OF POWER at Miami International #KMIA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fvD1-SBq0hg/mqdefault.jpg)
![Tee Grizzley - Swear to God (Feat. Future) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jBlC5AOYoBs/mqdefault.jpg)
These are SFO go arounds that make sense.
So true lol
I love the statement "if the landing isn't what you want, just go around". With environment working against the pilot, the go around option is welcome. As opposed to ending up off the end of the runway or the side, or whatever. And the decision time is so brief. Maybe race drivers make split second decisions like this.
well they have such a skill at calling "go arounds" through lots of practice
Come on that’s twice you got to do better 🤣
Not Unknown reasons this time
It's cute when they animate the little rescue vehicles 😊
Although - They did not seem to be in a hurry !! 😂
Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground
My flight school in the US has a Transport Canada printout hung up in the bathroom that reads “it’s better to arrive a little late in this world than early in the next” (in the context of making smart weather decisions)
This is what professionalism between all pilots and controllers sounds like. I flew for United for 29 years, 15 of those on the 757/767 in and out of SFO, and really enjoyed working with their ATC controllers.
SFO Ground was very patient with all the flights ready to push.
I landed one time at SFO. On a 707. But I've watched video from this century, and it made me wonder if the bay has been filled in to reduce the crowded nature of the original airport.
It's very obvious listening to the SFO recordings over the last few months which controllers are skilled and professional (as those in this recording are) and which controllers could learn a thing or two from them.
Well handled by everyone involved, period. There will be couch pilots/controllers that will continue to bark but overall, this was handled expeditiously and efficiently. 👏
People only negatively comment because things don’t seem to get done in a timely or proper fashion, or they’re not used to the “special” terminology that US pilots use.
@EdOeuna
No, people react negatively because its really easy to be an armchair pilot and think you will do everything absolutely perfectly in an emergent situation, having never actually experienced an emergency.
@@childofcascadia - doing things correctly, from a pilots perspective, is critical. That’s why pilots have regular sim training and assessment sessions. This is also why there are so many derogatory comments aimed at, usually, US pilots, for their lack of RT procedures, and generally at pilots for appearing to mishandle situations.
Something else abundantly clear on here is how people can’t debate any more, and resort to cheap shots at each other instead of constructing well thought out points.
Couldn’t agree more , that was very professionally executed all parties involved
Great handling of the issue - clearing 28L & holding all traffic not only cleared the way for ARRFF but also prepared incase of evacuation.
I flew into SFO that afternoon and we were given a huge detour to slow our arrival. Now I know why. Thanks!
The animations you have created have once again evolved and become more exquisite.
Thank you very much
I always love the calmness in the pilots voices even though they are under duress . That is total professionalism, and I tip my hat to them.
If you're going to blow and engine, it's always better to have it blow before you reach V1 and rotate!
It can still take off with one engine
@@santy5496yes but, it's better to be on the ground is the point.
@@santy5496 no duh, but as that poster said it’s better if it happens before V1. 😒
Let's say your V1 speed today is 170 knots. At 155 knots you experience an engine failure and reject the takeoff. While the numbers say the plane will stop in time a high speed reject at a heavy weight and high speed is serious business.
Given the choice I would MUCH rather have that engine fail above V1 and take it flying than having a failure before V1 within what could be considered a high speed reject.
Things you think about when your V1 speed is that high and you're watching the end of the runway approach at a very rapid rate.
Especially when you have 2400 miles of ocean ahead of you with almost no airports in between.
United's professionalism 👍✈👏 !!!
I feel bad for GND, he makes it pretty clear they're dealing with an emergency, and immediately gets a taxi and pushback request.
They may have just switched to GND freq and had no idea what was going on.
@@robertbutsch1802 Delta 2443 requests taxi _after_ copying the emergency. Alaska 1253 requests push twice, the second time after being explicitly told to stand by.
@@marcellkovacs5452- it’s a lack of airmanship. Becoming a pilot is relatively easy, but airmanship just evades some people altogether.
@@marcellkovacs5452 Occurs slowly to me why there are so many different frequencies. Too easy for one pilot to mistakenly think someone else's direction is for them.
@@EdOeuna.....or they got on the frequency right after he mentioned the ground stop. You don't know what you don't know.
Props to the engine for deciding to burn well before V1
I thought it was a jet, not a prop?
@@khrenaud A jet is just a bunch of of little props, enclosed in a shroud which gives the engine maker something to stick their emblem on.
"If it wasn't true, you couldn't say it on the internet"
@khrenaud
You win the dad joke of aviation internet award for today.
Contrary to your comment this occurred above 100 knots just prior to V1
@aaronwcary
Ok literal boy.
OP was being facetious.
Pratt and Whitney powered 777’s, the gift that keeps on giving
I thought they fixed the pw4000’s
Maybe United needs to throw more money at tech ops.
@@metroflyboy86 yeah, but they’re not the most reliable engines in the world other than raining hell and annihilation on cities/oceans
Very smooth by all involved!
Enjoying the new animations. They get better every video
Thanks!
Very professional by all involved. Good job!
😏👍yes sir I think they did a stellar job of basically shuttin § down n handled it like Big Boys Do [after all fire ain't nothin to play wit😬]...I liked the courtesy w/the turn at the end too, that was the cream on the top...🌞🎆 Thx for the share😉
Legend has it that Alaska 1253 is still waiting to push
The epitome of professionalism. 👍
The other day, June 11th SWA456 flying from Austin-St Louis KAUS-KSTL rejected takeoff. for an Engine Failure and a blow tire, and at over, 110 knots flight operated by an B737-800 N8314L flight later continued on a new plane 3 hrs later
I was on this flight! We heard a loud ‘pop’ on takeoff. Everyone was wondering what happened until we saw emergency vehicles on the runway. Ended up returning to the gate and sit through a 5-6 hour delay. United had to bring in another 777 along with a new crew. Was an interesting day 😅
Liar.
SFO ATCs redeemed themselves on this incident. Well done!
Looks like the engine failure happened on it's first revenue flight after maintenance at HAECO Xiamen.
Not surprised that it failed after being overhauled in China instead of the U.S.
SFO been everywhere on this channel recently 😂 bad timing considering I'm flying in and out right now
Thank god 'you know who' wasn't in the tower, she'd have blamed both pilots, General Electric and the Delta going around.
Agreed, this was handled very well. Controller's response to alaska's second request to push was impressively calm and professional.
Thanks to @VASAviation for another great video!
@pilots I'm not a pilot. Could somebody clarify this for me?
The pilot of 1509 states that the left turn is preferred because he only has his left engine. I would think that right turns would be slightly easier given the differential thrust. Is it somehow easier to make a left turn with only your left engine? Or is this a matter of navigating the angles/widths of the taxiways with reduced thrust? Hearing 1509 ask for the high speed leads me to believe its the later.
Again, not a pilot so bear with.
Not a pilot either, but I played with some Level D simulators for a number of years.
A tight low-speed left turn will be an issue, because they don't have the right engine to push the plane with. A higher-speed wider turn is not an issue because they have momentum built up already and they can use nosewheel steering and potentially rudder.
@@davedarling4316 Thank you. I assumed that had to be it, given the differential thrust would make a low speed left turn more difficult. Being a novice ATC listener, I guess I misunderstood the comms.
Interested if multi-engine pilots here have anything to add about difficulties taxing on one engine.
And that another thing. Using engines as power to travel on the ground. You can fly on one engine. Can you TAXI on one?
@@JimMork Yes.
@@eriksenersen Explain.
Why is the same emergency aircraft on tower freq also controlling push and taxi clearances. Or was this all the freqs at SFO simultaneously?
Nice VIP treatment: "don't expect to stop" - don't hear that much (and I understand its just easier w/ #2 inop)
Some bummed out passengers on missing their appointments on the beach in Honolulu .
@3rdandlong
Better to make your appointments with the beach a little later, than your appointments with the hereafter a little earlier.
Notice many incidents of planes heading to Hawaii
Can you get AAL2956 out of JAX to PHL. Engine failure after dep. 6-16
The way this seems to be going you'll be starting a new sister channel just covering San Francisco producing daily contents
I didn't hear ATC close the runway after UA stopped on the runway - after 3 go arounds still nothing?
Kind of confused with the taxiing at the end. Given he only had his #1 engine on the left why is it easier to turn left? Any thrust is gonna push him rightwards?
I was working that day at SFO and I saw the fire. It was scary. I'm sure the passengers were a little freaked out
left engine running, and left turn is better than right?
Wow, glad to hear the SFO tower didnt give them a hard time! /sarcasm
Was almost expecting to hear that 'you shouldnt be blowing your engines on the runway' - or something along those lines
😂😂😂😂
If that incompetent woman was working, she probably would have.
@@prorobo "did you check the ATIS" ? lol
I can't determine the timing...did tower tell DL1007 to go around because of the reject or poor spacing?
Hard to say, but he may have seen the fire.
He may have also noticed that UA1059 was slowing down after having started their roll and suspected something was up.
@@1Legofilms Good point. Good thing visibility was good.
I think we all know SFO's go around clearances off by heart by now from this channel. Runway heading 3100ft 😂😂
Nice work to the Untied Crew. Yes I spelled that correctly 😘
AT LAST 444......😁 Great Job United.
They're posting one after another.
Is that bad?
@@VASAviation Oh no... More specifically RUclips subscription new videos posting I think seven within 2 minutes of this one. You're good...👋🚀✈️
I’m literally an ATC fan girl!!!
Wouldn't right turns be easier with only a left engine?
Yes. What the pilot very astutely realized was that if he made the right turn off the runway, it would be followed by a sharp left ultimately to get back to the terminal. They figured a high speed taxiway (which is something like a 30-45 degree turn from the runway) to the left would mean less left turning in total to get back to the terminal.
@@danielblumenthalhoffman2585 Got it
SFO seems to have a disproportionate amount of weird stuff happening lol.
Just like the rest of San Francisco. Maybe it's something in the water.
The next plane behind this one was wearing a feather boa.
The question is why are people still going there.
It's because they do both takeoffs and landings on both their runways; it's a logistical situation that's way beyond their ability to handle. If they simply designated either 28R or 28L for landings only, departures could reliably plan for the other runway and most of their issues would be resolved.
@@mblumber but then we wouldn't get those cool photos of simultaneous landings.
some day trucks and tugs will sound clear...i beg lol
I dont understand, since they have the left eng running wouldn`t be easier to do right turns?
You don't want to turn over an inoperative engine - harder to straighten yourself out - and moreover, it's best to stay on the ground if your engine fails early on in your takeoff roll.
If they followed the original instructions, they would have to turn 90 degrees left on narrower taxiway twice to after making a right on N to reach the ramp. By proceeding along 28L to T, they only have a gradual left turn from the wide runway onto T to reach the ramp.
Aircraft regularly taxi on one engine for fuel savings. What is different here that they can't make the turns with one operational engine?
Probably because they’re much heavier. For the 777, taxiing single engine at 215T is pretty easy. Taxiing at 300+T single engine is far more difficult.
Why do they taxi on left side if they have a left engine failure?? Should've been better turning right as the aircraft has the tendency to turn right?? 🤨
Right engine failed, left engine working.
They are in a big heavy plane with a lot of thrust on one side, much easier to turn right than left.
If they turned right, and then what? You guessed it, a left, or end up in the bay.
Why are the rescue trucks always barely readable?
You are listening from a 3rd party radio receiver, not directly from plane or tower recordings. So there are probably with obstructions in the way. Tower’s transmitter are pretty high up, and so are plane’s, compared to a rescue truck which are typically only 3 meters off the ground. Truck’s radio is also much weaker than tower or aircraft.
And, AGAIN, SFO twr putted 2 planes too close of each other... Cleared a HEAVY 777 for take off with a plane at 2.5 mile for landing...
He wanted to vacate to the left, because he only had the left engine running. But wouldn't it physically make mor sense to turn to the right, as the left engine can turn the plane with its power?
maybe it was about the radius, I don't know
Why did rescue communications sound like they crushed the microphone to pieces
These recordings are made by third party receivers somewhere outside the airport. The radios in the ground vehicles probably don't have or need the same kind of range as the aircraft and ATC radios. The controllers and pilots can probably hear them just fine.
Does @mylayoverlife fly the triple 7? Kinda sounds like him on the comms.
No. 75/76
No, 65/66
No! 55/56
Good to see SFO actually doing something good for once
It can still take off with one engine
@@santy5496 but do you want to take off with 1 engine when you can just reject?
@@kopazwashere I was trying to answer another comment, LOL
WHAT???! 😂😂😂
@@santy5496 odd. I can't see the question nor the reply ping you would normally do.
Get the ground truck a better radio!
The ground truck radio is likely absolutely fine and clear between tower and aircraft as designed. The radio transmissions for here are likely being captured off airport and out of effective range of those radios. You notice this on just about every video posted here.
I'm curious how a down engine makes turning on the taxiway more difficult.
What do you think moves the aircraft forward?
They’re heavy and loaded with fuel and pax for Hawaii. Asymmetrical thrust will make it nearly impossible to turn into the operating engine if single engine on a sharp turn.
I’m sorry but SFO has very hazardous spacing standards. To clear a 777 for takeoff with traffic 2.5 mile final is close close 😅
They spaced that Delta to close again just like the United video the other day
Where in the policies and procedures in the .65 does that support your claim?
Departing an aircraft lined up on the runway with another aircraft on 2.5 mile final is perfectly acceptable.
Another P&W 777 powerplant?
They need to hire Kennedy Steve out of retirement as a consultant for the beleaguered folks in the SFO tower. I mean, this was well handled and all ... but missing that *je ne sais quois* of the glory days on JFK GND.
Sounds like the trucks need to make an upgrade from potato to headset for their comms. Potatoes don't come with very good inbuilt mics.
I do single engine taxi every day. I can turn left or right no issue
How good would it be if emergency service vehicles just materialised on the scene and then dematerialised when no longer needed. 😂
United airlines having lots of 777 engine issues. They even got fined. Don’t fly a 777 with United
Why did they have concerns about a right turn if their left engine was the working one? Shouldn’t that be the easier direction?
I think they could have made the right turn but were concerned about the hard left turn that they would have had to make immediately after it. Sounds like the pilots were thinking ahead.
It’s a big heavy plane, and taxi/turn toward the working engine will be hard to control, especially if may end up in the bay 😅
Yes.
lmao that truck was in some shooting
Damn PW engines again !!! I thought United grounded the few they had, evidently not or returned them to service !!!
Huh ?
There was an AD put out for inspection of pw4000 series equipped 777-200’s. For a while after the inspections there were no issues.
The amount of problems United has had flying to and from Hawaii on this channel in the past 5 months, one would think the airline is cursed
Everyone who read back "standby" needs a slap. Standby means STFU!!
Sure glad the engine in my car doesn't fail like this. Other car parts do. Too many, but the things that take out airline engines are engrossing. I am given to wonder if the aeronautical engineers knew the environment was so dangerous for the engines they were putting on planes. Often it is said planes can fly on one engine. Evidently. But are there other devices with engines where the failure of the engine is forecast at manufacture time? I've seen these heavy lift rockets. They have multiples. What if one just fails to fire? Or two? Is the essential for a rocket to reach escape velocity all engines performing optimally?
Few rockets can reach orbit with an engine failure, F9 being one of the exceptions.
Jet turbines are incredibly reliable, especially with computerised monitoring/controls
Speed (more accurately kinetic energy) is every thing, an engine fail in-flight is relatively safer than engine failing in take-off because plane essentially “store” some energy to keep going. Both in form of kinetic energy (speed) and potential energy (altitude)
This is why it’s safer to reject and remain on the ground, when the plane is on the ground/slow. It have little kinetic or potential energy for pilots to work with. Now an accelerating plane may already have enough kinetic energy, so we let the pilots know by introducing V1 speed.
*a important speed metric is V1, after this speed, the remaining runway will not allow the plane to come to a stop, and the plane usually will go off runway if the pilots reject after that.
If an engine failed before V1, remaining runway may not allow a plane to accelerate to rotation speed (less thrust means slower acceleration rate, meaning less speed, meaning more distance/time needed to get off the ground). Abort after V1 is only recommended if the pilots are sure the plane can’t fly.
*A plane must able to take off and climb on one engine after reaching V1 at Maximum Takeoff Weight to be airworthy*
Now about rocket engines, we worry more about delta V. If an engine failed mid-flight, we can have the other engines burn longer to achieve the same delta V to achieve orbit. However, it may not be the same if the same failure happened at launch, where the weight may not allow the rocket to even lift off (this have happened to several rockets), or too much fuel is used to achieve delta V due to not enough acceleration. (Force is a derivative of Acceleration, which is derivative of Velocity.)
@@josh3771 Space Shuttle did it just fine. If an engine failure is detected on the ground, it usually doesn't launch. Even SLS has an engine out capability. All depends exactly where during the launch failures occur. Gotta avoid those "black zones".
@@hoghogwild Anybody old enough to remember Vanguard. How it began to fire and then just fell over? Funny how that was a sensation, but I confess I never did hear the explanation for that very public NASA failure.
Would have it been expected that 1509 actually declared Mayday rather than ATC noticing this on it's own and declaring the emergency? Considering they knew that another aircraft was on short final?
Obviously the FO couldn’t get on the radio quick enough during the reject. Looked like tower saw it right away.
@@saxmanb777- don’t you brief the RTO before every departure? We do, and saying “ABC123 stopping” or “mayday x3 ABC123 stopping. Engine fire” doesn’t take much, even with the startle factor.
@@EdOeuna yes, we brief RTO before every trip. I still don’t blame the FO for taking a few seconds to announce a reject. We don’t know the timeline they had up there.
@saxmanb777 - come on. The FO has 2 things to do in an RTO. I’d expect that a decent FO can’t find the PTT button and utter “United 1234 stopping engine fire” or have the quality of FO’s dropped that badly. Meanwhile the Captain is expected to decide on stopping, close the thrust levers, disconnect the AT, confirm RTO auto take or manually brake and use reversers sufficient to bring the aircraft to a stop before the end of the runway…
@@EdOeuna I standby what I said. I’m not sure why you come on these videos and expect every pilot to be 100% perfect like you are. You weren’t even in the flight deck and don’t even what the pilots saw and when. Maybe ATC saw the smoke before both loops even detected a fire and before the pilots even were able to see it. We don’t know! Plus you mention the startle factor, but then blame them for being startled? Again, we won’t ever know. I have 95 landings at SFO, so I know how much they pack them in, and ATC is ready to send anyone around the second they see a problem. But I guess that FO needs more training because he didn’t get on the radio a few seconds earlier.
1:10 - 'lost an engine' means it physically fell off the aircraft.
This is typical american non-icao comms and is ambiguous, and has caused issues in the past where an engine has actually, physically separated from the ship and is a much more serious event.
Tower was watching this happen, hense the go around of Delta. The lingo that the united crews used was perfectly acceptable. An Engine failure is much more common and is widely understood as 'lost an engine' not one that was physically separated. If the engine had actually separated, pilots would make that especially clear.
Yeah. I get it. We are rather non-ICAO with some of our radio phraseology in the US but you know what - it works.
I bet you just love it when someone says they are taking the runway at an uncontrolled field :P
And you're a professional pilot ...right? So, we need t take your word as the absolute truth...uh...nuh...guess the incident didn't work out okay because they didn't follow the Certified Internet Expert (tm) acceptable protocol...is that about it?
@@buckhorncortez What was the comment....it's gone it seems?
@@MyGoogleRUclips no, it does not 'work' and like I said, several events in the past have resulted in ATC dealing with aircraft who HAVE physically lost an engine, as a routine engine out event.