I like how they explained the reason for 31L being that it's the longest - gave a chance for ATC to validate and understand not to switch to another. Really all around great back and forth checks w/ ATC and pilots - best way to avoid further problems.
@@pilotpete405 I’m not sure he was trying to be funny. It was just a statement. And if your referring to us-airways flight 1549, every single person survived. Ntm it was in 09, 14yrs ago so no need to be salty.
I think because they usually only hit one side of the aircraft unless they are traveling directly at you on your flight path. I have been close but thankfully zero bird strikes.
Probably something along the lines of “sorry for the inconvenience we have had a mechanical malfunction and will have to return to JFK”. Most likely something like that. As a crew member the last thing you want is panic from passengers. But jets like these are designed to fly whole trips on only one engine.
I've been through 3 bird strikes (2 in the US, one in Europe) and subsequent engine failures. In both the US trikes the cabin crew said absolutely nothing until the pilots said anything. In the Europe flight the cabin came on the PA system and announced there was a bird strike and there was nothing to be overly concerned about and that we would likely return to the airport shortly. They did this in four languages. In all cases we levelled off and circled for ~10 minutes and then returned for a smooth landing. The difference in cabin mood was stark though. In the US the pax were all fearful and doing their prayers & fear routine. On the EU flight people were concerned, but also pissed off that it meant we were looking at a 2-3 delay while a new plane was found afte landing.
I’m curious why he stayed at 2k. I would have wanted a little more altitude to troubleshoot. I don’t like flying at 2k even in the diamond that I fly lol. Thoughts???
maybe don't want to overstress the still unknown operating condition on the running engine. Also idle spinning engine is reducing some drag, but there is still lots.
@@commerce-usa Probably an issue with stereo sound. Some phones only play one of the two channels and if the audio is only in the other channel, you hear nothing.
Interesting to note, the same aircraft was back in service two days later according to Fr24. Was it only minor damage does anyone know? Can anyone add any Imput how quickly bird strikes can get fixed? 👍🏻
Not an airplane mechanic, but I'm going to guess they threw in a spare. I'm assuming you need to do a full teardown / inspection of an engine after a bird strike.
@@oldRighty1 Delta has a good-sized operation there, probably had a spare engine on hand to swap out. If not easy enough to fly one up from ATL or wherever.
Most bird strikes only require an inspection of the Low and High-pressure compressors and the replacement of any damaged fan blades on the engine. If the damage to the engine exceeds the manual limits it will be swapped out.
I will definitely get clarified on this but in layman's terms, ILS is using the instruments in the airplane and RNav is using Beacons that send signals to the aircraft and a visual of the runway. From what I read, seems RNAV is more direct and ILS would have pre-established routes ..... guess that's better for busier airports.
ILS is the Instrument Landing System, RNAV is just a waypoint (usually gps, but it could be a radio beacon). So RNAV can get you to the runway, but it can't help you land the way ILS can. I think because they weren't using 31L for landing at that time, the ILS on it was shut down completely. Thats why the controller offered to bring it up but it "would take a few minutes". Presumably the weather was clear enough this day to not require ILS.
The ILS consists of two radio waves being sent out, one laterally which is the localiser, one vertically which is the glideslope. the aircraft picks up the radio waves and follows them down near enough to the ground (or few hundred feet depending) like has been said already, RNAV is basically GPS based 👍🏻
Most US airline companies use pounds to calculate the fuel requiered for any route. The fuel config inside the plane system is set to show pounds instead of kg
Pounds is the most common unit of measurement for fuel, at least for US aircraft. Airliners usually don't have a readout of gallons so the easiest options for fuel remaining are either pounds or time
The density of fuel changes with temperature, so the same number of kilos/pounds will take up a (slightly) different number of liters/gallons depending on conditions. Also, all the performance calculations are based on weight, so it's pretty standard to just always think of jet fuel by weight.
Not even close! Swissair had an active fire. This is completely normal to delay. You need time to get the airplane configured and the various checklists run for a single engine approach and go around plus another briefing guide for the RNAV approach wgich is why he was initially requesting the ILS.
Not at all similar. An active fire is a very different situation from a single engine failure. Not every emergency should be treated the same way. For a single engine failure in a twin, you can continue safely flying for hours (basically however long your fuel holds out, which would be 6+ hours in the case of this flight.) An active fire on board is a "get on the ground now" situation. But most emergencies are not. In the vast majority of emergency situations, it is much more safe to take your time, run through the checklists, and make sure that everything is properly planned and coordinated before landing. Which is why pilots are trained to do exactly that. And it's why those emergency checklists exist in the first place. Getting into too much of a hurry and not slowing down and focusing and making deliberate decisions can turn situations where the plane should be able to land completely safely into deadly situations very quickly. TransAsia 235 is a tragic example of this. A relatively routine single engine failure after takeoff incident not unlike this one, but the pilots reacted too quickly instead of slowing down and carefully running through their checklists. As a result, they shut down the wrong engine, leaving them with zero functioning engines and not enough time to get them restarted. They then stalled the airplane and crashed into a bridge and then the river below it, killing 43 of the 58 occupants and injuring the other 15 in addition to 2 people on the ground. When there is not a situation that demands an immediate reaction, it is far more safe to take your time, run through the proper procedures, and make sure you're taking the correct actions. When you unnecessarily get in a hurry, you're a lot more likely to make mistakes that can turn a situation where you should still be able to perform a normal landing into a fatal crash very quickly. Of course, the above is referring to twin-engine airliners. In the case of light single-engine aircraft, then, obviously, a single engine failure is a much more serious and urgent emergency, which will result on getting back on the ground rather soon one way or another.
There’s not many times where you need to rush in an airplane, and a simple engine failure isn’t one of them. Now, if we have an uncontrolled fire I’m putting that thing down on the nearest runway in record time. Checklist or no.
The best example of "single engine is safe" is enter air which flew from Gdańsk to Warsaw with single engine after long holding near EPGD (Gdańsk) :) ruclips.net/video/TfdxdmoHe6g/видео.html
@@kacper9687 Oh, there are much, much longer examples than that. The A350 is rated for ETOPS 370. That is, it's rated to fly 6 hours and 10 minutes on a single engine. Not sure if any have actually done that, but there was a United 777 flying from Auckland to Los Angeles that diverted to Kona, Hawaii after an engine failure 20 years ago. It flew approximately 3 hours and 10 minutes from the time the engine was shut down until it landed normally in Kona. While it wasn't a single engine, British Airways actually opted to continue a flight on a 747-400 from Los Angeles to Heathrow after an engine failed somewhere over Canada. It crossed the entire Atlantic Ocean with a failed engine (of course, being a 747, it still had 3 operational ones.) It ultimately landed in Manchester, England instead of Heathrow, as it had burned more fuel than planned due to flying on 3 engines instead of 4. The FAA was not happy about the incident and wanted BA to be fined, but the British authorities were ok with it.
Is it an American thing that they don't say "Mayday mayday mayday" to declare an emergency? What is the official best practice for declaring one over the radio?
@@davidgraham7932 the best practice is whatever gets ATC to understand the assistance you need. Declaring an emergency the way he did very clearly communicated that. Use of mayday and pan is much more about assisting non native English speakers understand the level of assistance needed. Also, in the US, all emergencies are treated the same - there is no distinction in how ATC will treat an aircraft that has said mayday or pan.
Bird strikes playlist: ruclips.net/p/PLi0SM524ylKXVsEnBrHPThbPdLSHpkUcl
I like how they explained the reason for 31L being that it's the longest - gave a chance for ATC to validate and understand not to switch to another.
Really all around great back and forth checks w/ ATC and pilots - best way to avoid further problems.
All that time in the simulators really pays off when the need arises. The whole process went like clockwork,
Really appreciate all the visual aids!
While the pilots & crew told the press they were thankful for the safe landing, the seagull was unavailable for further comment.
Nothing like seagulls roasted inside a jet engine that's been shredded already for you.
ruclips.net/video/I1dcBCkaqtE/видео.html
😂
@@Boodieman72 and the chicken smell in the aircraft b/c of the bleed air system ^^
I like how you show the entire track. Makes iit easier to follow.
Thanks for wathcing
Great work by all involved, could have been much worse!
Absolutely wonderful professionalism and great job
Glad to learn this didn't end in a dual engine failure. Always great to have all end well.
The water in the Hudson is probably a little bit warmer this time of year though...
It's like Delta pilots are reading straight from the text book. Excellent job communicating!
You do a great job. Thanks.
Very professional response by all parties 👍👍
One engine away from a repeat
@@pilotpete405 I’m not sure he was trying to be funny. It was just a statement. And if your referring to us-airways flight 1549, every single person survived. Ntm it was in 09, 14yrs ago so no need to be salty.
@@Wkcrt Maybe he’s upset that the bird(s) didn’t make it. 🤷🏼♂️
@@Wkcrt joke landed for me 😉 I was actually thinking the same thing.
Although following Hudson miracle, all airlines train for that scenario.
@@pilotpete405 who indicated that this was funny aside from yourself?
One engine away from repeating USA1549 and one engine away from repeating every other commercial flight out of kennedy
Given that birds travel in flocks, I'm surprised there aren't more multiple-engine failures in bird strike incidents.
I think because they usually only hit one side of the aircraft unless they are traveling directly at you on your flight path. I have been close but thankfully zero bird strikes.
I really liked the cool graphics at the end. The dinky little fire trucks made me chuckle! 😊
Glad you liked it!
Crew was smooth as butter. Calm and cool as cucumbers
Thank you for the vid.
Smooth AF
I wonder how long it takes to being the ILS system back up.
I was wondering the same thing
Legend has it that they're still getting the ILS ready
I believe it has to be turned on manually
At the airport I'm working at it takes ~5, max. 10 minutes from my experience.
Why do people always hide the phone after something happens out the window?
LMAOOO i swear XD
They realize it's time to prep for evacuation or something. They switch back to real life instead of watching the screen.
What is the passenger cabin environment like in this situation? What are the pilots/flight attendants saying to passengers?
Probably something along the lines of “sorry for the inconvenience we have had a mechanical malfunction and will have to return to JFK”. Most likely something like that. As a crew member the last thing you want is panic from passengers. But jets like these are designed to fly whole trips on only one engine.
I am thinking of the panic scene in Airplane! for some reason.
For the first 5 minutes or so, absolutely nothing.
OH MY GAWWWD WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!
I've been through 3 bird strikes (2 in the US, one in Europe) and subsequent engine failures. In both the US trikes the cabin crew said absolutely nothing until the pilots said anything. In the Europe flight the cabin came on the PA system and announced there was a bird strike and there was nothing to be overly concerned about and that we would likely return to the airport shortly. They did this in four languages. In all cases we levelled off and circled for ~10 minutes and then returned for a smooth landing.
The difference in cabin mood was stark though. In the US the pax were all fearful and doing their prayers & fear routine. On the EU flight people were concerned, but also pissed off that it meant we were looking at a 2-3 delay while a new plane was found afte landing.
Small correction - these weren't birds, these were seagulls aka flying rats.
The pilots and the tower almost sounded bored. "Yeah, no big deal, we only lost one engine, after all...."
I guess that is the result of the training both went through, nobody would need "that guy" who's like "OOOH MAYYY GAAAWD WE'LL DIE!!!"
Bird is the word.
That part where departure asked souls on board and fuel remaining.....I could just hear the either lack of sleep or depression lmao.
I’m curious why he stayed at 2k. I would have wanted a little more altitude to troubleshoot. I don’t like flying at 2k even in the diamond that I fly lol. Thoughts???
maybe don't want to overstress the still unknown operating condition on the running engine. Also idle spinning engine is reducing some drag, but there is still lots.
Why is there no audio on the bird strike video?
Time to reboot the phone. The video has audio.
@@commerce-usa Probably an issue with stereo sound. Some phones only play one of the two channels and if the audio is only in the other channel, you hear nothing.
Interesting to note, the same aircraft was back in service two days later according to Fr24. Was it only minor damage does anyone know? Can anyone add any Imput how quickly bird strikes can get fixed? 👍🏻
Not an airplane mechanic, but I'm going to guess they threw in a spare. I'm assuming you need to do a full teardown / inspection of an engine after a bird strike.
@@oldRighty1 Delta has a good-sized operation there, probably had a spare engine on hand to swap out. If not easy enough to fly one up from ATL or wherever.
New engine. Not overly hard on the 737’s and most main airports have spares. Seen one swapped at the gate before
Most bird strikes only require an inspection of the Low and High-pressure compressors and the replacement of any damaged fan blades on the engine. If the damage to the engine exceeds the manual limits it will be swapped out.
Now that’s how it’s done.
Luckily we have one engine working or it could have been another landing in the Hudson river.
How long does it take to bring ILS up, expedited?
Lots of birds in NY huh
They're trying to escape NY like everyone else.
A few less now though
Those were seagulls, which are rats with wings. Lots of rats in NYC.
So what is the difference between ILS and RNAV-Y?
ILS uses the Instrument Landing System. RNAV is GPS-based. ILS is higher precision (at least when you get close to the runway.)
I will definitely get clarified on this but in layman's terms, ILS is using the instruments in the airplane and RNav is using Beacons that send signals to the aircraft and a visual of the runway.
From what I read, seems RNAV is more direct and ILS would have pre-established routes ..... guess that's better for busier airports.
ILS is the Instrument Landing System, RNAV is just a waypoint (usually gps, but it could be a radio beacon). So RNAV can get you to the runway, but it can't help you land the way ILS can.
I think because they weren't using 31L for landing at that time, the ILS on it was shut down completely. Thats why the controller offered to bring it up but it "would take a few minutes". Presumably the weather was clear enough this day to not require ILS.
RNAV is GPS and satellite based. ILS is only a landing system and is entirely ground based (radio). ILS is a precision approach.
The ILS consists of two radio waves being sent out, one laterally which is the localiser, one vertically which is the glideslope. the aircraft picks up the radio waves and follows them down near enough to the ground (or few hundred feet depending) like has been said already, RNAV is basically GPS based 👍🏻
Was the bird scarer away on vacation?
Pretty long flight for a go around wasn't it?
engine strike by bird failure
routine
I was wondering why did they ask for the weight of fuel in pounds? Wouldn't it be more appropriate if it was in gallons or liters?
They can convert it
Most US airline companies use pounds to calculate the fuel requiered for any route. The fuel config inside the plane system is set to show pounds instead of kg
Pounds is the most common unit of measurement for fuel, at least for US aircraft. Airliners usually don't have a readout of gallons so the easiest options for fuel remaining are either pounds or time
The density of fuel changes with temperature, so the same number of kilos/pounds will take up a (slightly) different number of liters/gallons depending on conditions.
Also, all the performance calculations are based on weight, so it's pretty standard to just always think of jet fuel by weight.
Flying is all about weight. Takeoff weight, landing weight and so on.
If I have my choice of airline to fly to a particular destination, it will be delta.
Wow. He didn't ask him if he wanted to try Teeterburo? "Can't make it" We're going into the Hudson".
I hate seagulls, they're worthless.
2:02 ..."will run some checklists and then we'll come back to the field."
Swissair Flight 111 vibes 😢
Not even close! Swissair had an active fire. This is completely normal to delay. You need time to get the airplane configured and the various checklists run for a single engine approach and go around plus another briefing guide for the RNAV approach wgich is why he was initially requesting the ILS.
Not at all similar. An active fire is a very different situation from a single engine failure. Not every emergency should be treated the same way. For a single engine failure in a twin, you can continue safely flying for hours (basically however long your fuel holds out, which would be 6+ hours in the case of this flight.) An active fire on board is a "get on the ground now" situation. But most emergencies are not. In the vast majority of emergency situations, it is much more safe to take your time, run through the checklists, and make sure that everything is properly planned and coordinated before landing. Which is why pilots are trained to do exactly that. And it's why those emergency checklists exist in the first place.
Getting into too much of a hurry and not slowing down and focusing and making deliberate decisions can turn situations where the plane should be able to land completely safely into deadly situations very quickly. TransAsia 235 is a tragic example of this. A relatively routine single engine failure after takeoff incident not unlike this one, but the pilots reacted too quickly instead of slowing down and carefully running through their checklists. As a result, they shut down the wrong engine, leaving them with zero functioning engines and not enough time to get them restarted. They then stalled the airplane and crashed into a bridge and then the river below it, killing 43 of the 58 occupants and injuring the other 15 in addition to 2 people on the ground.
When there is not a situation that demands an immediate reaction, it is far more safe to take your time, run through the proper procedures, and make sure you're taking the correct actions. When you unnecessarily get in a hurry, you're a lot more likely to make mistakes that can turn a situation where you should still be able to perform a normal landing into a fatal crash very quickly.
Of course, the above is referring to twin-engine airliners. In the case of light single-engine aircraft, then, obviously, a single engine failure is a much more serious and urgent emergency, which will result on getting back on the ground rather soon one way or another.
There’s not many times where you need to rush in an airplane, and a simple engine failure isn’t one of them.
Now, if we have an uncontrolled fire I’m putting that thing down on the nearest runway in record time. Checklist or no.
The best example of "single engine is safe" is enter air which flew from Gdańsk to Warsaw with single engine after long holding near EPGD (Gdańsk) :)
ruclips.net/video/TfdxdmoHe6g/видео.html
@@kacper9687 Oh, there are much, much longer examples than that. The A350 is rated for ETOPS 370. That is, it's rated to fly 6 hours and 10 minutes on a single engine. Not sure if any have actually done that, but there was a United 777 flying from Auckland to Los Angeles that diverted to Kona, Hawaii after an engine failure 20 years ago. It flew approximately 3 hours and 10 minutes from the time the engine was shut down until it landed normally in Kona.
While it wasn't a single engine, British Airways actually opted to continue a flight on a 747-400 from Los Angeles to Heathrow after an engine failed somewhere over Canada. It crossed the entire Atlantic Ocean with a failed engine (of course, being a 747, it still had 3 operational ones.) It ultimately landed in Manchester, England instead of Heathrow, as it had burned more fuel than planned due to flying on 3 engines instead of 4. The FAA was not happy about the incident and wanted BA to be fined, but the British authorities were ok with it.
Is it an American thing that they don't say "Mayday mayday mayday" to declare an emergency? What is the official best practice for declaring one over the radio?
He literally declared an emergency on the first radio call after departure.
@Alireza Alivandivafa Read my comment again. He didn't call mayday at any point. I'm asking what best practice is for declaring an emergency.
Different pilots say different things. Declaring an emergency is the equivalent of a Mayday just different wording.
@@iitzfizz Is there no agreed standard way to do so?
@@davidgraham7932 the best practice is whatever gets ATC to understand the assistance you need. Declaring an emergency the way he did very clearly communicated that. Use of mayday and pan is much more about assisting non native English speakers understand the level of assistance needed. Also, in the US, all emergencies are treated the same - there is no distinction in how ATC will treat an aircraft that has said mayday or pan.
I hope the birds were okay...
Crispy on the outside, still raw in the middle, so definitely below par.
@@phillee2814 but pricesily sliced ^^
For the almighty algorithm 😀
This is because the tower doesn’t have radar training so they don’t know what to do
Gonna have to put some more wind turbines up to destroy all these birds.
Should climb a bit in case that one engine spools back or you might end up on the Hudson.
So I just always have a day off when stuff like this happens 🥲