For those criticizing the 40 minute fuel declared as 'emergency:' consider that each go-around can take up to 10 additional minutes and with wind-shear reported at one airport they couldn't take the chance of being number 10 (already about 20 additional minutes) to line up behind the LaGuardia row. For the same considerations they had to let the JFK folk know they can't be put at the back of the line. The pilot took the safer choice of having to answer a few additional questions and fill out additional paperwork rather than just 'hope for the best' in getting a favorable landing the second time around. This 40 minute reserve fuel was a good demonstration of how it is meant to be used.
The 'acceptable' min fuel is one thing in perfect conditions - but add poor weather, heavy traffic, or any other complications, and all the 'bean counter' calculations are invalid. That's why the captain gets paid the Big Bucks and needs to Call the Mayday while there's still time to adjust - as this one did. Well done all around.
For anyone curious, it was not the sequencing that caused the diversion. It was the windshear. Once they were emergency, they were #1 for LGA, perhaps #2 behind the medical emergency. But, the windshear made it possible that another go around was quite possible. Then you may have a bigger problem. Now that 40-45 min in fuel is 20-25 minutes. No pilot wants to bet their lives and passenger lives that the tank is that accurate. The pilots made the correct safe decision.
@@JahongirHaitov I did not see the JFK windshear in the report. In any event, in an emergency, you want to be #1. What happens if the emergency ahead of you has a problem. Yes it was medical, but what if they had to stop to treat the (unknown) condition on the runway. Now you are really up against it. At JFK you also have parallel runways... aka multiple options.
25 January 1990, Avianca Flight 052; a Boeing 707 ran out of fuel on approach to JFK. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the crash occurred due to the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system, inadequate traffic flow management by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the lack of standardized understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns. Due to the air traffic controllers giving ultimately untrue delay estimations the flight became critically low on fuel. This dire situation was not recognized as an emergency by the controllers because of the failure of the pilots to use the word "emergency". The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt.
I believe that was his third attempt and his alternates were baltimore and boston plus i beleive there was a machismo factor in the cockpit with the declaring an emergency
@@rael5469 I was living in Huntington Long Island at the time. The plane flew low over the house and sounded very strange. I ran outside to see it flying low and slow about 1000 feet overhead as it disappeared into low cloud cover. Then learned of the crash over the TV news. Worked at a photo development shop in town. The next day a lot of pics came in of the plane wreckage on the ground. It was a hilly and treed area and the plane was in sections spread out on the ground. Amazing that people survived.
Legally required to declare an emergency if you expect to land below minimum fuel (30min). Would have been min fuel for LGA and updated calculation below for Kennedy, since it's a bit farther.
My training was Fuel reserve in vfr flight 30 minutes but ifr is “After reaching the destination and alternate airport, an additional 45 minutes of fuel at normal cruising speed. “
#10 in sequence with wind shear on an already tight fit at LGA and a medical ahead, absolutely the right call to declare with what they had left. If they even tried to make another attempt at LGA they would not have had the fuel to make it back around in the event of a miss.
And with winds already over 30 mph, all departures are also using 31 too. Once informed that they were 10th in line, the call to divert was correct and immediate. Min fuel means that the crew can’t accept a delay at all. As for this, the plane needs to ultimately ferry back to LGA, but most passengers could choose to disembark at JFK (domestic flight).
@@AEMoreira81 actually the pax deplane at JFK and are bused back to LGA. this happens more than people realize in the winter weather because of huge traffic volume into NY
@@gottafly30NYC airports are dysfunctional. They need to limit the number of flights to a much lower number and ban commercial jets smaller than 143 pax. They just can't have all those tiny jets waiting capacity.
Future pilots should learn from this on how quickly he declared Emergency Fuel, rather than just staying at Min Fuel and hope it works being #10 at a wind shear situation... further, if he had any trouble and had to go around at JFK, you are getting into real dire territory now fuel wise. (Remember this video has parts massively sped up for brevity, it took 20 minutes to get from the go around until landing again at JFK on the ADS-B data, meaning he landed JFK with only 20 mins or less of fuel left!)
And Delta should learn to put enough fuel on board their aircraft so that they can make their alternate if they have to divert. It's the law, and clearly they did not have enough fuel to make it to Boston.
Do any of you idiots actually know the amount of fuel the pilots had remaining when they got to the gate or are you idiots just speculating as you idiots normally do?
@@Great-Documentaries I was on this same Delta flight from ATL to LGA 2 days later, still with wind shear at NYC, and at the ATL gate we were told the plane was "payload optimized" and max weight (could not take any check-in bags). I found that strange and assumed they were either carrying cargo or carrying extra fuel to divert until I saw this!
This is a really good lessons learned here. Thanks for posting. I always teach "gas is brains". Meaning when you're low on fuel, things can get pretty hairy. And decisions and the ability to make good ones become more difficult. So the implication is when able, do not skimp on fuel. In this situation however, this airliner probably had the proper fuel planned. This shows that having a legal "plan" does not always preclude situations like this from arising. Higher than expected winds and longer routing can eat into the required reserves. For this reason, many commercial and military operations plan for higher than minimum required fuel. In any event, a go-around is one of those events that can seriously eat into that minimum required fuel. It easily can turn into a 10-20 minute ordeal. In this case he was number 10, which can mean 20 minutes. That's 20 minutes out of his 40 remaining. Talk about gas being brains! I think the captain made a great decision to declare an emergency and go to an airport with multiple runways that favored the landing winds instead of trying LGA again. Another important takeaway for young pilots is this: "Emergency" is not a bad word. And it does not mean you made a mistake. It simply means you have a situation and need priority....so you can live and talk about it on the ground. No good organization will hammer, or even negatively question a PIC decision to declare an emergency. 40+ years of flying, 21+ of it in the Air Force, has shown that you can hurt yourself or others, trying to "gut it out" in this industry.
When the approach is ILS 31, those are the worst days at LaGuardia, because all week, high winds mean that LGA is generally under single runway operation (takeoffs are also on 31). Number 10 for arrival means that it’s likely another 30-35 minutes…after every arrival, there is a departure.
At 5 minutes in, we hear some happiness in the guy’s voice when he finally gets the runway he wants, after declaring an emergency. Like “holy shit something went right!?”
Kudos to the captain for making the call while there was time to do something about it. Landing with min fuel in perfect conditions always has a High Pucker Factor - add heavy traffic or bad weather and that's an emergency. It takes just one mistake by a preceding aircraft (missing the taxiway; delayed clearing from the runway) and things get disastrous very fast.
2:23 Yeah they did. Didn't just give him his sequence number (probably that controller didn't know it), but warned him about the ride around and the medical emergency causing delays, and that there wasn't much ATC could do about it right before the handoff. (Which presumably prompted the crew to discuss options and therefore ask for sequence with the next guy.)
There was an infamous incident in India where a low-fuel aircraft had to divert to its alternate only to have to turn around when the plane in front of him crashed completely disabling the runway at that alternate. I forgot the flight numbers but the enthusiasts of this channel surely remember what I'm referring to. The point is always be prepared that you may not be the only emergency.
A Spicejet Boeing 737-800, registration VT-SGU performing flight SG-256 from Goa to Delhi (India) with 176 passengers and 6 crew, was descending towards Delhi in deteriorating weather and traffic congestion. ATC advised the flight was #13 in the sequence for landing, the aircraft was instructed to perform two orbits, then was cleared to descend to 7000 feet. The captain (ATPL, 6,410 hours total, 2,003 hours on type in command) was rated for CAT II approaches, the first officer (CPL, 1,996 hours total, 1,743 hours on type) rated for CAT IIIa approaches. While being vectored for the ILS approach to runway 28 the RVR for runway 28 roll out dropped to 50 meters. The captain decided to hold at 7000 feet expecting an improvement in RVRs. After 26 minutes in the hold the captain queried the weather at Jaipur receiving information of 900 meters visibility with 1500 meters RVR. The captain therefore decided to divert to Jaipur, 3100kg of fuel were remaining (2573 kg required to divert to Jaipur, 3100kg of fuel required to divert to Lucknow).
From a pilot - these guys did the right thing. Regs aside, from experience, I want at least 45 mins of fuel in my belly upon landing. Otherwise, I feel like I'm cutting it too close. Context - Non-airline flying, I once ferried a piston VFR for a friend. I planned "perfectly", and landed with about 31 mins of fuel, although 30 mins is required for VFR ...and felt butterflies due to cutting it too close. Too many things that aren't rare can occur - that burn more fuel than planned - WX diversions enroute, increased headwinds, airport WX delays, etc.
Good on the widget CA. Not sure about DALOps, but I always tell our dispatchers to add fuel (unless we are ferrying or under a weight restriction)- more often than not, you’ll need it to chase a better altitude for the ride or what’s worse… unforeseen circumstances at your arrival airport. There’s a lot the traveling public doesn’t know… to be expected. Captains be captains, and never let anyone outside the cockpit tell you otherwise. Nice job gents!
Normal approach-by the book Min fuel-new book Emergency fuel-book out window Excellent call by crew, very decisive in the plan, comes back to a good briefing and knowledge of protocol. One more windshear call is another twenty minute loop, traffic notwithstanding.
Mmmm I'm not sure how many delays they had before that, but declaring a fuel emergency after just one go-around doesn't show they have safety first in mind
@@javiTests Just like you said, you aren't sure how many delays the aircraft had before the video starts. So why comment? You have no idea what you're talking about. That flight, like many to LGA, could have been slowed down 300 miles out, vectored all over the sky, we just don't have the info from this video.
@@6862ptc Exactly, so defending the actions and saying "delta is here" when they are declaring a fuel emergency is exactly the same. You/they don't have all the information to say that. If they didn't have delays, it was a gross error/miscalculation on the pilots, if they did, maybe they didn't do anything wrong. In any case, comments always help the video, so that's another reason to do it. You don't need to be so negative about it.
@@javiTests First I never said "Delta is here". But if you look at flight aware, which you should have done before commenting, they were delayed along their entire flight from ATL to LGA. In fact, they got a delay vector in North Carolina. Why comment on something before you've done your due diligence?
I have always wondered why the "non tower" controllers ask about the reason for the go around. Are there $$$ consequences based on the reason, or is it just some FAA reporting requirement?
I believe there is an FAA reporting requirement, but it's also helpful for the TRACON to know the reason for a go-around in case it's likely to also affect other aircraft that they're currently sequencing towards that airport. A wind shear alert in particular is a useful thing for the TRACON to know so that their Approach controllers can advise aircraft currently on approach of the situation.
My only criticism is that asking how many planes ahead of you is the wrong question...it's really how much time before you're on the approach, or whether you're going to be getting extensive delay vectors. Look at where they were relative to the airport at the 3:25 mark....it's not hard to imagine fitting 10 planes in front of them, tbh. That said, the existence of such awful windshear, meaning a non-zero chance of another go-around, plus the possible delays associated with the medical emergency arriving in front of them meant that diverting to JFK was the right answer. My point, though, is that the reasons for diverting to JFK were not really based on the answer of '10' to the question of 'what is our sequence?'
Very odd to have tower instruct a wind shear go around. Tower can advise current conditions, but it’s crew discretion to go around. I have had plenty of wind events, but never a controller attempt to do my job for me.
If they had said Mayday for min fuel at 3:14 would they have just been pushed to the head of the line instead of having to divert or would ATC have told them to go to JFK instead?
As another poster said, they could have jumped to the front of the line for LGA, but there were still windshear concerns that may have force another go around and then put him in an even worst spot. Making the call to divert to JFK where wind wasn't as much of an issue was the correct call.
I'm not a pilot, and I don't work in the aviation industry, but if they were supposed to go to LaGuardia airport, but then went to Kennedy for safety reasons, what happens next: do they get a small connecting flight, taxis, train? How do they get to LaGuardia ?
I don't think a lot of people would mind as they just want to go someplace else, not exactly to a destinct airport. for some it might even be better to end up at JFK. In the end they all need some kind of transportation either way.
Unless they had major diversions enroute or the weather unexpectedly deteriorated at destination, I would recommend Dispatch always add extra fuel for LaGuardia. The FAA required 45 minutes is not enough. Pilots can always request extra.
I think it is absurd that the airlines put so little fuel reserve on that a missed approach results in a fuel emergency. That is just really bad planning.
Also can someone explain to me we have a medical and a mayday fuel how does that make our guy no. 10 in sequence. Tower i am coming in clear my airspace thanks. Looks like they had to fly further so as they didn't disruption LGA and thus had less fuel if any issues.
From my understanding he declared "min fuel" at first which is different from "emergency fuel" which he declared when he heard his sequence and the wind issue. Min means "tight, but could suck, please prioritize"... Emergency means "gtfo of the way i need to come in right now"
More fuel often means less bags and passengers. You load up with fuel needed for the legal requirements of the flight plus anticipated delays. Any more than that you are often leaving passengers and/or bags behind. Customers don’t like that. 99% of the time it works out fine. occasionally you have to divert.
Contact to Company "Hi, this is 323, throw in a few thousand more gallons of fuel you cheap asses, it's NYC, we're going to be stuck in holding for an hour."
I believe there was a medical emergency ahead of them, and they couldn’t be moved ahead of that. Best decision was to divert to JFK while they still had a choice.
Others mentioned at LGA when 31 is in use, they're also squeezing out departures in between, so given the wind shear (pilots were likely getting ATIS JFK to compare) it was definitely the right call.
I like to imagine the chaos theory here. Purely theoretical of course: As D323 declares a fuel emergency from Laguardia to Kennedy - D232 Declares fuel emergency from JFK to LaGuardia.
Extremely professional exchange, but… how can ONE go around and some minutes of wait till sequence 10 can put an aircraft into a fuel minimum emergency?
Do the math. There's 19 planes in front of them (9 landings and 10 takeoffs alternating). One of which is already an emergency and any of which could soon be if they are repeat go rounds. Tower is already in abnormal approach. Tower is already calling go round on wind increase +25 from 11 to 36 (if I remember correctly). Do you have a crystal ball? Any thing goes wrong or even sub optimally, they fall out of the sky going around the second time which means climbing out of LaGuardia into yet another approach with a lot of traffic. LaGuardia sucks. More generally NYC sucks but LaGuardia especially.
It’s smart that he stuck to his decision but I don’t know if he saved any time going for JFK. From the position he was probably still about number seven. At least with JFK he was less likely to get another go around.
my question in this scenario is: what do passengers do? If you want to end your trip at JFK, could you? If you need to be at LGA for some reason, does DL shuttle you to LGA from JFK? and is that by air or on ground? what about checked baggage?
I have no idea what the passengers did or thought. I do know, however, that they should have thanked this very professional crew for massively reducing the risk of them being killed had the aircraft fallen out of the sky due to fuel starvation.
@kevin_spellman there is already a shuttle that runs between jfk and lga. Bus i am sure delta would also arrange a bus. If you were getting picked up, it's only a 20 min change for who was meeting you. We'll could take an hour at rush hour 😂
It all depends. I've been refueled on a taxiway with no option to deplane. I've also been taken to a gate to refuel with no option. I've also seen options to get off. Delta would likely want that plane at LGA for the next flight. My guess is they took on fuel and flew to LGA and depending on timing, gate availability, refueling, etc. they may or may not have been given the option to get off.
Minimum fuel for us is when you are committed to an airport and a change in the clearance could lead into a fuel emergency. So ATC should know that the option to land have been reduced to a specific aerodrome…
Why didnt they plan for more fuel? I mean it was a relativley short flight for the 321 atl-lga, every one knows you can get held up a lot in holds and GA into lga so not sure why they didnt stack up another two hours or so of fuel
I thought the same thing. I get that it was probably more efficient to fly with less fuel but was money saved after having to diverting to JFK. Not criticizing just genuinely curious.
@@gnobes9677 With the new FAA passengers weights they introduced five years ago and more seats on planes, maximum structural landing weight can be a problem for the A321s. A321s are also poor performers climbing wise so less fuel can help get to higher flight levels.
My buddy Flys for delta from key west to Atlanta. He says he barely has enough fuel to get to Atlanta and wants ore fuel on board. Delta won't let him. One bad thunderstorm and maybe not make it.
They're trying to avoid going under minimal fuel requirements dictated by regulations and company policy. It's not like they are about to actually run out of fuel. What your friend is complaining about is needlessly risking everyone being stuck in Orlando and missing their flights from Atlanta. However, someone gets paid more money than a pilot to determine how much it costs to divert a plane, compared to how much is saved by hauling less fuel to 35,000 for 1,000 miles. We should be impressed with how accurate their fuel prediction method is, instead of being concerned about Delta being too fuel efficient.
Alaska 420 smokin too much 420...nobody believes you... #1 Nobody just flies from Key West to ATL. #2 Delta ONLY uses the A319 to serve Key West. It's a good performing aircraft, it can and does carry plenty of fuel for the city pairs. #3 There have been a number of pilots on this thread that have stated they have decades of experience as Delta pilots, myself included (almost 30 years), that have stated they have NEVER been pressured to fly with less fuel than they felt comfortable with. I have never heard one pilot say they were refused additional fuel when the Capt had requested it.
@@6862ptc I guess, but only about the flat parts. I used to live in NE South Dakota. There are parts that the grade is 1 ft per mile, that's some flat earth.
Except you don’t always have an Alternate airport filed. If the weather is above what the FAA requires for your type of operation, then no alternate is used.
Airline SOP clearly defines minimum and emergency fuel amount for each specific aircraft type so all the armchair flight sim pilots criticizing them for calling it an "emergency" can stick to being pretend pilots.
In the rest of the world, if u say ‘minimum fuel’, by definition u dont have the fuel to divert and land with your final reserve or more. You have already committed to your destination, so maybe he diverted first then declared minimum fuel for the new intended destination?
I thought fuel emergency was 30 min? They had 40 even after vectored out to Kennedy and into landing sequence. I think it’s funny departure was like “why’d you go around?” and delta almost didn’t mention that tower told them to lol!
Except we can't tell if this flight was delayed earlier in the flight, just can't tell that by the video. It starts during the arrival and approach. They could have been slowed down and vectored all over the sky 300 miles out (not unusual for LGA).
Which is why I divert early. If im planned that low I add more, sometimes things happen, weather, traffic, whatever. Ill land somewhere short of my destination if its the safe and prudent thing to do. It may disrupt plans but that is always less of a problem than running out of fuel.
Delta policy is to go around when windshear of +/- 15 knots is present for intended runway. Interesting that it was ATC and not the crew initiating the go around.
I had the same thought. Perhaps they did initiate, but their radio call was blanked/not heard by the LiveATC scanner source due to lower altitude at that portion of their approach. The narrative will be out in full detail soon enough. ;)
@@imaPangolinOnly in an emergency. They never declared min fuel (not an emergency) until after the go around. Nor did they request priority handling for a return to LGA. And who requests a runway that is 4,511 feet SHORTER than 31L when you must land??
Not true. At Delta, a go-around is only REQUIRED for a Micro Burst Alert. That's the memory aid (M)icroburst (A)lert = missed approach. Obviously a Capt. has to take into consideration the aircraft state, crew make-up/experience/fatigue etc when deciding to continue to land with W/S at +/- 15 kts. I think what you might be thinking about the actual airspeed indications on the aircraft airspeed indicator on final being +/- 15 kts. A G/A is not required simply with reports of windshear being greater than =/- 15 kts.
great video & comments. Wouldn't the same considerations be also applicable for JFK..they were reporting windshear at JFK (potential for go-around) and it was a greater distance to get to JFK than LGA from where they declared fuel emergency. Is it simply they expected an immediate landing clearance in JFK vs at LGA? Why could JFK give them that and not LGA & how would delta pilots know they would get that? Thx!
The pilots did better than air traffic control and were in control of the situation better than anyone. One of the best radio readbacks transitions I have ever heard
As the old saying goes : you can go to the minimums on weather , or you can go to the minimums on fuel . But NEVER at the same time! Once a pilot realises weather AND fuel are both nearing minimums , then it’s essential get out of that situation EARLY !
If 323 had officially declared Emergency Fuel prior to asking for the sequence I think ATC would have expedited their arrival. However I recognize that the other inbound emergency could have been a factor.
I think they were at the threshold of emergency fuel, such that if they were #2 or 3 for arrival they wouldn't have needed to declare it, but at #10 they now did.
@@jon.limjap okay yes that makes sense now. Overall I think the pilot and the ATC both did well in communicating their situations. Thanks for the reply.
Did they had other go-arounds or delays before that? Because declaring a fuel emergency just after one go-around indicates they started the flight very short on fuel...
I'm sure the company will look into it, but I do wonder about the planning. With all that traffic, single runway, and wind shear they probably should have planned for a lot of holding. I don't know what the length of the flight was - maybe they just couldn't have carried more fuel. Obviously if all these planes had this issue it could have been a problem, though maybe not if this was more of an LGA issue.
@@YouCanSeeATC Are you saying they didn't have a delay during the WHOLE flight? Because we can't tell that by the video. It starts during the arrival and approach. They could have been slowed down and vectored all over the sky 300 miles out (not unusual for LGA).
These airlines running around with just enough “legal fuel” to save a few bucks is going to catch up with them. I’m a corporate pilot flying a Falcon. Before that it was PC24, a Hawker 900XP, a Sabre 65, a Citation CJ, and. Beech Jet. Plus a slew of Turboprops. I can tell you you I have never landed with less than 1:15 fuel and usually a bit more. 10 years ago I was flying an ILS Approach into Columbus Ohio’s airport in heavy rain. We were on our way back from Ocean Reef Airport in the Keys. A Southwest 737 was in front of me and upon landing blew two mains. I was forced to go missed and shoot an approach to the parallel. Just like this crew I was 10 or so for the approach. After the nearly 30 minutes of vectors and finally the approach I was amazed with just how little fuel I was left with. There was no option but to land at that point. That’s why I am always fat on fuel carrying about double the reserves I need to be legal.
Meh. 30 minutes of vectors and you landed skinny? Next time bingo much earlier in the game. Cincinnati, Lunken, Rickenbacker, Dayton, Wilmington, OSU, - tons of nearby airports! Of course, I already know the answer. The problem with corporate is you have Mister Shmuckatelli the "VIP" who got wealthy on the latest get rich quick scheme and they treat pilots like ghetto cab drivers. They zero respect for ADM. They never want to be told "we can't make it in to airport ABC & we must divert to XYZ." You can't say "NO." They are elite and more important than anyone else, and cannot be inconvenienced to divert to get gas. Even if it only costs them another hour or two. As for extra reserve gas, that's just BS. If it's a barbie jet small enough that can get in & out of Ocean Reef Club, doubling your reserves means ditching everybody's' golf clubs and heavy luggage. I call BS on that one. But you had "get-there-itis" and ended up landing at CMH at any cost. So many options for you to pull the plug earlier, and bug out to another airport. Why waste an entire half-hour's worth of gas once the threat of a long delay is known? You turned a threat in the "time" bucket into a "no-time" threat. The pilots at Big D aren't slumming around with min release fuel. Rest assured, there's plenty of gas uplifted before the FDRA is signed.
Barbie jets that can fit in & out of Ocean Reef Club can't carry "double reserves" without leaving golf bags and Tumi luggage behind. It's interesting you'd take a threat in the "time" bucket and make it a "no-time" threat by burning through 30 perfectly good minutes of gas waiting for a chance at CMH, with so many other options around. The better plan is to bingo 30 minutes earlier in the game to Lunken, Cincinnati, Rickenbacker, Wilmington, or OSU. So many options. Thats the problem with Corporate. Pilots are treated like uneducated hired help - just a cab driver in a taxi with higher costs. There is zero respect for ADM and CRM. You can't say to the owner, "NO, you cannot bring all those bags. NO, we can't make it into ABC, we must divert to XYZ." If APG or Aerodata says that runway won't work, you have to make it work. So you exceed runway or performance limits, or make it a 134.5 operation by falsifying fuel load or W&B. Rest assured, the pilots at Big D aren't cruising around with min fuel.
@@danniballecter7936 you are right but I have dozens of friends that fly everything from A319’s to 787’s and I am always amazed at what little fuel they carry in reserve. I shoot for 3500# in my Falcon but will go to 3000# as a minimum but its a lot of times in the 5000# range just for comfort or tankering reasons and a lot of times they are not carrying much more especially when considering they are in a airplane weight 5 times more or greater.
The other thing to consider for the armchair captains in the comments... their hand could have also been forced based on company policy and procedures. As a part 121 operator you are subject to the FAR's as well as your company SOP's... you can be even further restricted by aircraft MEL's. There is a lot that goes into these operations and decisions. At the end of the day, leaning towards the side of safety is NEVER the wrong decision.
Contrary to FAA regulations. Normally an IFR flight requires enough fuel for a missed approach, diversion to the required alternate and then 30 minutes more. I smell something wrong here
Winds and/or delays into LGA likely increased flight time beyond what had been initially planned. 25kt wind shear tends to indicate less-than-desirable weather conditions. Then they were also being vectored around a while by Departure after the go-around from LGA, in part due to the inbound medical emergency.
@darylonezime8714 no, that's not the required fuel for a domestic Part 121 flight. Most flights do not require an alternate so all they would have to have is a 45 minute reserve going into LGA, which they did. We also can't see what happened before this. It's common to have ATC delays, vectors, and holding, so they may have already used any extra fuel they had, and the windshear may not have been in the forecast
@@NiagarAviator Maybe what you said is something that applies to only FAA. But like the comment said, contrary to FAA regulations flights normally requires to have trip fuel, contingency fuel, alternate fuel and 30 minutes final reserve fuel. Some flights depending on routes may also required ETOPS fuel etc. This is the regulation in alot of countries.
Is saying the internationally understood word for an emergency 'mayday' only illegal in the US or other places as well? I assume it's illegal as it's seems taboo for pilots to say. I mean even after the go around prior to mayday fuel they could have given the first controller a heads up by declaring pan pan pan we are approaching min fuel and will require priority handling.
You have to say 'mayday' three times which wastes valuable time when the pilot is trying to deal with a legitimate emergency, so it is safer to skip the 'mayday', 'mayday', 'mayday' aspect of the procedure.
@@Videos888 the comment is 100% incorrect it takes longer to explain that yes you have a real emergency than saying mayday mayday mayday. This aspect of aviation is very poor in pilots in the US and ATC. I shudder every time I hear ATC recordings where ATC is suggesting to an aircraft in emergency that there is an aircraft in front of them - American ATC are good at volume but functionally hopeless at dealing with any emergencies - they always hassle the pilots for fuel, souls, nature of emergency which is relevant but also often asked by all handlers the emergency aircraft pass through, breifity and let the pilots deal with the emergency
How can AMERICAN ATC always continue operations on a runway that is supposed to be used for an emergency aircraft in the next 5 minutes... I mean the emergency aircraft on final is still following another aircraft in front of him that is using the same runway! What if the first aircraft to land has to stop on the runway for exemple? Then the emergency aircraft has to go around and that's what you really want to avoid with an emergency aircraft, especially for FUEL. If they have to go around, lose another 10 minutes and maybe on the next approach they have a windshear and have to go around again, they might maybe crash with no fuel remaining.
Because Min fuel didn’t get the required result. Min fuel says we can make it but only without undue delay. ATC could but is not required to give priority. Declaring the emergency would have happened in 10 minutes anyway. Might as well start now and get the ball rolling. Declaring unties everyone’s hands.
Since when does a controller have the authority to instruct and aircraft tor go around because of a wind shear advisory? That should be the pilots decision.
Who dispatches a plane into New York with forecasts for terrible windshear, tons of traffic volume, and leaves them 40 minutes fuel after a miss? That is pretty crappy planning, Delta.
We don’t know what happened on the flight before the start of this video. They may have had other delays which brought them closer to the minimum fuel point on the first approach.
Typically “minimum fuel” is declared at 30 mins left so declaring an emergency @ 40 mins is IMO overly conservative. But in full disclosure, there are a lot of factors in NY airspace to consider and I wasn’t there. Delta has been at it a long time so their procedures and SOP’s are generally aligned with the best practices in aviation.
Wrong. For this airline, and this aircraft minimum fuel = 4000# or 40 minutes. Emergency Fuel = 3000# or 30 minutes. FAA def here: www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-11/INFO_08004.pdf
For those criticizing the 40 minute fuel declared as 'emergency:' consider that each go-around can take up to 10 additional minutes and with wind-shear reported at one airport they couldn't take the chance of being number 10 (already about 20 additional minutes) to line up behind the LaGuardia row.
For the same considerations they had to let the JFK folk know they can't be put at the back of the line.
The pilot took the safer choice of having to answer a few additional questions and fill out additional paperwork rather than just 'hope for the best' in getting a favorable landing the second time around.
This 40 minute reserve fuel was a good demonstration of how it is meant to be used.
isn't mayday fuel for part 121 45 minutes or below?
@@KevinS819No. Google FAA definition of Emergency Fuel.
@@KevinS819 30
@@KevinS819 No. Read FAA InFO 08004.
The 'acceptable' min fuel is one thing in perfect conditions - but add poor weather, heavy traffic, or any other complications, and all the 'bean counter' calculations are invalid. That's why the captain gets paid the Big Bucks and needs to Call the Mayday while there's still time to adjust - as this one did. Well done all around.
For anyone curious, it was not the sequencing that caused the diversion. It was the windshear. Once they were emergency, they were #1 for LGA, perhaps #2 behind the medical emergency. But, the windshear made it possible that another go around was quite possible. Then you may have a bigger problem. Now that 40-45 min in fuel is 20-25 minutes. No pilot wants to bet their lives and passenger lives that the tank is that accurate. The pilots made the correct safe decision.
But isn't being #2 for LGA which is closer, better than #1 or #2 for JFK which is farther, and also has shear reported?
@@JahongirHaitov I did not see the JFK windshear in the report. In any event, in an emergency, you want to be #1. What happens if the emergency ahead of you has a problem. Yes it was medical, but what if they had to stop to treat the (unknown) condition on the runway. Now you are really up against it. At JFK you also have parallel runways... aka multiple options.
25 January 1990, Avianca Flight 052; a Boeing 707 ran out of fuel on approach to JFK. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the crash occurred due to the flight crew failing to properly declare a fuel emergency, failure to use an airline operational control dispatch system, inadequate traffic flow management by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the lack of standardized understandable terminology for pilots and controllers for minimum and emergency fuel states. While en route, the flight was placed in three holding patterns. Due to the air traffic controllers giving ultimately untrue delay estimations the flight became critically low on fuel. This dire situation was not recognized as an emergency by the controllers because of the failure of the pilots to use the word "emergency".
The flight attempted to make a landing at JFK, but bad weather, coupled with poor communication and inadequate management of the aircraft, forced it to abort and attempt a go-around. The flight ran out of fuel before it was able to make a second landing attempt.
I believe that was his third attempt and his alternates were baltimore and boston plus i beleive there was a machismo factor in the cockpit with the declaring an emergency
A very timely reminder of that incident. I remember that one.
@@rael5469 I was living in Huntington Long Island at the time. The plane flew low over the house and sounded very strange. I ran outside to see it flying low and slow about 1000 feet overhead as it disappeared into low cloud cover. Then learned of the crash over the TV news. Worked at a photo development shop in town. The next day a lot of pics came in of the plane wreckage on the ground. It was a hilly and treed area and the plane was in sections spread out on the ground. Amazing that people survived.
@@karaa270 I recall that there was no fire which was because there was no fuel. It’s rarely the crash that does it. It's the fire afterward.
Delightful to hear good ATC and pilots.
I just love it when ATC and pilots come together
Smart to call emergency at 40min fuel with too many chances for another go around with the wind conditions.
Legally required to declare an emergency if you expect to land below minimum fuel (30min).
Would have been min fuel for LGA and updated calculation below for Kennedy, since it's a bit farther.
nice they have your blessing @wienersail
Rude of you and he was giving his opinion not a blessing.
@@lyaneris thought it was 45 min for part 121
My training was Fuel reserve in vfr flight 30 minutes but ifr is
“After reaching the destination and alternate airport, an additional 45 minutes of fuel at normal cruising speed. “
#10 in sequence with wind shear on an already tight fit at LGA and a medical ahead, absolutely the right call to declare with what they had left. If they even tried to make another attempt at LGA they would not have had the fuel to make it back around in the event of a miss.
And thank you ATC for warning Delta about the sequence.
Delta asked for sequence; ATC did not warn them.
And with winds already over 30 mph, all departures are also using 31 too. Once informed that they were 10th in line, the call to divert was correct and immediate. Min fuel means that the crew can’t accept a delay at all.
As for this, the plane needs to ultimately ferry back to LGA, but most passengers could choose to disembark at JFK (domestic flight).
@@AEMoreira81 actually the pax deplane at JFK and are bused back to LGA. this happens more than people realize in the winter weather because of huge traffic volume into NY
@@gottafly30NYC airports are dysfunctional. They need to limit the number of flights to a much lower number and ban commercial jets smaller than 143 pax. They just can't have all those tiny jets waiting capacity.
Future pilots should learn from this on how quickly he declared Emergency Fuel, rather than just staying at Min Fuel and hope it works being #10 at a wind shear situation... further, if he had any trouble and had to go around at JFK, you are getting into real dire territory now fuel wise. (Remember this video has parts massively sped up for brevity, it took 20 minutes to get from the go around until landing again at JFK on the ADS-B data, meaning he landed JFK with only 20 mins or less of fuel left!)
And Delta should learn to put enough fuel on board their aircraft so that they can make their alternate if they have to divert. It's the law, and clearly they did not have enough fuel to make it to Boston.
@@Great-Documentaries Clearly you're not a pilot.
Do any of you idiots actually know the amount of fuel the pilots had remaining when they got to the gate or are you idiots just speculating as you idiots normally do?
@@Great-Documentaries I was on this same Delta flight from ATL to LGA 2 days later, still with wind shear at NYC, and at the ATL gate we were told the plane was "payload optimized" and max weight (could not take any check-in bags). I found that strange and assumed they were either carrying cargo or carrying extra fuel to divert until I saw this!
This is a really good lessons learned here. Thanks for posting. I always teach "gas is brains". Meaning when you're low on fuel, things can get pretty hairy. And decisions and the ability to make good ones become more difficult. So the implication is when able, do not skimp on fuel. In this situation however, this airliner probably had the proper fuel planned. This shows that having a legal "plan" does not always preclude situations like this from arising. Higher than expected winds and longer routing can eat into the required reserves. For this reason, many commercial and military operations plan for higher than minimum required fuel. In any event, a go-around is one of those events that can seriously eat into that minimum required fuel. It easily can turn into a 10-20 minute ordeal. In this case he was number 10, which can mean 20 minutes. That's 20 minutes out of his 40 remaining. Talk about gas being brains!
I think the captain made a great decision to declare an emergency and go to an airport with multiple runways that favored the landing winds instead of trying LGA again. Another important takeaway for young pilots is this: "Emergency" is not a bad word. And it does not mean you made a mistake. It simply means you have a situation and need priority....so you can live and talk about it on the ground. No good organization will hammer, or even negatively question a PIC decision to declare an emergency.
40+ years of flying, 21+ of it in the Air Force, has shown that you can hurt yourself or others, trying to "gut it out" in this industry.
Delta pilot on radio and ATC were on point. Excellent work.
Totally non standard..
When the approach is ILS 31, those are the worst days at LaGuardia, because all week, high winds mean that LGA is generally under single runway operation (takeoffs are also on 31). Number 10 for arrival means that it’s likely another 30-35 minutes…after every arrival, there is a departure.
Yes lots of go arounds the last 3 days at Lag. 🤦🏻♂️
Some of the worst turbulence I’ve had is when they’re doing the LOC 31. That long downwind at 3000 is always brutal.
At 5 minutes in, we hear some happiness in the guy’s voice when he finally gets the runway he wants, after declaring an emergency. Like “holy shit something went right!?”
Great call by the flight crew to do what they deemed safe based on the circumstances
Don’t know if that was the Capt or FO on the radio, but very professional.
“leaving 3 for 4” and the likes do NOT sound so professional tbh 😅
Captain. Hes been flying with Delta for years I forget his name though
After listening to these videos for so many years you get to know some of these people just by the sound of their voice
@@uy_spotter NY airspace shorthand.
@@braddarnell736 “four thousand, delta 323” is shorter if you want that. and a correct way of replaying to that instruction.
Kudos to the captain for making the call while there was time to do something about it. Landing with min fuel in perfect conditions always has a High Pucker Factor - add heavy traffic or bad weather and that's an emergency. It takes just one mistake by a preceding aircraft (missing the taxiway; delayed clearing from the runway) and things get disastrous very fast.
I miss Kudos chocolate bars… from the early 90’s
2:23 Yeah they did. Didn't just give him his sequence number (probably that controller didn't know it), but warned him about the ride around and the medical emergency causing delays, and that there wasn't much ATC could do about it right before the handoff. (Which presumably prompted the crew to discuss options and therefore ask for sequence with the next guy.)
There was an infamous incident in India where a low-fuel aircraft had to divert to its alternate only to have to turn around when the plane in front of him crashed completely disabling the runway at that alternate. I forgot the flight numbers but the enthusiasts of this channel surely remember what I'm referring to.
The point is always be prepared that you may not be the only emergency.
A Spicejet Boeing 737-800, registration VT-SGU performing flight SG-256 from Goa to Delhi (India) with 176 passengers and 6 crew, was descending towards Delhi in deteriorating weather and traffic congestion. ATC advised the flight was #13 in the sequence for landing, the aircraft was instructed to perform two orbits, then was cleared to descend to 7000 feet. The captain (ATPL, 6,410 hours total, 2,003 hours on type in command) was rated for CAT II approaches, the first officer (CPL, 1,996 hours total, 1,743 hours on type) rated for CAT IIIa approaches. While being vectored for the ILS approach to runway 28 the RVR for runway 28 roll out dropped to 50 meters. The captain decided to hold at 7000 feet expecting an improvement in RVRs. After 26 minutes in the hold the captain queried the weather at Jaipur receiving information of 900 meters visibility with 1500 meters RVR. The captain therefore decided to divert to Jaipur, 3100kg of fuel were remaining (2573 kg required to divert to Jaipur, 3100kg of fuel required to divert to Lucknow).
@@NICK_NJContinue generation
It amazes me how fast things are coordinated when you declare an emergency. So impressed by the folks at ATC
The New York controllers are probably best in the country.
@@gonetoearth2588agreed, they were efficient & concise & calm
Except for the current ATIS - you need to get that on your own.
😂..."Hello"
When ATC replied "Emergency? Roger..." I could feel ATC sit up in their seat for that one. NYC TRACON is best in class.
DAL323 was clear, concise, and quick with their fuel indication back to ATL. Job well done.
Good to see lessons from Avianca Flight 052 being applied here.
From a pilot - these guys did the right thing.
Regs aside, from experience, I want at least 45 mins of fuel in my belly upon landing.
Otherwise, I feel like I'm cutting it too close.
Context - Non-airline flying, I once ferried a piston VFR for a friend.
I planned "perfectly", and landed with about 31 mins of fuel, although 30 mins is required for VFR
...and felt butterflies due to cutting it too close.
Too many things that aren't rare can occur - that burn more fuel than planned
- WX diversions enroute, increased headwinds, airport WX delays, etc.
Live hearing how everyone works together
Not at all. LGA should have let them in.
Good on the widget CA. Not sure about DALOps, but I always tell our dispatchers to add fuel (unless we are ferrying or under a weight restriction)- more often than not, you’ll need it to chase a better altitude for the ride or what’s worse… unforeseen circumstances at your arrival airport.
There’s a lot the traveling public doesn’t know… to be expected. Captains be captains, and never let anyone outside the cockpit tell you otherwise.
Nice job gents!
Nice work all
I think part of this is on the dispatcher too if you plan a flight and see wind shear in the forecast you should always add go around fuel.
Normal approach-by the book
Min fuel-new book
Emergency fuel-book out window
Excellent call by crew, very decisive in the plan, comes back to a good briefing and knowledge of protocol. One more windshear call is another twenty minute loop, traffic notwithstanding.
This flight legit flew over my head right on the green line. It was so windy past couple of days its been crazy 50 mph+
5:12 "two hundred knots."
Safety, Safety, Safety, well done, No fear, Delta is Here.
Mmmm I'm not sure how many delays they had before that, but declaring a fuel emergency after just one go-around doesn't show they have safety first in mind
LOL! You obviously do not know Delta that well
@@javiTests Just like you said, you aren't sure how many delays the aircraft had before the video starts. So why comment? You have no idea what you're talking about. That flight, like many to LGA, could have been slowed down 300 miles out, vectored all over the sky, we just don't have the info from this video.
@@6862ptc Exactly, so defending the actions and saying "delta is here" when they are declaring a fuel emergency is exactly the same. You/they don't have all the information to say that. If they didn't have delays, it was a gross error/miscalculation on the pilots, if they did, maybe they didn't do anything wrong. In any case, comments always help the video, so that's another reason to do it. You don't need to be so negative about it.
@@javiTests First I never said "Delta is here". But if you look at flight aware, which you should have done before commenting, they were delayed along their entire flight from ATL to LGA. In fact, they got a delay vector in North Carolina. Why comment on something before you've done your due diligence?
I have always wondered why the "non tower" controllers ask about the reason for the go around. Are there $$$ consequences based on the reason, or is it just some FAA reporting requirement?
I believe there is an FAA reporting requirement, but it's also helpful for the TRACON to know the reason for a go-around in case it's likely to also affect other aircraft that they're currently sequencing towards that airport. A wind shear alert in particular is a useful thing for the TRACON to know so that their Approach controllers can advise aircraft currently on approach of the situation.
Hats off to the ATC for knowing what "Minumum" means.
Good call
My only criticism is that asking how many planes ahead of you is the wrong question...it's really how much time before you're on the approach, or whether you're going to be getting extensive delay vectors. Look at where they were relative to the airport at the 3:25 mark....it's not hard to imagine fitting 10 planes in front of them, tbh. That said, the existence of such awful windshear, meaning a non-zero chance of another go-around, plus the possible delays associated with the medical emergency arriving in front of them meant that diverting to JFK was the right answer.
My point, though, is that the reasons for diverting to JFK were not really based on the answer of '10' to the question of 'what is our sequence?'
LGA only uses the the straight in approach to 31 when the winds are really blowing normally
It would be the RNAV X31
Very odd to have tower instruct a wind shear go around. Tower can advise current conditions, but it’s crew discretion to go around.
I have had plenty of wind events, but never a controller attempt to do my job for me.
If they had said Mayday for min fuel at 3:14 would they have just been pushed to the head of the line instead of having to divert or would ATC have told them to go to JFK instead?
If you declare MAYDAY then you get to land wherever you like as top priority. Technically a fuel emergency can only be a MAYDAY.
As another poster said, they could have jumped to the front of the line for LGA, but there were still windshear concerns that may have force another go around and then put him in an even worst spot. Making the call to divert to JFK where wind wasn't as much of an issue was the correct call.
I never heard him ask his sequence for jfk. How did he know it would be any better than klga? Because they have parallel runways?
I'm not a pilot, and I don't work in the aviation industry, but if they were supposed to go to LaGuardia airport, but then went to Kennedy for safety reasons, what happens next: do they get a small connecting flight, taxis, train? How do they get to LaGuardia ?
shuttle bus
I don't think a lot of people would mind as they just want to go someplace else, not exactly to a destinct airport. for some it might even be better to end up at JFK. In the end they all need some kind of transportation either way.
curious…wonder what his fuel state was at the gate…when do they declare ‘fuel emergency” in the approach phase..how many lbs remaining?
Unless they had major diversions enroute or the weather unexpectedly deteriorated at destination, I would recommend Dispatch always add extra fuel for LaGuardia. The FAA required 45 minutes is not enough. Pilots can always request extra.
So if he declared emergency why would he be only number 7 to land and had to divert ?
For fuel situations, "minimum fuel" is advisory only. He only declared a fuel emergency after the controller offered a resequenced slot of #7 for KLGA
@ which at that point the controller should offer to bring him in immediately
Oh my, I can smell the paperwork! 😂
I think it is absurd that the airlines put so little fuel reserve on that a missed approach results in a fuel emergency. That is just really bad planning.
Also can someone explain to me we have a medical and a mayday fuel how does that make our guy no. 10 in sequence. Tower i am coming in clear my airspace thanks. Looks like they had to fly further so as they didn't disruption LGA and thus had less fuel if any issues.
Exactly! This is ridiculous on LGA's part.
From my understanding he declared "min fuel" at first which is different from "emergency fuel" which he declared when he heard his sequence and the wind issue. Min means "tight, but could suck, please prioritize"... Emergency means "gtfo of the way i need to come in right now"
are passengers allowed to get off at jfk?
If there's the will, there's a way.
i was out cold sleeping when this happened the plane according to my grandmother was over the roof of our house
Did Delta's accountants not let the pilots load more fuel?
No one would have heard about this if they landed normally. They would have had about 55 minutes of fuel on board.
More fuel often means less bags and passengers. You load up with fuel needed for the legal requirements of the flight plus anticipated delays. Any more than that you are often leaving passengers and/or bags behind. Customers don’t like that. 99% of the time it works out fine. occasionally you have to divert.
Contact to Company "Hi, this is 323, throw in a few thousand more gallons of fuel you cheap asses, it's NYC, we're going to be stuck in holding for an hour."
Maybe it’s just dumb luck but it does seem it’s usually Delta coming into NYC that’s always low on fuel. Dispatchers saving a buck?
@@tmcorbett They're the most profitable airline in the country for a reason?
Why couldn’t ATC at LaGuardia move them up in the order once an emergency was declared?
I believe there was a medical emergency ahead of them, and they couldn’t be moved ahead of that. Best decision was to divert to JFK while they still had a choice.
Others mentioned at LGA when 31 is in use, they're also squeezing out departures in between, so given the wind shear (pilots were likely getting ATIS JFK to compare) it was definitely the right call.
Go around is not the towers call, and why land in the wrong direction
Just curious: would the Delta crew have told the passengers what was happening? I suppose not. Why ask for trouble?
I like to imagine the chaos theory here. Purely theoretical of course:
As D323 declares a fuel emergency from Laguardia to Kennedy - D232 Declares fuel emergency from JFK to LaGuardia.
Similar has caused an emergency to be missed for a while. Can't remember specific call signs and events
@@tnexus13 Yeah I didn't even think of that but true enough. I remember it happening as well but all the details escape me right now.
Extremely professional exchange, but… how can ONE go around and some minutes of wait till sequence 10 can put an aircraft into a fuel minimum emergency?
Do the math. There's 19 planes in front of them (9 landings and 10 takeoffs alternating). One of which is already an emergency and any of which could soon be if they are repeat go rounds. Tower is already in abnormal approach. Tower is already calling go round on wind increase +25 from 11 to 36 (if I remember correctly). Do you have a crystal ball? Any thing goes wrong or even sub optimally, they fall out of the sky going around the second time which means climbing out of LaGuardia into yet another approach with a lot of traffic.
LaGuardia sucks. More generally NYC sucks but LaGuardia especially.
ATC: "Fuel and souls onboard?"
CPT: "86 souls and we're going to be on the ground in 40 minutes, like it or not"
It’s smart that he stuck to his decision but I don’t know if he saved any time going for JFK. From the position he was probably still about number seven. At least with JFK he was less likely to get another go around.
my question in this scenario is: what do passengers do? If you want to end your trip at JFK, could you? If you need to be at LGA for some reason, does DL shuttle you to LGA from JFK? and is that by air or on ground? what about checked baggage?
I have no idea what the passengers did or thought. I do know, however, that they should have thanked this very professional crew for massively reducing the risk of them being killed had the aircraft fallen out of the sky due to fuel starvation.
@kevin_spellman there is already a shuttle that runs between jfk and lga. Bus i am sure delta would also arrange a bus. If you were getting picked up, it's only a 20 min change for who was meeting you. We'll could take an hour at rush hour 😂
Uber
You can chose to get off in JFK if you wish
It all depends. I've been refueled on a taxiway with no option to deplane. I've also been taken to a gate to refuel with no option. I've also seen options to get off. Delta would likely want that plane at LGA for the next flight. My guess is they took on fuel and flew to LGA and depending on timing, gate availability, refueling, etc. they may or may not have been given the option to get off.
Minimum fuel for us is when you are committed to an airport and a change in the clearance could lead into a fuel emergency.
So ATC should know that the option to land have been reduced to a specific aerodrome…
I like how he said "we. CURRENTLY have 86 souls on board" . Were they expecting to land with a different amount of souls on board?
The guy in 24D was *_really_* old
@@counterfit5 and you never know with mile-high club going on back in the galley!
Glad I’m not the only one who despises the over-use of the word currently.
Pilot saying currently means today (or on this flight)
Just my opinion. I'm an ATC from UKBB. Put-in is Huyyylo.
It’d be a bit more grim if it was the medical emergency using that phrasing.
Why didnt they plan for more fuel? I mean it was a relativley short flight for the 321 atl-lga, every one knows you can get held up a lot in holds and GA into lga so not sure why they didnt stack up another two hours or so of fuel
I thought the same thing. I get that it was probably more efficient to fly with less fuel but was money saved after having to diverting to JFK. Not criticizing just genuinely curious.
Why didnt they plan for more fuel: mainly because of the equation of more weight = more fuel. And fuel takes more weight, meaning more fuel.
@@andmos1001 yeah but i mean its a 321. they can hold lots of fuel and lga is known for delays
@@gnobes9677 With the new FAA passengers weights they introduced five years ago and more seats on planes, maximum structural landing weight can be a problem for the A321s. A321s are also poor performers climbing wise so less fuel can help get to higher flight levels.
@@matthewstraub8771 still a short flight, i mean ik a captain who goes from atl to bermuda and he says he brings enough fuel to GA and even fly back
I've never seen that route to 31 at LGA before. Usually go down the LIE.
When winds are high, they use the long straight approach to 31…on any other day it is the LIE approach. It’s been very windy in NY the last 5 days.
Why not declare emergency for LGA?
My buddy Flys for delta from key west to Atlanta. He says he barely has enough fuel to get to Atlanta and wants ore fuel on board. Delta won't let him. One bad thunderstorm and maybe not make it.
They're trying to avoid going under minimal fuel requirements dictated by regulations and company policy. It's not like they are about to actually run out of fuel. What your friend is complaining about is needlessly risking everyone being stuck in Orlando and missing their flights from Atlanta. However, someone gets paid more money than a pilot to determine how much it costs to divert a plane, compared to how much is saved by hauling less fuel to 35,000 for 1,000 miles. We should be impressed with how accurate their fuel prediction method is, instead of being concerned about Delta being too fuel efficient.
Alaska 420 smokin too much 420...nobody believes you... #1 Nobody just flies from Key West to ATL. #2 Delta ONLY uses the A319 to serve Key West. It's a good performing aircraft, it can and does carry plenty of fuel for the city pairs. #3 There have been a number of pilots on this thread that have stated they have decades of experience as Delta pilots, myself included (almost 30 years), that have stated they have NEVER been pressured to fly with less fuel than they felt comfortable with. I have never heard one pilot say they were refused additional fuel when the Capt had requested it.
@6862ptc thanks for confirming my suspicion
@@6862ptc I guess, but only about the flat parts. I used to live in NE South Dakota. There are parts that the grade is 1 ft per mile, that's some flat earth.
Is the date in the info erroneous? Should be 7-JAN-2025, right?
I hope you still understood what was going on.
@martinc.720 I do, but, you see, I am a scientist. Accuracy is important in my business.
Airlines today are sending planes out with a high risk factor
You need enough fuel to alt + 45 min remaining?
Except you don’t always have an Alternate airport filed. If the weather is above what the FAA requires for your type of operation, then no alternate is used.
5:28 "we currently have 86 souls on board" Was there a possibility of that changing?
Very matter of factly declared a fuel emergency. No emotion, no panic. Well done all concerned.
Isn't that the entire point of the fuel emergency guidelines? Declare the emergency before its panic time, and before its an actual emergency.
Airline SOP clearly defines minimum and emergency fuel amount for each specific aircraft type so all the armchair flight sim pilots criticizing them for calling it an "emergency" can stick to being pretend pilots.
In the rest of the world, if u say ‘minimum fuel’, by definition u dont have the fuel to divert and land with your final reserve or more. You have already committed to your destination, so maybe he diverted first then declared minimum fuel for the new intended destination?
I thought fuel emergency was 30 min? They had 40 even after vectored out to Kennedy and into landing sequence.
I think it’s funny departure was like “why’d you go around?” and delta almost didn’t mention that tower told them to lol!
30 minutes for Emergency fuel is correct.
Mayday fuel is if the crew is expecting to land with less than final reserve fuel e.g. 30 minutes, which was very likely the case here..
Well done gents
He went from Min Fuel declaration to Emergency Fuel in less than a minute! Poor planning on crew
They were min fuel (could accept no further delays) before they got a sequence number and info about the emergency ahead (further delays).
Having just 40 minutes of fuel left after a single go around is cutting it short imo. Especially when the winds are that strong.
Except we can't tell if this flight was delayed earlier in the flight, just can't tell that by the video. It starts during the arrival and approach. They could have been slowed down and vectored all over the sky 300 miles out (not unusual for LGA).
Which is why I divert early. If im planned that low I add more, sometimes things happen, weather, traffic, whatever. Ill land somewhere short of my destination if its the safe and prudent thing to do. It may disrupt plans but that is always less of a problem than running out of fuel.
This is why you have a tanker orbiting
Delta policy is to go around when windshear of +/- 15 knots is present for intended runway. Interesting that it was ATC and not the crew initiating the go around.
The crew knew their fuel state. That’ll override the 15kt rule.
I had the same thought. Perhaps they did initiate, but their radio call was blanked/not heard by the LiveATC scanner source due to lower altitude at that portion of their approach. The narrative will be out in full detail soon enough. ;)
@@imaPangolinOnly in an emergency. They never declared min fuel (not an emergency) until after the go around. Nor did they request priority handling for a return to LGA. And who requests a runway that is 4,511 feet SHORTER than 31L when you must land??
@@flymdjetsjust a small correction: they did declare (confirmed at 4:34)
Not true. At Delta, a go-around is only REQUIRED for a Micro Burst Alert. That's the memory aid (M)icroburst (A)lert = missed approach. Obviously a Capt. has to take into consideration the aircraft state, crew make-up/experience/fatigue etc when deciding to continue to land with W/S at +/- 15 kts. I think what you might be thinking about the actual airspeed indications on the aircraft airspeed indicator on final being +/- 15 kts. A G/A is not required simply with reports of windshear being greater than =/- 15 kts.
great video & comments. Wouldn't the same considerations be also applicable for JFK..they were reporting windshear at JFK (potential for go-around) and it was a greater distance to get to JFK than LGA from where they declared fuel emergency. Is it simply they expected an immediate landing clearance in JFK vs at LGA? Why could JFK give them that and not LGA & how would delta pilots know they would get that? Thx!
The pilots did better than air traffic control and were in control of the situation better than anyone. One of the best radio readbacks transitions I have ever heard
As the old saying goes : you can go to the minimums on weather , or you can go to the minimums on fuel . But NEVER at the same time! Once a pilot realises weather AND fuel are both nearing minimums , then it’s essential get out of that situation EARLY !
Plan not to get into that situation before you depart....
If 323 had officially declared Emergency Fuel prior to asking for the sequence I think ATC would have expedited their arrival. However I recognize that the other inbound emergency could have been a factor.
I think they were at the threshold of emergency fuel, such that if they were #2 or 3 for arrival they wouldn't have needed to declare it, but at #10 they now did.
@@jon.limjap okay yes that makes sense now. Overall I think the pilot and the ATC both did well in communicating their situations. Thanks for the reply.
@@jon.limjapThey should have told ATC that they need to come in.
Gotta get to the hotel dawg
Did they had other go-arounds or delays before that? Because declaring a fuel emergency just after one go-around indicates they started the flight very short on fuel...
They didn't have a delay during flight. The flight path on the approach is shown in video. Maybe opposite wind on flight level
I'm sure the company will look into it, but I do wonder about the planning. With all that traffic, single runway, and wind shear they probably should have planned for a lot of holding. I don't know what the length of the flight was - maybe they just couldn't have carried more fuel. Obviously if all these planes had this issue it could have been a problem, though maybe not if this was more of an LGA issue.
@@YouCanSeeATC Are you saying they didn't have a delay during the WHOLE flight? Because we can't tell that by the video. It starts during the arrival and approach. They could have been slowed down and vectored all over the sky 300 miles out (not unusual for LGA).
These airlines running around with just enough “legal fuel” to save a few bucks is going to catch up with them.
I’m a corporate pilot flying a Falcon. Before that it was PC24, a Hawker 900XP, a Sabre 65, a Citation CJ, and. Beech Jet. Plus a slew of Turboprops.
I can tell you you I have never landed with less than 1:15 fuel and usually a bit more.
10 years ago I was flying an ILS Approach into Columbus Ohio’s airport in heavy rain. We were on our way back from Ocean Reef Airport in the Keys. A Southwest 737 was in front of me and upon landing blew two mains. I was forced to go missed and shoot an approach to the parallel. Just like this crew I was 10 or so for the approach.
After the nearly 30 minutes of vectors and finally the approach I was amazed with just how little fuel I was left with. There was no option but to land at that point.
That’s why I am always fat on fuel carrying about double the reserves I need to be legal.
Without looking at the rest of the flight, we don't know if they had been in any holding patterns that could have eaten up their fuel.
Meh.
30 minutes of vectors and you landed skinny? Next time bingo much earlier in the game. Cincinnati, Lunken, Rickenbacker, Dayton, Wilmington, OSU, - tons of nearby airports!
Of course, I already know the answer. The problem with corporate is you have Mister Shmuckatelli the "VIP" who got wealthy on the latest get rich quick scheme and they treat pilots like ghetto cab drivers. They zero respect for ADM. They never want to be told "we can't make it in to airport ABC & we must divert to XYZ." You can't say "NO." They are elite and more important than anyone else, and cannot be inconvenienced to divert to get gas. Even if it only costs them another hour or two.
As for extra reserve gas, that's just BS. If it's a barbie jet small enough that can get in & out of Ocean Reef Club, doubling your reserves means ditching everybody's' golf clubs and heavy luggage. I call BS on that one.
But you had "get-there-itis" and ended up landing at CMH at any cost. So many options for you to pull the plug earlier, and bug out to another airport. Why waste an entire half-hour's worth of gas once the threat of a long delay is known? You turned a threat in the "time" bucket into a "no-time" threat.
The pilots at Big D aren't slumming around with min release fuel. Rest assured, there's plenty of gas uplifted before the FDRA is signed.
Welcome to part 121.
Barbie jets that can fit in & out of Ocean Reef Club can't carry "double reserves" without leaving golf bags and Tumi luggage behind.
It's interesting you'd take a threat in the "time" bucket and make it a "no-time" threat by burning through 30 perfectly good minutes of gas waiting for a chance at CMH, with so many other options around. The better plan is to bingo 30 minutes earlier in the game to Lunken, Cincinnati, Rickenbacker, Wilmington, or OSU. So many options.
Thats the problem with Corporate. Pilots are treated like uneducated hired help - just a cab driver in a taxi with higher costs. There is zero respect for ADM and CRM. You can't say to the owner, "NO, you cannot bring all those bags. NO, we can't make it into ABC, we must divert to XYZ." If APG or Aerodata says that runway won't work, you have to make it work. So you exceed runway or performance limits, or make it a 134.5 operation by falsifying fuel load or W&B.
Rest assured, the pilots at Big D aren't cruising around with min fuel.
@@danniballecter7936 you are right but I have dozens of friends that fly everything from A319’s to 787’s and I am always amazed at what little fuel they carry in reserve. I shoot for 3500# in my Falcon but will go to 3000# as a minimum but its a lot of times in the 5000# range just for comfort or tankering reasons and a lot of times they are not carrying much more especially when considering they are in a airplane weight 5 times more or greater.
The other thing to consider for the armchair captains in the comments... their hand could have also been forced based on company policy and procedures. As a part 121 operator you are subject to the FAR's as well as your company SOP's... you can be even further restricted by aircraft MEL's. There is a lot that goes into these operations and decisions. At the end of the day, leaning towards the side of safety is NEVER the wrong decision.
Less acronyms, please?
Contrary to FAA regulations. Normally an IFR flight requires enough fuel for a missed approach, diversion to the required alternate and then 30 minutes more. I smell something wrong here
That's incorrect
Winds and/or delays into LGA likely increased flight time beyond what had been initially planned. 25kt wind shear tends to indicate less-than-desirable weather conditions. Then they were also being vectored around a while by Departure after the go-around from LGA, in part due to the inbound medical emergency.
@@NiagarAviatorwhat's incorrect?. It's correct.
@darylonezime8714 no, that's not the required fuel for a domestic Part 121 flight. Most flights do not require an alternate so all they would have to have is a 45 minute reserve going into LGA, which they did. We also can't see what happened before this. It's common to have ATC delays, vectors, and holding, so they may have already used any extra fuel they had, and the windshear may not have been in the forecast
@@NiagarAviator Maybe what you said is something that applies to only FAA. But like the comment said, contrary to FAA regulations flights normally requires to have trip fuel, contingency fuel, alternate fuel and 30 minutes final reserve fuel. Some flights depending on routes may also required ETOPS fuel etc. This is the regulation in alot of countries.
Did he go to JFK because they have an extra runway? Why couldn't LGA make the seas part and give him #2 behind the medical emergency?
Is saying the internationally understood word for an emergency 'mayday' only illegal in the US or other places as well? I assume it's illegal as it's seems taboo for pilots to say. I mean even after the go around prior to mayday fuel they could have given the first controller a heads up by declaring pan pan pan we are approaching min fuel and will require priority handling.
uh.. what? mayday is not illegal in the US.
@@oldfrendyea it is
You have to say 'mayday' three times which wastes valuable time when the pilot is trying to deal with a legitimate emergency, so it is safer to skip the 'mayday', 'mayday', 'mayday' aspect of the procedure.
@@Videos888 the comment is 100% incorrect it takes longer to explain that yes you have a real emergency than saying mayday mayday mayday. This aspect of aviation is very poor in pilots in the US and ATC. I shudder every time I hear ATC recordings where ATC is suggesting to an aircraft in emergency that there is an aircraft in front of them - American ATC are good at volume but functionally hopeless at dealing with any emergencies - they always hassle the pilots for fuel, souls, nature of emergency which is relevant but also often asked by all handlers the emergency aircraft pass through, breifity and let the pilots deal with the emergency
I don’t understand why they diverted to JFK, they could have declared an emergency and landed much sooner at LaGuardia
Good job pilots.
I feel like that pilot would land in to the wind shear if tower wont insgructed them to go arround🙃
How can AMERICAN ATC always continue operations on a runway that is supposed to be used for an emergency aircraft in the next 5 minutes... I mean the emergency aircraft on final is still following another aircraft in front of him that is using the same runway! What if the first aircraft to land has to stop on the runway for exemple? Then the emergency aircraft has to go around and that's what you really want to avoid with an emergency aircraft, especially for FUEL. If they have to go around, lose another 10 minutes and maybe on the next approach they have a windshear and have to go around again, they might maybe crash with no fuel remaining.
What’s the estimated fuel remaining at touchdown?
< 20 mins. I would guess. That ain't good in NY airspace.
Min fuel, divert, wind shear, but we can sneak an RJ in in front of you. YOLO
How did it go to min fuel to emergency fuel so quickly
Because Min fuel didn’t get the required result. Min fuel says we can make it but only without undue delay. ATC could but is not required to give priority. Declaring the emergency would have happened in 10 minutes anyway. Might as well start now and get the ball rolling. Declaring unties everyone’s hands.
Textbook
Since when does a controller have the authority to instruct and aircraft tor go around because of a wind shear advisory? That should be the pilots decision.
Yeah that is weird. You'd think the pilots would know the aircraft and if ATC gave them an appropriate runway for the conditions.
The knee bones connected to the, nan bone
Who dispatches a plane into New York with forecasts for terrible windshear, tons of traffic volume, and leaves them 40 minutes fuel after a miss? That is pretty crappy planning, Delta.
We don’t know what happened on the flight before the start of this video. They may have had other delays which brought them closer to the minimum fuel point on the first approach.
@marspp And for some reason, only Delta made RUclips for poor planning...
I appreciates PBD’s patience with this guy. I mean PBD is a saint here. I’d have told him to leave in a rude manner.
Typically “minimum fuel” is declared at 30 mins left so declaring an emergency @ 40 mins is IMO overly conservative. But in full disclosure, there are a lot of factors in NY airspace to consider and I wasn’t there. Delta has been at it a long time so their procedures and SOP’s are generally aligned with the best practices in aviation.
Wrong. For this airline, and this aircraft minimum fuel = 4000# or 40 minutes. Emergency Fuel = 3000# or 30 minutes. FAA def here: www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-11/INFO_08004.pdf
good pilots bad weather 40 min of fuel is a no no , land land land
Emergency fuel is when FOB is 30 minutes. In this case the declaration was warranted.
Actually it’s “predicted fuel at touchdown” 30 min or less. Actual FOB would be higher.
"Delta 323, what's a comfortable speed for you?" ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)