A friend of mine was on the plane and I think everyone who was onboard should watch this video so they better understand why evacuation didn’t take place immediately upon aborted take-off. Several were frustrated over the lack of information from the cockpit without realizing all the work the pilots were doing. Great work by the pilots and ATL personnel!
@@saybya You really wouldn't have heard that kind of attitude back in the 1980s or before. Passengers have been taking the ability to fly for granted for years now.
This is a fantastic review of this incident, 10x better than any 3 minute news clip out there : Radio comms, diagrams, on scene video, professional explanations. Brilliant job.
There was one comment stating that maintenance later ran engine #2 and it ran OK, and that the engine "problem" was due to the ingestion of snow/ice from the runway. Also, I didn't hear (or missed) that there was an Eng 2 FIRE EICAS message, bell and warning lights. So, no engine fire. It sounds plausible that the engine experienced a "stall" at high power and the crew rejected the takeoff due to the bang and thrust loss. That was the right decision. Throttles to idle, max braking, verify speedbrakes up and come to a stop. If I were investigating this event, I'd look on the DFDR to determine when the #2 start lever moved to cutoff. With the engine windmilling (flamed out) during the stop and soon after, fuel is still being supplied into the hot combustor, essentially wetting the rear of the engine flowpath. The "now pooling" fuel and fumes are ignited from the still hot metal. This is called a tailpipe fire, and there is a cockpit procedure for this event. Flames and/or smoke from the tailpipe do not necessarily indicate an engine fire, and the procedure to handle this is to shut off the fuel (start lever to cutoff) and to motor the engine with the starter IF you have any pneumatics available from the other engine or APU. This blows out the fire and cools the combustor and the HP/LP turbines. This is a tough situation to realistically create in the simulator. The pilots done good this day!
I guess in the poor visibility and chaos, they aren't going to be waiting to see if it is a tailpipe fire. They're just hearing flames and smoke coming out of their engine and taking the safest course of action. Sometimes sensors aren't always reliable. So I think the decision was fine to do, especially with the weather difficulties for resources to reach (they will still super fast but still a fire taking hold will require more resources).
Excellent diagnosis. Would interject there's something missing. If there was a fire in @2 eng that caused an evac-- did or didn't the fire handle get pulled and discharged. I don't believe they (a mech) would be running #2 and saying it's ok if the engine had fire suppression.
From personal experience, you don't even realize a tailpipe fire is occurring. Due to a misinterpretation in flight regs, the cfi had me doing touch and go's prior to a solo. Upon being corrected by another cfi (noting the landings needed to be 'full stops'), during the subsequent runup (in an attempt to try and have me get the 3 full stops), engine fouling occurred. Cycling the mags, the cfi accidentally advanced the mag beyond the right set to off, then immediately placed them back to right. We didn't realized that we dumped unburnt fuel into the hot exhaust. less than a minute later, the cfi (who corrected my cfi) was running out with a manger with a Fire Extinguisher in hand. Apparently we had a sustained fireball under the cockpit of the 172. I wasn't able to go solo (still got endorsed, still yet to get to fly solo, shurgh), but my initial thoughts were; "the skyhawk went f-14 for a couple seconds"
I have to say that she handled comms very cool and calm, very professional. And pilot was very cool under circumstances, this is how you do it and reduce panic
Atlanta resident here, so proud of our people! Great job by everybody except for the fire chief, taking up bandwidth to collect details for the incident report while the response was ongoing, and then stepping on the transmission as the pilot was trying to get confirmation from ARRF that the fire was out on engine number two 🤦♂️.
@@flywithcaptainjoeYou're objectively wrong. She was slow, late, dense, ineffective, indecisive, inadequate, and fundamentally irrelevant to the decisions and actions accomplished by OTHERS that kept all souls alive.
I'm a retired military and airline pilot. I've done a few rejected takeoffs and a couple of evacuations (one evacuation was due to a bomb threat). In this case, I must say that ATC, the ground crew, and the flight crew all performed admirably.
Shout out to the ATC on an a superb job and to all the other services working together and professionally. Great call by the flight deck crew as well. We hear in detail all the mistakes made in disaster situations, but this is an example of all the things done right. Praise for all!
My sole issue with this was evac paxs on the right side. They deployed both fwd and rear slides on the right and pax used them. Had there been a more serious engine failure/fire, this could have really turned bad. Also, it delays the ARFF from putting out any fire if paxs are in the way. Im sure this will be the one point of procedure that will be investigated.
This. They knew/suspected a fire from the #2/right engine. They shouldn't have used the right side exits to evac. But then, if passengers were the ones evacuating without instructions from flight crew, that might not have been avoidable. Hopefully further details will become available.
There is one set of comms we are missing here, and that is direct between the flight crew and the fire teams via direct intercom. They may have gotten an all clear from the fire crew to disembark passengers on that side.
Thank you Captain Joe, great review of a textbook response. B757 Captain here with a few notes: RTO autobrakes means Rejected Take Off on the B757 RTO becomes active at 85 knots, before that, manual braking is required. RTO activates if thust levers are closed (idle) during the takeoff roll (and above 85kts). Autothrottle is disengaged to prevent the system attempting to re-apply takeoff thrust. Since the pilot asked if there was a fire, that would indicate they did not get a fire warning, this can happen if the fire is in the tailpipe (area that doesn't have fire detection), there's a specific Checklist for this condition, the aircraft's Fire Extinguishers for the engines are not effective for this kind of fire, so the evacuation was a good idea. The need to open the outflow valve (evacuation) is to allow the doors to be opened, with the aircraft pressurized plug type doors cannot be opened due to the air pressure holding them closed. Great job by all involved.
Thank you Frank🙏🏼 It’s all very similar to the 747, I was just trying to keep it a little shorter here and there! By the way the 757 is an amazing aircraft, I did a SIM screening in it once and absolutely loved it how it handled🙏🏼 come and join me on a flight with the 747😉
I love the comment section on captain joe's videos, there are a LOT of experienced certified pilots that provide so much accurate information! Thank you.
Thank you! As a retired F/A, I appreciate your analysis. I worked on 57s and 67s for years. All floor level exits are worked by F/As, window exits are sometimes opened by passengers who are sitting by them. REcurent Training of F/As requires evacuation of an AC in 90 seconds. Recurrent Training takes place every year. Aviation people value professionalism. Thank you again for making this clear.
And this is why Delta remains my favorite domestic airline in the U.S. Every person and every company can have problems and emergencies, but what sets some above the rest is how they recover from those problems. Delta is always a class act--they are well trained and always professional. They handled this emergency perfectly.
Just to put the Atlanta snow into perspective: the last major storm with accumulation in the city was in 2014. This is not something that happens often.
@@LH-yc5vy exercises, yes. That's nothing like having the entire flight load of ATL dumped onto the two de-icing pads the airport has, in the middle of a raging snowstorm.
Like everyone else in ATL, a single snowflake is an apocalypse. While I can't speak to accumulation, on pavement, at the airport, but I've raced at Road Atlanta in December for 8(?) years, and there's been snow at half of those races. (as long as it doesn't stick to the track, we race.)
Actually having lived in ATL for 32 years almost all of the Januarys had snow. Some accumulated some didn't. Best snow storm ever was in March 1993. So much fun!
@@paulazemeckis7835 Compared to the more northern state cities like Chicago or Minneapolis. Snowy weather in Atlanta only comes once or twice a winter, mainly in January and February. Sometimes December or March. And accumulating snow stays around on the ground just a for a short time. This is probably why a lot of people see it so negligible, and not highly view of as a usual thing. Even though it's also normal winter weather there.
It was a compressor stall per a Delta mechanic likely from all the ingestion from snow/slush that contaminated the runway. There was no sign of a fire and test ran engine today. He also stated the passengers freaked out and pulled the slides.
I question the approval to use a contaminated runway for takeoffs. As such, the risk of snow & ice accumulating on the engine inlets from the NW spray can result in rapid accumulation and thus disturbing the airflow to compressor, inducing a compressor stall. In other words, the lack of experience in ATL handling a snow event led to the mistake of allowing continued ops on the contaminated runway, and this event was therefore avoidable.
@@herbiecactus6687 I think OPS made a poor decision declaring the runway condition "good". At 3:29, you can see all the slush spray coming off the NLG, and the A/C isn't even going that fast. At 3:39, in fact, the #1 (LH) engine looks like its exhaust is briefly interrrupted, likely from a disturbance in its airflow.
@@aeroman5239 I have to reasonably assume that applicable SOP's will be amended to ensure additional runway cleaning and confirmation takes place in such circumstances.
@@aeroman5239 So you're suggesting OPS lied about seeing fire and smoke to deflect blame? (Trying to figure out how your response flows from my comment/question.)
The sheer amount of professionalism present in this situation is a real testament to the fact America may have its' problems, but how many other places would have the same outcome when it comes down to it like this? Top work from everyone involved.
If I’m not mistaken (and please correct me if anyone has more information), at the time all this was happening, the north runways (8L-26R and 8R-26L) were closed and waiting for brooms to sweep them. This effectively brought operations at ATL to a halt, with only RWY 10/28 available for both landings and takeoffs. Such a situation would have caused a massive traffic jam, with severe delays both inbound and outbound. Inbound flights likely faced fuel diversions, while outbound flights and aircraft sitting at other airports bound for ATL would have been stuck on gate holds. This seems like a classic domino effect of compounding delays.
A bunch of people on a travel group I follow were irate about flight disruptions in Atlanta that day. It's par for the course... People saying take it to the airline on X with demands, etc. SMH. It's a travel group so they have more air travel experience than most and some still don't get that a rare snow event is going to have that effect. It's winter. Allow more time to make it to your cruise or whatever. Buy travel insurance. Get a grip.
10/28 was almost certainly closed, along with 8L and 8R. At ATL, snow is rare, and they only have equipment sufficient to keep one or two runways open. They will almost always choose 9L and 9R, because 9L is the longest at the airport, and 9R has extremely low (good) landing weather minimums. If the closed 8L and 8R hadn't yet been touched, it would take an hour or two to clear each runway (depending on many variables).
I think if the fire chief didn’t interrupt the communications, then perhaps between the controller/pilot and the ARFF ops personnel with eyes on the engines, then perhaps the information could have been passed that the fire was either extinguished or was being extinguished…. At least this would give the pilot another option to consider…. As it was, the pilot is told there is fire in the the engine and nothing else…. The pilot didn’t really have much option other than to evacuate the aircraft.
My only question. Do you consider it optimal, to allow passenger evacuation out of the side of the aircraft with possible/known engine fire? (Noting not only the fire risk itself, but also that that is where the ARFF vehicles will be moving?) Should they not have directed an evac via the LH side only?
In my operation we're generally trained just to make the evac call and let cabin crew decided whether a particular exit is useable or not. I'm sure there's some sort of extreme scenario where I might direct a particular side, but it isn't standard practice where I work.
Perfectly solved emergency case, excellent coordination between the three services. Cpt.Joe presented the event excellently, even hollywood could not imagine such a scenario
I want to also praise the passengers and (presumably) excellent direction from the FAs in that I didn't see one passenger with a roll-aboard on the ground and only a few with a backpack. In a survivable situation where an evacuation is required, you NEVER want to waste time (or space between the passengers behind you) with a bag or backpack. If that plane caught fire, the people nearest to the smoke have literal seconds between life and death. Any hesitation to get stuff might mean the life of another less fortunate passenger. Stuff is stuff but a life cannot be replaced. This could happen to any of us and it's important we all think about what we would do in that situation. Again, praise to passengers, praise to crew.
During simulator exercises for evacuations, I'd often ask: "How long will my passengers be standing out in the cold of a minus 20C winter night?" None of the instructors ever had a good answer. I'd like to know what official parameters exist at major airports for this. Doesn't do much good to save pax from the fire only to lose them to death by exposure.... Nice debrief Cpt. Joe. Thanks.
FAA Part 139 Airport Certification covers airports and requirements and ATL airport is a Part 139 airport. Also, an airport may have bus resources but the hub's biggest airline will have employee bus resources as well at a major airport and they will be escorted by Airside Ops out on the airfield. Other things to consider (for both airfield and landside evacuations): big pax busses need to have a CDL+ pax endorsed driver (small pool for that cert.), if the pax bus is public street legal or if it can only stay on the airfield (may need an escort), and where the bus drivers are at on their CDL timeout hours. You can bleed out in 5 min and a fire is more deadly than cold exposure so those are the priority injuries of ARFFs. Major airlines are private companies and have resources of lots of blankets so their GO teams will more quickly distribute blanket/comfort kits than possibly the airport, which will most likely not keep as many of those kits on hand. Also, think about politics: if two airlines hate each other, and the smaller ops airline has an emergency at the big ops airline's hub, how quickly do you think the hub airline will send their resources to assist? Maybe they will since it is life safety leading to good PR for the helping airline but who knows what will happen in that moment?
Reasonable concern, and I’m sure if you’re seeing smoke in the cabin or the possibility of a fire, then surviving the immediate threat means evacuating, no matter what. I would imagine the airport has the authority to request every van on property (including parking /employee shuttle buses) to immediately rescue the passengers from the extreme elements).
Yes, I question the evac call, it was not required, there are reasons to evac, and where was this.. This was some cowboy pilot that panicked and went full to the wrong decision.. There is no reason to now have lost sheep milling around a vast wastland, maybe getting in or around the wrong part of the airport.... Look if the airframe has holes that are now appearing, then by all means, get out.. Now.. that pilot has a lot of thinking to do, to try and snow job the NTSB into believing his justification.. He has no justification..
There are a couple of schools of thought and a captain must consider all facets whenever possible. The minute they heard "flames" from an ops guy, they made the call to evacuate. There is no real wrong in doing this. However, I think had they waited 60 more seconds, the ARFF people could have been far more effective at stopping any flames (which was doused in seconds) and communicating far more effectively than the ops person. Then they could have deplaned in a coordinated fashion. But again, there is no wrong call here. Did this captain make the wrong decision? Absolutely not. Was an actual evacuation really warranted? Debatable and as a monday morning QB, I think it wasn't.
Generally speaking, someone always gets hurt in an evac. Grandma in the wheelchair doesn't tend to go down the slides so well. I'd probably delay the evac in this case with ARFF already on station and a contained engine/jetpipe fire...but I wasn't there.
I've experienced a rejected takeoff once (likely 737, but at least something that size/class - long time ago). Those brakes are gooooood. Damn those brakes are good! Guessing it happened just prior to takeoff. Taxied back to gate and had a part replaced, and off we went, so "nothing serious". But I'll never forget that braking action. I'm not a pilot, but as pax in some smaller Piper, our runways shut down due to an emergency involving a small sea plane crashing and tumbling. Pilot only suffered a broken or scratched finger, and iirc also the plane was recoverable, so again, "nothing serious". But the reason ATC gave us for delaying us, wasn't "passengers all over the runway", but "emergency busy and not available, so we can't let you land just yet".
@@mediocreman2 So maybe it wasn't even max? I wouldn't know. I have no idea what autobrakes will do in RTO mode. Is the requirement for replacement automatic, or after inspection?
So refreshing to see people just doing their jobs as effectively as possible instead of having bureaucracy shoved into every little step you take. Great job and syncing by ground+ATC .
Was an Engine Run-up performed I/A/W the Boeing 757 FCOM - Supplementary Normal Procedures Section - Takeoff Procedure? Do the normal Takeoff Procedure with the following modification: When engine anti-ice is required and the OAT is 3°C or below, the takeoff must be preceded by a static engine run-up. Use the following procedure: PF Option: Pratt and Whitney Engines Run-up to a minimum of 50% N1 and confirm stable engine operation before the start of the takeoff roll.
Capt.Joe, great job explaining everything. ATL was experiencing a very rare snow day. So it's even more remarkable that everyone was able to communicate effectively! Ops, Broom trucks, ARF , pilots, tower and pilots of other aircraft. I'm impressed as well. Proud of my hometown airline, Delta, and the whole team at our airport.
I was flying an airline one time and it aborted take-off after the second troubleshooting. We were at the runway both times about to take off. A lot of people on the jet were mad about the ground abort. I wasn't. Kudos to the pilot for safety first. I'd rather abort mission than die crashing. The airline also gave everyone two options: take next flight free of charge or stay in a hotel overnight and take morning flight...free of charge. People were still mad smh. I was chillen, I chose to stay the night. I also asked could I catch an afternoon flight, instead of a morning flight. The airline let me do it with no issues. I still fly the same airline. It's one of my favorite airlines. Sometimes, jets just break and it's safer to abort mission. The pilot made a safety call and it was a good call.
Excellent job by all, including the passengers. From the video snippet, it looks like the passengers did the correct thing in evacuating, leaving things behind and not trying to grab their carry-ons. Very important to do that!
I watch videos about airline disasters and investigations a lot. This was a great change of pace, seeing everyone doing everything right and it being successful.
It is reassuring to see an emergency situation so well handled. This speaks to the training and experience of all involved, from the cockpit to the tower to the emergency services. Good to see so many professionals do their job with expertise.
I'll let the NTSB be the judge if they "nailed it." I do remember the press saying that BA 777, nailed it back in Vegas, ten years back following an engine fire. The investigation revealed things were not so well handled after all.
@@flywithcaptainjoeNice, overview on the whole RTO, process. But, having had an incident myself twenty years ago, it's an uncomfortable wait, finding out what the investigation says.
If you go to the VAS Aviation channel and listen to all of the communication… It was a mess, IMO it seemed like the pilot had to evacuate because of the poor communication between the fire crew and tower leading to confusion and uncertainty of the state of the aircraft. The fire chief should be immediately placed on leave, was very clear that he had no idea how to properly communicate with the tower and pilot. This was a mess and I suspect heads will roll for this…
@@FracturedNinja I do not have much experience in busy class bravos, but you do seem right, the chief did use some non standard phraseology. From what it looks though, TWR and crew members did the right thing
The main question is: Why are no small cameras, which observe the (fire) status of the engines, built in nowadays planes and send their transmission directly to the cockpit? 🤷🏻♂️
There are. For example modern A350 has a tail camera that would have the trailing edge of the wing in frame. Well im not sure if you can see the rear of the engine but at least you can have a greater overview
@@TheLikeysyou said the reason in one word .... that word is ... AIRBUS ... need I say more !!!! Oh yes I do .... superior European technology and responsibility to all .. thank you ...
This is the kind of exchange to make listen to all people or groups, even in business, to show by a real ace what good communication is, clear, factual and above all calm. And in particular, professionalism and the follow-up of procedures.
Airline captain here. I don’t think I would’ve evacuated. Very dangerous and slows down fire trucks. I know, easy to armchair quarterback. Sometimes you’re faced with very tough decisions with limited information. Kudos to the crew and ops for no injuries.
If @brandonsorenson9178 is correct and a passenger did open a door then the cat is out of the bag and there is going to be no choice but to inform ATC that there is an evacuation in progress rather than to try and "shut the door once the horse has bolted".
I agree. Boeing 737 Captain myself. No engine fire warning, ARFF is on the scene ready to extinguish fire. Let them do their job. I had a cargo fire scenario after landing one time and it was similar in the sense of giving ARFF a chance to work. No smoke, smell or heat in the cabin. Great job all! The outcome was successful so none of this armchair quarterbacking means anything. :-)
Amazing show of CRM. Great job to all of them! Great example of why pax need to be vigilant and pay attention to the safety briefing from the Flight Attendants!!
Always quality videos from you sir. News stations feed us gloom & doom and how nothing can be done AND here you are giving praise to an airport, ARFF, pilots, cabin crew and ATC with everyone doing their part and how well and safe you are because the safety works despite news outlets yelling that “the sky is falling, the sky is falling!” 🚒🚑⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Capt Joe, et al…..curious if during a fire on the right engine and indications that #2 had flames …..if they should evacuate via right-over wing exits and the right exit door slide in front of the engine with the fire. Can a pilot designate to the f/a to only evacuate left side, etc to keep pax away from the fire…..just curious about the protocol and didn’t see that in the checklist, regardless, I thought everyone did an excellent job!
Seems like they really handled the whole incident very professionally. Hats off to all of them, also for quick thinking (shutting down runway 9R) and working together as a team.
Captain Joe, could you give your opinion on whether it would be feasible to tell passengers they will be prosecuted for taking luggage in an emergency? Lots of people without but have seen some other angles with people still with luggage. It’s so dangerous to delay an evacuation!
Great video, and awesome step by step details of procedures (written and real time) and communications. On the evac, a few points need explained for the non-pilots readers. The reason for despresurizando the airplane is because in the case the vessels is pressurized even at 0.5 PSI, the doors will not open, or at lease, not easily open for the sides to deploy. I’m so pleased with everybody’s response, from flight crew to controller and fire/ground maintenance. This is what well trained crews do.
If there is a potential fire on one side of the aircraft, is it not safer to evacuate only on the other side? To keep the passengers away from potential fire. Esp given there is overwing exits, right next to the potential engine that is on fire. That's my only unknown on this. The rest feels like a great example of coordinating all resources. Thanks for the video!
I'm wondering why they would evac from both sides of the aircraft. If there's a fire on the #2 engine, it seems to me that they wouldn't want passengers evacuating on that side of the aircraft.
That was the first time on of your videos was recommended to me. I appreciate your approach and have subscribed in order to get notified on your newest postings whilst I go through your past submissions. I hope that I’ll be pleased with this decision.
The fact that everything was so smooth considering the chaos that could have existed is amazing. I love the professionalism of the crew and the airport to get everything handled in a quick, and safe manner. Having flown through Atlanta because delta is pretty much ALWAYS flies you to Atlanta I will say it made me much more comfortable with that airport and with Delta as a whole. Thanks for sharing your analysis. Cant wait for the NTSB report. I'm sure it'll reflect well on the pilots and on the airport. The only question I had was why did they evacuate on the side where the engine fire possibly was? I feel like it could have been a panicked response by those sitting in those seats, but I'll wait for the report to explain.
Also a great video to assure passengers on future flights that even a dramatic situation such as this can be be calmly handled successfully. Thank you for making this video.
As a left seater, I cannot think as to why I, or my FA’s, would evacuate to a side with a fire/smoke/issue. I understand quickest method of dumping all 140+ pax, but doing it safely is not onto the side with an engine issue. But I don’t know, still new to the CA position.
Great video discussion on the 757 engine failure. I have one question. The crew reported engine failure to tower. Tower wanted them to clear the runway so the following aircraft could depart. Wouldn’t a runaway inspection be warranted for possible engine debris prior to clearing the next departure? Thanks
Yes. But the inspection can't be properly done until the airplane is off the runway, In the vast majority of aborted takeoffs, the airplane is able to taxi clear. This one was different because of the fire possibility and poor visibility.
@olivermcdermidpeering5755 You would need to include the aircraft type, as engine 2 could be the inboard left engine on an aircraft with more than 2 engines, so right side is the better description.
It appears communication was good for all entities involved in the emergency. Decisions were made at the appropriate time with the appropriate amount of information. Awesome job by all involved in handling this situation. Goes to show how good training was for all involved and how the training allowed them to all work together despite having different roles.
It amazes me when a professional crew uses abundance of caution and successfully evacuated the plane no one hurt no damage to the plane (other than isolated to the engine) a lot of armchair crews can come up with a better way but folks all you keyboard critics YOU WERE NOT THERE!!!! Please accept the fact Delta did it more less by the book as they do so often. Criticism is easy, accolades are sparse. ATL and Delta are pros!!
My only question is whether evacuating on the failed engine side with potential fire was warranted. Yes, the fire seemed out by then; and we have no recording of the instructions to the cabin crew. Just an ambiguity that I would have liked explained.
Looks great! Now that so you do a successful emergency landing and evacuation! Thanks for a great video Joe! Also, hhats off to the pilots and crew of that Delta B757 for doing a great job! Just in time for Delta’s 100th birthday! 🎉
I used to live in Atlanta and flew Delta almost every week. The pilot had a compressor stall/fire and RTO. Passengers (like me) are looking out the windows at the engines. If they see fire, the passengers will self-evacuate. It did not matter how cold it was. The terminal was only a couple of hundred feet away.
I didn’t hear that the crew advise that they would need to do an engine run up to clear the possible ice in the engine. This could cause ice buildup on the blades and cause an engine malfunction when setting takeoff thrust.
Is it likely that, off-air, flight attendant(s) observed fire from the engine, alerted the flight deck, and the captain was already initiating the evacuation before hearing about flames over the radio? Or, if attendants had seen flames, would they avoid "distracting" the flight deck crew, knowing that they are very busy?
In cases of emergencies, the comminication should be reduced to required information (aka need to know). If the captain is evacuating, then telling them that an engine is on fire is not neccessarily required information (and the cabin crew should help with the evacuation instead). If the captain is not (yet) evacuating, then telling the cockpit, that there is a fire/damage is very much required. (You don't have to force it - in case they already know and are already preparing to evacuate - but try to ping/call them, to allow them to make informed decisions) I don't know how it works with cabin crews, but I imagine the normal cabin crew calls the lead cabin crew, to condense and maybe verify the information which then gets passed to the cockpit.
So, I've been interested in aviation and other disasters for years. So many fascinating aspects that lead to catastrophes. Engineering, materials science, operations, skinflint management, human factors, weather, ... . One pattern I've noticed is that often when there is an engine fire indication or other malfunction such as a departed propeller or even a departed engine there often is no or greatly delayed communication between the flight crew and the cabin crew. As Captain Joe noted, pilots of large jet aircraft often cannot see much or even any of the aircraft behind them, often including the wings, engines and of course, the fuselage and tail. The cabin crew can make observations of most of these and report what they see if the flight crew makes the effort to get that information from them. This just seems like good Crew Resource Management and a fast way to aid the flight crew's situational awareness. . IMO, it should be a SOP when something bad is happening that might involve the aircraft behind the flight deck that the cabin crew should make rapid observations of wings, engines, the internal fuselage and cabin and have that information reported to, typically, the cabin crew leader, who should then be standing by a phone waiting to report those observations to the flight crew, who should be making a call to that cabin phone to get this report early on in the emergency sequence. . In quite a few of the dramatized aviation accidents I've seen (Mayday, etc.), when the shirt hits the fan flight crews often have not done this and cabin crews have not reported information the flight crew needed to have to inform their understanding of what was happening. There have been incidents where the flight crew remained ignorant of conditions such as as departed propellers, gashes or cracks in the fuselage visible from inside the cabin, smoke, engine fires, fuel and hydraulic fluid leaks, access panels that have departed and even engines that have departed the aircraft. None of these conditions are fully evident from flight deck instruments alone. . Instead, I've often seen the flight crews in these disaster incidents display a tendency to hyperfocus and "tunnel vision" on their flight deck instruments and frantically try to figure out what's happening just from them, a case of "information availability bias", or frantically try to work a checklist, or otherwise flail trying to understand what's happening, when a simple observation like "the #1 engine's propeller just departed the engine and slashed across the bottom of the fuselage" would provide so much clarity. Often they're confounded because the instrumentation is displaying a baffling set of indications that don't tell the story of conditions no responsible engineering team or airplane manufacturer would create instrumentation for, such as a sensors and instruments to indicate conditions such as "engine departed a wing", "propeller departed the engine and sliced across the bottom of the fuselage", "engine fan disk disintegrated and punched one or more holes in the fuselage, and the size the location of these holes", and "the fuselage has a crack in it we can see through to the outside".
Really great to see all the calm and professionalism! With 'max fuel +200', anything w/heat and they were full evac, and they executed that perfectly, calmly, and quickly. With the number of FUBAR's we've had recently that was reassuring, and needed! Even with the amount of snow still out there! Peace --bfg
That controller did such a great job gathering info from multiple sources to aid her; having someone who was previously on the runway pull up to the jet and check and most importantly have ops 3 repeatedly verify that they saw flames so the pilots could make the right call. 🇯🇲 Good stuff.
And emergency equipment didn't run over any passengers like what happened in San Francisco when the 777 hit the sea wall and broke apart and passengers fled the plane where some got ran over by emergency vehicles.
It amazes me how these pilots and air traffic controllers remain so calm and its not just this incident. I have yet to see or hear anyone panic. I have seen every episode of Air Disasters/Mayday/Crash Files of the NTSB (not obsessed or anything). Kudos to them. I would panic. If I was an air traffic controller, everything would be running into everything else on the runways and taxi ways. If fascinates me how they keep everything straight.
There is NO way that runway was cleared of snow! Just look at the rooster tail of snow the 757 kicks up on it's takeoff roll. Injested snow could have caused a comprssor stall on one of the engines. I flew the 757 for 14 years out of ORD, LGA, EWR and JFK and when the ground crews cleared those runways of snow, they were clear. I can imagine with snow such a rarity at ATL, the ground crews were not adept at clearing the runways and may not have had the proper equipment to do so.
And as you know, a runway must be inspected, conditions assessed and reported following snow removal. Flight crews are required to have such information in order to make valid decisions. Was their urgency to get airborne -- before hitting their fuel quantity minimums or busting their deicing holdover times -- a contributing factor? These will be key points in investigating the cause(s) of this incident.
Excellent job from tower, ops and arff. Good call for the pilots rejecting the take off. Although I don't think evacuation was necessary do to the fact ARFF were already next to the aircraft... For what purpose... To extiguish the posible fire. If there was a fire on the right engine, FA should never had deployed the right evacuation slide They did it because there was no fire. And if there had been a fire, a lot of people would had gotten injured. In order to call for an evacuation, the captain has to be sure that, there is no better and safest choice. He had a better choice. Using the ARFF to extiguish the posible tail pipe fire.
No comment on the passengers possibly evacuating with luggage or personal items. Question. What happens to the items left in the plane after the evacuation is finished ? Do passengers board the plane again to recover them ? Do the company recover it and how is it practically distributed. Knowing this might help keeping stuff in the plane, giving confidence that they'll get it back with no problem.
Definitely team work makes the dream work. Great outcome for all. Love to hear all what gose on behind the scenes what the passenger doesn't hear in that moment
On one landing in Newark the 777 suffered a sort of break failure which caused half of the tire fuses to be blown. When we left the aircraft standing still half on the runway half on the runway exit (stairs) the very near by other runway kept busy. It is no nice feeling with hundreds of passengers on the airfield just some meters apart from a busy runway (Newark Int.'s layout is very tight)
Capt. Joe: Good video, although I have a few questions about your conclusions. First, the decision to perform a passenger evacuation must be tempered by the inherent dangers. Putting everyone out on slides often results in injuries, interferes with the approach of ARFF vehicles, and results in hundreds of people wandering about uncontrolled on active taxiways and runways. Second, when conducting a passenger evacuation, the passengers should never be sent out the side toward the fire. This is prevented by the captain making a PA announcement such as "Evacuate the aircraft, left side only". We are unsure yet if passengers initiated their own right side evacuation into the fire. Third, the engine nacelles on the 757 are designed to contain a fire and prevent one from migrating up the pylon and into the wing. Yes, the fire extinguishing bottles for the right engine don't dump into the tailpipe, but there is a procedure for tailpipe fires that involves motoring the engine to blow the fire out safely. Uncontained, explosive engine fires are very rare. This wasn't one. The crew reported an engine failure, not an engine fire to ATC. Bottom line: The safer course of action may be to keep the passengers on the aircraft. At least until you have a far better idea of what's going on with the engine. You had one guy in a car who saw a tailpipe fire. Was the fire bell going off in the cockpit? Was the right fire switch illuminated? If so, was the engine fire checklist accomplished and were the fire bottles dispensed into the engine? There's a lot we don't know here. To Capt. Joe: Perhaps it might be a good idea here to hold off on characterizing this as an "everything went perfectly" story until we have all the data downloaded and the facts and truth established. This will never happen only twenty hours after the actual incident. I suspect there will be a number of lessons to be learned here, which is always good for aviation safety.
Excellent video!!! A very good example of teamwork at its finest. I am impressed to see how it all worked together to make a potentially very dangerous situation as safe as possible and with the best possible outcome!
On a previous accident video there was a catastrophic engine failure and the pilot engaged both reverse thrusters. I questioned that in the comments i.e. the wisdom of puting a burning engine into reverse thrust and someone smarter than me responded that the first priority was to stop over anything else so it was worth the risk.
ATC stated ‘last runway condition report (RCR) was good” just after t/o clearance. Anybody know the time stamp on that report? ATL Airport Ops cleared the runway of equipment, but did not provide Field Condition Report to Controller.
Yes, those will be very important aspects of the investigation... namely, determining the cause(s) of the engine trouble and, if ingestion of foreign matter was it, learning how/why it was there undetected and unreported.
I'd be interested to see you do a video about the recent Jeju Air accident in Korea and hear your theories on what may have caused it. I find it very strange that the last 4 minutes of data on the black box aren't available.
Shout-out to the pilots for navigating such a tough situation. Shout-out to Joe for top notch content per usual. I aspire to have my channel be just as awesome! Cheer to you and your success Joe!
You {normally} aren‘t supposed to add any directions when giving the evacuation command. The reason for this is two-fold: 1.) From the flight deck you cannot visually assess the outside conditions reliably, therefore this is the responsibility of each cabin crew member BEFORE opening ANY exit. 2.) You want to keep all critical commands streamlined and strictly stick to the correct wording, as this is what the crew is drilled on. And in emergency situations, clear and simple commands is what you want, as we humans react best to them.
@@PW-qy8mf In an emergency evacuation, aren't passengers seated in over the wing exit row seats the ones that open the doors? I hope they are given quick instructions from the cabin crew to not open/deploy any exits in proximity to a suspected engine fire. How is that coordinated? I wonder if the captain was a little too hasty with the evacuation order. It was reported that their were 4 injuries and one hospitalization from the evacuation.
@ Regarding the overwing exits, you are correct. Those are passenger-operated exits. Passengers seated in those rows must be "able-bodied passengers (ABPs)", which means you have to be in good physical and mental shape and be able to understand English and/or the Airline's native language and you must be willing to assist in case of an evacuation. This (including checking the outside conditions) is all checked and briefed by the cabin crew during/after the boarding. Regarding the decision to evacuate: Based on the facts we are presented with in this video, I probably would have taken the same decision. We are well aware that there WILL be injuries in case of an evacuation, so this decision is NEVER taken lightly. You have to put yourself into the situation: You have just rejected the takeoff (at rather high speed as it looks like in the video) due to a SEVERE malfunction (engine fire). We don't know yet if this engine fire was associated with a severe damage. Most often, this is the case. So there is a high probability that debris might have exited the engine and damaged fuel lines and/or tanks. In such a situation you don't want to waste valuable seconds when you have confirmation by an external observer that there are flames coming out of the engine. Just imagine it the other way round: If the commander would have decided to delay the evacuation because he thought that "MAYBE" the fire brigade would have been able to extinguish the fire, and then a wing tank exploded, you would be dealing with A LOT of fatalities, and everybody would blame the captain for not evacuating sooner (such cases HAVE happened in the past). Further considerations: - Once the command for an evacuation has been given, it CANNOT be taken back. This would result in total chaos. (It's the same with the decision for a go-around.) - The time from the aircraft coming to a complete stop until the command to evacuate normally takes about 1 minute if you do all the checklists properly. In the case of an engine fire, you first work the ECAM until you have discharged both agents/bottles. If the fire persists even after a few seconds, it is considered "inextinguishable", therefore you proceed with the "EMER EVAC" checklist, which contains all vital items for a safe evacuation. The very last point in this checklist is the command for the evacuation. Up until this point you can still stop the procedure, but once the order is given, that's set in stone. Based on the radio calls in this video, I assume that the evacuation was already initiated (by giving the appropriate command) when the crew received the report that the flames have ceased. So to sum it up: nobody is to blame here except the stupid passengers that take their baggage with them (see the videos)... Hope that clarifies some things for you! :)
@@PW-qy8mf Hey thanks very much for your earlier answer to my question and others. And thanks for the further info. I agree I have no issue evacuating, in my mind it is better to be away from a large bomb then waiting it out and see after the fact.
@@PW-qy8mf Thank you for the in depth reply. But who and how decides and communicates which emergency exits are safe and which ones could put passengers in harms way?You certainly don't want passengers escaping in proximity of the suspected damaged engine. Just curious because it looks like they deployed the emergency exits on the same side as the engine fire.
Thanks for the shout-out Joe! I have just released a second video with more conversations.
wow, real official one
Love your videos bro!!
Thanks for announcing it. Watched the first one which was good but unaware there was a second one.
Love your work!
Hey d!ckh*ad, see how _decent_ people give *CREDIT* to others when they fair-use their media? You could learn a lesson or two from Joe.
A friend of mine was on the plane and I think everyone who was onboard should watch this video so they better understand why evacuation didn’t take place immediately upon aborted take-off. Several were frustrated over the lack of information from the cockpit without realizing all the work the pilots were doing. Great work by the pilots and ATL personnel!
Thanks buddy for appreciating the work🙏🏼
Pilots are among a zillion other things have a responsibility to keep the passengers safe.
Imagine having to weigh the need to evacuate passengers beside an ACTIVE RUNWAY.
Passenger: “talking to me is more important than actually keeping me safe!!”
@@saybya You really wouldn't have heard that kind of attitude back in the 1980s or before.
Passengers have been taking the ability to fly for granted for years now.
This is a fantastic review of this incident, 10x better than any 3 minute news clip out there : Radio comms, diagrams, on scene video, professional explanations. Brilliant job.
There was one comment stating that maintenance later ran engine #2 and it ran OK, and that the engine "problem" was due to the ingestion of snow/ice from the runway. Also, I didn't hear (or missed) that there was an Eng 2 FIRE EICAS message, bell and warning lights. So, no engine fire. It sounds plausible that the engine experienced a "stall" at high power and the crew rejected the takeoff due to the bang and thrust loss. That was the right decision. Throttles to idle, max braking, verify speedbrakes up and come to a stop. If I were investigating this event, I'd look on the DFDR to determine when the #2 start lever moved to cutoff. With the engine windmilling (flamed out) during the stop and soon after, fuel is still being supplied into the hot combustor, essentially wetting the rear of the engine flowpath. The "now pooling" fuel and fumes are ignited from the still hot metal. This is called a tailpipe fire, and there is a cockpit procedure for this event. Flames and/or smoke from the tailpipe do not necessarily indicate an engine fire, and the procedure to handle this is to shut off the fuel (start lever to cutoff) and to motor the engine with the starter IF you have any pneumatics available from the other engine or APU. This blows out the fire and cools the combustor and the HP/LP turbines. This is a tough situation to realistically create in the simulator. The pilots done good this day!
I guess in the poor visibility and chaos, they aren't going to be waiting to see if it is a tailpipe fire. They're just hearing flames and smoke coming out of their engine and taking the safest course of action. Sometimes sensors aren't always reliable. So I think the decision was fine to do, especially with the weather difficulties for resources to reach (they will still super fast but still a fire taking hold will require more resources).
Excellent diagnosis. Would interject there's something missing. If there was a fire in @2 eng that caused an evac-- did or didn't the fire handle get pulled and discharged. I don't believe they (a mech) would be running #2 and saying it's ok if the engine had fire suppression.
From personal experience, you don't even realize a tailpipe fire is occurring.
Due to a misinterpretation in flight regs, the cfi had me doing touch and go's prior to a solo. Upon being corrected by another cfi (noting the landings needed to be 'full stops'), during the subsequent runup (in an attempt to try and have me get the 3 full stops), engine fouling occurred. Cycling the mags, the cfi accidentally advanced the mag beyond the right set to off, then immediately placed them back to right. We didn't realized that we dumped unburnt fuel into the hot exhaust. less than a minute later, the cfi (who corrected my cfi) was running out with a manger with a Fire Extinguisher in hand.
Apparently we had a sustained fireball under the cockpit of the 172.
I wasn't able to go solo (still got endorsed, still yet to get to fly solo, shurgh), but my initial thoughts were; "the skyhawk went f-14 for a couple seconds"
Atlanta had a huge snowstorm which is very unusual. Great communications between all and the pilot made the right call to evacuate.
I have to say that she handled comms very cool and calm, very professional. And pilot was very cool under circumstances, this is how you do it and reduce panic
Couldn’t agree more!
Atlanta resident here, so proud of our people! Great job by everybody except for the fire chief, taking up bandwidth to collect details for the incident report while the response was ongoing, and then stepping on the transmission as the pilot was trying to get confirmation from ARRF that the fire was out on engine number two 🤦♂️.
@@flywithcaptainjoeYou're objectively wrong. She was slow, late, dense, ineffective, indecisive, inadequate, and fundamentally irrelevant to the decisions and actions accomplished by OTHERS that kept all souls alive.
@@irtnyconly one dense here is you, me thinks. Everyone in this case did as excellent a job as can be expected.
@@irtnyc examples? Evidence?
I'm a retired military and airline pilot. I've done a few rejected takeoffs and a couple of evacuations (one evacuation was due to a bomb threat).
In this case, I must say that ATC, the ground crew, and the flight crew all performed admirably.
Cheers, Blaine!
ALSO it looks as if the passengers listened and DIDN'T grab their carry-ons! FLIGHT CREW PERFORMANCE FOR THE WIN!
This is not that!
Shout out to the ATC on an a superb job and to all the other services working together and professionally. Great call by the flight deck crew as well. We hear in detail all the mistakes made in disaster situations, but this is an example of all the things done right. Praise for all!
My sole issue with this was evac paxs on the right side. They deployed both fwd and rear slides on the right and pax used them. Had there been a more serious engine failure/fire, this could have really turned bad. Also, it delays the ARFF from putting out any fire if paxs are in the way. Im sure this will be the one point of procedure that will be investigated.
This. They knew/suspected a fire from the #2/right engine. They shouldn't have used the right side exits to evac. But then, if passengers were the ones evacuating without instructions from flight crew, that might not have been avoidable. Hopefully further details will become available.
Another comment suggested pax deployed the R slides, even w/ FAs at most (all?) exits of the 757, they likely were busy with the L slides.
This is my question also. Glad it all turned out well tho!
There is one set of comms we are missing here, and that is direct between the flight crew and the fire teams via direct intercom. They may have gotten an all clear from the fire crew to disembark passengers on that side.
Same thought here
Thank you Captain Joe, great review of a textbook response.
B757 Captain here with a few notes:
RTO autobrakes means Rejected Take Off on the B757 RTO becomes active at 85 knots, before that, manual braking is required. RTO activates if thust levers are closed (idle) during the takeoff roll (and above 85kts).
Autothrottle is disengaged to prevent the system attempting to re-apply takeoff thrust.
Since the pilot asked if there was a fire, that would indicate they did not get a fire warning, this can happen if the fire is in the tailpipe (area that doesn't have fire detection), there's a specific Checklist for this condition, the aircraft's Fire Extinguishers for the engines are not effective for this kind of fire, so the evacuation was a good idea.
The need to open the outflow valve (evacuation) is to allow the doors to be opened, with the aircraft pressurized plug type doors cannot be opened due to the air pressure holding them closed.
Great job by all involved.
Thank you Frank🙏🏼 It’s all very similar to the 747, I was just trying to keep it a little shorter here and there! By the way the 757 is an amazing aircraft, I did a SIM screening in it once and absolutely loved it how it handled🙏🏼 come and join me on a flight with the 747😉
I love the comment section on captain joe's videos, there are a LOT of experienced certified pilots that provide so much accurate information! Thank you.
Thank you! As a retired F/A, I appreciate your analysis. I worked on 57s and 67s for years. All floor level exits are worked by F/As, window exits are sometimes opened by passengers who are sitting by them. REcurent Training of F/As requires evacuation of an AC in 90 seconds. Recurrent Training takes place every year. Aviation people value professionalism. Thank you again for making this clear.
And this is why Delta remains my favorite domestic airline in the U.S. Every person and every company can have problems and emergencies, but what sets some above the rest is how they recover from those problems. Delta is always a class act--they are well trained and always professional. They handled this emergency perfectly.
Just to put the Atlanta snow into perspective: the last major storm with accumulation in the city was in 2014.
This is not something that happens often.
Under Part 139, airports have to have exercises throughout the year for the responders to practice different scenarios.
@@LH-yc5vy exercises, yes. That's nothing like having the entire flight load of ATL dumped onto the two de-icing pads the airport has, in the middle of a raging snowstorm.
Like everyone else in ATL, a single snowflake is an apocalypse. While I can't speak to accumulation, on pavement, at the airport, but I've raced at Road Atlanta in December for 8(?) years, and there's been snow at half of those races. (as long as it doesn't stick to the track, we race.)
Actually having lived in ATL for 32 years almost all of the Januarys had snow. Some accumulated some didn't. Best snow storm ever was in March 1993. So much fun!
@@paulazemeckis7835 Compared to the more northern state cities like Chicago or Minneapolis. Snowy weather in Atlanta only comes once or twice a winter, mainly in January and February. Sometimes December or March. And accumulating snow stays around on the ground just a for a short time. This is probably why a lot of people see it so negligible, and not highly view of as a usual thing. Even though it's also normal winter weather there.
Sweet! There's some of my video!
It was a compressor stall per a Delta mechanic likely from all the ingestion from snow/slush that contaminated the runway. There was no sign of a fire and test ran engine today. He also stated the passengers freaked out and pulled the slides.
I question the approval to use a contaminated runway for takeoffs. As such, the risk of snow & ice accumulating on the engine inlets from the NW spray can result in rapid accumulation and thus disturbing the airflow to compressor, inducing a compressor stall. In other words, the lack of experience in ATL handling a snow event led to the mistake of allowing continued ops on the contaminated runway, and this event was therefore avoidable.
So... ops 3 dude just hallucinating then?
@@herbiecactus6687 I think OPS made a poor decision declaring the runway condition "good". At 3:29, you can see all the slush spray coming off the NLG, and the A/C isn't even going that fast. At 3:39, in fact, the #1 (LH) engine looks like its exhaust is briefly interrrupted, likely from a disturbance in its airflow.
@@aeroman5239 I have to reasonably assume that applicable SOP's will be amended to ensure additional runway cleaning and confirmation takes place in such circumstances.
@@aeroman5239 So you're suggesting OPS lied about seeing fire and smoke to deflect blame? (Trying to figure out how your response flows from my comment/question.)
The sheer amount of professionalism present in this situation is a real testament to the fact America may have its' problems, but how many other places would have the same outcome when it comes down to it like this? Top work from everyone involved.
If I’m not mistaken (and please correct me if anyone has more information), at the time all this was happening, the north runways (8L-26R and 8R-26L) were closed and waiting for brooms to sweep them. This effectively brought operations at ATL to a halt, with only RWY 10/28 available for both landings and takeoffs. Such a situation would have caused a massive traffic jam, with severe delays both inbound and outbound. Inbound flights likely faced fuel diversions, while outbound flights and aircraft sitting at other airports bound for ATL would have been stuck on gate holds. This seems like a classic domino effect of compounding delays.
That is why tower called ops to send the brooms the 8L/R
A bunch of people on a travel group I follow were irate about flight disruptions in Atlanta that day. It's par for the course... People saying take it to the airline on X with demands, etc. SMH. It's a travel group so they have more air travel experience than most and some still don't get that a rare snow event is going to have that effect. It's winter. Allow more time to make it to your cruise or whatever. Buy travel insurance. Get a grip.
10/28 was almost certainly closed, along with 8L and 8R. At ATL, snow is rare, and they only have equipment sufficient to keep one or two runways open. They will almost always choose 9L and 9R, because 9L is the longest at the airport, and 9R has extremely low (good) landing weather minimums. If the closed 8L and 8R hadn't yet been touched, it would take an hour or two to clear each runway (depending on many variables).
It’s great and meaningful to see y’all bring attention to a emergency that went right, as these lessons of initiative and coordination are priceless.
One of several things learned from training is that ATC is your best friend in these situations. Love the 757.
I have flown several times in the past on the 757...nice plane
The most beautiful plane out there, other than the queen of course.
@@juliemanarin4127 Most pilots that have flown it call it the sports car of commercial aviation.
it was a 767
I think if the fire chief didn’t interrupt the communications, then perhaps between the controller/pilot and the ARFF ops personnel with eyes on the engines, then perhaps the information could have been passed that the fire was either extinguished or was being extinguished…. At least this would give the pilot another option to consider…. As it was, the pilot is told there is fire in the the engine and nothing else…. The pilot didn’t really have much option other than to evacuate the aircraft.
yeah. usually the fire chiefs are the worse on the radio
My only question. Do you consider it optimal, to allow passenger evacuation out of the side of the aircraft with possible/known engine fire? (Noting not only the fire risk itself, but also that that is where the ARFF vehicles will be moving?) Should they not have directed an evac via the LH side only?
Looks like the pax panicked and opened the right side themselves against cabin crew instructions.
In my operation we're generally trained just to make the evac call and let cabin crew decided whether a particular exit is useable or not. I'm sure there's some sort of extreme scenario where I might direct a particular side, but it isn't standard practice where I work.
Excellent response from ATC and OPS. I can’t imagine this complex scene was ever done in training. But everyone did their job professionally.
RTOs and evacuations are in every SIM check.
Perfectly solved emergency case, excellent coordination between the three services. Cpt.Joe presented the event excellently, even hollywood could not imagine such a scenario
I want to also praise the passengers and (presumably) excellent direction from the FAs in that I didn't see one passenger with a roll-aboard on the ground and only a few with a backpack. In a survivable situation where an evacuation is required, you NEVER want to waste time (or space between the passengers behind you) with a bag or backpack. If that plane caught fire, the people nearest to the smoke have literal seconds between life and death. Any hesitation to get stuff might mean the life of another less fortunate passenger. Stuff is stuff but a life cannot be replaced. This could happen to any of us and it's important we all think about what we would do in that situation. Again, praise to passengers, praise to crew.
During simulator exercises for evacuations, I'd often ask: "How long will my passengers be standing out in the cold of a minus 20C winter night?" None of the instructors ever had a good answer. I'd like to know what official parameters exist at major airports for this. Doesn't do much good to save pax from the fire only to lose them to death by exposure.... Nice debrief Cpt. Joe. Thanks.
I'm wondering if the airport would send a bus or something to get them asap
FAA Part 139 Airport Certification covers airports and requirements and ATL airport is a Part 139 airport. Also, an airport may have bus resources but the hub's biggest airline will have employee bus resources as well at a major airport and they will be escorted by Airside Ops out on the airfield. Other things to consider (for both airfield and landside evacuations): big pax busses need to have a CDL+ pax endorsed driver (small pool for that cert.), if the pax bus is public street legal or if it can only stay on the airfield (may need an escort), and where the bus drivers are at on their CDL timeout hours. You can bleed out in 5 min and a fire is more deadly than cold exposure so those are the priority injuries of ARFFs. Major airlines are private companies and have resources of lots of blankets so their GO teams will more quickly distribute blanket/comfort kits than possibly the airport, which will most likely not keep as many of those kits on hand. Also, think about politics: if two airlines hate each other, and the smaller ops airline has an emergency at the big ops airline's hub, how quickly do you think the hub airline will send their resources to assist? Maybe they will since it is life safety leading to good PR for the helping airline but who knows what will happen in that moment?
Reasonable concern, and I’m sure if you’re seeing smoke in the cabin or the possibility of a fire, then surviving the immediate threat means evacuating, no matter what. I would imagine the airport has the authority to request every van on property (including parking /employee shuttle buses) to immediately rescue the passengers from the extreme elements).
Yes, I question the evac call, it was not required, there are reasons to evac, and where was this.. This was some cowboy pilot that panicked and went full to the wrong decision.. There is no reason to now have lost sheep milling around a vast wastland, maybe getting in or around the wrong part of the airport....
Look if the airframe has holes that are now appearing, then by all means, get out.. Now.. that pilot has a lot of thinking to do, to try and snow job the NTSB into believing his justification.. He has no justification..
@@justinepaula-robilliard The airport has busses. Calm down.
There are a couple of schools of thought and a captain must consider all facets whenever possible. The minute they heard "flames" from an ops guy, they made the call to evacuate. There is no real wrong in doing this. However, I think had they waited 60 more seconds, the ARFF people could have been far more effective at stopping any flames (which was doused in seconds) and communicating far more effectively than the ops person. Then they could have deplaned in a coordinated fashion. But again, there is no wrong call here. Did this captain make the wrong decision? Absolutely not. Was an actual evacuation really warranted? Debatable and as a monday morning QB, I think it wasn't.
Generally speaking, someone always gets hurt in an evac. Grandma in the wheelchair doesn't tend to go down the slides so well. I'd probably delay the evac in this case with ARFF already on station and a contained engine/jetpipe fire...but I wasn't there.
Agreed. Good points
I've experienced a rejected takeoff once (likely 737, but at least something that size/class - long time ago). Those brakes are gooooood. Damn those brakes are good! Guessing it happened just prior to takeoff. Taxied back to gate and had a part replaced, and off we went, so "nothing serious". But I'll never forget that braking action.
I'm not a pilot, but as pax in some smaller Piper, our runways shut down due to an emergency involving a small sea plane crashing and tumbling. Pilot only suffered a broken or scratched finger, and iirc also the plane was recoverable, so again, "nothing serious". But the reason ATC gave us for delaying us, wasn't "passengers all over the runway", but "emergency busy and not available, so we can't let you land just yet".
Interestingly, if they have to brake too hard, the brakes are no longer usable and need to be replaced. Even if they were only used once.
@@mediocreman2 So maybe it wasn't even max? I wouldn't know. I have no idea what autobrakes will do in RTO mode. Is the requirement for replacement automatic, or after inspection?
So refreshing to see people just doing their jobs as effectively as possible instead of having bureaucracy shoved into every little step you take.
Great job and syncing by ground+ATC .
Keep it up Joe absolutely LOVE your videos! My #1 Favorite Aviation UA-camr!
Mentour Pilot is good too
Was an Engine Run-up performed I/A/W the Boeing 757 FCOM - Supplementary Normal Procedures Section - Takeoff Procedure?
Do the normal Takeoff Procedure with the following modification: When engine anti-ice is required and the OAT is 3°C or below, the takeoff must be preceded by a static engine run-up. Use the following procedure: PF
Option: Pratt and Whitney Engines Run-up to a minimum of 50% N1 and confirm stable engine operation before the start of the takeoff roll.
Capt.Joe, great job explaining everything. ATL was experiencing a very rare snow day. So it's even more remarkable that everyone was able to communicate effectively! Ops, Broom trucks, ARF , pilots, tower and pilots of other aircraft. I'm impressed as well. Proud of my hometown airline, Delta, and the whole team at our airport.
Passengers need to run towards the wind, to mitigate the risk of smoke inhalation.
Good point
@@thecomedypilot5894 there is no shortage of comments here stating things that were clearly stated in the video. Special bunch....
It was amazing how calm everyone was and how smoothly everything ran. Thank you for explaining the steps clearly.
Thank you for the very concise and professional description of how the emergency RTO was handled by great teamwork. Axel RC
I was flying an airline one time and it aborted take-off after the second troubleshooting. We were at the runway both times about to take off. A lot of people on the jet were mad about the ground abort. I wasn't. Kudos to the pilot for safety first. I'd rather abort mission than die crashing. The airline also gave everyone two options: take next flight free of charge or stay in a hotel overnight and take morning flight...free of charge. People were still mad smh. I was chillen, I chose to stay the night. I also asked could I catch an afternoon flight, instead of a morning flight. The airline let me do it with no issues. I still fly the same airline. It's one of my favorite airlines. Sometimes, jets just break and it's safer to abort mission. The pilot made a safety call and it was a good call.
Respect to the Captain, flight crew, and Atlanta airport workers! 🫡
Excellent job by all, including the passengers. From the video snippet, it looks like the passengers did the correct thing in evacuating, leaving things behind and not trying to grab their carry-ons. Very important to do that!
I watch videos about airline disasters and investigations a lot. This was a great change of pace, seeing everyone doing everything right and it being successful.
It is reassuring to see an emergency situation so well handled. This speaks to the training and experience of all involved, from the cockpit to the tower to the emergency services. Good to see so many professionals do their job with expertise.
I'll let the NTSB be the judge if they "nailed it." I do remember the press saying that BA 777, nailed it back in Vegas, ten years back following an engine fire. The investigation revealed things were not so well handled after all.
I shall change the thumbnail after official report😉
@@flywithcaptainjoeNice, overview on the whole RTO, process. But, having had an incident myself twenty years ago, it's an uncomfortable wait, finding out what the investigation says.
If you go to the VAS Aviation channel and listen to all of the communication… It was a mess, IMO it seemed like the pilot had to evacuate because of the poor communication between the fire crew and tower leading to confusion and uncertainty of the state of the aircraft. The fire chief should be immediately placed on leave, was very clear that he had no idea how to properly communicate with the tower and pilot.
This was a mess and I suspect heads will roll for this…
@@FracturedNinja I do not have much experience in busy class bravos, but you do seem right, the chief did use some non standard phraseology. From what it looks though, TWR and crew members did the right thing
Pilots were foolish to evacuate with no visible fire. They cost the company thousands and risked injuring passengers over a non visible engine fire.
The main question is: Why are no small cameras, which observe the (fire) status of the engines, built in nowadays planes and send their transmission directly to the cockpit? 🤷🏻♂️
There are. For example modern A350 has a tail camera that would have the trailing edge of the wing in frame. Well im not sure if you can see the rear of the engine but at least you can have a greater overview
@@TheLikeysyou said the reason in one word .... that word is ... AIRBUS ... need I say more !!!! Oh yes I do .... superior European technology and responsibility to all .. thank you ...
Jet engines have had fire detectors since day one. They are more reliable than a camera.
this is 757, built well over 2 or 3 decades ago. fire detectors are more important than cameras.
This is the kind of exchange to make listen to all people or groups, even in business, to show by a real ace what good communication is, clear, factual and above all calm.
And in particular, professionalism and the follow-up of procedures.
Airline captain here. I don’t think I would’ve evacuated. Very dangerous and slows down fire trucks. I know, easy to armchair quarterback. Sometimes you’re faced with very tough decisions with limited information. Kudos to the crew and ops for no injuries.
If @brandonsorenson9178 is correct and a passenger did open a door then the cat is out of the bag and there is going to be no choice but to inform ATC that there is an evacuation in progress rather than to try and "shut the door once the horse has bolted".
I was thinking the same.
In the end everyone walked away.
I agree. Boeing 737 Captain myself. No engine fire warning, ARFF is on the scene ready to extinguish fire. Let them do their job.
I had a cargo fire scenario after landing one time and it was similar in the sense of giving ARFF a chance to work. No smoke, smell or heat in the cabin.
Great job all! The outcome was successful so none of this armchair quarterbacking means anything. :-)
I just saw the video on this incident earlier today and I wondered why they also evacuated on the right hand side where the burning engine is?
Amazing show of CRM. Great job to all of them! Great example of why pax need to be vigilant and pay attention to the safety briefing from the Flight Attendants!!
I couldn’t agree more!
This is where CRM extends to outside of the aircraft as well.
ATC didn’t do a great job.
@@thecomedypilot5894 How many comments did you reply to saying this? lmao
@@kitsuneprincess4637 Apparently not enough because you people still don’t get it.
The timing of this video couldn't be better. I'm in Pasadena CA very close to the Eaton Fire and watching this was weirdly calming. Thank you!
Its amazing the 1 everyone is ok and 2 how the crew and staff were calm in this emergency man its really amazing
Always quality videos from you sir. News stations feed us gloom & doom and how nothing can be done AND here you are giving praise to an airport, ARFF, pilots, cabin crew and ATC with everyone doing their part and how well and safe you are because the safety works despite news outlets yelling that “the sky is falling, the sky is falling!” 🚒🚑⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Capt Joe, et al…..curious if during a fire on the right engine and indications that #2 had flames …..if they should evacuate via right-over wing exits and the right exit door slide in front of the engine with the fire. Can a pilot designate to the f/a to only evacuate left side, etc to keep pax away from the fire…..just curious about the protocol and didn’t see that in the checklist, regardless, I thought everyone did an excellent job!
Seems like they really handled the whole incident very professionally. Hats off to all of them, also for quick thinking (shutting down runway 9R) and working together as a team.
ATC didn’t do a good job.
This was amazing review of this incidente.
The comms was amazing and precisely.
The Crew did the best work possible, wonderful.
Thanks Cap Joe.
Captain Joe, could you give your opinion on whether it would be feasible to tell passengers they will be prosecuted for taking luggage in an emergency? Lots of people without but have seen some other angles with people still with luggage. It’s so dangerous to delay an evacuation!
Great video, and awesome step by step details of procedures (written and real time) and communications. On the evac, a few points need explained for the non-pilots readers. The reason for despresurizando the airplane is because in the case the vessels is pressurized even at 0.5 PSI, the doors will not open, or at lease, not easily open for the sides to deploy. I’m so pleased with everybody’s response, from flight crew to controller and fire/ground maintenance. This is what well trained crews do.
Thanks Captain Joe for the wonderful explanation, greetings from Italy Rome 🙋👍
If there is a potential fire on one side of the aircraft, is it not safer to evacuate only on the other side? To keep the passengers away from potential fire. Esp given there is overwing exits, right next to the potential engine that is on fire. That's my only unknown on this. The rest feels like a great example of coordinating all resources. Thanks for the video!
I'm wondering why they would evac from both sides of the aircraft. If there's a fire on the #2 engine, it seems to me that they wouldn't want passengers evacuating on that side of the aircraft.
That was the first time on of your videos was recommended to me. I appreciate your approach and have subscribed in order to get notified on your newest postings whilst I go through your past submissions. I hope that I’ll be pleased with this decision.
The fact that everything was so smooth considering the chaos that could have existed is amazing. I love the professionalism of the crew and the airport to get everything handled in a quick, and safe manner. Having flown through Atlanta because delta is pretty much ALWAYS flies you to Atlanta I will say it made me much more comfortable with that airport and with Delta as a whole. Thanks for sharing your analysis. Cant wait for the NTSB report. I'm sure it'll reflect well on the pilots and on the airport.
The only question I had was why did they evacuate on the side where the engine fire possibly was? I feel like it could have been a panicked response by those sitting in those seats, but I'll wait for the report to explain.
Thank you Captain Joe for the step-by-step explanation of this Delta flight emergency situation. Great job!!!
Also a great video to assure passengers on future flights that even a dramatic situation such as this can be be calmly handled successfully. Thank you for making this video.
Left side only ..left side only…evacuate evacuate evacuate!
As a left seater, I cannot think as to why I, or my FA’s, would evacuate to a side with a fire/smoke/issue. I understand quickest method of dumping all 140+ pax, but doing it safely is not onto the side with an engine issue. But I don’t know, still new to the CA position.
Great video discussion on the 757 engine failure. I have one question. The crew reported engine failure to tower. Tower wanted them to clear the runway so the following aircraft could depart. Wouldn’t a runaway inspection be warranted for possible engine debris prior to clearing the next departure?
Thanks
Yes. But the inspection can't be properly done until the airplane is off the runway, In the vast majority of aborted takeoffs, the airplane is able to taxi clear. This one was different because of the fire possibility and poor visibility.
I like how the opps guy changed his description from right side to engine 2 to avoid any confusion absolute professional
@olivermcdermidpeering5755 You would need to include the aircraft type, as engine 2 could be the inboard left engine on an aircraft with more than 2 engines, so right side is the better description.
he didn't know what engine-- only what side? there's only 2 engines buddy. #1or #2.
It appears communication was good for all entities involved in the emergency. Decisions were made at the appropriate time with the appropriate amount of information. Awesome job by all involved in handling this situation. Goes to show how good training was for all involved and how the training allowed them to all work together despite having different roles.
It amazes me when a professional crew uses abundance of caution and successfully evacuated the plane no one hurt no damage to the plane (other than isolated to the engine) a lot of armchair crews can come up with a better way but folks all you keyboard critics YOU WERE NOT THERE!!!! Please accept the fact Delta did it more less by the book as they do so often. Criticism is easy, accolades are sparse. ATL and Delta are pros!!
The team effort of everyone was awesome!!!!
My only question is whether evacuating on the failed engine side with potential fire was warranted. Yes, the fire seemed out by then; and we have no recording of the instructions to the cabin crew. Just an ambiguity that I would have liked explained.
Love this type of video, more of these please! Very informative
Looks great! Now that so you do a successful emergency landing and evacuation! Thanks for a great video Joe!
Also, hhats off to the pilots and crew of that Delta B757 for doing a great job! Just in time for Delta’s 100th birthday! 🎉
Excellent co-ordination between all involved. So pleased everyone is safe.
I used to live in Atlanta and flew Delta almost every week. The pilot had a compressor stall/fire and RTO. Passengers (like me) are looking out the windows at the engines. If they see fire, the passengers will self-evacuate. It did not matter how cold it was. The terminal was only a couple of hundred feet away.
I really love this analysis. Thanks for sharing and also thanks to the Staff in the Control tower, Fire crew and ground crew. What a teamwork!
I didn’t hear that the crew advise that they would need to do an engine run up to clear the possible ice in the engine. This could cause ice buildup on the blades and cause an engine malfunction when setting takeoff thrust.
Is it likely that, off-air, flight attendant(s) observed fire from the engine, alerted the flight deck, and the captain was already initiating the evacuation before hearing about flames over the radio? Or, if attendants had seen flames, would they avoid "distracting" the flight deck crew, knowing that they are very busy?
In cases of emergencies, the comminication should be reduced to required information (aka need to know).
If the captain is evacuating, then telling them that an engine is on fire is not neccessarily required information (and the cabin crew should help with the evacuation instead).
If the captain is not (yet) evacuating, then telling the cockpit, that there is a fire/damage is very much required.
(You don't have to force it - in case they already know and are already preparing to evacuate - but try to ping/call them, to allow them to make informed decisions)
I don't know how it works with cabin crews, but I imagine the normal cabin crew calls the lead cabin crew, to condense and maybe verify the information which then gets passed to the cockpit.
So, I've been interested in aviation and other disasters for years. So many fascinating aspects that lead to catastrophes. Engineering, materials science, operations, skinflint management, human factors, weather, ...
.
One pattern I've noticed is that often when there is an engine fire indication or other malfunction such as a departed propeller or even a departed engine there often is no or greatly delayed communication between the flight crew and the cabin crew. As Captain Joe noted, pilots of large jet aircraft often cannot see much or even any of the aircraft behind them, often including the wings, engines and of course, the fuselage and tail. The cabin crew can make observations of most of these and report what they see if the flight crew makes the effort to get that information from them. This just seems like good Crew Resource Management and a fast way to aid the flight crew's situational awareness.
.
IMO, it should be a SOP when something bad is happening that might involve the aircraft behind the flight deck that the cabin crew should make rapid observations of wings, engines, the internal fuselage and cabin and have that information reported to, typically, the cabin crew leader, who should then be standing by a phone waiting to report those observations to the flight crew, who should be making a call to that cabin phone to get this report early on in the emergency sequence.
.
In quite a few of the dramatized aviation accidents I've seen (Mayday, etc.), when the shirt hits the fan flight crews often have not done this and cabin crews have not reported information the flight crew needed to have to inform their understanding of what was happening. There have been incidents where the flight crew remained ignorant of conditions such as as departed propellers, gashes or cracks in the fuselage visible from inside the cabin, smoke, engine fires, fuel and hydraulic fluid leaks, access panels that have departed and even engines that have departed the aircraft. None of these conditions are fully evident from flight deck instruments alone.
.
Instead, I've often seen the flight crews in these disaster incidents display a tendency to hyperfocus and "tunnel vision" on their flight deck instruments and frantically try to figure out what's happening just from them, a case of "information availability bias", or frantically try to work a checklist, or otherwise flail trying to understand what's happening, when a simple observation like "the #1 engine's propeller just departed the engine and slashed across the bottom of the fuselage" would provide so much clarity. Often they're confounded because the instrumentation is displaying a baffling set of indications that don't tell the story of conditions no responsible engineering team or airplane manufacturer would create instrumentation for, such as a sensors and instruments to indicate conditions such as "engine departed a wing", "propeller departed the engine and sliced across the bottom of the fuselage", "engine fan disk disintegrated and punched one or more holes in the fuselage, and the size the location of these holes", and "the fuselage has a crack in it we can see through to the outside".
To set the scene....AAAAAAAHHHHHHRRRRG! South+snow= inevitable momentary chaos.
This is awesome! This is so much more than the "news" tells us. Thank you. Joe, keep making videos!
Really great to see all the calm and professionalism! With 'max fuel +200', anything w/heat and they were full evac, and they executed that perfectly, calmly, and quickly. With the number of FUBAR's we've had recently that was reassuring, and needed! Even with the amount of snow still out there! Peace --bfg
Thank you for covering this. Almost the only things covered are disasters. In addition, thank you for the detail through the complete situation.
That controller did such a great job gathering info from multiple sources to aid her; having someone who was previously on the runway pull up to the jet and check and most importantly have ops 3 repeatedly verify that they saw flames so the pilots could make the right call. 🇯🇲 Good stuff.
And emergency equipment didn't run over any passengers like what happened in San Francisco when the 777 hit the sea wall and broke apart and passengers fled the plane where some got ran over by emergency vehicles.
Well stated Captain and congratulations to all involved in this textbook teamwork for all involved.
It amazes me how these pilots and air traffic controllers remain so calm and its not just this incident. I have yet to see or hear anyone panic. I have seen every episode of Air Disasters/Mayday/Crash Files of the NTSB (not obsessed or anything). Kudos to them. I would panic. If I was an air traffic controller, everything would be running into everything else on the runways and taxi ways. If fascinates me how they keep everything straight.
There is NO way that runway was cleared of snow! Just look at the rooster tail of snow the 757 kicks up on it's takeoff roll. Injested snow could have caused a comprssor stall on one of the engines. I flew the 757 for 14 years out of ORD, LGA, EWR and JFK and when the ground crews cleared those runways of snow, they were clear. I can imagine with snow such a rarity at ATL, the ground crews were not adept at clearing the runways and may not have had the proper equipment to do so.
And as you know, a runway must be inspected, conditions assessed and reported following snow removal. Flight crews are required to have such information in order to make valid decisions. Was their urgency to get airborne -- before hitting their fuel quantity minimums or busting their deicing holdover times -- a contributing factor? These will be key points in investigating the cause(s) of this incident.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 GREAT JOB ALL!!! A true view of team work coming together!!! Safety is the #1 priority!!! Awesome analysis & break down Captain Joe!!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Excellent job from tower, ops and arff. Good call for the pilots rejecting the take off. Although I don't think evacuation was necessary do to the fact ARFF were already next to the aircraft... For what purpose... To extiguish the posible fire.
If there was a fire on the right engine, FA should never had deployed the right evacuation slide
They did it because there was no fire.
And if there had been a fire, a lot of people would had gotten injured.
In order to call for an evacuation, the captain has to be sure that, there is no better and safest choice.
He had a better choice.
Using the ARFF to extiguish the posible tail pipe fire.
No comment on the passengers possibly evacuating with luggage or personal items. Question. What happens to the items left in the plane after the evacuation is finished ? Do passengers board the plane again to recover them ? Do the company recover it and how is it practically distributed. Knowing this might help keeping stuff in the plane, giving confidence that they'll get it back with no problem.
Definitely team work makes the dream work.
Great outcome for all. Love to hear all what gose on behind the scenes what the passenger doesn't hear in that moment
On one landing in Newark the 777 suffered a sort of break failure which caused half of the tire fuses to be blown.
When we left the aircraft standing still half on the runway half on the runway exit (stairs) the very near by other runway kept busy.
It is no nice feeling with hundreds of passengers on the airfield just some meters apart from a busy runway (Newark Int.'s layout is very tight)
Capt. Joe: Good video, although I have a few questions about your conclusions. First, the decision to perform a passenger evacuation must be tempered by the inherent dangers. Putting everyone out on slides often results in injuries, interferes with the approach of ARFF vehicles, and results in hundreds of people wandering about uncontrolled on active taxiways and runways. Second, when conducting a passenger evacuation, the passengers should never be sent out the side toward the fire. This is prevented by the captain making a PA announcement such as "Evacuate the aircraft, left side only". We are unsure yet if passengers initiated their own right side evacuation into the fire. Third, the engine nacelles on the 757 are designed to contain a fire and prevent one from migrating up the pylon and into the wing. Yes, the fire extinguishing bottles for the right engine don't dump into the tailpipe, but there is a procedure for tailpipe fires that involves motoring the engine to blow the fire out safely. Uncontained, explosive engine fires are very rare. This wasn't one. The crew reported an engine failure, not an engine fire to ATC. Bottom line: The safer course of action may be to keep the passengers on the aircraft. At least until you have a far better idea of what's going on with the engine. You had one guy in a car who saw a tailpipe fire. Was the fire bell going off in the cockpit? Was the right fire switch illuminated? If so, was the engine fire checklist accomplished and were the fire bottles dispensed into the engine? There's a lot we don't know here. To Capt. Joe: Perhaps it might be a good idea here to hold off on characterizing this as an "everything went perfectly" story until we have all the data downloaded and the facts and truth established. This will never happen only twenty hours after the actual incident. I suspect there will be a number of lessons to be learned here, which is always good for aviation safety.
Excellent video!!! A very good example of teamwork at its finest. I am impressed to see how it all worked together to make a potentially very dangerous situation as safe as possible and with the best possible outcome!
Great deep dive into this emergency.
On a previous accident video there was a catastrophic engine failure and the pilot engaged both reverse thrusters. I questioned that in the comments i.e. the wisdom of puting a burning engine into reverse thrust and someone smarter than me responded that the first priority was to stop over anything else so it was worth the risk.
16.40 did I see a carry on?
Havent people followed the instructions from the FA to LEAVE ALL CARRY ONS on the aircraft?
ATC stated ‘last runway condition report (RCR) was good” just after t/o clearance. Anybody know the time stamp on that report? ATL Airport Ops cleared the runway of equipment, but did not provide Field Condition Report to Controller.
Yes, those will be very important aspects of the investigation... namely, determining the cause(s) of the engine trouble and, if ingestion of foreign matter was it, learning how/why it was there undetected and unreported.
I'd be interested to see you do a video about the recent Jeju Air accident in Korea and hear your theories on what may have caused it. I find it very strange that the last 4 minutes of data on the black box aren't available.
Excellent analysis Captain Joe! Thank You!
That was awesome. Always enjoy the detailed analysis you make of these kind of situations!
Shout-out to the pilots for navigating such a tough situation. Shout-out to Joe for top notch content per usual. I aspire to have my channel be just as awesome! Cheer to you and your success Joe!
Thanks for breakdown. One question would it be typical to evacuate passengers out the side of the aircraft that possibly has an engine failure?
You {normally} aren‘t supposed to add any directions when giving the evacuation command. The reason for this is two-fold: 1.) From the flight deck you cannot visually assess the outside conditions reliably, therefore this is the responsibility of each cabin crew member BEFORE opening ANY exit.
2.) You want to keep all critical commands streamlined and strictly stick to the correct wording, as this is what the crew is drilled on. And in emergency situations, clear and simple commands is what you want, as we humans react best to them.
@@PW-qy8mf In an emergency evacuation, aren't passengers seated in over the wing exit row seats the ones that open the doors? I hope they are given quick instructions from the cabin crew to not open/deploy any exits in proximity to a suspected engine fire. How is that coordinated? I wonder if the captain was a little too hasty with the evacuation order. It was reported that their were 4 injuries and one hospitalization from the evacuation.
@ Regarding the overwing exits, you are correct. Those are passenger-operated exits. Passengers seated in those rows must be "able-bodied passengers (ABPs)", which means you have to be in good physical and mental shape and be able to understand English and/or the Airline's native language and you must be willing to assist in case of an evacuation. This (including checking the outside conditions) is all checked and briefed by the cabin crew during/after the boarding.
Regarding the decision to evacuate: Based on the facts we are presented with in this video, I probably would have taken the same decision. We are well aware that there WILL be injuries in case of an evacuation, so this decision is NEVER taken lightly.
You have to put yourself into the situation: You have just rejected the takeoff (at rather high speed as it looks like in the video) due to a SEVERE malfunction (engine fire).
We don't know yet if this engine fire was associated with a severe damage. Most often, this is the case. So there is a high probability that debris might have exited the engine and damaged fuel lines and/or tanks. In such a situation you don't want to waste valuable seconds when you have confirmation by an external observer that there are flames coming out of the engine.
Just imagine it the other way round: If the commander would have decided to delay the evacuation because he thought that "MAYBE" the fire brigade would have been able to extinguish the fire, and then a wing tank exploded, you would be dealing with A LOT of fatalities, and everybody would blame the captain for not evacuating sooner (such cases HAVE happened in the past).
Further considerations:
- Once the command for an evacuation has been given, it CANNOT be taken back. This would result in total chaos. (It's the same with the decision for a go-around.)
- The time from the aircraft coming to a complete stop until the command to evacuate normally takes about 1 minute if you do all the checklists properly. In the case of an engine fire, you first work the ECAM until you have discharged both agents/bottles. If the fire persists even after a few seconds, it is considered "inextinguishable", therefore you proceed with the "EMER EVAC" checklist, which contains all vital items for a safe evacuation. The very last point in this checklist is the command for the evacuation. Up until this point you can still stop the procedure, but once the order is given, that's set in stone.
Based on the radio calls in this video, I assume that the evacuation was already initiated (by giving the appropriate command) when the crew received the report that the flames have ceased.
So to sum it up: nobody is to blame here except the stupid passengers that take their baggage with them (see the videos)...
Hope that clarifies some things for you! :)
@@PW-qy8mf Hey thanks very much for your earlier answer to my question and others. And thanks for the further info. I agree I have no issue evacuating, in my mind it is better to be away from a large bomb then waiting it out and see after the fact.
@@PW-qy8mf Thank you for the in depth reply. But who and how decides and communicates which emergency exits are safe and which ones could put passengers in harms way?You certainly don't want passengers escaping in proximity of the suspected damaged engine. Just curious because it looks like they deployed the emergency exits on the same side as the engine fire.