This proves that no matter how good a pilot is, that something’s are just out of your control. What are the odds of a small piece of runway debris impacting both the tire and engine? Concorde may still be flying today if not for those odds.
As a pilot said on another channel, " As a pilot you have 2 bags ,1 filled with luck and the other experience. Once the experience bags gets full you hope you don't run out of luck."
A friend of my family (now deceased) used to work for Air Canada, and told us once of a transAtlantic flight which requested a clean-up crew and medical staff on arrival at Toronto, as they had hit turbulence....The head of the clean-up crew boarded and asked a flight attendant where they wanted his team to start...She pointed to the roof of the cabin - in which was jammed a drinks trolley!
Interesting observation, I wonder how much the passengers were told about what was going on and if they were advised a fighter jet was going to be flying with them!
Well we all know what can happen when debris damages a plane's engines on take off but thankfully this had a happier ending than the AF Concorde crash. Majorly inconvenient for the passengers that they circled for hours then were back at Madrid again, but FAR better to be safe.
I'm so glad everything worked out. Something I don't understand is: why, seeing as they needed to get rid of weight for landing, didn't they leave the landing gear down and fly low, past the Tower for visual inspection, and use up fuel that way?
Climbing up uses more fuel. The numerous holding patterns of climbing and descending prevented fuel dumps, despite taking more time. In this case, the pilots executed good judgment and were able to manage asymmetrical thrust safely enough to land.
I've loved your videos and although I have no aviation expertise I appreciate the familiarity your videos give me with the more common issues and resolutions. That's why I was confused at 2:53 that the pilots requested clearance to descend lower than 3,000 ft. I always thought altitude was their friend when trying to troubleshoot but perhaps they needed to trade altitude for speed because of the engine failure. But still, there wasn't much room to do that.
With increasing volume of aircraft The pressure to handle such quantities will have knock on effects across the industry to ensure continued safety of air travel
WHAT? They are going to fly around for three hours single engine? I fly 767-300 freighters and I sure as hell wouldn't be doing any of this! We would level off at 2000 feet above the ground and make a pattern to come back and land. A flight from Madrid to Toronto cannot be more than about 6 hours, so if he had any center tank fuel [on the 767 you can only jettison fuel from the center tank, which on shorter flights is always empty] the weight would be negligible and I would simply take the overweight landing. Just land carefully and you'll be fine, all it requires is an inspection. I sure as hell wouldn't be out flying around in circles for three hours. Get the damn plane on the ground!
He probably wanted to land at the lightest weight practical since one of his main landing gear might not be 100% sound and it might collapse upon touchdown..just a guess.
Great plane. Great Pilots. Everything done, as it should have been done, save one thing... I can only think of one reason why... Why didn't the Pilots dump their fuel, and save approx. 2 hours? They were clearly on the ball from the git-go, knew they'd lost, & immediately shutdown/shutoff the engine & fuel, that they'd lost a tire, & no smoke was present. (Bonus points for shutting down the left engine in your video @AllecJoshuaIbay- great attention to detail/realism). I'm just wondering if some strict Environmental policy, was the reason for this. Pilots knew they had things under control once they landing gear retracted - and the time spent on the FA-18 was well spent. Just seems a lot of extra time was spent, that didn't have to be. Most times, an emergency such as this, pilots want to get back on the ground, as fast as safety would allow them. Where they just being extra cautious, that long into their "Mayday", is there something about the 767 that's a bit different, maybe a longer set of check lists to go over? Or was it my original thought? ... Or? Maybe we just don't know, lol. There's always that.
According to the FAA, FOD stands for Foreign Object Debris; you may Google "FAA Foreign Object Debris Program" for more information. However, some also refer to FOD as Foreign Object Damage, as you stated. Therefore, it seems that this acronym has both meanings.
Yeah, that's the term we used in the USAF, and my first reaction was the same as yours, but if you think about it, "debris" makes more sense. When you're inspecting an aircraft and keeping a look out for "FOD", you're looking for debris (small tools, screws, pilot's pens, loose change from someone's pocket, etc.), not necessarily damage. (I was a Ssgt when I got out.) You also gotta remember, the military sends teenagers to a few weeks of "Tech School" and then labels them "mechanics". In the civilian world, you go through at least two years of A&P school, minimum, before the FAA gives you a license to have any say-so about anything related to aircraft. I know this, I did both, USAF and A&P school. Then I injured my back and was never able to work in the field as a civilian.
With some situations, pilots have checklists to complete not only for the emergency, but also for the approach and landing. In addition, in this case, the aircraft needed to use up fuel in order to decrease its weight for a safe landing. These procedures require time and to use up this time a holding pattern is often necessary.
So they declare a mayday, shut down one engine then buzz around for a couple hours, I’m guessing to burn off fuel. These planes can do overweight landings so I find it odd that they would spend several hours buzzing around trying to burn off the fuel…which is now being consumed much slower. I understand these engines are reliable and they can fly without issue. But… that SOB Murphy is always laying in wait! IF the other engine had a problem they are now likely unable to remain airborne, still loaded with fuel and gravity sucks! If I was a pax, I’d be filling my pants! Lol
@@donnabaardsen5372 Foreign Object Detection (or Duty, or whatever). It's where the people at the bottom of the duty roster get sent out to literally walk all over the runway and pick up anything that might possibly be considered a piece of debris. Like a 1.5mm by 70mm piece of something that could puncture a tire.
@@don_5283 The Air Force made us do that once when I was a student at the old Chanute AFB, back in 1983. A B-52 was flying in to be used as part of the teaching curriculum, or maybe to become a static display, and we had to walk the entire old runway because it hadn't been used in quite some time. Another life, so many years ago .
Unsure how this is handled, maybe someone knows way better than me - do airports have some sort of runway cleaner? somewhat like a street sweeper that regularly cleans the runways for debris?
Those poor passengers flying around all day long and going nowhere! But I'd rather the pilots burn off the fuel than dump it. That FOD will get you every time.
...riding an elevator with my uncle to the rooftop heliport of the PanAm building. boarding a Sikorsky and flying out to the 1964 Worlds Fair in style...
According to the FAA, FOD stands for Foreign Object Debris; you may Google "FAA Foreign Object Debris Program" for more information. However, some also refer to FOD as Foreign Object Damage, as you stated. Therefore, it seems that this acronym has both meanings.
According to the FAA, FOD stands for Foreign Object Debris; you may Google "FAA Foreign Object Debris Program" for more information. However, some also refer to FOD as Foreign Object Damage, as you stated. Therefore, it seems that this acronym has both meanings.
Would have been a lot of strain on the one remaining good engine to climb out with the gear down. It's remarkable how much additional drag the landing gear contributes.
I'm pretty sure the measurements of the foreign object should at least be CENTImeters and not MILLImeters. A width of 1.5 millimeters is minute. 1.5 CENTImeters wide and 70 CENTImeters long makes much more sense. If this part came off another aircraft, shouldn't it be able to be identified? There is a chance, of course, that the part came off or fell off a ground vehicle.
This proves that no matter how good a pilot is, that something’s are just out of your control. What are the odds of a small piece of runway debris impacting both the tire and engine? Concorde may still be flying today if not for those odds.
As a pilot said on another channel, " As a pilot you have 2 bags ,1 filled with luck and the other experience.
Once the experience bags gets full you hope you don't run out of luck."
Great display of airmanship and 💯 corrective action 👍🙌😊
A friend of my family (now deceased) used to work for Air Canada, and told us once of a transAtlantic flight which requested a clean-up crew and medical staff on arrival at Toronto, as they had hit turbulence....The head of the clean-up crew boarded and asked a flight attendant where they wanted his team to start...She pointed to the roof of the cabin - in which was jammed a drinks trolley!
Was not expecting to read that! I thought with medical it would be something gruesome.
Well for pity's sake!
This kind of reminds me of Air France 4590. And then Air Canada retired this 767 2 months after the incident.
I'm very glad to see that they were finally able to safely land. Thanks for another great video Mr. Allec.
4:53 Must have been fun to be a passenger, back there, not entirely sure what's going on, in holding patterns.
Then an F/A18 Hornet appears out of nowhere 😂
Interesting observation, I wonder how much the passengers were told about what was going on and if they were advised a fighter jet was going to be flying with them!
Phew, wrong place, wrong time! I was once in an aircraft that aborted takeoff due to a burst tyre, not a pleasant experience stopping at high speed 😳
I love "When the Lights came On" keep up !
5 hours in the air and going nowhere? Reminds me of flying in the Navy.
The copilot had 6500 hours which is very respectable. The pilot, four times that!
Well done!
Reminded me of the Concorde incident.
Well we all know what can happen when debris damages a plane's engines on take off but thankfully this had a happier ending than the AF Concorde crash. Majorly inconvenient for the passengers that they circled for hours then were back at Madrid again, but FAR better to be safe.
Sorry to see it was eventually scrapped; looks like it could have a new lease of life as a cargo carrier.
Unfortunately, the pandemic brought an early end to the life of a lot of aircraft.
This why I never fly in a commercial aircraft more than 8 years old….maybe 9 tops.
Add magnets to the runway inspection trucks and pick up stuff whether it is detected or not.
@Allec: I really love it to see a blue dot next to your channel in my channels list -> new video!
I was not disappointed. Thank you so much.
I'm so glad everything worked out. Something I don't understand is: why, seeing as they needed to get rid of weight for landing, didn't they leave the landing gear down and fly low, past the Tower for visual inspection, and use up fuel that way?
Climbing up uses more fuel. The numerous holding patterns of climbing and descending prevented fuel dumps, despite taking more time. In this case, the pilots executed good judgment and were able to manage asymmetrical thrust safely enough to land.
This almost the same accident as AF 4590. But it isn't catastrophic.
wow... was able to take off, fly for 3 hours, and land safely, but go no where.... must have been frustrating for a passenger.
I've loved your videos and although I have no aviation expertise I appreciate the familiarity your videos give me with the more common issues and resolutions. That's why I was confused at 2:53 that the pilots requested clearance to descend lower than 3,000 ft. I always thought altitude was their friend when trying to troubleshoot but perhaps they needed to trade altitude for speed because of the engine failure. But still, there wasn't much room to do that.
With increasing volume of aircraft The pressure to handle such quantities will have knock on effects across the industry to ensure continued safety of air travel
Nice job
Obvious question, but why were Air Canada (National Flag Carrier) operating a 31 year old aircraft?
My idea! Plus my home airline
Note to AJ Ibay: an "aircraft"is not a "plane" - check the accepted definitions.
Gear down one engine 4 hours insane
Sadly, most of the aircraft I used to fly have been scraped, much like myself with the age of retirement.
But you could be put back into service ?
@@deepthinker999 Not
WHAT?
They are going to fly around for three hours single engine? I fly 767-300 freighters and I sure as hell wouldn't be doing any of this! We would level off at 2000 feet above the ground and make a pattern to come back and land. A flight from Madrid to Toronto cannot be more than about 6 hours, so if he had any center tank fuel [on the 767 you can only jettison fuel from the center tank, which on shorter flights is always empty] the weight would be negligible and I would simply take the overweight landing. Just land carefully and you'll be fine, all it requires is an inspection.
I sure as hell wouldn't be out flying around in circles for three hours. Get the damn plane on the ground!
He probably wanted to land at the lightest weight practical since one of his main landing gear might not be 100% sound and it might collapse upon touchdown..just a guess.
Since they were unsure of how badly damaged the gear was, they decided against the overweight landing.
Great plane. Great Pilots. Everything done, as it should have been done, save one thing... I can only think of one reason why...
Why didn't the Pilots dump their fuel, and save approx. 2 hours? They were clearly on the ball from the git-go, knew they'd lost, & immediately shutdown/shutoff the engine & fuel, that they'd lost a tire, & no smoke was present.
(Bonus points for shutting down the left engine in your video @AllecJoshuaIbay- great attention to detail/realism).
I'm just wondering if some strict Environmental policy, was the reason for this. Pilots knew they had things under control once they landing gear retracted - and the time spent on the FA-18 was well spent.
Just seems a lot of extra time was spent, that didn't have to be. Most times, an emergency such as this, pilots want to get back on the ground, as fast as safety would allow them.
Where they just being extra cautious, that long into their "Mayday", is there something about the 767 that's a bit different, maybe a longer set of check lists to go over?
Or was it my original thought? ... Or? Maybe we just don't know, lol. There's always that.
I don't think all 767's are fitted with fuel jettison equipment, so thats probably why
@@FrecklesAviation That's correct. That plane had no possibility to dump fuel, so the only possibility was to burn it flying patterns
@@FrecklesAviation Yes they are, the 767-3S2F that I fly has it. But you can ONLY jettison from the center tank, which is only rarely used.
@@evazquez2188 NO that is NOT correct! Fuel dump was available on 767's from the center tank only.
The proper terminology is "Foreign Object Damage" (Msgt USAF, Ret)
According to the FAA, FOD stands for Foreign Object Debris; you may Google "FAA Foreign Object Debris Program" for more information. However, some also refer to FOD as Foreign Object Damage, as you stated. Therefore, it seems that this acronym has both meanings.
@@Eternal_Tech
Yeah, that's the term we used in the USAF, and my first reaction was the same as yours, but if you think about it, "debris" makes more sense. When you're inspecting an aircraft and keeping a look out for "FOD", you're looking for debris (small tools, screws, pilot's pens, loose change from someone's pocket, etc.), not necessarily damage. (I was a Ssgt when I got out.)
You also gotta remember, the military sends teenagers to a few weeks of "Tech School" and then labels them "mechanics". In the civilian world, you go through at least two years of A&P school, minimum, before the FAA gives you a license to have any say-so about anything related to aircraft. I know this, I did both, USAF and A&P school. Then I injured my back and was never able to work in the field as a civilian.
Allec Joshua Ibay what flight simulator do u use?
Wouldn't it be quicker to dump fuel instead of burning it off?
Wonder if they had a meal service while flying around.
Any plane in an emergency should never be allowed to be in a holding pattern under any circumstances
With some situations, pilots have checklists to complete not only for the emergency, but also for the approach and landing. In addition, in this case, the aircraft needed to use up fuel in order to decrease its weight for a safe landing. These procedures require time and to use up this time a holding pattern is often necessary.
So they declare a mayday, shut down one engine then buzz around for a couple hours, I’m guessing to burn off fuel. These planes can do overweight landings so I find it odd that they would spend several hours buzzing around trying to burn off the fuel…which is now being consumed much slower.
I understand these engines are reliable and they can fly without issue.
But… that SOB Murphy is always laying in wait!
IF the other engine had a problem they are now likely unable to remain airborne, still loaded with fuel and gravity sucks!
If I was a pax, I’d be filling my pants! Lol
Why didn’t they dump fuel instead of flying on one engine for so many hours?
what version is your fsx
Time for more frequent fod walks.
What?
@@donnabaardsen5372 Foreign Object Detection (or Duty, or whatever). It's where the people at the bottom of the duty roster get sent out to literally walk all over the runway and pick up anything that might possibly be considered a piece of debris. Like a 1.5mm by 70mm piece of something that could puncture a tire.
@@don_5283 The Air Force made us do that once when I was a student at the old Chanute AFB, back in 1983. A B-52 was flying in to be used as part of the teaching curriculum, or maybe to become a static display, and we had to walk the entire old runway because it hadn't been used in quite some time.
Another life, so many years ago .
❤ love it
Quality CRM.
I thought airliners could dump fuel instead of having to circle for hours to burn it off?
Many do not have that option
Great video alec as allways love them can you please do luftansa flight 181 please it is a great story to tell
Why didn’t they just dump the fuel instead of burning it off in a holding pattern?
I would have just landed. Chances are that he won't be overweight. And you can only dump from the center tank on the 767, which is almost NEVER used.
Maybe it was considered too great a fire risk?
Unsure how this is handled, maybe someone knows way better than me - do airports have some sort of runway cleaner? somewhat like a street sweeper that regularly cleans the runways for debris?
Repairing an aircraft just to move it to its scrapping place. What a waste of resources.
Did I miss it or did they not mention what kind of plane this was?
Boeing 767...I don't believe it said
If they were never able to get the gear up, would they be unable to climb or maintain altitude at that point?
That was a worrying scenario.
may i ask, what simulators do you use
Sometimes he uses geofs I think
In these modern days , This should have never happened. Who let Spain have a Air Force. Such a tragedy
I would think they could dump the fuel? 🤔
Those poor passengers flying around all day long and going nowhere! But I'd rather the pilots burn off the fuel than dump it. That FOD will get you every time.
Game name?
🙂👍
...riding an elevator with my uncle to the rooftop heliport of the PanAm building. boarding a Sikorsky and flying out to the 1964 Worlds Fair in style...
Do flight 3205 air Greenland?
FOD = Foreign Object Damage.
According to the FAA, FOD stands for Foreign Object Debris; you may Google "FAA Foreign Object Debris Program" for more information. However, some also refer to FOD as Foreign Object Damage, as you stated. Therefore, it seems that this acronym has both meanings.
@@Eternal_Tech
This is why I don't like it when I hear any aircraft flying directly over my head. Never know what piece might come crashing down.
i didn't know that one
FOD stands for Foreign Object Damage, not debris, but otherwise well done.
According to the FAA, FOD stands for Foreign Object Debris; you may Google "FAA Foreign Object Debris Program" for more information. However, some also refer to FOD as Foreign Object Damage, as you stated. Therefore, it seems that this acronym has both meanings.
I would not have retracted the landing gear when a mayday is declared and you have to land quickly!
Would have been a lot of strain on the one remaining good engine to climb out with the gear down. It's remarkable how much additional drag the landing gear contributes.
Everyone lived. 🥰 I find it hard to believe that dumping all that fuel doesn't affect our atmosphere in some way. That's a hell of a lot of fuel.
That's the thing. They didn't dump. They were made to fly about for hours and hours to burn off all their fuel.
Foreign Object Debris | Air Canada Flight 837
Foreign Object Debris | Air Canada Flight 837
Bored Cretin | anandguruji83
@anandguruji83
When are you going to answer me dagnammit?
🤣🙃🤡✈
@@piotrstrzyzowski3336 I'll buy the bastid dinner if he answers me.
😂🤣😉🤭🤡
@@piotrstrzyzowski3336😂😂
I'm pretty sure the measurements of the foreign object should at least be CENTImeters and not MILLImeters. A width of 1.5 millimeters is minute.
1.5 CENTImeters wide and 70 CENTImeters long makes much more sense.
If this part came off another aircraft, shouldn't it be able to be identified?
There is a chance, of course, that the part came off or fell off a ground vehicle.
The title weirdly reminds me of the Titan sub sinking...
Technically it was "sinking" until it imploded and turned its occupants into a red mist floating along in the current.