TWO SIMULTANEOUS EMERGENCIES AT LISBOA with ATC Radar
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 лют 2025
- 11/NOV/2021
Brussels Airlines A320 performing flight from Brussels to Lisbon was on the initial approach when the pilots reported they had a passenger feeling ill.
Air Portugal A320 performing flight from Barcelona to Lisbon was on the missed approach when the pilots declared minimum fuel requesting priority to land.
_____________________
Your support is really important and appreciated to keep these videos coming! =)
-- / vasaviation
-- paypal.me/VASA...
Become a VIP member of VASAviation! -- / @vasaviation
Join VASAviation's Discord -- / discord
Twitter/Facebook/Instagram -- @VASAviation
Audio source: www.liveatc.net/
![[REAL ATC] American B738 forced to land WITHOUT FLAPS AT JFK!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ATVYGjkgq2A/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] American B738 forced to land WITHOUT FLAPS AT JFK!](/img/tr.png)
That is some amazing job by ATC!
Wtf that is some poor communication from the pilot, he should have just directly said they have minimum fuel, declare an emergency, instead of stringing along the controller. This is one of the most frustrating things pilots do. Is it a macho thing being unwilling to declare an emergency when it so obviously is???
@@classicalroach Minimum fuel call is NOT an emergency! It's a call to let ATC know that any other delays might lead to a emergency,
@@classicalroach probably it looks bad but i guess they do this often to save weight and this time it was a bit too little fuel
Got an interesting one for you. I'm in Texarkana Arkansas. Airport TXK. My pastor was taxied to fly out on the runway and a small storm cell came through and it rained fish. You gotta hear the traffic control conversation. I don't know how you would get it. But it happened 12/29/21
Yes, your landing is guaranteed. We have yet to leave a plane up in the sky. Landing on a nice runway at an airport is optional.
As my father always said, there are more planes under the ocean than submarines in the sky.
I wish he had said that to the snarky pilot lol.
Owner: "Just get us on the ground!"
Pilot: "That part will happen, most definitely!"
Crew: "We crashing again?"
-- Serenity (2005)
George Carlin:
They may tell you you're on a nonstop flight.
No, I insist my flight STOP! Preferably at an airport! It's those sudden, unscheduled cornfield and housing development stops that seem to interrupt the flow of my day!
Guaranteed Landings are reserved for Prime members only. Please contact your Flight Attendant or Amazon for more details.
Massive respect to the Air Traffic Controller , Bravo sir 👍
“Can you guarantee me a landing?” I had the same “wtf” response as the controller lol.
Then he was basically “okay, well if anything happens it’s your fault!”
Like no, you’re the captain managing your aircraft and your fuel state. I’ll get you back around but stop saying crap like “as per your clearance…” 🙄
Same thought...
Lol yeah, I heard that too. I’m not gonna declare an emergency but if I can’t land it’s your fault.
It was a no pressure question to alert the controller that he didn’t have an emergency but would have very soon; “no we can’t guarantee a slot” then he’d either divert or declare minimum fuel. Didn’t he actually declare minimum fuel on final? which was wise because if he had to go around he would get priority immediately.
@@millimetreperfect By this account he didn't make any mention of fuel, only asking whether he can get a guaranteed landing. If fuel was such an issue, it should be the first thing he mentions, not trying to put the blame of anything happening on someone who is not even on the airplane. Pretty poor command of his airplane.
@Ro Herms I’m pretty sure that all these commercial flights have to land with a certain duration of flight time left, if they land with less then there could be trouble for the captain. Declaring low fuel doesn’t mean they are about to run out, simply that they will land with less than this ‘required amount’ in the tanks. I pretty sure he could have done a couple more circuits and still diverted but would have had a lot of paper work when they finally landed.
The USAF Air Mobility Command "Reach" C-17 going back to Alverca was a nice addition.
He was there so we include it
I heard that too!!! I’m an Air Force brat and my dad flew 141s so I am very familiar with that call sign. ❤️
Hello, CFI here! So declaring minimum fuel isn’t actually an emergency. The AIM defines it as this: “Indicates that an aircraft’s fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.”
You’re technically right but for this controller, this was two aircraft needing to land as soon as possible. Not so different from an emergency.
@@zackaplowitz that is true. I can’t take away from having an emergency and having another aircraft that needs priority handling at the same time; really nice work on approach!
This is EASA regulations not the FAA
@@noahgarst3365 I was just thinking that, maybe different regs! However, the controller did inquire if the pilot was declaring an emergency and the pilot said negative.
@@noahgarst3365 EASA follows ICAO guidance on this, which is largely the same as the FAA’s.
this is some hard ass work, extremely stressful dealing with 2 emergencies at once.
Hats off to the men and women working ATC
I'm a student controller doing my approach rating right now, and this whole clip really triggers some fresh PTSD -- it's exactly like all those tough exercises they keep throwing at us, a couple of unexpected things happen and suddenly you have six planes on vectors at the same time, you're taking someone through the localizer for delay, leaving a departure at 4000 feet for several minutes when they can't get a word in, forgetting to transfer that departure to the next sector before they're already out of your airspace... he did well to juggle it all in the end, but man, not the easiest shift for sure :D
@@wloffblizz I agree I am a controller at the vZLC ARTCC on VATSIM and we don’t take around 1 hour shifts and then take a break. During our events we can see up to 30-40+ aircraft which is a lot for us. We have a small amount of certified controllers to control the center airspace and it can be extremely stressful especially when you are working multiple class delta and echo facilities. We try to minimize situations like this where a controller is all alone and dealing with literally everything. Good luck on your approach rating and I hope that you receive it!
Victor, I don't know who you are or where you are but from Juan Browne at Blancolirio and others in aviation whom I greatly respect I must say you do a masterful job with your You Tube Channel. You are professional, prompt, accurate and sensitive to the feelings of others. Well done Victor.
Terrific work from Lisboa ATC and great command of English in the communications...so much so that he questioned the linguistically odd request for a "guaranteed" landing on the go around. That wasn't exactly well communicated by the pilot and I loved ATC's response "What do you mean by that?"!!!!
And the ambulance response by the other crew was questionable, too. They were asked about medical personnel, not about an ambulance.
As someone who could never learn a second language, I'm in awe of those who can, even in stressful situations.
Lisboa ATC is cool and on top of the game. Great work!
Just an incredible job these ATC guys do under serious pressure. This guy handled that situation like a Boss.
This ATC is chill as they come
Always love how Portuguese sounds like drunk Russians speaking Spanish
haha i was trying to figure out that accent. your description is spot on lol. (american here)
Actual LOL and spot on!
Hey, Portuguese here, i can definetly say, we are certainly drunk most of the time, but don't go around calling our language "spanish", a lot of "tugas" would rip your guts out for that one, we don't like being called spanish XD
You just sound drunk 😂
Gosh, a high level of professionalism saved the day! Nice job ATC!
Congrats ATC for a job well done! Training & hard work always pay off...
Well done ATC. "Obrigado!"
And you thought YOU had a busy day!
Sounded like a sneaky way to blame low fuel situation on the atc fellow.
Agreed! Never heard that kind of dancing legalese on ATC😎
yeah
Have to agree. There is no way any controller can "guarantee" you anything.
@@arkiefyler I mean the fuel in the aircraft is about to reach the point where the crew must divert to their alternate, so the pilot is asking atc if they will be able to land in due time so they get on the ground before they’re forced to divert. Nothing wrong there.
@@dkwsu16 yeah, he was clearly just dodging the paperwork that would be spawned if he used the phrase minimum fuel, which is why he mentioned that they were going to be committed, and then again that they were committed. Key word (committed) from the same regulation, but without saying minimum fuel basically gets the ATC in the right state of mind about your situation, without spawning all that paperwork.
These boys were earning their pay on this day. Well done. Good job as always VAS!
Wow two for two
Kudos to everyone!
Very strange the way the pilots and Controllers were communicating on the minimum fuel situation.
Basically it was mostly a bureaucratic situation than anything else.
Good job, both to the ATC in Lisboa and to VASaviation for uploading this good video. Thank you. 😊👍😊👍
Thank you too!
Nice job...crazy confluence of circumstances. Everybody safe..
Only one emergency. Min Fuel is not an emergency. But the controller did a fine job handling both situations at the same time.
And a sick passenger isn’t an emergency as well. But both is still stressful for us
@@saschala2921 Yeah but you could still declare an emergency for the sick person. The 7110 specifically says the min fuel is not.
@@saschala2921 What facility are you at?
02:14 "Sorry, that was blocked. But I understood." 😎
Perhaps just say PANPAN. i had to think for a moment what this pilot was tryjng to communicate. You can hear ATC confusion.
Probably ATC saying to themselves "whats this guy trying to say"
Be plain be direct.
Pilot: "We are running low on fuel UNABLE To to go to alternate. We NEED TO LAND at Lisbon"
If ATC says "OKAY" THEN all of a sudden vectors you for number 2 or 4 sequence... You say
"UNABLE" if ATC keep giving you shit, say "MAYDAY" and fly your jet like a cessna join the traffic pattern and land the airplane.
A min fuel can turn to a fuel mayday sooner than you think.
Thanks for reading.
Maybe I'm just not familiar with European airspace, but the air Portugal rubbed me the wrong way. Can you guarantee landing? Like.. he isn't declaring emergency, but wants to put himself in front of everyone else.... where was the fuel planning? And if you are so low low on fuel why can't you declare an emergency? I feel like he doesn't want to declare an emergency because somewhere he screwed up and doesn't want to take responsibility of his flight...
Possibly a bit of a panic / startle in the flight deck with an unexpected go around and the PF asking the PM to ask ATC if a landing can be confirmed.
I think he phrased it poorly. I believe his intentions were to get across that they had minimum fuel to shoot another approach and needed to basically turn right in or they would cut into their fuel reserves for diverting to their alternate. Basically if ATC sent them on long vectors they would just need to divert. Not uncommon during clear weather that fuel planning wouldn't account for multiple missed approaches or holding.
Thank you very much for picking this up!
7:10 "Reach 343" , lol someone really likes halo .
TAP1043 Can you guarantee no missed approach on second approach?? If you cannot, Don't force guarantee to ATC.
@@ewiz2950 Just Call the Minimum fuel as a Pilot.
@@ewiz2950 Just call the mayday or pan pan can understand emergency anybody. you see, ATC supervisor take the mic for asking intention. why? it wasn't clear the intention. And I'm pilot too.
The way how the crew passive aggressively asserts its „minimum fuel“ urgency call let’s me think of my own experience on how some colleagues use this to „expedite“ their sequencing on days with high traffic or delays where holds are in use.
But safety first! ( still doubtful, seen this shit too often in southern Florida)
heavy load on that controller, but he did well...
Thank you
Unbelievablel crew trying to put the blame on Atc for apparently poor planning. Committed to land after the first missed approach? Where is contingency fuel, alternate fuel, final reserve fuel? And not even requesting minimum fuel until very late . But again they would have been with no fuel to reach the alternate ? Committed to land means that they cannot go anywhere else 😳 sounds very very scary. Planning with no alternate is very unusual and finres has to be minimum 60 minutes . t does not matter if it is a short domestic flight as many have indicated , legal fuel requirements are always exactly the same . The Portuguese aviation authority should have a good look on this. Kudos to Atc for the great professionalism
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't an airliner have enough fuel on board that they don't need to declare minimum fuel after one go around?
likely because these are regional short flights. to reduce weight probably they fly with tight schedule and fuel. In cases like that they can't afford more than one go around.
Well sometimes things happen that increase you fuel burn or flight time, So aim is to yes but its not always possible there is a limit to how far you go with fuel.
Sounds like the pilot only had enough for one apporach and then divert.
You want to aim for 2 appraoches and a divert if you want to increase yours channce of diverting dir to external factors, But then your burning fuel to carry unsed fuel so its balanceing game and sometime it doesnt work out.
@@viveksoty they can afford 1 go around and a diversion to another airport when they declare minimum fuel, but they do fly with low fuels since it’s small flights into small airports
Yes, they should! The problem here is that TAP is almost shuting doors... The portuguese government (the actual "owner" of TAP) asked for help at UE, and got some money to maintain TAP flying until someone buy the airline... Lufthansa, IAG, Airfrance/KLM and Turkish want to buy TAP.
The aircraft likely had enoughreserve fuel for another 30 minutes of flight at minimum, or it would have most likely been a declared emergency. Airlines usually have a policy with minimum fuel declarations required at X flight time remaining. Minimum fuel is advisory only and does not give traffic priority. It's to make the controller aware that delays could result in a fuel emergency declaration. All aircraft are required to have a specific reserve available during flight. In this scenario, the pilot is saying he was at minimum fuel to reach the alternate, yet he denied emergency declaration meaning he likely still had reserve fuel available. Note, requirements differ from country to country but most have something similar.
China Airlines Freighter 747 Dynasty 5168 missed 3 approaches last night into LAX and diverted with a Min fuel callout to Ontario.
I flew into LAX last night, it was nasty
If you can’t land on the second try then maybe take that fuel to your alternate. Trying a third time in poor weather isn’t clever.
Thank goodness it was a freighter. Your kidding 3 go around. The weather couldn't have been that much better at Ontario
@@MrGigaHurtz so I guess the song is wrong
It was 2 approaches according to FR24
How can a controller guarantee a landing they can be sure of a speedy approach clearance at best, but landing is big expectation, Glad the Controller didnt take the bait.
For me either the pilot has enough fuel for another circuit or he diverts, he shouldnt be placing that decision on a guarantee of a landing .
Fuel Status Low
ATC should be advised of the minimum fuel status when fuel quantity has reached a state where undue delay cannot be accepted, i.e. timely before reaching final reserve fuel.
If the remaining usable fuel quantity suggests the need for traffic priority to ensure a safe landing, e.g. as soon as the actual fuel on board is less than final reserve fuel, the Commander shall declare emergency and report actual fuel on board and remaining flight time in minutes.
A fuel amount of less than alternate plus final reserve fuel gives a committed-to-land status, for which no priority should be requested.
Whenever a landing has been made at the destination aerodrome with less than alternate plus final reserve fuel on board, an entry on the AAS shall be made.
I can't really argue minimum fuel is an emergency because technically it isn't but I bet the survivors of Avianca flight 52 would argue it is.
Technically? No it’s just not an emergency. It has been defined in these comments so I won’t repeat. Running out of fuel in flight doesn’t make the case for what is and isn’t an emergency. As soon as the Avianca 52 young first officer figured out he could no longer make his alternate and needed priority handling (either one really) he should have declared an emergency. The crew never did.
Two low fuel emergencies and not a single one of them is ryan air? that is so incredible!
There is only 1 low fuel emergency.
There is no fuel emergency!
“Minimum fuel” might sound scary, but by definition isn’t an emergency. The captain reach the point where he needed to decide either to divert to the alternate airport or commit to land at the present airport. They still had fuel to divert and land at the alternate airport (and probably something like 30 minutes of additional fuel), but he chose to put that option aside. I think he tried to ask: “Can we expect a standard pattern for a new approach or should we expect additional delays if we chose to land at Lisboa?”
When he chose to commit to land at Lisboa he was in a situation where he could no longer divert and any delays could eat into his “not to touch fuel reserves” he was mandated to declare Minimum Fuel.
WTF does Ryanair have to do with this?
@@GyrisCap these kind of headlines were all over Europe. Hence the joke about Ryanair 😂
Controllers handled it all just great.
Technically there were no emergencies at all. A medical case needing assistance on the ground and another aircraft going from able to divert to Faro (25 mins) to minimum fuel in 8 minutes (rather odd). The Beeline didn't ask for priority and was never considered an emergency traffic and the TAP declaring minimum fuel is just another aircraft as per ICAO regulations. Minimum fuel simply states that any deviation (that makes you stay in the air longer) to your current expected time of arrival might make you land with less than 30 minutes.
In any case, kudos to the ATC!! From personal experience, Lisbon ATC is absolutely horrendous when it comes to traffic sequencing (lack of sequencing equipment, or at least that's I was told...) and its not uncommon at all to go from "maintain maximum forward speed during descent" straight to "reduce minimum clean speed, expected approach time XXXX" over a single frequency change between approach sectors. Nevertheless, in this sort of scenario I've always found Lisbon ATC to be extremely helpful, calm and capable! Well done!
Yeah sequencing was always a funny thing in LPPT. In the old days you could always skip the queues to 03 (now 02) using runway 35 if landing without navaids
As a layman, If the Air Portugal was so low on fuel that he had to commit to land or divert to Faro Then the amount of fuel to reach Faro, would I'd have thought been enough atleast a couple more go arounds at Lisbon if necessary. Was the their final call as they turned onto base of "minimum fuel" just an indication they no longer had a divert option ? .
Minimum fuel is usually 45 minutes left--pilot's discretion. It means that ATC should not allow any unnecessary delays.
was was rear door blocked, surely thats illegal and door should be clear at all times
Would you be able to make a video of AC901 C-GFAF on December 25 at YUL? Burst tires on landing.
Two IFEs and a USAF C17
I know I'm making an ass our of myself, but neither is an emergency.
The Medical is a Pan only (or would have been if the pilots had called it out), the fuel guy is neither.
"Minimum Fuel" means you have sufficient fuel to land above final reserve, provided no delay to the current ATC clearance is encountered. That's why the pilots ask.
It is *NOT* an emergency. The pilot asks if landing in Lisbon is assured, upon getting confirmation of that he commits to land, aka uses his diversion fuel for another approach into Lisbon. ATC wise it simply means "don't give this guy unnecessary delay, otherwise he might become a problem".
All in all for ATC this wasn't too hard. The assistant (guy sitting next to the controller) had to call the ambulance and forward the information, not a lot to do for the controller except to make the aircraft the next to land. The second simply had to be vectored in before others. That's about it.
Of course, well done by ATC, no doubt about that! But it's not as serious as the title or some of the comments here suggest.
Somewhat interesting situation - TAP refused to declare an emergency and the other one actually reported a medical emergency, therefore that one has priority over no emergency. If tap decides to declare emergency they would have the more urgent one (no fuel means plane crashes and all die, one I'll passenger would have one dieing in the worst case), so they'd get priority - and of course they both have priority to get their requests ASAP so if they are not conflicting (like in this case) they'll both just proceed prioritized over the rest.
Interesting is what happened to tap that they had to declare minimum fuel after just one go around and no cycling... That shouldn't happen normally...
More difficult situation was the situation where 3 Ryanair (of course them, who else 😂) had minimum fuel after getting diverted to their alternate... I guess that controller really started to sweat having 3 emergencies which could potentially crash the planes at the same time 😮
"Are you declaring an emergency?"
"Negative, but we need to land now no matter what"... yeah uhm okay then
no "Bom Dia" I think it's Bon Dia, good day!!
No it's bom dia
Wow, this piece got me stressed just listening to it. And the poor controller was being put under pressure by questionable Airline practice (fuel planning)... hope he had a few when he got off work
As a pilot, I fully agree. If I’m in a situation where I “must land next” that reflects poor planning based on economics and not safety. And whatever the regs say, needing priority handling sure appears to be an emergency. No lawyers allowed.
@@ericb9426 not a pilot, and that was my first thought too. From the pilot's demeanour it seemed possible he might have been put in that position through company practice.
They made the TAP go around and he needed to go to his alternate if he wasn't given an expedited vector. That wasn't bad fuel planning, but delays by ATC and possibly poor vectoring and sequencing.
@@N1120A ATC didn’t instruct them to go around, TAP elected to
“Minimum fuel” might sound scary, but by definition isn’t an emergency. The captain reach the point where he needed to decide either to divert to the alternate airport or commit to land at the present airport. They still had fuel to divert and land at the alternate airport (and probably something like 30 minutes of additional fuel), but he chose to put that option aside. I think he tried to ask: “Can we expect a standard pattern for a new approach or should we expect additional delays if we chose to land at Lisboa?”
When he chose to commit to land at Lisboa he was in a situation where he could no longer divert and any delays could eat into his “not to touch fuel reserves” he was mandated to declare Minimum Fuel.
You should also note that there are aircraft in a holding pattern in the SW part of the approach area. The pilot may have already spent some time in holding and wanting to make sure he shouldn’t expect more time in holding, because in that case he would need to divert.
wonder how often we'll see liners declaring minimum fuel.
I sometimes have the same issue when going to Costco. I have enough fuel for one pass around the car park as my car is small and the car park is small.
There is no excuse for low fuel. Period.
They could have flown in a head wind not expected or overlooked in the flight plan. Minimum fuel should still provide atleast a 45 min. flight time.
In IT we have a phrase:
"your lack of planning is not my emergency"
I guess for ATC doesn't work that way, I have hear so many times pilots declaring low fuel emergency just to land quicker or save money
I have a solution:
When a pilot declares a low fuel emergency, ATC must ask how much fuel remaining.
Then after landing they shall pump exactly the amount fuel into the tanks as should go if the pilot was telling the truth. So if for example it's a 100 gallon tank and the pilot said he only has 5 gallons left, they must pump in 95 gallons. The pilot must drink any overspillage.
Or an alternate would be that for every gallon of overspillage the pilot has to pay $1000.
@@pistonburner6448 You probably don't even to go that far, just check the computer display and see how much fuel it currently has. I would say that if you declare a fuel emergency your airline had to pay a fine for failure to assure it has enough fuel.
Several airlines had been putting as litle fuel as they can to save money (weight) since they know that in the worst case they can just call an emergency which obviously is a hazard to the passenger and other airplanes.
Descending to FL90.
Europe is a very high place
reach343 is a military cargo plane right?
Affirm
@@VASAviation probably a c130 from Portuguese Airforce. thx
Negative
I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to the Portuguese plane and say that this is just a language thing.
I’m going to translate his thoughts and what he was trying to say, and reading a bit between the lines, whilst presenting it a bit more eloquently than the pilot.
English is clearly not his first language. He must have heard the other aircraft coming in with a medical emergency. Knowing he was low on fuel, he didn’t want to commit to an approach only to have to divert due to the ongoing emergency already in progress. He was advising the controller that he could divert to another airport, but would prefer to land here and not have to divert, therefore asking, so do you think the emergency aircraft will block the runway and cause me to have to divert anyway? The controller said he could land. The controller asked if he was declaring an emergency and the pilot said no, but as you said I should be ok to get down and that this ongoing medical emergency isn’t going to cause me any delay, then it’s a non emergency. Later the pilot declared low fuel.
So yes, the pilot did say this in a bit of a confrontation and arse covering way, but the controller knew what he was trying to say. Instead of being a dick about it, the controller handled it very well and got the plane on the ground, as well as the medical emergency, so very well done to the controller. Perhaps the Portugal pilot should fill up the tanks a bit more.
I am not a pilot, but I felt like TAP1043 was being a little passive-aggressive asking if the controller could guarantee a landing. I would have expected the controller to ask if he wanted to declare an emergency. Declare an emergency, and he'd put everyone in a holding pattern to get TAP1043 on the ground. Otherwise, it looks like a normal pattern with an 8 mile final would be reasonable. That said, I can appreciate the anxiety the pilot would have had. Everyone did handle it well.
What do the 3 vectors per plane signify? I see one is the plane's heading, what about the other two?
3 vectors? i don't see that, it Specifies the Altitude, the Speed, and the Type of aircraft, it actually does not even specify the plane's heading,
The first one is their altutide in Hundreds of feet, so 080 would be 8000 Feet above sea level, this is followed by an arrow, or a lack therof, lack of an arrow means he is maintaining altitude, an upwards arrow means he is climbing, downards means he is descending.
Then you have their Speed, indicated as an example: N280 , Meaning that the aircraft is traveling at 280 Knots, i don't see a 3rd vector? maybe you saw the "E190"? that's the aircraft type, the Embraer 190.
Jesus Christ, glad I’m not a controller
I feel like I’m listening on 2X speed. They talk so FAST!
That Beelinw pilot had an accent that reminds me of Flemish speaking English... (which is different from Dutch speaking English, even though Flemish and Dutch are basically the same language)
Given that the Airline is based in Belgium, he was probably Belgian, so he was flemish speaking English
@@danielm8393 Yes, is Beeline a new call sign for Brussels Airlines?
@@stevenverhaegen8729 Beeline is the callsign of Brussels Airlines, yes.
Someone feeling ill or even close to death won’t take priority away from another aircraft with low fuel.
Except the TAP aircraft never declared a MAYDAY fuel, only a minimum fuel which doesn't give (legally) any priority.
@@pirlout - true, but apply an ounce of common sense and ATC will realise that an aeroplane telling them they are minimum fuel should take priority over an aircraft with a sick passenger.
Every time an airplane lifts off the ground, it results in a crash. It’s a matter of it being a controlled or uncontrolled.
guarantee phrase seem to be pilots attempt to shift responsibility onto ATC
nah, just to dodge paperwork. Laziness, not malice
one go around alone results in minimum fuel? what the fuck
there's a bunch of factors that can change your fuel burn, mostly unexpected wind. If there were strong headwinds enroute that were not planned for, then you'll use more fuel than planned, headwinds are good for taking off and landing because free airspeed, but when you're in the cruise adding airspeed without groundspeed (which is what headwinds do) makes your ETA further out, meaning your flight is longer, meaning you burn more fuel. Tailwinds are nice for the cruise and keeping a schedule, but they're spooky on take-off and landing because they rob your airspeed, making it easier to stall and straight up fall out of the sky and crosswinds just suck in general because they're generally not just a lateral component, so you have the same speed issues to think about but now with trigonometry involved, plus having to compensate for being blown off track laterally.
Thankfully the flight computers handle all that, and the fuel burn is the variable free to change while maintaining the ETA and route. Enough things go not exactly as planned and sometimes you end up with minimum fuel after one go around. Most would file it under "poor fuel planning"
What I don’t understand is why did phukfays go around in the first place ?
Interesting. If you are not declaring an emergency then you have to follow normal procedures including landing sequences or possible holding pattern... It is like, I would like to put an offer for this house, but I don't want to put down any money payment but I still want you to guarantee that I will get the house. Screw all other bidders/buyers!!!
WTF man? Ads over the ATC coms? That's unfair to us.
If you have to land on the current attempt, no matter what, because of fuel, isn’t that an emergency situation? I was surprised to hear the pilot not want to declare.
Minimum fuel is when you can't allow any delays while still having the proper 30 minutes reserve on landing, according to other comments. Minimum fuel is not emergency but there's a risk of it becoming one if the landing isn't guaranteed.
Minimum fuel is not an emergency
why are they spacing aircraft out so far? and what is clear for approach? is that same as clear to land?
You have to be cleared for approach in order to start the approach. It is not the same as cleared to land. In some European airports, you cannot proceed beyond the Initial Approach Fix with out being cleared and would then have to take up a holding.
ATC: this cannot get worse….. what? An aircraft is hijacked? Oh great…. What? A bomb threat? No!!!! Stop!!!!!
Is minimum fuel an emergency? I thought it was an urgency. Minimum fuel still means they have enough to divert and land at a second diversion airport. Mayday fuel is an emergency.
Yeah not an emergency at least not in the states. I assume ICAO it would not be an emergency but I could be wrong on that. Just no undue delay and to pass that along to the next facility or to the tower.
I wonder how much gas he landed with. I found another incident where TAP did declare a fuel emergency in 2016. They declared when the anticipated landing fuel was 29 minutes or 962 kilos (the minimum for 30 mins was 989kg) in an A319, which is a legal requirement in Europe. 2000 lbs of gas seems kind of cutting it close, but I don’t get paid the big bucks to drive one.
the normal precautionary estimate for planning a particular landing attempt is to assume that the process between calling in an approach to an ATC and actually being at the gate should be about 30 minutes worth of flight fuel. The reason why 29 minutes would be called in as an "emergency" is that there would theoretically be no reserve fuel avalable if there is a failure to land at that particular go in.
what a dumb question "can you guarantee our landing" .. Well, not if you have to go around again.
No, ATC cannot guarantee your landing, but he can give you priority, the rest is up to you whether you botch the landing or not.
Methinks these pilots are under pressure not to declare an emergency, because imho not having enough fuel for a go around is certainly an emergency situation
only an emergency if he thinks he is going to land with less than final reserves (30 mins in the tank)
Why was Air Portugal 1043 so shy about declaring a fuel emergency? If you need special attention because of low fuel, I would think you should go ahead and declare the emergency. An emergency doesn't have to mean you're falling out of the sky. But declaring the emergency lets everybody know you need special attention. And it would've been helpful to let ATC know the amount of fuel aboard so they can start keeping track of how much time they have.
DAL-98 sometimes?
DECLARE. These Macho pilots driving this industry in the wrong direction. You're committed to land ? What is this a one way mountain strip w/ no go around ? NO, You're having a fuel EMERGENCY.
Which aircraft landed 1st?
Watch the video
One of them didn't declare.
An incredibly professional job, but my heart sunk at the end when the medical aircraft disappeared. Maybe it's all for the best. I wish them the best of luck.
I think they “disappeared” because they landed and switched to a ground frequency. Nothing abnormal I don’t think.
@Justin Brown I think you're being sarcastic but I can't tell for sure... So anyway as Nerys said the medical aircraft disappeared off of radar because they landed at the airport and/or got handed off to another controller. Did you think they crashed or something?
If you want me to take a dump in a box, and mark it guaranteed I will... I've got spare time.
damn as Portuguese I felt the cringe...Im pretty much a noob about aviation coms but I found the behaviour of 1043's pilot so stupid..
TAP1043 couldn't just say "minimum fuel"? Die he forget the terminology?
TAP 1043 should have declared Emergency….or ATC for him.
Absolutely not! If he doesn't think he will land with less than 30 minutes of fuel, there is no need to declare an emergency nor should he. By declaring minimum fuel he is telling ATC that "any other delays", holding or delayed vectors, might risk him landing with less than 30 minutes of fuel. It is NOT an emergency at this stage. Only if ATC for some reason decides to delay him (potentially for a medical emergency) or he has to go around again does it become an emergency.
If... And only if... the RJ45 transporting the Chapecoense soccer team had declared fuel emergency, as the TAP1045 did in this video, the whole crew maybe could survive...
That pilot with the fuel emergency was a dick! Just come out and say minimum fuel! Don't try to pin it on the controller.
None of them is emergency , , one is minimum fuel✈️ , and the other only requested medical assistance at the Arrival gate ✈️
The only real emergency here is the one with a guarantee of landing request 🤣✈️
ATC always do an awesome job in the US
Nice, i wonder why the Air Portugal speaks english on the atc. Is that mandatory in Europe?
It is, I'm a French pilot and we use English even in contact with French ATC
Mandatory worldwide for the most part
English is the international language for aviation
@@ObusPerduYT you can use french too, it's an ICAO language (same for chinese, spanish and arabic)
Yes, all aircraft flying IFR in Europe need to speak English or another ICAO certified language. Sometimes you will hear pilots speaking french in france or spanish/porzugese (mainly in south america). But given most flights in the EU are international where only a few people in the airspace know the language they mostly stick to English so everyone can understand it
Not impressed by the minimum fuel airplane.
Poor fuel management that the pilot attempted to pass off on ATC. Ridiculous.
Wow
After listening to this I will never travel overseas again.
I have no idea how they can understand each other, if there weren’t subtitles I would think there speaking a different language
About TAP: is almost shuting doors... The portuguese government (the actual "owner" of TAP) asked for help at UE, and got some money to maintain TAP flying until someone buy the airline... Lufthansa, IAG, Airfrance/KLM and Turkish want to buy TAP.
Ryanair tricks?