I like this. They moved them over to a discrete frequency and one guy stayed with him till he touchdown. Very professional pilots and air traffic controllers. Nice.
As a controller I'm mixed on that one. It's nice to have a dedicated controller but situational awareness decays for the crew and final controller unless they just hold everyone. Id have to look at the SOP.
@@martijnrammeloo1167 Got any idea why ATC immediately handed over the emergency without knowing its nature? Incident management to the max? Or was die gast gewoon lui. :-)
As an American controller and pilot who researches emergency handling by ATC, I like the discrete frequency but do NOT like -- and this is my personal opinion -- sending the pilot to the discrete frequency BEFORE finding out the nature of the emergency.
@@wernervanschie It's largely a question of reducing the immediate pilot workload for some emergencies. One example might be Sully's "Miracle on the Hudson", which was absolutely time-critical. I can't imagine Sully declaring the emergency and then the controller sending him to a new frequency. For some emergencies there is a need for an "immediate" vector or change in altitude assignment. Ditto Harrison Ford's engine failure at Santa Monica several years ago. There are other examples. At a minimum, I would want controllers to know the nature of the emergency. On a related note, I'm curious as to what that discrete-frequency controller was doing before the switch was made. Surely he wasn't just sitting there all day waiting for an emergency to show up, or am I wrong? When I'm working an airplane and they declare an emergency, I don't have someone on immediate standby with a dedicated frequency to just work them on a moment's notice.
@@zidoocfi Thanks! I do agree to some point. But I am not a pilot. Nor an Air Traffic Controller. Maybe the devil’s advocate: shouldn’t a pilot be aviating and navigating first before communicating? The pilot was already communicating. EHAM is Europe’s second busiest airport so leaving emergencies on frequency might further worsen the situation and endanger other flights. A freq change might seem additional workload, but on the other hand taking emergencies immediately off standard frequency is probably how they mitigate risk of blocked comms, extra confusion on frequency and, not the least: interruption of other flight’s standard comms. I imagine that the EHAM ATC’s have procedures plus the required backup capacity to take anything out of the ordinary out of the system asap and hand it over to another ATC who can devote more time to handling it with appropriately. Also for ATC, this is the cleanest way for a handover as no additional info needs to be transferred between them. That frequency change is bound to happen anyways. So Incident Management to the max, maybe executed a bit too soon? Than again, I am no expert. I don’t actually know their procedures. I am trying to find some sense out of it. I am Dutch though and that plane did its holding circuits above my house ;-)
@@wernervanschie I appreciate the devil's advocate, as it's one of the best ways to work through the various emergency situations. There are pros and cons to the discrete frequency, and my chief point is about whether to get just the most basic info about the nature of the emergency BEFORE sending a pilot there. It's the eternal conundrum of a bit of extra workload up front for the pilot so as to provide better handling later. As a controller, I respectfully disagree with the idea that this is the cleanest way for a handover. It's easy for us to tell the "discrete frequency controller" that the problem is the failure of one engine, and I would much rather do this one tiny piece of coordination when needed than to have a pilot truly in workload overload have to switch frequencies and tell the new controller before actual ATC assistance begins. To think about a counterexample, in this case the pilot just declared an emergency at the beginning with no details. If he had said "we lost the number 1 engine" at the beginning, presumably the first controller would have passed this on to the "discrete frequency controller." The workload increase for ATC is trivial. I'm also slightly curious about whether this discrete frequency idea is something related to an area where English is not the primary everyday language. Even though pilots and controllers for flights like these in areas like these must be able to speak aviation English, in some emergencies the English vocabulary needed might be more substantial, so I wonder if places like Amsterdam try to staff "discrete" positions with controllers whose English is "better" and whose accent is perhaps easier to understand. Does anyone know if that is a factor here?
With engine 1 out (left side from pilots view in seat), wouldn’t they prefer right turns so you’re not turning over your dead engine? I recall this from the united engine failure not long ago at DEN.
I’m I the only one to notice that the approach controller clear the aircraft to land and not the tower. Also didn’t ask for souls on board, fuel remaining, or if there was any hazardous cargo on board?
i am confused too. i am not a pilot but just an an aviation enthusiast. i am sure that i have seen videos about engine failures and have heard that not to turn failed engine sides.
@@hutupis646 yeah exactly, I thought the same. Reason being that the plane has a tendency to turn over the failed engine, so if you turn over the failed engine, it may be harder to level the plane. Whereas if you're turning over the good engine, the plane will have a tendency to fly straight automatically. The pilots may have had a good reason, no idea.
@@alex2143 I replied above. A properly trimmed transport jet isn't like flying an Aztec or C-310 2 kts above blueline. Turns either way are fine. Just be smooth with the throttle and it'll be quite manageable.
@@msjdb723 can have multiple reasons, the 777 that came down in London heathrow had engine failure due to congested fuel filters for example. Most important is that all vital systems are redundant so you'll always have an option b in case things go wrong. As this vid proves, an engine failure on one engine is an example of this, there is the 2nd engine that still can the plane down safely. I could even have crossed the ocean with one engine if needed.
I like this. They moved them over to a discrete frequency and one guy stayed with him till he touchdown. Very professional pilots and air traffic controllers. Nice.
It was a very good idea. I never heard of this before, but makes good sense
As a controller I'm mixed on that one. It's nice to have a dedicated controller but situational awareness decays for the crew and final controller unless they just hold everyone. Id have to look at the SOP.
Controller of the year award right there.
Atc and Delta handled this like a boss. So stress free.
This is an example of good ATC. Short and they don't harangue the pilots.
Is the dedicated discrete frequency normal for emergencies? I don’t recall hearing that before.
Probably it's normal. I've heard this in US too but once.
At EHAM it is
Thank you.
@@martijnrammeloo1167 Got any idea why ATC immediately handed over the emergency without knowing its nature? Incident management to the max? Or was die gast gewoon lui. :-)
Always first with the latest incidents. Fantastic channel 👍
👍
As an American controller and pilot who researches emergency handling by ATC, I like the discrete frequency but do NOT like -- and this is my personal opinion -- sending the pilot to the discrete frequency BEFORE finding out the nature of the emergency.
Please elaborate.
@@wernervanschie It's largely a question of reducing the immediate pilot workload for some emergencies. One example might be Sully's "Miracle on the Hudson", which was absolutely time-critical. I can't imagine Sully declaring the emergency and then the controller sending him to a new frequency. For some emergencies there is a need for an "immediate" vector or change in altitude assignment. Ditto Harrison Ford's engine failure at Santa Monica several years ago. There are other examples. At a minimum, I would want controllers to know the nature of the emergency. On a related note, I'm curious as to what that discrete-frequency controller was doing before the switch was made. Surely he wasn't just sitting there all day waiting for an emergency to show up, or am I wrong? When I'm working an airplane and they declare an emergency, I don't have someone on immediate standby with a dedicated frequency to just work them on a moment's notice.
Agree with you.
@@zidoocfi Thanks! I do agree to some point. But I am not a pilot. Nor an Air Traffic Controller.
Maybe the devil’s advocate: shouldn’t a pilot be aviating and navigating first before communicating? The pilot was already communicating.
EHAM is Europe’s second busiest airport so leaving emergencies on frequency might further worsen the situation and endanger other flights.
A freq change might seem additional workload, but on the other hand taking emergencies immediately off standard frequency is probably how they mitigate risk of blocked comms, extra confusion on frequency and, not the least: interruption of other flight’s standard comms.
I imagine that the EHAM ATC’s have procedures plus the required backup capacity to take anything out of the ordinary out of the system asap and hand it over to another ATC who can devote more time to handling it with appropriately.
Also for ATC, this is the cleanest way for a handover as no additional info needs to be transferred between them. That frequency change is bound to happen anyways.
So Incident Management to the max, maybe executed a bit too soon?
Than again, I am no expert. I don’t actually know their procedures. I am trying to find some sense out of it. I am Dutch though and that plane did its holding circuits above my house ;-)
@@wernervanschie I appreciate the devil's advocate, as it's one of the best ways to work through the various emergency situations. There are pros and cons to the discrete frequency, and my chief point is about whether to get just the most basic info about the nature of the emergency BEFORE sending a pilot there. It's the eternal conundrum of a bit of extra workload up front for the pilot so as to provide better handling later.
As a controller, I respectfully disagree with the idea that this is the cleanest way for a handover. It's easy for us to tell the "discrete frequency controller" that the problem is the failure of one engine, and I would much rather do this one tiny piece of coordination when needed than to have a pilot truly in workload overload have to switch frequencies and tell the new controller before actual ATC assistance begins. To think about a counterexample, in this case the pilot just declared an emergency at the beginning with no details. If he had said "we lost the number 1 engine" at the beginning, presumably the first controller would have passed this on to the "discrete frequency controller." The workload increase for ATC is trivial.
I'm also slightly curious about whether this discrete frequency idea is something related to an area where English is not the primary everyday language. Even though pilots and controllers for flights like these in areas like these must be able to speak aviation English, in some emergencies the English vocabulary needed might be more substantial, so I wonder if places like Amsterdam try to staff "discrete" positions with controllers whose English is "better" and whose accent is perhaps easier to understand. Does anyone know if that is a factor here?
Interesting that rather than "panic", the pilot sounded annoyed that there was an emergency.
This got me thinking that folks in Seattle have a slightly different accent on this one.
With engine 1 out (left side from pilots view in seat), wouldn’t they prefer right turns so you’re not turning over your dead engine? I recall this from the united engine failure not long ago at DEN.
A properly trimmed jet transport is not like a slow Piper Aztec or C-310. You're low power, not near Vmca, and turns either way work fine.
I’m I the only one to notice that the approach controller clear the aircraft to land and not the tower. Also didn’t ask for souls on board, fuel remaining, or if there was any hazardous cargo on board?
It was not the approach controller, it was the discrete frequency. probably did it in coordination with the tower
How this A330 Neo have a engine out this brand new ? Whats going on here
Was thinking the same thing…
That doesn't really mean anything. For example, the worst time to fly an aircraft is right out of maintenance.
Was it out of maintenance?
@@stevenpayne3707 I don't know. Just a parallel example. New/young ≠ reliable.
What surprises me is an engine failure during the landing phase of a long flight. It makes me wonder…
Does the 339 use the same RR engine as the 787?
According wiki it has Trent 7000.
Eng 1 out and he’s requesting left turns . Doesn’t sound smart
i am confused too. i am not a pilot but just an an aviation enthusiast. i am sure that i have seen videos about engine failures and have heard that not to turn failed engine sides.
@@hutupis646 yeah exactly, I thought the same. Reason being that the plane has a tendency to turn over the failed engine, so if you turn over the failed engine, it may be harder to level the plane. Whereas if you're turning over the good engine, the plane will have a tendency to fly straight automatically.
The pilots may have had a good reason, no idea.
@@alex2143 I replied above. A properly trimmed transport jet isn't like flying an Aztec or C-310 2 kts above blueline. Turns either way are fine. Just be smooth with the throttle and it'll be quite manageable.
Hopefully the A339 dosent have a max problem with it
First A339 incident
Yeah, it's first I've heard.
Is losing an engine always due to a faulty component part of it, or are there other reasons as well?
@@msjdb723 Check this out for another reason a jet engine can fail: www.juneauempire.com/news/redoubts-big-impact-30-years-ago/
@@msjdb723 can have multiple reasons, the 777 that came down in London heathrow had engine failure due to congested fuel filters for example. Most important is that all vital systems are redundant so you'll always have an option b in case things go wrong. As this vid proves, an engine failure on one engine is an example of this, there is the 2nd engine that still can the plane down safely. I could even have crossed the ocean with one engine if needed.
@@A1FAHx WOW. A traumatizing experience. I'm feeling stressed just reading that.
Yet another USA carrier not using PAN or MAYDAY
PAN PAN is not required but should be used first. Mayday is only used when radio silence is required.
I've heard of stories of aircraft declaring maydays over the US, and the controllers replying "confirm you are declaring an emergency?"
I was trying to work this out as well, I thought the internaional protocol was PAN PAN PAN/MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY
@@chriswalters8110 Mayday isn't for radio silence. It denotes a threat to the safe completion of the flight. IE- an emergency.
In the Nederlands they apparently doesn't care about fuel and souls 🙃
Ja maar kom op, gekoloniseerd hè
Lol
makes sense, because does it really matter for solving an emergency?
In the Netherlands we indeed do not care at all.😂