The problem here isn’t dire, it’s an issue that if they continue over water to Europe the leak will place the flight in jeopardy. But a return to ant reasonable airport is acceptable. The term “land as soon as conditions permit “ does not mean “as quickly as possible”. There are tons of factors to consider. A safe outcome in my opinion to go back to iad, especially considering the extra time to dump fuel. A poor outcome would have been continuing the flight with a suspected leak and then having insufficient fuel to make ANY airport out over the North Atlantic. The ability of an aircraft to dump fuel actually greatly helps the environment, because it means aircraft can be built lighter and more fuel efficient that 99.999% of the time they DONT dump gas. Aircraft are certified to land at their max gross takeoff weight, but landing over the max landing weight (a weight usually lower than max takeoff or structural weight) comes with issues as well. So dumping fuel is a reasonable consideration if it’s possible. My big feedback to viewers is that an emergency does not automatically mean it’s a timed event to get on the ground safely. Most “emergencies” are nothing more than precautionary to ensure the aircraft gets its deserved priority and consideration from ATC and then later looked at by emergency response vehicles. Most emergency situations require significant work and coordination to manage the aircraft and situation into a desirable outcome. Rushing this process is the last thing we want to do. Things that really are time critical are more like cargo or cabin fires, loss of thrust, low fuel state, medical events…yadda yadda. A fuel leak indeed would be far more critical if it’s severe, or if it’s at the end of a flight rather than the beginning. United and all the major carriers have well trained and experienced crews. Atc in the US does an amazing job, as well as the emergency crews and first responders. There is no safer place to be on this planet than sitting in one of these planes. This event proves just that. Well handled.
I think it would be informative if not entertaining if you could get recordings of what the pilots/flight attendances say to the passengers when they have to turn back, or when they are in a mayday /pan situation. And to hear the response from the passengers.
Just getting in here quickly! It could be an engine fuel leak (engines not made by Boeing), or a maintenance issue. The leak is not necessarily a Boeing production line problem.
Not NECESSARILY a Boeing problem? This ISN'T a Boeing problem. If your 2016 Corolla developed a fuel leak in 2024, you wouldn't say that Toyota screwed up. This aircraft was delivered in 1991.(!) It has gone through probably 4 or 5 D-checks already.
Why are they diverting to IAD ? Wouldn't it be easier and closer to go to EWR? As EWR is also an UA Base. And why so much concern about dumping fuel on land or water if they are supposed to be flying at a very high altitude. Did they know that the gasoline was going to end up dissipating anyway before even reaching the ground?
@@paingberg They would have been using Jet A1, not gasoline. Do you know what additives they might have had in the fuel? Could you guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that absolutely all the fuel and additives would be capable of vaporizing at a safe manner and altitude without harm to persons or property in that particular instance? If you don't have data or more importantly, formal education on the matter, then speculation is all you can hope for at this point, which generally doesn't really get you anywhere.
@@lenmetallicaThey would have been dumping Jet-A rather than Jet-A1. The flight originated at IAD and Jet-A1 is not delivered in the U.S. Jet-A and -A1 are essentially the same fuel having similar characteristics. The primary difference is the freeze point with A1 having the colder freeze point.
I noticed after declaring the emergency they announced souls on board and fuel in time (8 hours of gas) but I didnt hear them inform the controller how much fuel they had remaining after the fuel dump.
Asking as someone who has no experience in aviation, why would you dump fuel at this point (when you're a few hundred miles from going back to Dulles) when you have a fuel leak?
They monitor how much fuel is leaking and calculate what their landing weight in Dulles approximately will be. You don't want to land a heavy 767 with too much overweight. It's a normal procedure regardless of whether you have a fuel leak or not.
Also, Dumping fuel above 30,000 feet? It dissipates and never reaches the ground. Additionally, they just needed to get to Max Landing Gross Weight. Knowing that there would also be fuel burned as they returned to Dulles. Hope this helps (Retired Captain)
They were dumping probably 10-15 min from jfk/ewr/bos flying past PHL than BWI to IAD, no shortage of diversion airports beyond the preferred place that dispatch wanted them. Probably wanted to get down to where they were below max landing weight, which was only a few thousand pounds to dump out, and then with the leak plus flight time would be at a more than comfortable level. Likely figured it would be easier to do out by the water then have to dump once they were in the approach environment.
A fuel leak is not a Mayday!,…..it’s a Pan Pan at best………besides which why is the pilot not following correct procedures by declaring MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY!?……very lax
7:15 the pilots really had the balls to turn around and get shafted 🤣
The problem here isn’t dire, it’s an issue that if they continue over water to Europe the leak will place the flight in jeopardy. But a return to ant reasonable airport is acceptable. The term “land as soon as conditions permit “ does not mean “as quickly as possible”. There are tons of factors to consider. A safe outcome in my opinion to go back to iad, especially considering the extra time to dump fuel.
A poor outcome would have been continuing the flight with a suspected leak and then having insufficient fuel to make ANY airport out over the North Atlantic. The ability of an aircraft to dump fuel actually greatly helps the environment, because it means aircraft can be built lighter and more fuel efficient that 99.999% of the time they DONT dump gas.
Aircraft are certified to land at their max gross takeoff weight, but landing over the max landing weight (a weight usually lower than max takeoff or structural weight) comes with issues as well. So dumping fuel is a reasonable consideration if it’s possible.
My big feedback to viewers is that an emergency does not automatically mean it’s a timed event to get on the ground safely. Most “emergencies” are nothing more than precautionary to ensure the aircraft gets its deserved priority and consideration from ATC and then later looked at by emergency response vehicles. Most emergency situations require significant work and coordination to manage the aircraft and situation into a desirable outcome. Rushing this process is the last thing we want to do. Things that really are time critical are more like cargo or cabin fires, loss of thrust, low fuel state, medical events…yadda yadda. A fuel leak indeed would be far more critical if it’s severe, or if it’s at the end of a flight rather than the beginning.
United and all the major carriers have well trained and experienced crews. Atc in the US does an amazing job, as well as the emergency crews and first responders. There is no safer place to be on this planet than sitting in one of these planes. This event proves just that. Well handled.
I think it would be informative if not entertaining if you could get recordings of what the pilots/flight attendances say to the passengers when they have to turn back, or when they are in a mayday /pan situation. And to hear the response from the passengers.
This ist definitely my new favourite Tower Controller. Nice, loud, clear.. Could this be the new Kennedy Steve? 🎉
Solid ATC.
OCD?
@@RLTtizME What?
@@analogman9697 Exactly!
@@RLTtizME Shove it.
@@analogman9697 LOL....
When they going to learn how to declare emergency!!!
Just getting in here quickly! It could be an engine fuel leak (engines not made by Boeing), or a maintenance issue. The leak is not necessarily a Boeing production line problem.
Registration says the aircraft's first flight was in 1991. Boeing was still a real aircraft manufacturer back then.
@@phytonso9877 True! The McDonnell Douglas rot didn't start kicking and filtering down to the production line until 1997/98!
@@malahammer Some loony logic going on there.
Not NECESSARILY a Boeing problem? This ISN'T a Boeing problem.
If your 2016 Corolla developed a fuel leak in 2024, you wouldn't say that Toyota screwed up. This aircraft was delivered in 1991.(!) It has gone through probably 4 or 5 D-checks already.
That crew was so cool and collected, it sounded like they were radioing in from the beach while sipping margaritas. (Fav: 1:10 in)
1:10 Souls on board is (oh for Pete's sake) 186...
😂
Why are they diverting to IAD ? Wouldn't it be easier and closer to go to EWR? As EWR is also an UA Base.
And why so much concern about dumping fuel on land or water if they are supposed to be flying at a very high altitude. Did they know that the gasoline was going to end up dissipating anyway before even reaching the ground?
What was the weather at EWR at the time? What was the anticipated routing?
@@N1120A we don't know about that data
@@paingberg They would have been using Jet A1, not gasoline. Do you know what additives they might have had in the fuel? Could you guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that absolutely all the fuel and additives would be capable of vaporizing at a safe manner and altitude without harm to persons or property in that particular instance?
If you don't have data or more importantly, formal education on the matter, then speculation is all you can hope for at this point, which generally doesn't really get you anywhere.
It’s almost always easier to divert to point of departure. Fuel dumping always evaporates unless at really low altitude.
@@lenmetallicaThey would have been dumping Jet-A rather than Jet-A1. The flight originated at IAD and Jet-A1 is not delivered in the U.S. Jet-A and -A1 are essentially the same fuel having similar characteristics. The primary difference is the freeze point with A1 having the colder freeze point.
I noticed after declaring the emergency they announced souls on board and fuel in time (8 hours of gas) but I didnt hear them inform the controller how much fuel they had remaining after the fuel dump.
Dulles could have used John McClain to help 🤣
Asking as someone who has no experience in aviation, why would you dump fuel at this point (when you're a few hundred miles from going back to Dulles) when you have a fuel leak?
They monitor how much fuel is leaking and calculate what their landing weight in Dulles approximately will be. You don't want to land a heavy 767 with too much overweight. It's a normal procedure regardless of whether you have a fuel leak or not.
Also, Dumping fuel above 30,000 feet? It dissipates and never reaches the ground.
Additionally, they just needed to get to Max Landing Gross Weight. Knowing that there would also be fuel burned as they returned to Dulles.
Hope this helps (Retired Captain)
Common sense says that, with a fuel leak, you do not jettison fuel until you are pretty close to your diversion airport.
A
They were dumping probably 10-15 min from jfk/ewr/bos flying past PHL than BWI to IAD, no shortage of diversion airports beyond the preferred place that dispatch wanted them. Probably wanted to get down to where they were below max landing weight, which was only a few thousand pounds to dump out, and then with the leak plus flight time would be at a more than comfortable level. Likely figured it would be easier to do out by the water then have to dump once they were in the approach environment.
A fuel leak is not a Mayday!,…..it’s a Pan Pan at best………besides which why is the pilot not following correct procedures by declaring MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY!?……very lax