I was working at Eindhoven airport a while ago and heard this standby call that was given live. I was wondering and searching for a video of this event cause it was a really interesting day at work. Never found it and now I saw this in my subscription feed. Very nice.
@@Foshiee o zo bedoel je, ga naar liveatc,, zoek op eheh , onder de groene knoppen om te luisteren zie je : Archive Access ... anders kijk maar eens op mijn kanaal ..alles over eheh / ehvk enz...
Oooooh my airport. Didn't know about this incident. Even recognise the controller's voice. We have good guys at EHEH who manage to squeeze our little Cessnas between all the military and civil commercial jets
@@davidf2244 Adds to the challenge. But does also result in regularly orbits on downwind. I'm more nervous flying at uncontrolled airports because I'm used to a tower sequencing for me.
Depends where you are from. I live about 10km far away from the Netherlands (and not far from Eindhoven Airport). I am used to this "r". So, it always depends on what languages / dialects you are used to. I love the Dutch r.
This is actually how you're supposed to pronounce the number 3 officially, according to the international phonetic alphabet. No laughing matter really.
I love the controllers, they are clear and also try not to bother the pilot when they are troubleshooting, only chiming in when needing to make sure on things. Very nice
I marvel at the differences in ATC. Here in the US arrivals are vectored after transitioning into the terminal enviornment. It seems in Europe everyone flies the STAR to the transition fix and then cleared for the approach. We don't stop arrivals until the pilot commits to returning. But I realize that's due to volume, when your pushing 60 to 80 arrivals an hour you can screw up flow for hours by stopping arrivals
Maybe something to do with in the US it seems a single STAR often has multiple branches to take you to all the runways. In Europe it’s common for 1 STAR to take you to 1 Runway so you get given a precise STAR to follow
It’s not just a case of phone HQ and see what they say. There a minimum equipment list available which dictates what failures you can have and still continue flying or dispatch with. If nothing else has gone wrong and you can still continue using backup systems to get to your home base to get repairs done then there isn’t really a major problem
@@tomstravels520 Thanks for that. Makes real sense of course if they're calling the company for intel for the PIC to make the decision. I guess I simply heard in what he said to say he was calling the company for 'go or no ' decision, not to talk to maintenance.
@@tomstravels520 MEL (and CDL) doesn't apply anymore when you have departed, it is only valid until the aircraft is moving under its own power. After that, it is of no use.
Maybe and I am only speculating, is that they needed to burn fuel for a safe return to departure,so they may as well do that whilst continuing their journey and by burning off fuel the aircraft will become lighter and they can could continue with one engine if needed and also if the situation got any worse they could redirect to the nearest airport.As I said that is my thoughts.
@@blackvulcan100 no, the situation resolved itself, maybe the pitot got cleared. They contacted company maintenance to check if they wanted them to continue pan and land at the departure airport, the company were happy with a Continuing of the flight under normal ops
Have that on a car radio antenna once. Small bird, maybe four or five inches tall, don't remember the species, kind of just got wrapped around being hit at speed. Drove down the highway for miles with a bird carcass flopping back and forth on the antenna.
I feel like it would make more sense for the aircraft to have landed just as a precaution to check everything out before commencing a full length flight, but I suppose it was thought through very carefully if they spent so long before making that decision, so perhaps it was safe enough. Also, kudos to the transavia pilots for their awareness on frequency to request an approach after the emergency aircraft said they needed to burn fuel. Often times pilots only listen for their own call sign and ignore everything else, and it can make situations worse than they need to be
OMG what is this with wizzair? 1. The information about the birdstrike should have been WAY earlier as until that time the airport remained in service and there could have been dep/arr in the meanwhile. 2. How can you resume the flight to a such destination which is far away? If you have unreliable air speed plus a bird strike, a check at the nearest suitable airport should have been mandatory.
@@mattesrocket Definitely! I am very shocked about resuming that flight! But until now I cannot find any reports about investigation at AVHerald. Kinda looks like Wizz Air prioritizes cost before safety...
With regards to unreliable airspeed, depending on what exactly has happened you can shut off a malfunctioning ADR and set it to the back up system. Hence why Airbus has 3 for a reason and then depending on the MEL will dictate if you can continue on just 2 ADR’s. Plus I think Wizzair have a base at Skopje so they could get it fixed there
@@tomstravels520 Thanks for the note! Although their base might be in Skopje, I still think it is not the beast way regarding safety to continue the flight with a not checked bird strike damage plus unreliable airspeed. It at least indicates that there has been a damage to the ac.
@@tomstravels520 Without knowing the extent of damage, they don’t know if a second pitot/ADR was damaged as well. You should never continue after a strike like this, especially with an affected critical system. Are you a LionAir pilot or something?
@@afcgeo882 Agreed. The a320 family of aircraft can land above Max Landing Weight if required. Having unreliable airspeed would definitely be urgent enough to get safely back on the ground ASAP. Flying around with downgraded/unreliable instruments simply to burn fuel is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as continuing to destination when you’ve encountered unreliable airspeed at take off 🙄
I love these video's you have been posting, I have really learned al ot of things about Aviation from your video's as well as a couple other's who also post them. Please keep them coming!!! I do have a general question to anyone following, can anyone point me in the right direction for a flight simulator for my computer please?
Surprised the ATC had not already asked Wizz Air pilot how long it would take. They probably have rules to go by on emergency, but it would make sense to let the Transavia come on in because a 45 min delay might jeopardize his fuel capacity.
I was thinking the same thing. I think this was an inexperienced controller that didn't really know the concept of "burning off fuel". She probably would have left the Transavia flying a holding pattern until she learned burning off fuel can take an hour or 2, en then would have let Transavia in ahead. Also the term AGL seemed new to her. No big deal. We all gotta start somewhere.
Perhaps they should have asked the passengers? "Who wants to fly three hours after a bird strike and unreliable airspeed indicator? Remember, someone from WizzAir, who happens to NOT be on the plane, said it would be fine."
It wouldn’t just be the company man at the other end of the phone. The MEL exists for a reason and there are backup systems for a reason. Remember airbus has 3 AOA’s and pitots for situations like this. Loose one you still have 2
After watching & listening to so many videos (from this great channel), I cannot understand why pilots do not offer a few words after declaring a Pan, Pan, or Mayday as to the reason. How much effort, even under the stress of an emergency, does it take to say "Bird Strike" (in this case), or "fire in cockpit", or similar whatever the circumstances. By doing this is gives ATC & other aircraft on frequency an understanding of what is going on in the affected aircraft and would surely help ATC at least to understand the severity of the situation and possible consequences, from everyone's point of view. And as others have pointed out, in this situation of a bird strike it warns ATC of a potential danger to be passed on to other departing aircraft. Just my thoughts, anyway. Perhaps an ATPL holder can enlighten me?
The initial call is not the time to become involved in passing info. Also, at that point the crew haven’t had time to discuss and agree the failure. ATPL holder.
Ahh, time to head in to the comment section to see all of the experts comments. I'm sure there must be several fully qualified A320 pilots and Air traffic controllers who know all of the systems and procedures for the aircraft in events like this!
When Wizz Air told her they needed to hold and burn fuel, the controller should have immediately asked him how much time it would take. She had Transavia holding. If Tranavia hadn't suggested she check with Wizzair, Transavia may have had to divert. She didn't have her A game going.
And? There’s more than just that to think about. What if transavia burst a tyre on landing? Now the only runway is blocked whilst waiting for a tow truck. A single runway airport has to think about other factors too. If other planes have to divert then they have to divert. They already have alternate airports planned before they even take off
@@tomstravels520--I understand your single-rubway concerns, but firstly, Wizz did not declare an emergency. He only used PAN PAN PAN. Look up what that means. Wizz had full control of the aircraft with no indications of fire or failures other than temporary airspeed malfunctions, presumably caused by pitot tube obstruction. The A320 has 3 pitot tubes and air data systems and can be dispatched with one inoperative. Wizz elected to hold, burn off fuel, and discuss the issue with company. If they were in an emergency situation which required landing ASAP, they could have quite safely accomplished an overweight landing, but they didn't need to land immediately. In the unlikely event that Transavia broke on the runway, there are several airports that could accommodate them not far away. Again, no emergency was declared.
@@tenpiloto I know exactly what a PAN call is and you’d still get priority over other planes which means transavia would have to move if they did decide to suddenly land (you don’t need to declare emergency for that). They didn’t have any immediate other problems but that’s why you work through your ECAM actions to find out the state of the plane and make sure nothing is leaking etc. If they suddenly realised they were leaking hydraulic fluid or fuel then they’d probably want to get on the ground quickly. Also if your are having issues with your plane you don’t want to be having to reprogram your FMGC to go to another airport nearby when you have one next to you that you have already set up in your secondary flight plan (if that’s a wizzair policy). Only once the pilots were certain they knew nothing else was going wrong and they had time then I’d have given transavia the green light to approach. Then that way if they did block the runway I know the wizzair pilots have got enough time to wait and they know an engine isn’t likely going to blow up or something that require and immediate landing
@@TheRuskee ????? Your comment makes no sense. If an aircraft is safe to leave the airport with a faulty sensor (let’s say ADR) then it can continue if it lost that exact same sensor mid flight. It would then be the same as leaving the airport with the broken sensor. If it was the other way round (system fails mid flight, aircraft lands but then it’s not safe to dispatch) then that makes sense
Perfectly safe. In europe you are never more than 15 minutes away from an airport, they needed to burn off 30 minutes before landing in any event... so fly on in a straight line. You always have redundancy via ADR/GPS. Anything bad happens en route you are on the ground in 10 minutes.
??? You mean asking to be cleared for an approach instead of having to divert to another airport (his bingo fuel was less than 30 minutes)? When Wizz told her they needed to burn off fuel, she should have immediately asked him how long he needed so she could get the other aircraft on the ground if there was time available.
@@tenpiloto his “bingo fuel” is not less than 30 minutes. Aircraft have a minimum fuel they reach before diverting to a predetermined airport, holding for a set time and then landing. The final reserve is 30 mins but they had 23 minutes before needing to switch to their ALTN fuel
I understand the regulations--I am going by what Transavia said. The legally alternate airport may or may not be the most desirable airport operations wise. The Transavia crew may have been calculating fuel requirements to get to their company's desired airport. I ended up diverting a few times in my 40+ years airline, corporate, and military career, and I'm guessing the majority of them involved going to airports other than the stated alternate (and under 121 of course we did it with a re-dispatch from company). Not arguing, just discussing. Cheers
As I have already explained and replied to you....an A320 has different systems architecture than a 737. It has more redundancies and is certified to dispatch with one failed or inoperative ADR which his what they most likely would have done to get them back to their maintenance base and then have it fixed. You seem hung up on MCAS which the A320 doesn’t have
@@tomstravels520 I have said NOTHING about MCAS, which had NOTHING to do with the pitot tubes. You’re a flight sim warrior, aren’t you?! The issue is not simply the safe operation on two ADRs, but rather not knowing the extent of damage of the aircraft. We know an aircraft can safely fly on just two ADRs, but without knowing if any other system was also compromised, including possibly another ADR or a static sensor or any structural component, how do you simply continue your flight for simple maintenance convenience? You think there’s no maintenance available for an A320 anywhere outside Skopje? Are you serious? This is flat out negligence!
@@afcgeo882 so why mention lion air? You have mentioned them in other videos and yet that was due to AOA failure and MCAS believing the failure. If you actually fly the A320 you’d know about the double redundancy (and you need to learn what redundancy means) meaning if you loose one system you can switch to the back up and the aircraft behaves pretty much as if nothing has happened. The aircraft can dispatch with certain systems failed or even continue if systems fail in flight. Ever heard of the MMEL/MEL
@@tomstravels520 That’s not what redundancy means! You idiot! “ENGINEERING the inclusion of extra components which are not strictly necessary to functioning, in case of failure in other components.” Again, just because you legally could continue, doesn’t mean it’s smart to! The regulations have been changed countless times because some allowances have led to incidents, including fatalities. Be better! Think better!
@@afcgeo882 you sound like you just hate airbus because 737Maxes fell down and airbuses didnt. I read whole your comments here and you just want to blame airbus what you shpuld blame the corrupted boeing for.
I'm sorry, but it seems as if the (female) atc is slightly incompetent for this situation. Obviously I don't have the whole story or workload, but since the transavia 78H was suggesting commands the atc would typically come up with, it seems she's leaving some on the table.
maybe she was quite new and her first case like this. Maybe there was a back up guy beside her and it was okay so far that he didn't need to take over.
@@adeptpeasant6161 they wouldn’t run out of fuel. They even said they have 23 mins before they would need to divert. That’s standard throughout the industry. Once you reach a set amount of fuel then you divert to your pre determined alternate airport. The issue is if Wizzair suddenly had to return immediately and needs the shortest distance possible, she has to clear the Transavia out of the way
![[REAL ATC] Turkish B77W is HIT BY SEVERE TURBULENCE | Multiple Injuries](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cxniygV1o_0/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REAL ATC] Turkish B77W is HIT BY SEVERE TURBULENCE | Multiple Injuries](/img/tr.png)
I know it's a grim situation, but listening to the ATC roll his 'R's makes it all surprisingly cheerful!
It's called Dutch English, LOL!
@@lex1945 Dunglish or Denglish yes
@@MartMonster something like that, yes,LOL!
HA! Just about to post an identical comment. Some impressive r rolling indeed!
It sounds like some kind of damned Monty Python routine!!!
Pilot: Stand (ding) by (ding ding ding) please (ding ding).
ATC: uh-oh surrrre.
when you hear master warning on a radio transmission, you know something’s up.
That was autopilot warning not master warning
@@spfh84 1:32 Master Caution. Listen again.
@@spfh84 It’s the master caution.
@@OfficialSamuelC Both are correct. They both happened in different calls.
@@planely1263 @Samuel Carvalho It's Master Warning, Master Caution is a single chime.
I was working at Eindhoven airport a while ago and heard this standby call that was given live. I was wondering and searching for a video of this event cause it was a really interesting day at work. Never found it and now I saw this in my subscription feed. Very nice.
beter zoeken .... :-)
@@EHEHspotter Ben zelf op liveatc Gaan zoeken maar kreeg het niet voor elkaar toen.
@@Foshiee o zo bedoel je, ga naar liveatc,, zoek op eheh , onder de groene knoppen om te luisteren zie je : Archive Access ... anders kijk maar eens op mijn kanaal ..alles over eheh / ehvk enz...
Wizzair TRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
ATC sounds like the owl on the tootsie-pop commercials. Hard to keep a straight face
Glad it wasn't just me who thought so!
Damn dude, that's funny!
Oooooh my airport. Didn't know about this incident. Even recognise the controller's voice. We have good guys at EHEH who manage to squeeze our little Cessnas between all the military and civil commercial jets
No easy task with the wakes, right?
@@davidf2244 Adds to the challenge. But does also result in regularly orbits on downwind.
I'm more nervous flying at uncontrolled airports because I'm used to a tower sequencing for me.
Wizzair thrrrrrre769, hearing that as a pilot, I would explode with laughter.
Depends where you are from.
I live about 10km far away from the Netherlands (and not far from Eindhoven Airport).
I am used to this "r".
So, it always depends on what languages / dialects you are used to.
I love the Dutch r.
@@OnTourWithGerrit It's impressive indeed!
This is actually how you're supposed to pronounce the number 3 officially, according to the international phonetic alphabet. No laughing matter really.
So laughing at some accents is 'funny' while mocking others is racist? Not funny.
I love the controllers, they are clear and also try not to bother the pilot when they are troubleshooting, only chiming in when needing to make sure on things. Very nice
I marvel at the differences in ATC. Here in the US arrivals are vectored after transitioning into the terminal enviornment. It seems in Europe everyone flies the STAR to the transition fix and then cleared for the approach. We don't stop arrivals until the pilot commits to returning. But I realize that's due to volume, when your pushing 60 to 80 arrivals an hour you can screw up flow for hours by stopping arrivals
Maybe something to do with in the US it seems a single STAR often has multiple branches to take you to all the runways. In Europe it’s common for 1 STAR to take you to 1 Runway so you get given a precise STAR to follow
So much for PIC -- more like Company In Command. Can't believe the continuation of the flight based on asking HQ....
It’s not just a case of phone HQ and see what they say. There a minimum equipment list available which dictates what failures you can have and still continue flying or dispatch with. If nothing else has gone wrong and you can still continue using backup systems to get to your home base to get repairs done then there isn’t really a major problem
@@tomstravels520 Thanks for that. Makes real sense of course if they're calling the company for intel for the PIC to make the decision. I guess I simply heard in what he said to say he was calling the company for 'go or no ' decision, not to talk to maintenance.
@@tomstravels520 MEL (and CDL) doesn't apply anymore when you have departed, it is only valid until the aircraft is moving under its own power. After that, it is of no use.
Master Warning at 1:32......things are getting serious
Yep only other time I heard it over ATC was Sully in the hudson.
Just love the first ATC's upbeat and jolly accent!
Wonderful video. Loved it much ❤️❤️❤️
Bit weird and scary that they continued their flight to Skopje instead of returning after a bird strike and unreliable airspeed
Maybe and I am only speculating, is that they needed to burn fuel for a safe return to departure,so they may as well do that whilst continuing their journey and by burning off fuel the aircraft will become lighter and they can could continue with one engine if needed and also if the situation got any worse they could redirect to the nearest airport.As I said that is my thoughts.
@@blackvulcan100 no, the situation resolved itself, maybe the pitot got cleared. They contacted company maintenance to check if they wanted them to continue pan and land at the departure airport, the company were happy with a Continuing of the flight under normal ops
Bird impaled on the pitot tube?
Probably
Lol that would make sense
Go a bit faster and it is ready to eat when you arrive.
Have that on a car radio antenna once. Small bird, maybe four or five inches tall, don't remember the species, kind of just got wrapped around being hit at speed. Drove down the highway for miles with a bird carcass flopping back and forth on the antenna.
What was that weird "snake" turn on the 3 mile final made by TRA78H?
Love the way ATC trills his r’s!
The bird regretted taking a wizz in midair...
the regular boarding is much more healthy
I bet the bird doesn't have guts to do it again.
@@MiksuPeksi no guts, no glory
Very funny..
I keep waiting for a LAX inbound flight to report a "jet-pack" strike. Is that wrong ?
Its both wrong and expected.
You should do a video on the American Airlines flight that had a Hydraulics Failure at KSYR this morning.
I feel like it would make more sense for the aircraft to have landed just as a precaution to check everything out before commencing a full length flight, but I suppose it was thought through very carefully if they spent so long before making that decision, so perhaps it was safe enough. Also, kudos to the transavia pilots for their awareness on frequency to request an approach after the emergency aircraft said they needed to burn fuel. Often times pilots only listen for their own call sign and ignore everything else, and it can make situations worse than they need to be
Did anyone else mistake TRA78H's code as TRASH?
OMG what is this with wizzair?
1. The information about the birdstrike should have been WAY earlier as until that time the airport remained in service and there could have been dep/arr in the meanwhile.
2. How can you resume the flight to a such destination which is far away? If you have unreliable air speed plus a bird strike, a check at the nearest suitable airport should have been mandatory.
European authorities should keep an eye on this case.
@@mattesrocket Definitely! I am very shocked about resuming that flight! But until now I cannot find any reports about investigation at AVHerald. Kinda looks like Wizz Air prioritizes cost before safety...
With regards to unreliable airspeed, depending on what exactly has happened you can shut off a malfunctioning ADR and set it to the back up system. Hence why Airbus has 3 for a reason and then depending on the MEL will dictate if you can continue on just 2 ADR’s. Plus I think Wizzair have a base at Skopje so they could get it fixed there
@@tomstravels520 Thanks for the note! Although their base might be in Skopje, I still think it is not the beast way regarding safety to continue the flight with a not checked bird strike damage plus unreliable airspeed. It at least indicates that there has been a damage to the ac.
@@tomstravels520 Without knowing the extent of damage, they don’t know if a second pitot/ADR was damaged as well. You should never continue after a strike like this, especially with an affected critical system. Are you a LionAir pilot or something?
I've seen enough VASAviation videos to know that Wizzair should have landed immediately after burning the fuel to inspect the damage.
Don’t need to burn any fuel.
@@afcgeo882
Agreed.
The a320 family of aircraft can land above Max Landing Weight if required. Having unreliable airspeed would definitely be urgent enough to get safely back on the ground ASAP. Flying around with downgraded/unreliable instruments simply to burn fuel is ridiculous.
Almost as ridiculous as continuing to destination when you’ve encountered unreliable airspeed at take off 🙄
@@TheRuskee The whole point of making A320s and 737s without a fuel dumping mechanism is that they can land at and even above MTOW.
holy shit! That's my HOMETOWN, SKOPJE!
Grrrreat !
Wizz Air will never not be amusing to me.
Excuse me while I go take a W6!
I love these video's you have been posting, I have really learned al ot of things about Aviation from your video's as well as a couple other's who also post them. Please keep them coming!!! I do have a general question to anyone following, can anyone point me in the right direction for a flight simulator for my computer please?
Surprised the ATC had not already asked Wizz Air pilot how long it would take. They probably have rules to go by on emergency, but it would make sense to let the Transavia come on in because a 45 min delay might jeopardize his fuel capacity.
I was thinking the same thing. I think this was an inexperienced controller that didn't really know the concept of "burning off fuel". She probably would have left the Transavia flying a holding pattern until she learned burning off fuel can take an hour or 2, en then would have let Transavia in ahead. Also the term AGL seemed new to her.
No big deal. We all gotta start somewhere.
Wizzair is a "ultra low cost budget airline". Of course they continued to destination.
Not sure I've ever seen a continue onward after a PAN PAN call
Perhaps they should have asked the passengers? "Who wants to fly three hours after a bird strike and unreliable airspeed indicator? Remember, someone from WizzAir, who happens to NOT be on the plane, said it would be fine."
It wouldn’t just be the company man at the other end of the phone. The MEL exists for a reason and there are backup systems for a reason. Remember airbus has 3 AOA’s and pitots for situations like this. Loose one you still have 2
ATC speaks like Seaspray from Transformers (G1).
Eindhoven airport!
Radio says taxi via L1, the representation shows L2.
Ha ha ha ha...... How fast and how many times did that pilot say Pan Pan Pan??? 😆
"Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan Pan....... Pan" ......😆
'Thrrrrree...'
Is this the new Microsoft Sim?
No, this is Patrick.
Why atc rrrroools the Rrrrrrrrs like that??
Accent
After watching & listening to so many videos (from this great channel), I cannot understand why pilots do not offer a few words after declaring a Pan, Pan, or Mayday as to the reason. How much effort, even under the stress of an emergency, does it take to say "Bird Strike" (in this case), or "fire in cockpit", or similar whatever the circumstances. By doing this is gives ATC & other aircraft on frequency an understanding of what is going on in the affected aircraft and would surely help ATC at least to understand the severity of the situation and possible consequences, from everyone's point of view. And as others have pointed out, in this situation of a bird strike it warns ATC of a potential danger to be passed on to other departing aircraft. Just my thoughts, anyway. Perhaps an ATPL holder can enlighten me?
Aviate, navigate, communicate. They were occupied with the first 2. As soon as able they communicated.
it was not in the subtitles, but they did say unreliable airspeed
The initial call is not the time to become involved in passing info. Also, at that point the crew haven’t had time to discuss and agree the failure. ATPL holder.
Yes
Ahh, time to head in to the comment section to see all of the experts comments. I'm sure there must be several fully qualified A320 pilots and Air traffic controllers who know all of the systems and procedures for the aircraft in events like this!
fastest pan pan ever 🤣
That R tho
i live in Eindhoven☠️
UnRRRReal R tRills
When Wizz Air told her they needed to hold and burn fuel, the controller should have immediately asked him how much time it would take. She had Transavia holding. If Tranavia hadn't suggested she check with Wizzair, Transavia may have had to divert. She didn't have her A game going.
And? There’s more than just that to think about. What if transavia burst a tyre on landing? Now the only runway is blocked whilst waiting for a tow truck. A single runway airport has to think about other factors too. If other planes have to divert then they have to divert. They already have alternate airports planned before they even take off
@@tomstravels520--I understand your single-rubway concerns, but firstly, Wizz did not declare an emergency. He only used PAN PAN PAN. Look up what that means. Wizz had full control of the aircraft with no indications of fire or failures other than temporary airspeed malfunctions, presumably caused by pitot tube obstruction. The A320 has 3 pitot tubes and air data systems and can be dispatched with one inoperative. Wizz elected to hold, burn off fuel, and discuss the issue with company. If they were in an emergency situation which required landing ASAP, they could have quite safely accomplished an overweight landing, but they didn't need to land immediately. In the unlikely event that Transavia broke on the runway, there are several airports that could accommodate them not far away. Again, no emergency was declared.
@@tenpiloto I know exactly what a PAN call is and you’d still get priority over other planes which means transavia would have to move if they did decide to suddenly land (you don’t need to declare emergency for that). They didn’t have any immediate other problems but that’s why you work through your ECAM actions to find out the state of the plane and make sure nothing is leaking etc. If they suddenly realised they were leaking hydraulic fluid or fuel then they’d probably want to get on the ground quickly. Also if your are having issues with your plane you don’t want to be having to reprogram your FMGC to go to another airport nearby when you have one next to you that you have already set up in your secondary flight plan (if that’s a wizzair policy). Only once the pilots were certain they knew nothing else was going wrong and they had time then I’d have given transavia the green light to approach. Then that way if they did block the runway I know the wizzair pilots have got enough time to wait and they know an engine isn’t likely going to blow up or something that require and immediate landing
She would have been discussing the problem with others in the control tower at that time.
early 💞
Mentioning a bird strike much sooner than he did might prevent other aircraft from suffering the same fate.
Yes they can zig! zag! zig!
EASA better check out this video. This is NOT safe at all
Depending exactly what failed an A320 can dispatch with one failed/deactivated ADR which is what likely happened here
Why? It looks safe to me
@@tomstravels520
Dispatch ... Yes
To Continue AFTER dispatch... Absolutely not. Poor standards and not very safe.
@@TheRuskee ????? Your comment makes no sense. If an aircraft is safe to leave the airport with a faulty sensor (let’s say ADR) then it can continue if it lost that exact same sensor mid flight. It would then be the same as leaving the airport with the broken sensor. If it was the other way round (system fails mid flight, aircraft lands but then it’s not safe to dispatch) then that makes sense
Perfectly safe. In europe you are never more than 15 minutes away from an airport, they needed to burn off 30 minutes before landing in any event... so fly on in a straight line. You always have redundancy via ADR/GPS. Anything bad happens en route you are on the ground in 10 minutes.
Sad to see pilots guiding ATC on what to do next.
??? You mean asking to be cleared for an approach instead of having to divert to another airport (his bingo fuel was less than 30 minutes)? When Wizz told her they needed to burn off fuel, she should have immediately asked him how long he needed so she could get the other aircraft on the ground if there was time available.
@@tenpiloto his “bingo fuel” is not less than 30 minutes. Aircraft have a minimum fuel they reach before diverting to a predetermined airport, holding for a set time and then landing. The final reserve is 30 mins but they had 23 minutes before needing to switch to their ALTN fuel
I understand the regulations--I am going by what Transavia said. The legally alternate airport may or may not be the most desirable airport operations wise. The Transavia crew may have been calculating fuel requirements to get to their company's desired airport. I ended up diverting a few times in my 40+ years airline, corporate, and military career, and I'm guessing the majority of them involved going to airports other than the stated alternate (and under 121 of course we did it with a re-dispatch from company). Not arguing, just discussing. Cheers
If this was Lion Air, they’d have just kept flying til they crashed, but given that it’s Wizz... they’ll just keep flying til they crash.
As I have already explained and replied to you....an A320 has different systems architecture than a 737. It has more redundancies and is certified to dispatch with one failed or inoperative ADR which his what they most likely would have done to get them back to their maintenance base and then have it fixed. You seem hung up on MCAS which the A320 doesn’t have
@@tomstravels520 I have said NOTHING about MCAS, which had NOTHING to do with the pitot tubes. You’re a flight sim warrior, aren’t you?!
The issue is not simply the safe operation on two ADRs, but rather not knowing the extent of damage of the aircraft. We know an aircraft can safely fly on just two ADRs, but without knowing if any other system was also compromised, including possibly another ADR or a static sensor or any structural component, how do you simply continue your flight for simple maintenance convenience? You think there’s no maintenance available for an A320 anywhere outside Skopje? Are you serious? This is flat out negligence!
@@afcgeo882 so why mention lion air? You have mentioned them in other videos and yet that was due to AOA failure and MCAS believing the failure. If you actually fly the A320 you’d know about the double redundancy (and you need to learn what redundancy means) meaning if you loose one system you can switch to the back up and the aircraft behaves pretty much as if nothing has happened. The aircraft can dispatch with certain systems failed or even continue if systems fail in flight. Ever heard of the MMEL/MEL
@@tomstravels520 That’s not what redundancy means! You idiot!
“ENGINEERING
the inclusion of extra components which are not strictly necessary to functioning, in case of failure in other components.”
Again, just because you legally could continue, doesn’t mean it’s smart to! The regulations have been changed countless times because some allowances have led to incidents, including fatalities. Be better! Think better!
@@afcgeo882 you sound like you just hate airbus because 737Maxes fell down and airbuses didnt. I read whole your comments here and you just want to blame airbus what you shpuld blame the corrupted boeing for.
I'm sorry, but it seems as if the (female) atc is slightly incompetent for this situation. Obviously I don't have the whole story or workload, but since the transavia 78H was suggesting commands the atc would typically come up with, it seems she's leaving some on the table.
maybe she was quite new and her first case like this. Maybe there was a back up guy beside her and it was okay so far that he didn't need to take over.
@@mattesrocket So your telling us that commen sence goes out the window and let all other planes waiting to land run out of fuel? Your a joke as she
@@adeptpeasant6161 they wouldn’t run out of fuel. They even said they have 23 mins before they would need to divert. That’s standard throughout the industry. Once you reach a set amount of fuel then you divert to your pre determined alternate airport. The issue is if Wizzair suddenly had to return immediately and needs the shortest distance possible, she has to clear the Transavia out of the way
@@tomstravels520 Lame! Hold up..................
Sorry, I had to fart. But you see what I did
@@adeptpeasant6161 no. Shame I’m talking to someone with the maturity of a 5 year old and knows nothing about planes