"We hit something on takeoff!" | Air Portugal Emergency Return to JFK
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 08. 2024
- 26/MAY/2023
TAP Portugal A330 performing flight from JFK to Lisbon was on the initial climb when the pilots reported they had hit something on takeoff and would need to return.
__________
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] Volaris approaches to the wrong runway at JFK | CLOSE CALL](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/un4xHGU7bMo/mqdefault.jpg)
"Okay, very good"
Ooops sorry guys I forgot to comment that line of code in the ATC auto response software. I will have an updated version of the software soon 🤣. Current: if voice_over == option_two: text_speech = “Okay, very good”
@@user-gy8be9cf7i Okay, very good.
@@Aran2323 Indeed, okay, very good.
Translation = "We absolutely do not want to do emergency paperwork". 🤣😂😅
We need to return right away but we are NOT on a emergency!
the same as u forget your keys at home, but u don't want to pay money for that return
For JFK standards, that's a very relaxed ATC
They are trying to avoid paperwork 😂 I wonder though if they actually found what hit them.
Yes.
@@chrisc161 I`m wondering, too. Probably a drone or a big bird.
@@NicolaW72
Nicola ...it could have been your brother Nicolas and six reindeer. ??
Excellent calm communication on both ends, even with the emergency declaration confusion. Love to see it. Glad they were able to safely land without needing to dump fuel or waste hours burning it.
Aircraft: We hit something, we have no clue how much damage we have, but we're absolutely not an emergency aircraft, okay? ATC: Suuuuure.
Lol ATC is always tryna get someone in more trouble feels like
In this case it was the completely right call by ATC.
The airline gets billed for ARFF services meeting the plane I am pretty sure.
@@JohnSmith-zi9or Why didn't they continue to their destination then? They were obviously concerned about damage.
@@JohnSmith-zi9oran overweight landing can lead to overheated brakes, which could catch fire or an extended landing past the end of the runway. Neither one is a certaincy, but a good reason to roll the trucks. Making sure the plane left no debris on the runway is also a good idea, but not an emergency.
I’m impressed that non-native English speaking pilots do as well as they do in both normal and emergency operations. I couldn’t imagine doing it in a second language.
Listening to lots of ATC, there are some dialects that lend to heavier accents and tougher communication (including NYC accent 😂)
English is popular in Portugal and widely spoken. Unlike other European countries, Portugal doesn't dub their English TV content so they have a lot of exposure, especially to British TV channels. Even the more elderly parts of population (~40-55 age range) speak it somewhat.
@@WhineMorePlease I get what you mean, but calling 40 year olds elderly is absolutely hilarious
@@redwitch95 That was "more elderly." Apparently the "slightly elderly" are "30-40."
Very good comms there, not too fast, concentrated and had all the data ready 🤝
If you were wondering, aircraft got ground for some good days…Something really happened
So... def good they didn't try to head to Portugal 😬
It returned today to LIS
"We are not on emergency, okay?"
Not okay, I'm making you an emergency, how much fuel and how many souls?
And he'd set 7700 in the box, so... emergency then. LOL!
@@cageordie I suspect they get billed for a truck roll.
@@jamesphillips2285 Nope.
@@cageordie No they didn't, ATC did that on their behalf, it will appear like that on their screens regardless of what you punch into the transponder. Any other aircraft can declare a Mayday on behalf of another aircraft and ATC will paint that plane 7700 regardless of crew actions (who might be way to busy to worry about the transponder).
@@goodshipkaraboudjan Not true...at all !!
In most "emergency situation "
you will just keep the transponder setting you have unless asked to change it by the Controller.
A7700 can only be selected by the pilot.
It is used to draw attention when communication is poor and to draw the Controller's attention in a sudden emergency. ..like an emergency descent.
The Controller is REQUIRED to have the emergency services on standby for overweight landings.
No choice.
You are obviously not a pilot? ?
True?? .
Never sure why pilots don't at least declare pan for this type of "we need to return" incident, it isn't a sign of weakness. Do the airports stick the airline with a charge for rolling trucks or something?!!
Pilots/airlines delay declaring an emergency as long as they can because there’s a TON of paperwork and follow up investigation once the emergency is declared. It also grounds the aircraft/pilots for an extended period and forces the passengers into an uncomfortable emergency deplane and that can cause negative sentiment in an airlines reputation. In summary, it all comes down to money. Emergencies ground airplanes and ground airplanes don’t make moolah.
@@usefulprogrammer9880 Is there rule that requires they come down the chutes? Something like this sounds like a de-plane via the jetway, which they have to do anyway.
@@JimAllen-Persona They have mobile staircases at most airports, for when passengers need to deplane somewhere other than the gate. The emergency slide is for cases where it's a serious enough emergency that they don't have time to wait for the stairs to arrive.
@@usefulprogrammer9880what you talking about. Nobody forces an emergency deplane
@@fischerhansen5647 I don’t think I worded my original comment correctly. I didn’t mean emergency deplane, I meant deplane due to an emergency. There’s circumstances where a plane declares emergency and passengers deplane as they would any other time at a gate, but they still were forced to deplane due to the emergency.
this pilot knew what he wanted
CS-TOO is still in JFK at the time of this writing, so I assume they did find some damage.
They hit what the captain described as a "big bird". The plane must be quite fecked.
"We are not declaring an emergency..."
"Too bad"
"We need to return right away but we are NOT an emergency!" is more than likely a language issue. They need to return right away and get on the ground "out of an abundance of caution" because they have no idea of what hit them or how much damage has actually been done, but at that moment they are not in a critical situation they are flying with two good engines and no indication of a problem. In other words, the pilots are expecting a normal uneventful landing, they are just overweight and want to do an immediate return out of caution. The only thing that makes this an emergency is JFK declaring it due to an overweight landing. The pilot not declaring an emergency has nothing to do with extra paperwork, or any cost for the ARFF response. If the pilot felt that level of response was needed, he would have been the first to declare a Pan Pan and ask for it.
@Patrick in Ottawa - I was just about to make a similar comment. I agree completely. I do not believe that a commercial pilot with international experience lets the thought of paperwork or no paperwork dictate his decisions in such a situation. More likely the point was to communicate that the aircraft and passengers were not in immediate danger.
@@lisanadinebaker5179 Then why is he landing overweight? ?
Patrick...
You are obviously not a pilot.
The Controller did not make it an emergency.
It is a mandatory requirement for emergency services on standby when there is an overweight landing.
Ask a lawyer. ....
If the pilots are not that concerned why land overweight??
That poor Controller was trying to determine the risk.
Just call PAN PAN.
I have a possible URGENT situation due to possible damage.
The pilots communication was poor, confusing and non standard.
Their knowledge of normal international airport safety regulations was zero.
If there is a longer runway available , why not take it.
@@daftvader4218 why do you have to be condescending? Not everyone knows all the requirements overweight aircraft landings. Also the return button and space bar are different
@@jackbriant7800 - he’s a troll. Everyone “isn’t a pilot” according to him yet you ask him questions about stuff and he has no answer. I suspect he’s a pilot wanna be and is on these aviation ATC channels flexing. Literally a quarter of the comments in comment sections such as this are from him flexing on everyone who he feels superior to.
Very good
Those pilots didn't skip a beat, all read backs were correct and everything, absolute studs.
Guys these are portuguese pilots.
It is just an overweight landing, not an emergency.
As long as the wings are still attached there is no emergency 😉
For any pilots/controllers here, if you have an overweight landing, why would the pilot request 22L instead of the longer 22R? (Or maybe the even longer 31L, though I don't know what the winds were like). Wouldn't you want the maximum possible distance?
Not a pilot: but they could have had 22L in the computer already. Does 22R have an ILS? Sounds like they made use of that system to land.
(4:05) “Winds 240 at 7”
22L is longer by about 200m.
22R has a massively displaced threshold for landings so the landing distance available is similar to 22L
The only real explanation I can think of, is 22R would be far worse to shut down if the aircraft had to remain on the runway. Additionally, there is an emergency system at the end of 22L that would stop the aircraft in the event it overran the runway.
However, my gut says it was just operationally the best option and the pilots did not request 22R.
Clearly English not the first language- incredibly clear and calm! I could not do that. Bravo to the pilots ❤
Agreed 100%. Came here to comment the same.
Had to satisfy my own curiosity: Later reported to be a bird-strike, and FlightRadar24 shows CS-TOO in regular service as of June 4 - maybe earlier (only shows 7 days back and I looked on 6/11.)
Yet another case for how the USA needs to adopt ICAO emergency communications norms.
"Declare an emergency" in the USA means "PAN-PAN" everywhere else and would've led to a lot less chatter if the pilots had simply called PAN on this.
@@JohnSmith-zi9or You don't get it.
The crew should declare a PAN.
@@JohnSmith-zi9or "declare an emergency" is weird US only stuff though, is my point--we need to get rid of it and use standard ICAO terms only
The Departure ATC handled that especially well.
Glad all worked out. Love the NY area controllers -- they never miss a beat.
I used to believe that pilots should do the metric conversions, but now realize that they have a huge workload when working any emergency. Although they themselves didn't regard it as an emergency, they still had to do the overweight landing checklist and perform the necessary calculations and cross-checks.
With that consideration, controllers should be the ones doing the metric conversions, if needed.
I also used to point out that metric Tonnes (often misspelled as 'tons') is not the same as [US] Tons -- the difference being a Ton is 2,000 pounds, and a Tonne is 1,000 kilograms. However, I stopped once I realized tthat 1 kilo equals 2.2 lbs, which makes 1Tonne (~2,200 lbs) roughly equal to 1 Ton.
I've also noticed that controllers will sometimes ask for Fuel in Time (i.e., endurance), but pilots working an emergency will give fuel in weight instead -- again, controllers should have an endurance conversion card handy so that pilots are not unduly burdened. Conversion to time is aircraft type-specific, so a chart/card would be needed to covert pounds/kilos to time.
The tons thing is very confusing for me as a non-native. I learned that the translation of the word "tona" is "ton", plural "tons", and went on with it. Much, much later I learned that this is NOT 1000 kg, as it is in my language. On top of that, "ton" and "tonne" are pronounced the same, so even after knowing the distinction I still don't know the difference in speech, unless I ask specifically. (Luckily, this was inconsequential for me, but I could imagine a scenario where this would be a *massive* problem)
A "metric ton" would be 1000 kgs but a "Ton" would be 2,000 lbs. So quite off yes
Endurance is flight (not plane) specific due to onboard weight. Would be too challenging for ATC to determine w/out more questions. I believe the pilot just has to toggle the display to the correct readout.
@@jakistam1000 If you need to be precise in speech and it isn't obvious from the context you need to say "short ton", "long ton", or "metric ton".
@@jonathanbott87 For terminal operations you declare the quantity of fuel (pounds or kilos), *not* the time. They want to know what to expect for fire and spillage, they don't care about endurance. Endurance is only a factor for certain enroute situations, but as it relates to the airport, they want the mass.
There are a few things I don't understand here.
first of all, if they are so in a hurry to get back to the airport why not declare PAN? but if they are not in an emergency, ( and they clearly stated that to the atc) then what's the need to do an overweight landing instead of entering a holding and burning some fuel?
I suspect he didn't want to officially declare an emergency because of the paperwork involved?
If he doesn't have to break any rules and doesn't break any equipment the likelihood that there would be any paper work is pretty close to zero. Even if there were any paperwork, that's a stupid reason, not to declare. But unfortunately, you are probably correct.
There is a common misconception that emergencies require a large amount of paperwork, which scares pilots away from declaring. There is generally almost no paperwork directly related to the emergency. They have to report to company that they diverted anyway, and they probably have to file a safety report for the damage anyway, so declaring doesn't add anything more
Thanks, I was wondering why he was so insistant on the non-emergency label. Does that add negative points for the pilots?
My guess is rolling the trucks costs money: but so does coming back for an extra landing.
When this happens it almost sounds like they think they have to pay out of pocket for the truck roll.
Okay, very good.
Controllers do such an awesome job!👏👏
I am surprised that they requested the rather shorter RWY 22L (instead of the much longer 22R) if they were going to land overweight...
They do an overweight landing every time I fly 😎
Lmao😂😂😂😂❤
Can anyone explain why they would request 22L for an overweight landing? It’s the shortest runway at JFK, 3679’ shorter than 22R.
22R has a displaced threshold so it is actually shorter than 22L. The pilots probably briefed returning to 22L, so that’s what they went with.
Sums up this terrible crew.
@@EdOeuna Rubbish
@@daftvader4218 - 22L is 2560m in length. 22R is 2376m in length.
The only rubbish here is your poor attempts at trolling. You can’t even get runway lengths correct. So must much for your 43 years of flying experience. Back under your bridge Mr Daft.
N90 tracon is the best in the business
So, what did they hit?
10s ago! Must be my lucky day. Hello Victor! I hope you have a good day and stay cooled down in the summer heat
Do you have my vector, victor?
We are declaring a soft non-emergency incident.
Americans insisting on fuel in pounds instead of kilos while the plane id trying to configure for an overweight landing... Sheesh... Glad he didn't ask again, good controller! I really wish the ENTIRE world used metric it would just make things easier for EVERYONE.
I agree. Unfortunately, getting to that state would make things (temporarily) harder for those who don't already use metric
China uses metric altimeter and it’s an extra unnecessary step to convert every FL or altitude during climb or descent.
The atc didn't ask for a conversion from kilos to LBS. They asked for confirmation that the weight was in Kilos.
@@bgdg323 They first asked for the weight in lbs., then when he gave it in kilos he confirmed it was kilos.
@@EdOeuna Um, TAP is Portuguese, not Chinese.
0:35 “Altitude your discretion maintain 3000” Eh? Did the controller change his mind?
1:30 why are pilots so hesitant to declare emergency? Do they get extra fees for rolling trucks or something? Seems dangerous to discourage declaring an emergency if so.
Very curious as to the answer of your second question.
Or the situation doesnt require declaring an emergency and they just wanna return for safety reasons
Ego.
The trucks roll for free. They are paid for by the airport out of the gate and landing fees airlines pay, or they may be part of a larger city fire department. They still get paid even if there are no aircraft emergencies.
Maintain 3000' I believe means 3000' or higher, gives them some flexibility but says below 3000' maybe is a 🏢 or 🏔️ or just limit of airspace
Can someone tell me the difference between declaring and not declaring emergency?
Hello I have 3 connecting flights. First 2 flights are of Emirates and I used promo code that's why I got 10 Kg extra luggage limit. Now,my question is will 3rd airline will allow me for that extra luggage or I have to pay for that?
E melhor vir para trás, por nada, que ter remorsos de não o ter feito. O Comandante muito profissional, muito boa decisão.
Can somebody tell me why pilots always seem to be reluctant to declare an emergency? Are they penalised in some way or is there a huge financial cost in doing this?
paperwork and possibly involved in an investigation to what happened
I'm not an emergency, I'm just an overweight landing with no engines and no wings and my Captain has passed out.
What are all the symbols on the radar scope?
Any pilots want to comment on the psychological aspect of declaring or not declaring the emergency? E.G. is there a tendency to avoid it just due to the negative connotations, or perhaps the innate desire for "everything to be fine"?
I’m a pilot and I reckon it’s to communicate that they don’t need priority.
I’ve only declared an emergency once in 42 years of flying. There are no negative connotations that I’ve felt are attached to doing so, but your point is well taken. I think pilots by nature are not prone to being rattled under situations that others would find stressful. So I think it’s not so much wishing that things will be ok as much as it’s thinking that most situations aren’t a big deal.
With an overweight landing there is a required inspection but this is mandated whether an emergency is declared with ATC or not.
The other concern is overheated brakes but with a long runway is not usually a problem. It is, however, why the tower declared an emergency on behalf of the flight. They want the trucks out there in case there is a tire/brake pad fire. Also, the ARFF crews don’t get called out often so they will push the button whenever there is the slightest chance they will be needed just so everyone gets the practice.
I've also heard that emergencies lead to a ton of paperwork after landing, which most pilots would rather not have to do
Like he said - Ops normal, no SOP will require declaring and emergency because there isn't one. They're just erring on the side of caution to go back and have the plane looked at but there is no emergency.
@@jg-7780 Not declaring an emergency when there is one is more than paperwork so that's not at all a factor.
..someday there might be a day when there is not some kind of confusion in fuel remaining in Lbs, gallons, litres, tonnes, tons, kilos, hours or minutes. But not today.
There is no confusion. In the terminal area, fuel should be reported in quantity for firefighting and spillage reasons. Endurance is not what they're concerned about with that question. Any units are acceptable as long as the units are stated (pounds or kilos). In the US, each controlled airport has a Letter of Agreement with the Airport operator/Fire Department that will state: ATC will give Fire/Rescue the fuel in a "mass quantity" so they may prepared with proper manpower/equipment.
@@llaughridge Well there seems to be a lot of confusion, because there is many emergencies on YT where the controller asks for a different unit other than what the pilot reported. Go look for yourself.
LOL "we are not an emergency, okay" "uh, yes you are" What i find humorous is the number of times pilots that have declared an emergencies are asked if they want the trucks tolled.... yet this guy doesn't want to be an emergency and is pretty much told hes getting trucks even if he doesn't want them.
Is the US still use lbs for fuel? That's extremely confusing and just put additional work for the pilots who are asked to convert from the general metric standards.
Pounds and gallons are the universal standard…in all 50 states. 😂
@@mtnairpilot "Universal" and "all 50 states" is like an oxymoron...
@@mtnairpilot oh 😅
Yes, it's a backwards country.
Kg x 2.20462 = Lbs.
Oh just double it and add 10%
Don't you guys fly worldwide! ??
"Fuel in kilos is 38.3 tons"...erm no it isn't!
A metric ton is 1000kg , meaning 2,204.6 pounds. 🙄
@@BluePuri You have not understood what I have said.
Overweight landings can have landing gears fail so it was the right call for ATC to treat it as emergency and have emergency ground crew ready to take action. If the landing gear failed because it couldn’t withstand the weight of the plane, well that would be bad. The plane hit something, might have been a bird strike so the plane would need to be checked for damage to wings or engines. I doubt not calling an emergency would make a difference to the plane being out of commission.
Also, If it wasn’t an emergency, I am wondering why pilots decided to land overweight. If their fuel was good and engines seemed fine, they could have burned fuel before landing. I know we passengers hate that but it’s safer and better for aircraft. The landing gear has to be checked for damage from overweight landing.
technically it usually doesn't matter when things are over spec because of the safety factors built into them (within reasonable perimeters of course)
WOW! 16,000 views and only 668 thumbs up? That's an indication of how unappreciative people are today! Very sad and enlightening! Thanks for all of your postings and take care!
Thanks for your support
Professional.
They are definitely not. .
Hence this report.
No reason not to call emergency, every reason to do so ?
Poor knowledge by the pilots.
Every heavy weight landing requires the emergency services on standby. ..Ask a lawyer...!?
Any runway you depart from allows a return if all retardation devices are working.
A PAN PAN call would have caused less confusion , and chat, especially if they are that concerned they are landing overweight.
Yes! What wrong with a longer runway if it's available! ???
Could the tower just say "disregard, just bureaucracy at our end" and save a bit of time?
We hit something on take off and need to land right away but are overweight, sounds like an emergency to me. Did JFK do a runway inspection?
Car 99 followed the aircraft on landing
It's not an emergency. Like he said - ops normal.
Pilot cold as frog.
"PAN-PAN PAN-PAN PAN-PAN Air Portugal 208 Heavy. Bird-strike; Standby" was all that was needed.
Wouldn't bother with the PAN, like he said - Ops normal.
MILES...
EXACTLY.
One of the very few professional pilots here.
A breath of international standard FRESH AIR.
@@goodshipkaraboudjan You are obviously a pilot.
What ops normal about an immediate return??
What's ops normal about landing overweight. ??
What ops normal about possible skin damage ??
Do tell me.....
You like oxymoron. ....
Suits you.
@@daftvader4218 You don't know more than the crew did at the time. I've flown A320/21s for two airlines in Australia and Asia. At no time in the Ops Manual or any SOP for the airlines does it state declare an emergency when there isn't one. Best to er on the side of caution as they did.
If you've flown (you haven't due the following) - an overweight landing in the bus isn't part of the emergency section of the POH/Check lists.
Now get more upset and go away.
@@daftvader4218 Daft is a fitting name.
Im pretty sure an overweight landing is risky which makes it an emergency..
@@JohnSmith-zi9or No they are not.
There are lots of additional considerations.
There is an overweight check list.
There are additional performance considerations.
Like an overweight landing check for a start.
There is nothing normal about exceeding the approved landing weight.
You are no pilot. ...
True??
We hit something and we are landing overweight, but we're most certainly not an emergency.
It's not.
Im sure pilots know more abt the situation on their aircraft but why are some pilots hesitant to declare emergency? Is it because of the costs involved once they land?
No.
Not at all, there is no emergency to declare because ops normal. Now if there was an actual emergency and they didn't mention it then that would be picked up and reported on the ground and they'd likely be facing legal action. Cost has no factor in whether or not an emergency will be declared.
this is not the 1st time that JFK insists on declaring an emergency against the will of the pilots, a Lufthansa Boeing 747-800 flight with an engine failure czcams.com/video/Ezc6F0Zph6o/video.html returned and the same thing happened, even after the pilots explained that it was just a failure in one engine that wasn't an emergency and also not an overweight landing. JFK still declared an emergency and placed emergency vehicles on the runway. Maybe ATC gets bonus for declared emergency, (just a joke)
Totally wrong
What's funny ....??
Any overweight landing and any non normal landing where there are potential safety / performance issues REQUIRES the emergency services on standby.
The Controller has NO choice.
Those pilot that do not realise this need extra training .
Ask any Lawyer....@!#!
Not an emergency, but they are squawking 7700, which is the emergency code. LOL! Make your mind up.
They are not squawking 7700
always fun to see unitedstatians cry about european pilots not declaring emergencies for stubbing their little toe 😂
US airline pilots are also notorious for stereotypically putting on the seatbelt sign at the first hint of turbulence.
As much as I dislike the practice as a passenger, I guess it's not worth getting in trouble or causing the airline to be sued if there are any injuries, so I can understand it.
Pilot needs a lesson on what an emergency is.
@JohnSmith-zi9or when you need to return to the airport overweight full of fuel creating increased risk for issues during landing. That would be a gold example....
@JohnSmith-zi9or well atc said it was airport policy. I would assume there's a reason behind the policy. But hey, you're an internet expert...
@JohnSmith-zi9or sure, the policy deeming this an emergency is wrong and you know better. Got it.
@@Farnsworth11 - from the pilots perspective it isn’t an emergency. It is a normal approach and landing technique. There may be some differences with configuration and, therefore, associated speed. For me, overweight single engine has to be flap 20. Overweight landing above 300T has to be flap 25, otherwise flap 30 below 300T.
However, ATC have a different set of procedures to follow and their procedure might be that any aircraft landing with a non-normal situation needs to be regarding as an emergency. Maybe they can’t roll the trucks without an emergency having first been declared.
Where I work you can’t land overweight unless you’re in an emergency or non-normal situation, which would add another twist to this scenario for me.
@EdOeuna I understand that some pilots may take more risks than others. Yet, my point remains, sop's are written for a reason and this situation is deemed an emergency by sop. Regardless of whether the pilot in the clip agreed or the ones on the internet. It was and still is an emergency.
I can’t see the reason for an urgent return to land when they haven’t detected any system failure.
You don't fly over the ocean with possible structural damage.
I think if its loud enough to be heard over the noise of the engine it begs investigation.
The aircraft is now 5 days grounded in JFK. No indications doesn't mean no damage. You don't want to cross the pond with something broken or something hanging. They definitely found something if they aircraft has not moved in 5 days...
The aircraft didn’t detect any system failure, so nothing was physically wrong with the aircraft in regards to engines, hydraulics, electrics. Presumably they got the gear up, so that’s ok. They probably retracted flap so some degree, so the systems are working fine. In this respect the aircraft is working 100%.
I don’t fly Airbus so I’m not trained in their philosophy in dealing with such emergencies, but with a Boeing the philosophy is that the aircraft talks to you through EICAS. No EICAS messages means all systems normal. There isn’t a checklist for suspected bird strike or possible leading edge damage.
Now assuming they had leading edge damage, they can still fly perfectly fine. They might have a higher fuel burn, but they have 7+ hours of fuel, so there’s nothing stopping them from flying for a few hours holding or even towards Newfoundland, discovering an excessive fuel burn and then returning or diverting. If all systems continue to run ok, and no excessive fuel burn from a damaged leading edge, then continue.
The aircraft are made to be resilient and pilots should be too. An A380 had a tyre failure on departure from Dubai and flew all the way to Sydney with a gaping hole in the main gear fairing about 6 months ago. I’m not sure if they reported any handling / noise / excess fuel burn, but they continued because the aircraft performed ok with no system failures. They even continued with the burst tyre because it’s not critical to the cruise portion of the flight.
You can’t fly an aircraft based on “what if’s”.
You are not sure about Airbus philosophy but mention an incident involving an Airbus?
It's not all about indications. They saw or felt the hit strong enough to consider they should return. They did so and the aircraft has been grounded for 5 days now. Something was definitely wrong, not even a ferry flight to base.
They were there. You were not.
First
But nothing worth saying.
🙄
It was worth saying. Don’t be jelly 😂
They declared they hit something so it is definitely an emergency and 7700 mayday would be appropriate so, the controller was right.
If they had just requested a return and overweight landing it is not an EMERGENCY but, ATC will roll the ARFF in case of overheated brakes and tire plug burst.
It's not a Mayday and you wouldn't hit 7700, it's a PAN maybe but like they said, Ops normal which makes landing overweight a bit of an odd decision. PAN would be the appropriate call. I've had bird strikes in similar circumstances and a Mayday call would be complete overskill. Shit for a contained engine failure our SOP (different airline) is PAN.
10.000 visualisations and 500 likes. C'mon guys...
First
Nothing makes me smile more than some lame person being the *second* person to comment "First". Get a life mate...