Minimum fuel after go around. El Al Boeing 787 Dreamliner reports minimum fuel at New York. Real ATC
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 07. 2024
- THIS VIDEO IS A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATION IN FLIGHT:
25-JUN-2024. An El Al Israel Airlines Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner (B789), registration 4X-EDF, performing ELY007 / LY7 from Tel Aviv Ben Gurion International Airport (Israel) to New York John F. Kennedy International Airport, NY (USA) was on final at New York Kennedy Airport when the air traffic controller instructed them to go around because the aircraft that was landing ahead of them didn’t vacate the runway. After go around the flight crew declared minimum fuel and requested landing. The airplane positioned for another approach and landed safely on runway 22 right at JFK Airport.
Join me on Patreon: / you_can_see_atc
#realatc #aviation #airtrafficcontrol
_______________
Timestamps:
00:17 EL AL 007 is approaching to Kennedy Airport
00:53 Go around due to aircraft on the runway. Minimum fuel
01:42 The flight crew contact New York Departure and declares minimum fuel again
04:03 The airplane is on final. The pilots were instructed to contact New York Kennedy Tower Controller
04:27 Landing at Kennedy Airport. Communications on the ground
_______________
THE VALUE OF THIS VIDEO:
THE MAIN VALUE IS EDUCATION. This reconstruction will be useful for actual or future air traffic controllers and pilots, people who plan to connect life with aviation, who like aviation. With help of this video reconstruction you’ll learn how to use radiotelephony rules, Aviation English language and general English language (for people whose native language is not English) in situation in flight, which was shown. THE MAIN REASON I DO THIS IS TO HELP PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND EVERY EMERGENCY SITUATION, EVERY WORD AND EVERY MOVE OF AIRCRAFT.
SOURCES OF MATERIAL, LICENSES AND PERMISSIONS:
Source of communications - www.liveatc.net/ (I have a permission (Letter) for commercial use of radio communications from LiveATC.net).
Map, aerial pictures (License (ODbL) ©OpenStreetMap -www.openstreetmap.org/copyrig...) Permission for commercial use, royalty-free use.
Radar screen (In new versions of videos) - Made by author.
Text version of communication - Made by Author.
Video editing - Made by author.
HOW I DO VIDEOS:
1) I monitor media, airspace, looking for any non-standard, emergency and interesting situation.
2) I find communications of ATC unit for the period of time I need.
3) I take only phrases between air traffic controller and selected flight.
4) I find a flight path of selected aircraft.
5) I make an animation (early couple of videos don’t have animation) of flight path and aircraft, where the aircraft goes on his route.
6) When I edit video I put phrases of communications to specific points in video (in tandem with animation).
7) Together with my comments (voice and text) I edit and make a reconstruction of emergency, non-standard and interesting situation in flight.
"Minimum Fuel" declaration is not an emergency and doesn't get you special privileges. It means that you have just enough fuel for a normal approach and landing without going into final reserves (which would then be an emergency). As such, you wouldn't be able to accept a diversion elsewhere or any additional delays. This aircraft would have had more than 30min reserve fuel remaining after landing.
I liked the inclusion of additonal traffic. I hope you do this more in the future.
This flight often transits our FIR and from what I've seen and heard, El Al pilots are always extremely cautious and professional, doing everything to ensure the safety of their flight (incl. requesting extra separation from other traffic, especially from aircraft of "super" or "heavy" WTC).
A lot of keyboard warriors here, not going to speculate what happened however for us our min div fuel is alternate plus hold fuel, a number we put into the Flight management computer and when we are alerted to this we must act. A variety of factors can affect this including increased fuel burn enroute , higher than forecast winds or simply being placed in lower altitude hold for a prolonged period of time and in the event of a go-around can put a wrench in things, these pilots were alerted to minimum fuel… did not declare an emergency but announced they had minimum fuel and landed safely. Job well done and after a 13 hour transatlantic flight probably the right call.
Shit happens, you deal with it.
Happy landings.
That's poor planning tho.
The pilot doesn't even sound like he understands English..
@@PaulICD10 el al sends their 87 pilots to Boeing training centres with English instructors and the training courses and manuals are all in English, the pilots must at least be at an ICAO operational level 4 English.
So yes they can speak English… having a heavy accent doesn’t mean you can’t.
Then why does ATC need to keep repeating themselves constantly and the pilots don't comprehend? @zevnafte5168
@@PaulICD10 it's not that simple communicating with ATC while managing a go-around procedure and setup for return... you would understand if you had some flight experience. Couple threats/barriers: go-around doesn't occur frequently (particularly for wide body pilots), high density airspace, language. It's very common for english native speakers to have trouble with ATC in many circumstances
i was on El Al flight LY17 into Miami on june 27. We were forced to go around probably for the same reason. We were at 1,475 feet (according to flight aware) when we had a very sharp right turn and climb back to 3,000. The pilot sounded annoyed when he told us we were going around because the airport was busy. I'd love to hear the ATC communication for that one. Again it was on June 27 at 11:45 AM Miami time.
Minimum fuel is a regulatory requirement by the pilot to tell ATC that the fuel state of the aircraft is such that should any further delay occur, the aircraft will not land with the required minimum fuel. No biggie.
AND when you’re committed to one airport. I don’t know what was his alternate, but if he decides to commit to JFK after only a go around alternate fuel should give you plenty of time to hold if needed, therefore it’s wrong to declare Minimum Fuel after one go around with alternate fuel still in the tanks.
@@pedrobatista This is an international flight with different fuel requirements. This could have been a re-dispatch re-release flight which could have made the fuel situation more like a domestic flight. And the alternate fuel could have been Newark or Boston which are close and thus the new re-dispatched alternate fuel could have been very low. The pilot may have been in that low of a fuel situation legally.
The problem is when air traffic control isn’t notified that the plane is low on fuel. And crashes due to low fuel.
@@JohnSmith-zi9orI do international flights, fuel requirements are the same by law. You’re right about an alternate being close but declaring minimum fuel during go around is never right, only if after it he commits to JFK and the controller issues a delay that will end up landing below final reserve fuel. Only after these two conditions he can declare that, but during go around he had still alternate fuel to alternate or commit to JFK and use it to hold and the ATC did not issue him a delay.
Remember a few years back, planes were going to run on used frying oil . What ever happened to that ??
So it seems they were delayed for 20 minutes on the ground and had a normal flight time. Can't tell altitude but unforseen headwinds seem unlikely. I strongly doubt they were trying to cut the line, in part due to the tone of voice and the quick decision to call minimum fuel, but it does seem that they did something wrong in fuel planning.
Sounds like communication is at a minimum.
Surely declaring minimum fuel due to 1 go around is cutting it short?
Not necessarily.
A longer than anticipated delay in taking off/ departure, or wind & weather patterns changing in route could mean slower ground speed/re-routing around storms (a lot can change during a 4 hour flight, let alone a 10 or 11 hour flight, which is why the pilots get updated weather information in route. Unfortunately, the commercial guys can't in flight refuel like military aircraft. Then heavier traffic arriving at the destination airport or airport weather conditions, etc can cause delays in landing. Any 1 or more of these things can cause a flight to use/burn more fuel than anticipated when the flight was planned for. That is why MINIMUM FUEL is not the same as EMERGENCY FUEL. Minimum fuel means we are getting close to the must land fuel limits set by the airline and/or aircraft regulations. It usually includes enough for a couple approaches or possible divert to another airfield. EMERGENCY FUEL means we must land immediately, or we run the risk of engine "flame out" due to lack of fuel. And yes, an airplane's engines can be starved of fuel with lots of fuel still onboard. The military turboprop aircraft I flew in for 17 years had "low fuel warning" lights come on at 1,200 lbs (about 187 gallons) per side/tank. Our engines could "flame out" at 900 lbs (140 gallons) per side. Our squadrons policy was to land with no less than 1500 lbs (approx 250 gallons) per side. This was our "EMERGENCY FUEL" state. Our MINIMUM FUEL state, what we called "BINGO FUEL" was the amount of fuel we needed to get to another landing location. Our minimum fuel changed depending on where we were operating (an aircraft carrier with constantly changing or non existsnt alternate landing sites, or shore military bases with civillian airports at various dustances) or expected weather conditions. Our EMERGENCY FUEL (1,500 lbs per tank) NEVER CHANGED. There were a few times we declared "BINGO/MINIMUM Fuel" due to no fault of the pilots, and only 2 times in 14 years where we had to declare "Emergency fuel" and both of those were because of winds changing direction & speed in route with no emergency divert locations closer than where we were going.
Pro job by ATC.
TLV-JFK 11 hours or so. East to west fighting headwinds the entire way?? Plausible fuel situation maybe?
I'm surprised a plane had to declare low fuel having been given a single go-round. This suggests an airport emergency or crash meant it couldn't reach another airport as an alternative. Seems to be cutting things a little bit fine.
El Al 007 is almost 12hrs transatlantic flight. I guess they couldn't risk ANOTHER go-around would it be required.
They weren’t zero fuel, they were minimum which accounts for alternate and hold.
@@jwpilot1997 Thank you. I was bothered by the idea.
Not a emergency
bot comment
Do I hear that the communication pilot changed to the one with better english fluency? Do airport personal go on board and measure if there actually was a min fuel to see maybe they wanted to cut the line?
A minimum fuel is not the same as MAYDAY fuel. A minimum fuel is just a heads up to ATC that they need to land soon or will have to divert/declare MAYDAY if not. Once they declare MAYDAY fuel is when they get priority handling & a mandatory report would be filed.
Yeah other pilot had such a hebrew accent and had difficulty understanding english.. zurn zeft zeading ziro zichs ziro 😂
Or maybe the pilot with the accent was the Captain and elected to fly the second approach, so the FO was then on the radios.
It's Hebrew not Jewish. @@CanVeyn
@@7andreminimun fuel cannot divert.
I am surprised to not hear ATC acknowledge ELAL's minimum fuel.
No reason to. Speaks for itself
As this is not an emergency, ‘roger’ is a perfect acknowledgment.
Professionals at every level.
Lol
Yeah, but it's El Al. Minimum fuel to them probably means like 90 minutes remaining.
30 to 45 min
Aviation terms have distinct meanings. MINIMUM FUEL -- Indicates that an aircraft's fuel supply has reached a state where, upon reaching the destination, it can accept little or no delay. This is not an emergency situation but merely indicates an emergency situation is possible should any undue delay occur.
Probably already dropped their alternate and commited to land at JFK (then they can use all the alternate fuel). Then came the go-around and the FMS prediction probably indicated a estimated fuel after the second round of just SLIGHTLY more than 30mins. MINIMUM FUEL -> because an ADDITIONAL delay would cause them to use their final reserve and then they must declare -> MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY FUEL
There is no "probably". That would be the end of everyone's career..
You have a problem with El Al?
Hebrew at 1:38 translated: "Something here. Are you here with a car?"
-Something here (is strange/not right..)
-Do you have auto (pilot on?)
Lots of leasons learned after Avianca 52
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avianca_Flight_052
Absolutely hilarious adherence to stereotypes... Of course they only had exactly enough fuel. Wouldn't want to spend any more than necessary.
fyi. el al does have muslim and christian pilots who are israeli citizens
Clearing aircraft to land when runway is not clear, when there are lots of overseas pilots, is a recipe for disaster. FAA must address this.
Hardly worth the effort making the video for this non-event.
We all watched it so he gets credit Clickbait accomplished.
Thank you for the comment. It is an event in such big airports like Kennedy. That time there were a lot of aircraft approach the airport. That's why they said that to inform the controller that they need to get on the ground asap. And don't forget that it was ElAl. There are all air force pilots as I know.
Avianca flight 52 will prove you wrong
@@bladi-senpai9398
Yes, letting the ATC know about minimum fuel allows them to know how much time they have to get you on the ground safely.
This pilot doesn't even seem like he understands English...
he is clearly fluent but with an accent. all commercial pilots speak english
That pilot was showing a lot of stress, which is very surprising for Israeli pilots, since they are all IDF Air Force...
...................who wouldn't be stressed flying hundreds of passengers in a large airliner with minimum fuel while at work...?
@@KuostApilots with battle experience
@@ghostrider-be9ek This isn't a battle. The goal is to keep everyone alive.
As an Israeli i don't think he is stressed. if i had to guess, i think he is trying to stress the controller a bit so he will pay proper attention to him.
I don't know if that is an Israeli thing but i did see people do this here.
Nothing to see here. The Pilot was just be clear and direct in his remarks to ATC
If they get to a point where they need to declare “minimum fuel” something is wrong and shows poor fuel management and poor decision making.
Also, their language barrier and the poor English level is shocking. I hope their company will force them to re-do English proficiency test
They stated the condition they are in, minimum fuel, which shows tremendous professionalism. Have you heard ATC in France or Spain or China try to use English? How’s your French, Spanish, Chinese or Hebrew?
@@jwpilot1997 Native in English and native in Hebrew. Pilot by myself, fly for years and the way they are communicating is awful
@@fly2012able me too and I have no issue with his communication at all.
@@jwpilot1997 Blah blah blah
There were no communications issues.
what a bad English the pilots have
They just have an accent you are not used to.
bet ur a monolingual
@@HapyLLIuTeJIbagree accent but fluent
Poor communication from the first pilot ? Did he declare an emergency… he was supposed to…
No because it wasn't an emergency
No my friend, you’re not in minimum fuel. You were going to JFK, so you still have, by regulations, alternate fuel in your tanks. Should you decide to commit to land at JFK after one go around alternate fuel no longer is, it turn trip fuel, and therefore you have plenty of time to hold. Minimum fuel should be declared only if after committed you receive an EAT that doesn’t allow land with a minimum of 30 minutes in the tanks. Declaring Minimum Fuel after one go around is all wrong. I’m an airline pilot and go check the definition of Minimum Fuel before start to say I’m wrong, because I’m not.
we don't know if there was a previous go around or missed approach or how long was the holding delay
@@speachmasterit was his first go around. See FlightRadar24. And he got no delay info, just called minimum fuel as he went.
Maybe they had a higher fuel burn or they didn’t get the level they wanted across the Atlantic. Maybe they held before starting the approach. Plenty of opportunities to commit then declare minimum fuel. Maybe they did to commit and declared minimum fuel when they got EICAS insufficient fuel, and landed with their alternate fuel intact.
Oh we got an expert here! He is an "ailing pilot". Well..then anything he says must be right and everyone else must be wrong.
Exactly how much fuel was he carrying and how much was projected remaining at landing? Since you obviously know better than the pilot on-board and have verified that it exceeded minimum.
I’m not impressed with the first guy and his “English Proficiency.” They obviously swapped duties because the first one was overload with speaking English. Perhaps he is “Ace of the Base” back home in his F35 but when you come to JFK then you better put on your big boy pants and bring your best game.
not all el al pilots are idf fighter pilots. military does have other planes
Misusing "minimum fuel" declarations to cut the line is a reprehensible tactic that undermines the integrity of aviation. It’s a cowardly "cheap shot" that endangers safety, disrupts operations, and erodes trust between pilots and controllers. Such unethical behavior must be condemned harshly, as it betrays the professional standards that keep the skies safe and fair for everyone.
Are you arguing that this was the case here?
And how do you know this happened?
Proof.
That's exactly what they did. Shameful.
@@patrickranaudo8626 how do you know? (Not doubting you… just asking)
glad they didn't say that had a right to fuel in the Bible
tf does that supposed to mean?
@@rmadridista369its an outlandish attempt to instigate comments about the war.