[REAL ATC] Fedex MD11 diverts to Newark due to FUEL LEAKING

[@DBR00]

The replacement part that was needed to fix the fuel leak was sent via UPS Next Day Air. :)

[@godslove7708]

Not true it was DHL.

[@alex321neo]

DBR00 haha

[@coolbear6441]

God's Love you beat me to it:)

[@RockBand2Freak78]

Ups gang

[@nana_wwg1wga]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

Man the Pilot's readback is awesome. nails it everytime.

[@dougspencer4218]

00Billy: I agree!! Some pilots are great with their comms!! This guy was awesome!!!!

[@Jonny94669]

@@dougspencer4218 Great job dealing with the emergency, but completely non-standard radio calls here, and improper phraseology.

[@matteom2228]

@@Jonny94669 that’s how ny works boy😂

[@AndrewFremantle]

"and yeah, fuel's..... going away". I'm going to have to find a way to use that line sometime.

[@magicstix0r]

Somebody in maintenance is going to get a spanking... The pilot said they had the same problem previously with the aircraft...

[@OfficeLinebacker]

Damn, those ATCs at newark don't mess around! You have to be ON it! Getting handed off three times on approach alone, the ability to squeeze in departures between arrivals, these guys kill it day in and day out!

[@Xanthopteryx]

Very professional pilots. Even showing concern for the airport.

[@c182SkylaneRG]

Or trying to, anyway. Except that they forgot the "odd runway out" is an intersecting runway that might have closed the other two runways at the same time (especially since it was a heavy aircraft that might not have been able to accept a 'Land And Hold Short' instruction, and Newark might not have 'Land And Hold Short' procedures in place to issue the instruction in the first place). This is the value of not having overlapping intersecting runways. If the pavement doesn't touch, then you can do something like that. Not sure why the airport couldn't have opened the intersecting runway for either departures or arrivals, though... would have allowed them to space the planes closer together.

[@hawkertyphoon4537]

@@c182SkylaneRG good point! Regarding the use of two runways, i believe they were focussing on handling the incident at hand best they can - instead of maximizing traffic flow.

[@TakeDeadAim]

A few wrenchers have some 'splainin to do. Whoever signed off may be getting a call...

[@dragon32210]

Very awesome of the FedEx pilots to request landing on 29 to help the airport out as that runway really isn't utilized.

[@Higgins8]

Terrific job by everyone involved ... except for the maintenance crew that cleared that aircraft to fly again.

[@essel23fly]

Often times maintenance can only fix what they see is broken. Unfortunately if you fly older planes you will be a test pilot sometimes flying an unfixed plane.

[@EstorilEm]

essel23fly eh not really, there are a number of bench tests and run-ups you can do to check for things like this. I’d have to wait and see what the exact problem is, but this sounds like a tech just glanced, signed off, and went to happy hour. It’s probably not an age thing, most of these issues are the same things crews have been dealing with for over a decade at this point, engines start being swapped out only a few years after the aircraft is new for example - which in this case was a LONG time ago.

[@essel23fly]

Alex Thomas so basically they can only fix what they see is broken, even under preventive check.. And also that old planes suck. I doubt it was a maninance guy going off to happy hour, this plane apparently had issues before. I’m sure they really looked into it and couldn’t duplicate it. It’s not maintenances fault. They’re just old planes.

[@EstorilEm]

essel23fly you don’t get it. It’s not an old plane vs new plane thing man. These aircraft come in with hundreds of pilot complaints every year. Most of these issues are repeatable by the first couple years of introduction. This aircraft has been in front line service for decades, and you think whatever caused this fuel leak is a NEW issue?!?! Hahaha. Nope. Someone screwed up. This is essentially verified by the fact that a pilot reported an issue which was blatantly and completely non-resolved on a prior flight. Something as simple as an in-house memo or service bulletin which was ignored over the course of many years can easily create a random “spectacilar “ event years later. This is equally true of even modern new aircraft. There are constantly tiny little fixes that prevent would-be massive issues down the road, that’s why aviation maintenance and the industry as a whole is so closely regulated, at least in the US.

[@essel23fly]

Alex Thomas fuel leaks are not rare in planes. Especially old! Lots of other leaks too, like hydraulics. Not sure why you are assuming it’s human error that caused this leak. Also mechanics do their job but also they send out a plane they weren’t able to fix because they couldn’t duplicate the issue. This happens all the time, because the plane is technically good to go as there is no issue at that moment. Airplanes are machines, that means they can break anytime.

[@SMC99]

8:49 "Car 99 caution wake turbulence" lol

[@jwickerszh]

Car 99 cleared for takeoff ... huuu ... cleared to drive on the runway

[@ronaldscott781]

Never saw "EM" in red on the radar, even though they declared an emergency....Other than that, it was business as usual, textbook communications between all participants. I don't think I heard a single miss on the comm's on this one. Thanks VAS Aviation! Another great presentation!!

[@avirajsinghmehta1857]

Maybe they did not change their squawk setting

[@pboy124]

So that's the smell on my cloths after I left them out hanging to dry

[@kd5you1]

Not exactly 'Moon Over Newark' :D

[@jancovanderwesthuizen8070]

Pvt. Parts Funny comment and hilarious user name :D props

[@VASAviation]

Hahaha good one!

[@PlaneSpottingBerlin]

Great video as usual! Hope this aircraft stays grounded until the problem is resolved 1000%

[@ptrinch]

If you resolve it more than 100%, it will start sucking in fuel.

[@chrish7336]

@@ptrinch what a way to save money

[@Ea-Nasir_Copper_Co]

There's a GRITY fix near Philly? That's better than the NIMOY fix near Boston!

[@whatever8282828]

I thought the pilot on the radio was being too cautious, but then it turned out everyone could see jet fuel leaking onto the runway!

[@Glideslopes]

Professionals at work. Great clip.

[@fulano86]

Your videos keep getting better and better!

[@VASAviation]

Thank you!

[@jcdock]

The fact that the same plane had the same issue days earlier really brings into question FedEx's maintenance crew

[@g00rb4u]

Jc Dock As Wendover Productions explains, FedEx generally buys 2nd hand, old planes. So maintenance issues are always going to be more of an issue than shiney new models m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/r2TUl5ilpqqlqrs

[@jcdock]

I understand that but a plane shouldn't experience the same problem it experienced a few days previously especially when its a problem which causes an emergency

[@Dfpijgyt564s65sgt]

Greg Chalker False, all current new aircrafts are brand new.

[@totojejedinecnynick]

Sometimes you fix an issue but can't identify the source of a problem. Think of a fuel line seal blowing off and causing a fuel leak - you fix that seal. However a true cause of problem might be a faulty fuel pressure regulator which is making those seals blow. Techs fix what they can to make it airworthy again.

[@One_Shot_Garage]

Greg Chalker Fedex is continually adding new 767s and 777s to their fleet and are retiring the older MD-10s and A310s. The MD-11s and older A300s will also slowly be phased out but probably not any time soon. Cargo airlines fly their aircraft a lot less than passenger airlines do. Less hours, less cycles means that it is not uncommon for a 25 year old plane to still be economical despite high fuel and maintenance costs. Also less than half the fedex fleet is second hand. Many of the MD-11s and A300s were bought new, all except 2 of the 767s are brand new and the same story with the 777.

[@setim4687]

glad they caught it when they did. It could have been a long swim home

[@c182SkylaneRG]

Except their initial heading was 100, or almost due east. So it was a domestic flight, or at least one from the US to Canada.

[@vaandor1]

@@c182SkylaneRG According the opening text, they were heading to Cologne (Germany). That is to the East as well...

[@c182SkylaneRG]

@@vaandor1 Teach me to read. :) Okay, I need to pay more attention to that blurb before I start posting comments. Thank you!

[@fhuber7507]

excellent communications, outstanding concern for the issues it is going to cause and warning the airport.

[@ibanix2]

"fuel.... is going away" :D

[@ljsong1]

I liked the exchange at 11:31 about time-- the controller didn't really give him an actual answer in minutes and seconds, but in terms of how the procedure was set up once things got going again. It probably calmed a lot pilots to know there was some sort of a plan.

[@w4o8l15f16i23g48]

1:18 "This aircraft had a similar issue a few days ago" seriously?

[@reynirheidbergstefansson2343]

Seriously. An issue being fixed does not mean that a similar issue can't happen. Last time might have been a holed fuel pipe, and this time a cracked fuel injector. Things just don't happen on these nice, averaged intervals the statistics programs churn out.

[@bafee6496]

Thank you VASAviation!!!

[@VASAviation]

Thank you for watching.

[@SLASH_id_]

Check it out. AN-225 landing with cabin radio. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4KZppitppeNoJY

[@budgiebreder]

Whoops. Aircraft had the same issue a few days before and it happens again? Some maintenance guy might be in trouble after this one

[@mkatze2552]

He said he had a similar issue a few days prior. He shouldn't have to do this twice in the same week, FedEx fix your shit.

[@interaquarium1]

There has just been an emergency with a 340 600 Iberia is the flight 6402 had to return to the CDMX for problems in the main landing gear, if you can upload to your channel! ??

[@andrewsteele9212]

Just curious, is the heavy static that is heard in the video what it sounded like for the pilot listening or did he get a clearer transmission and it's just an issue with the recording device?

[@VASAviation]

Audio in the cockpit is way clearer than what we hear.

[@donwald3436]

Remember, we're hearing a radio that's located somewhere off the airport, like at someone's house in the nearby city. The signal is much weaker.

[@cymbala6208]

Interesting case, thx for sharing!

[@VASAviation]

Thank you for watching.

[@andersonbelland1688]

(News) FUEL RAINS FROM SKY WHILE PLANE LANDS

[@crispy82185]

who woulda thought a few months later that would actually be a news head line out of LA

[@lezlezman1843]

Pilot: Aw, dang! I left the fuel cap off again!

[@phapnui]

Good radio discipline.

[@gomphrena-beautifulflower-8043]

Love the pro’s at FedEx, right in my backyard! Well, sorta.

[@jr13227]

I’ve never heard a car warned about wake turbulence.

[@ZDub77]

Any chance you can find the ATC tapes of the B-1 that had an engine fire, tried to eject, then ended up landing at Midland International (KMAF)

[@pilotben97]

Most of that would be on military frequencies which 99% of the time aren't transmitted on LiveATC. Most ATC facilities have both a civ(VHF) frequency and a military(UHF) frequency, so you would just hear 1 side of the conversation at best.

[@ZDub77]

pilotben97 Military pilot here, and although you are correct about ATC having both VHF and UHF frequencies, we try and talk on VHF as much as possible when talking to ATC. We generally only use UHF when talking to other military or if our VHF radio is degraded or not working. Although I do not fly B-1s if an emergency ever has to be declared with ATC in my community we always do it on VHF so everyone hears us and no one steps on our comms.

[@pilotben97]

Interesting, fair enough. Guess it's just different for different areas/units, ime the AF guys around here are never on VHF except when there isn't a UHF freq available.

[@ChrisComley]

How do you create the ATC screens? Do you use a sim/game?

[@VASAviation]

It's a program we developed to show real air traffic.

[@nikovbn839]

Looks like the duct tape didn't hold up :P

[@philippal8666]

How long will this be for our fuel? ‘Don’t know, but plenty spare on the runway’

[@poofer7600]

"we had a fuel leak the other day, you know, the usual..." damn, they really like cutting corners on that maintenance on fedex.

[@DanielDugovic]

TIL KMEM - EDDK direct flights are flown; I thought only ORD and MDW were nearby international airports.

[@r.gibson1080]

do you know if they shut down the 3rd engine? i would think that would have stopped the fuel leak.

[@merkin22]

Ever had a fuel tank leak in your car? Did it stop when you turned the car off?

[@jasonthompson8157]

4:30 I'll admit I'm a novice but Runway 29.. wouldn't a plane flying over the Turnpike at low altitude with a fuel leak be a slight concern??

[@wackaircaftmechanic2312]

I like how ATIS is sneaking into the convo

[@CesarSanchezQuiros]

Tower's voice sounds like a soccer game narrator

[@robinmyman]

Good one!

[@dilucide]

At 7:35 it is [...] 2 hours and 45 minutes of fuel, [...]

[@zaciery2k]

The efficiency...

[@lockergr]

Was that crash landing where everyone survived covered on one of these channels?

[@dfeuer]

Why didn't the pilot request a foam truck?

[@midknight1978]

im curious why we hear a lot of US based aircaft with problems?

[@markmaki4460]

What? Same problem with the same aircraft within days? That's troublesome. Who the heck are they farming out maintenance to now? Automobile dealerships?

[@cymbala6208]

Mark Maki yeah 😕If I was pilot in this plane I'd be pretty much pissed off ... second time a fuel leak obviously in a short period of time.

[@sarahalbers5555]

Jiffy lube.

[@SierraTangoGuns]

This is the first time I've heard a pilot state his callsign at the beginning of the transmission instead of the end. Is that just a preference thing?

[@AaYy0o]

I know Lufthansa requires it first. Maybe FedEx does too?

[@davidhandyman7571]

I do not know about aviation, but normal radio protocol is to give your call sign first as in, "Base, this is mobile 2, 5."

[@scottaw666]

I appreciate how the airline industry always refers to their customers as “souls”.

[@taracampbell2433]

They could transport the deceased, so souls indicates the number of living onboard as opposed to people or bodies which might include the living or dead. Its a fine difference, but helpful in the worst case of trying to ensure that everyone is accounted for after a crash

[@lyaneris]

Ah, there's your mistake. Souls includes crew ;) Although, I do question, whether souls include infants, since they are often listed with the hazmat XD

[@pearlyshells2430]

Again I have said, why? ....what is fuel requirements to do in a emergency ?

[@zuestoots5176]

they like to know how much fuel is on board so they know just how long that aircraft can stay in the air if it has to or the size of the fire if that bitch falls out of the sky

[@sarahalbers5555]

@@zuestoots5176 and that about sums it up!!

[@frac]

All this technology and they still can't make a headset that filters terrible pops and breath noise.

[@Nummer378]

Well the technology used in aircraft communications is approximately 100 years old. And the VHF systems and headsets of the crew are actually quite expensive and can filter a lot of noise. The radio receivers of LiveATC almost never reach this quality. The current radio systems are just "good enough" for their purpose - better radios are technically possible (e.g digital radio), but that comes at a cost - loss of backwards compatiblity or loss of range for example. That's why they've stayed with the same systems for a long time - it worked in the past, it will work in the future. And for topics like breathing noise: This is pilot/ATC error (mouth too close to mic) and could be easily fixed. However, the mics are designed to NOT normalize audio (which is different from the usual digital systems in your computer, which usually do this), I'm not entirely sure why. However digital communications on aircrafts are slowly becoming a standard, so one day the old analog AM modulation will be replaced.

[@fusiondesigns4312]

why were they using the same acft again if the plane had a similar event a couple of days ago?

[@pmvaldez1]

Fusion Designs they thought it was fixed. Apparently it wasn't.

[@arnoldsherrill6305]

Fusion Designs I'm just as curious as you about that when I worked my last security assignment at Hartsfield International I was part of the detail at the TOC for Northwest Airlines back in the 90s and I used to watch them take the fuel system apart on 727 and dc-9s shaking my head trying to figure out why you would put an aircraft back in service with a leak that was apparently not fixed this aircraft should have been decertified for flight until the problem was solved

[@00BillyTorontoBill]

misdiagnosis to start i bet ....they fixed something that wasnt the problem.

[@fusiondesigns4312]

Arnold Sherrill Aren't incidents of fuel leak where it actually disrupts airport ops counted as incidents and require investigation? in that case doesn't the plane get grounded etc

[@iatsd]

Because on older planes (and anything else, for that matter) when you replace one failed part it can often cause another part to fail along the system - multiple parts just hanging on but otherwise working well together don't like shiny new parts working at full capacity being slotted in. Fix one leak and it may cause some other part to fail.

[@nebraskaninkansas347]

Leaking lots of fuel, okay we'll send you to Newark.

[@Speedster___]

I guess they didnt need to dump fuel...

[@LT81baller]

Probably the one thing that irritates me the most is pilots asking how long it will be. Like dude just down one or both engines. Asking ATC constantly isn't gonna speed matters up at all

[@VASAviation]

It's understandble that pilots want to know the delay. There's money and time (job hours, delay for passengers, delay for the aircraft and its following flights, connections for passengers...) in the game. No harm in asking though.

[@jancovanderwesthuizen8070]

VASAviation - Oh yeah, I bet all of FedEx's passengers were pissed :D But since they'll have to close the RWY, I get what you mean

[@LT81baller]

Oh trust me I don't mind the asking it's just the tone a couple of them had sounding like they were annoyed.

[@VASAviation]

Trust me, it's stressful. And of course I didn't mean FedEx passengers but all the airplanes that had to wait for departure. Pilots have a job time top that shouldn't be passed. Airplanes have a program for the day with several flights; a slight delay and the program gets affected. Passengers may be flying to destinations to take another flight somewhere else; a delay may cause that passenger miss his/her connection. Not to talk about fuel consumption, airport disturbance, flow and flight planning troubles to reprogram the route, maybe having to taxi back to gate because you were too tight on fuel and burnt your extra on the hold... Aviation is tough, guys.

[@gomphrena-beautifulflower-8043]

And here’s my two cents, for what it’s worth - nowadays schedules are impossibly tight because when a plane is not in the air, he’s not making any money!

[@carlk1994]

FedEx seems to have a lot of flight problems.

[@MarkRose1337]

FedEx has a lot of flights...

[@kj4ilk]

meanwhile they COULD have some more flights take off until this guy lands so you know...we ain't on the ground give him the right so people can still take off on the left and close that runway

[@donwald3436]

Then one of those aircraft rejects leaving FOD and ooops, emergency can't land.

[@krakenmetzger]

Controller, turn off the goddamn TV while you're working. Irresponsible

[@paulsinclair3401]

As they declared an emergency - why in this one and others I've heard, do ground ask if they'll need any assistance on the ground? Then it's particularly confusing when this pilot talks about FOD on the runway and large fuel leak which will need mopping up, but he still insists that 'no assistance' is required on the ground! ........ Who does he think is going to mop things up and put any fuel fire out if required? From my own experience - ex-British military (Fleet Air Arm) - as far as I know, any time one declares an emergency, it means that they require all assistance available in the air and on the ground! All that extra chit-chat, going back and forth about whether or not they require ground assistance and what sort and "what's your inside leg measurement" is all total unnecessary and distracting! I noticed something similar in today's (5th Dec 2020) Fedex emergency on VASAviation, which after declaring an emergency was asked if they would need any assistance on the ground and declined that they would! I just find the US procedures (if there are any), quite bizarre to listen to.

[@YouTube.TOM.A]

There is a lot here that comes from customary practices, We tend to repeat what we are exposed to over the years flying here in the US. Assistance on the ground I was led to believe has to do with people coming popping down on emergency slides, Items on the airplane that may need water or foam, do you need temporary external power if no APU is present, Brake temperatures, On one occasion the ground crew plugged into my ground intercom to speak to the cockpit. I understand your point and sometimes the familiar is what we tend to do.

[@paulsinclair3401]

@@KZbin.TOM.A A lot of truth in what you say there....... I suppose coming from a purely military side of things, I struggle with the thought of reacting to the 'customary' or 'familiar', but tend to rely a lot more on 'process/procedure' as laid down in the sops?

[@YouTube.TOM.A]

@@paulsinclair3401 Yes, there are many different airlines that do training and practice different SOP[s] I beleive that the military would be more standardised, I sat jumpset during a lot of training and copied some of the techniques that i saw. [ especially if the candidate passed ]

[@davidhandyman7571]

"assistance" would be referring to actual needs of the aircraft rather than what may be needed on the runway or the actual airport facilities. It could be referring to things like a tug being required or stairs, etc.

[@jackpot9090]

Doesn't surprise me due to have much of an arch the rear part of the fuselage

[@davidgallagher171]

No mayday or pan. Otherwise great job.

[@AndrewFremantle]

Uhm. You apparently missed the bit right at the very beginning where the pilot said "declaring an emergency".

[@mattball7074]

Dude i dont trust the MDs

[@sft4081]

I’m screwed if I ever become a pilot. I can never ever understand their mumbling ...they tlk way fast and mumble

[@danwiebe7146]

It's like the way nobody else can understand your toddler, but you can because you hear him all the time. Easier, actually. Aviation comms, unlike toddlers, generally have a fairly rigidly established, limited vocabulary, and once you get used to it (which you'll do with an instructor beside you), your brain will automatically put things together from nearly subliminal context and you'll have a nice picture in your head without having to worry about the words. Also, when you're actually in the airplane, all communications to you are either ground-to-air or air-to-air (unlike the ground-to-ground recordings we hear from VASAviation), so they're all line-of-sight and considerably clearer than you hear here.

[@pfeilspitze]

TL/DR: "Hi guys! We leaked all over a runway yesterday so bad they had to close it. Can we come to that to one of yours now?" 🙄

[@yugantarfulecha]

This pilot ATC's lol

[@Rhaman68]

Well, as a retired Captain I wonder why the engine was not shut down in flight, fuel pumps secured, etc. since all fuel leaks can result in a fire, not to ignore the depleting fuel quantity!

[@briansmyla8696]

The location of the leak wasn't known until about the time the aircraft flared for landing, according to the radio traffic.

[@fusiondesigns4312]

flfc

[@cannedheat300]

Better stay Woke pilots, or we'll be watching your demise on an episode of "ACI," "The FlightChannel" or "Allec Joshua Ibay". I, for one, don't want to end up memorialized on a plague somewhere a doomed PAX.

[@iflyg4]

Jeez, genius. Divert to Newark and shut down the airport? 🙄👍

[@VASAviation]

Better to go over the ocean, run out of fuel and fall into the water? Who's the genius here?

[@squawk012h]

Fedex has a hub operation at Newark.

[@iflyg4]

VASAviation - apparently you’ve never flown a heavy aircraft. They’ve got 75,000 lbs of fuel which they stated was 2hr and 40 or so mins. They can fly 850 miles or so before running out of fuel. So who’s the genius now?

[@iflyg4]

Jason Cheung ya, so? That’s like me saying, let’s go to LGA because I can and then shut down the whole airport.

[@iflyg4]

AndreKBOS let’s think about this for a second. Those pilots knew the impact to Newark would be that they’d shutdown the airport. Just because you have a hub operation somewhere, doesn’t mean you divert there. They overflew tons of other airports where Fedex has operations but chose Newark for some reason and then shut it down. They even knew it would shut down the airport. Just saying better decisions could of been made