Suspected fuel leak on takeoff. Delta Boeing 737 returns to Atlanta. Real ATC

THIS VIDEO IS A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATION IN FLIGHT:
28-MAR-2024. A Delta Air Lines Boeing 737-800 (B738), registration N3751B, performing flight DAL585 / DL585 from Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, GA (USA) to Mexico City Benito Juárez International Airport (Mexico) shortly after takeoff was informed by the Tower controller that there was something leaking from their left wing. The flight crew stopped climb and decided to return to Atlanta Airport. Later the air traffic control service declared an emergency for them. The airplane landed safe on runway 26 right and stopped on the runway for inspection by the emergency services.
Join me on Patreon: / you_can_see_atc
#realatc #aviation #airtrafficcontrol
Image from thumbnail was provided by a passenger.
_______________
Timestamps:
00:00 Description of situation
Suspected fuel leak on takeoff. Delta Boeing 737 returns to Atlanta. Real ATC
00:17 Delta Boeing 737 takes off from Atlanta
00:32 Tower: “There is something leaking from your wing”
00:50 The airplane contacts Departure controller and stops climb
01:14 The pilots decide to return to Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport
03:47 The flight crew contacts Final Approach controller
05:05 Delta 585 is starting the approach to Atlanta Airport
06:25 The flight crew contacts Tower controller
06:57 Landing on runway 26 right at Atlanta. Communications with the emergency crew
_______________
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.

[@timdawg53]

This was probably excess fuel spilling from the 737's surge tank vent. Given the fact that they have 30000 pounds of fuel, the main wing tanks are most likely full. If the main tanks are overfilled, they flow into the surge tanks. If the surge tank is too full, the excess fuel will spill out of the vent. By the time they landed the excess fuel had spilled or evaporated, leaving no visible indications of the leak for the ARFF crew. Fuel in the surge tank can flow back into the wing tanks, however this is unlikely since there would have still been fuel in the center tank.

[@stopspewinshit7878]

a 73- 8 ,9 only holds 8650-8700 in each wing... never went to VTO in the wings... always left 50-100 pounds for hot days and or expansion..... but generally id agree....very possible..

[@brunotcs]

But you think a pilot wouldn't know that?

[@timdawg53]

​@@brunotcsI would think so, but it's certainly not very common to have fuel leaking out of your plane.

[@jeffreybaba4155]

Great job staying ahead of the aircraft with issues.😊

[@kwikfishron]

Good on ATC for having them climb to 7000', likely because of possible leaking fuel. The minimum altitude for a fuel dump is 6000'. At that altitude, fuel will evaporate before it hits the ground.

[@JohnJohn-wt5ll]

No fuel dumping on a 737. Likely it was for other traffic the climb to 7000.

[@kwikfishron]

"No fuel dumping on a 737" @@JohnJohn-wt5ll Yes, I know this, I was using the minimum fuel dump altitude as an example.

[@maanmohammad8459]

​@@JohnJohn-wt5ll The idea is if there is a fuel leak,then this is similar to a fuel dump,hence the higher altitude.

[@djijspeakerguy4628]

As someone who has flown on a few of these Delta 737-800s, I’m not totally surprised this one ran into issues. They are overdue for upgrades, and are slowly being retrofitted with the new winglet design. They also have the oldest interiors on any Delta plane, but there’s a program underway to retrofit them. The last one I flew, N3761R with the Skyteam livery, had one of those wing fairing pod things over the flap mechanism that seemed to be loose and yes I know it isn’t a super critical part but still kinda makes you wonder about maintenance on their now 22.5 year old plane.

[@bobwilson758]

Very professional ! All good - Nice work .

[@cheapercharlieiii]

The pilot was very clear validating with readbacks

[@uweberning8361]

@christerry1773 - You're absolutely right ! Exactly what comes to my mind ev'ry time I watch these kind of vidoes

[@theChickenstones]

I have not heard ATC ask if there are any infants on board previously. Fuel in minutes/pounds, souls, hazmat of course but not infants. Seems sensible to have on the manifest.

[@craig7350]

... always always an issue regarding fuel on board. Now they're even asking for number of infants what f next!

[@paulstelian97]

Fuel and souls is standard (fuel due to risk of fire/explosion, souls on board so the firefighters know how many to attempt to rescue). Infants though, that did feel out of place as it's not standard procedure.

[@BlueSkyUp_EU]

​@@paulstelian97 My assumption is that in case of fire, resque team will face difficult conditions, low visibility. It helps to know if you need to look for other than adult size, otherwise infants may easily be confounded with luggage for ex.

[@paulstelian97]

@@BlueSkyUp_EU You could well be right, it's just that AFAIK it's not procedure yet, unless I missed something (I'm just an amateur and don't exactly keep up with regulation changes other than from the incidents I watch here on KZbin)

[@BlueSkyUp_EU]

@@paulstelian97 Like you said, most likely it's not standard procedure, but I don't think it's against the rules either, otherwise they wouldn't do it. When deadly incidents occur, we almost never get insights on what happened from an RFF perspective. It could be that in several cases infants have been missed by rescuers because they've only looked for passengers that are bigger than a handbag.

[@paulstelian97]

@@BlueSkyUp_EU Yeah I mean proposing it to be future standard procedure doesn’t sound bad at all in the end. Worth having a discussion!

[@christerry1773]

Why can't ATC inquire for the fuel and souls information from airline OPS? They do talk, and fuel is transmitted to OPS

[@eddiemunster8634]

But what if you don't have a soul, like a complete sociopath for example , are you still counted?

[@richardhaighway4816]

I'm prob hard on ATC but asking for all the stuff at the beginning when he is saying there are issues and checklists is prob not needed. Just let him come in, ask 1 time all you need and wait let them set the pace But it was well done all around

[@marcospark2803]

Now TC asks for number of infants?

[@alexmiller7721]

I don't recall the details, but there was an incident not so long ago where two infants were on board an emergency aircraft and it resulted in a discrepancy in the number of souls on board. I don't think it caused an issue, but it did highlight the potential for one. Asking number of infants has been happening a lot more since.

[@buckhorncortez]

Infant diapers = HAZMAT...

[@zachbush7923]

I'm a gate agent, and when we give the pilots and flight attendants our final number of passengers on board, we always include the lap infants in a separate category, since they don't have their own tickets/seats. We also do this for anyone who might be in the jump seat. So the final tally might be 154 regular passengers plus 3 infants plus 0 jumpseats.

[@clxudzYT]

9:11 is a rather unfortunate length for a video like yours xd

[@legofreak3204]

9:06 "you are number 25" ???

[@BlueSkyUp_EU]

Or does it say "your number two side"? This would mean they are behind them on the right side of the runway.

[@44hawk28]

I really appreciate the cognitive disconnect at declaring no Hazmat when you just told him he's carrying over 30,000 pounds of fuel

[@beckramsey7746]

?? hazmat is referring to cargo not gas

[@JohnSmith-zi9or]

@@beckramsey7746 Trust me, when my 777 is carrying 340,000 pounds of fuel (47,890 gallons), the hazmat on board is the least of your worries.

[@user-lm2ix1xd4c]

but it doesn't count, if it did then there would *always* be hazmat declared. only for cargo involving explosives, gases, flammable materials, oxidizing substances, peroxides, toxic or infectious substances, radioactive materials, corrosives, environmentally hazardous materials, etc! its an interesting topic to me lol

[@JohnSmith-zi9or]

@@user-lm2ix1xd4c As a cargo pilot, I'm well aware.

[@saxmanb777]

Then why would anyone ask about hazmat then?

[@Muhammad-uz2sm]

08 buzy

[@Muhammad-uz2sm]

08

[@Muhammad-uz2sm]

08 buzy

[@Muhammad-uz2sm]

08 buzy

[@Muhammad-uz2sm]

08 buzy