Plane LEAKING FUEL IN FLIGHT | Runway Closed at Kennedy Intl.

[@VASAviation]

Very curious to know how this started. If you know more, please share it here. For those real ATC lovers, FULL ATC VERSION -- kzbin.info/www/bejne/j3bNaqtqaNSYi8U

[@makss3139]

Video private

[@VASAviation]

@@makss3139 fixed.

[@wadesaxton6079]

Possibly; fuel was transferring from the left to right. This would cause the imbalance, show the left tank quantity lower so the crew erroneously thought it was leaking from the left and also caused it to leak out the right vents when the right tank filled up.

[@tafan321]

Just for FYI. ATC technically can't close the runway, from FAA 7110.65AA Section 3. Airport Conditions "NOTE- Legally, only the airport management/military operations office can close a runway."

[@arantala]

- "I already know there's no chance you can give me any kind of a sensible estimate, but I'll ask anyway: Any idea of a ballpark roundabout guess of how long this might possibly take?" - "Exactly seven minutes, no more, no less" - "Well, okay then!"

[@z00h]

I loved that bit.

[@ahuddleofpenguins4842]

😂😂😂

[@dddddddddd9770]

And 3 nanoseconds

[@VictorHahn]

I'm stunned that ATC kept the runway open after a suspected fuel leak, and puzzled that none of the pilots coming in had the presence of mind to go around to avoid the potentially contaminated runway.

[@tafan321]

ATC technically can't close the runway, from FAA 7110.65AA Section 3. Airport Conditions "NOTE- Legally, only the airport management/military operations office can close a runway."

[@pryfexs13]

@@tafan321 That is an interesting experience. As a Russian ATC we have rules which forced to perform RW check after any EM aircraft

[@TheFirstConcorde]

Continuing to use a runway following an emergency aircraft landing and without a subsequent runway inspection is definitely a choice.

[@kaamsogrimm]

it also sat on foxtrot for two hours because it had a brake failure after setting the parking brake, MX disconnected the brakes & tow team had to come out and bring it to the gate

[@jacksnodgrass4346]

Did the passengers get to disembark while it was waiting or did they have to sit on a broke plane for 2 hours?

[@kaamsogrimm]

@@jacksnodgrass4346 sat on the taxiway for 2 hours 😂

[@IO-zz2xy]

Total bullshit that aircraft was not towed to a suitable position and mobile airsteps were not used to disembark passengers. What is wrong with the airline industry that they have complete mental breakdowns everytime there is an issue with a plane stuck on the apron. Passengers need to start fighting back and sue the bejesus out of these airlines for this type of nonsense. Regards from South Africa

[@spslayback]

Yeah! Total bullshit! Shut down half an airport and get more ground vehicles out near active runways! Maybe you can delay 50 more airplanes flying worldwide.

[@bowdoin5063]

Common sense dictated closing the runway immediately until an actual fuel leak could be confirmed

[@qwerty112311]

Similarly common sense indicates they should close the runway after every takeoff/landing because you never know if part of plane separated during those high G phases.

[@unbekannt4637]

@@qwerty112311no, it is uncommon that an acft loses sth on dep or arr. but something on the rwy while having a leak is almost 100%

[@bowdoin5063]

@@unbekannt4637 Exactly

[@z00h]

@@unbekannt4637 dnno, rusre tis dat uncmmon?

[@RobFeldkamp]

@@z00h For aircraft to lose stuff during Take-off/landing? Yes, that is uncommon. Shouldn't happen at all. Might, once in a blue moon.

[@rd4660]

I was listening to the ground radio at SAN Friday (10/5) morning and a commercial aircraft asked the tower to notify the fire department as the fuel truck overfilled the wing and fuel ran onto the ground for "at least 30 seconds". DANG!! Never heard what happened after that.

[@llpilch]

Its funny how things are working in the big USA airports... not only the lots of close calls, now plane landed with possible fuel leak and the runway is still open? The fire trucks need to wait or do the longest path to reach the leaking aircraft? And if it catches on fire? I work at an intl airport here in Brazil and this is standard here: aircraft landed in emergency, runway inspection imediately after, I have done this myself once. Very strange keeping the operations after a landing with possible fuel leak, jet fuel can make the runway slippery! For the airport side, it needs to be cleaned quickly to avoid damage to the pavement...

[@paulnieuwkamp8067]

I don't really understand it either, but one small point: As you said, there was no fire reported. That's an important distinction. If there WAS a fire reported, ARF would most definitely get priority to cross the runway as soon as safely possible (the aircraft 2 miles out can go around, the one crossing the threshold *right now* may or may not land but ARF has to wait regardless). I can see the reasoning behind letting them wait (or take a detour) when there's a (suspected) leak, because I don't think they can close the leak. Getting there a few seconds faster probably does not outweigh upsetting the (other) active runway. Not closing a runway after a (suspected) leak though? I don't get it either.

[@biscuit715]

Seems a bit crazy to keep clearing behind the emergency plane and only close it when you confirm its fuel leak. Surely you shouldn't be landing onto a potentially fuel covered runway...

[@VASAviation]

Tell airport authorities

[@VictorHahn]

@@VASAviation Actually, ATC could have sent one or two planes around and asked for a runway inspection during that time, couldn't they?

[@davedoe6445]

yeah do I understand that they made the fire trucks wait for landing aircraft? Insane

[@tafan321]

ATC technically can't close the runway, from FAA 7110.65AA Section 3. Airport Conditions "NOTE- Legally, only the airport management/military operations office can close a runway."

[@uzlonewolf]

@@tafan321 They don't need to officially close it to start sending planes around due to suspected FOD/contamination.

[@tenpiloto]

‘97 through ‘06 I flew DC-10 freighters. The company also operated MD-11 freighters. In October 2001, an MD-11 was returning to MIA during the day. Enroute, the loadmaster went back to the cargo deck to smoke a cigarette. He happened to look out the one window on the right side and noticed fuel streaming from the wing vent. They reported this to MIA ATC and continued the arrival. As they were rolling out on the runway, they saw 2 F-16 fighters zooming by low-one on each side of the runway. Unbeknownst to the crew, ATC had notified the military, and they had intercepted and escorted the MD-11 all the way from the Cuban boundary. There was also a bunch of security folks waiting on the ground. This is how edgy it was post 9/11 in the aviation world.

[@NicolaW72]

Thank you very much for picking this incident up!🙂👍 It obviously caused some disruptions but the most uncomfortable situation for the passengers of the Jetblue aircraft - it seems that they had to sit there for two hours on the taxiway. Nevertheless: Very professional handled by all participants!👍

[@sntslilhlpr6601]

The one Approach controller who seems to be the supervisor sounds super cool and professional. He's got that Houston Space Center Voice.

[@tommaxwell429]

I don't know how much clock time expired for this entire incident, but if they actually opened the runway after 7 mins following a fuel spill, that is a mighty fast cleanup. Maybe it wasn't a serious spill, although it sounds as if it was, and no cleanup was required but it seemed like a fast turnaround to me.

[@jeffreybell436]

Dead air has been edited out so car 99 may have been halfway done inspecting at that point. Edit: It looks like there is an unedited version in another comment. Let me check the timing.

[@rockkitty100]

Thanks!

[@VASAviation]

Wow, thanks for your support!!

[@thegreyarea-WPP]

To any pilots planning to fly outside of the US, please learn to use the correct phraseology. There is an ICAO list available to all and it includes the words “pan pan” and “mayday”. If you find yourself over a country where English is not widely spoken and whoever is operating ATC has only concentrated heavily on that ICAO list, the words “we are declaring an emergency” may not be immediately understood. It may never become necessary to use but it will always be better to get yourself into the right habit from the start. The US is the only country I’ve known depart from the correct emergency calls and in other countries that can be the difference between life and death.

[@cc587]

US pilots who fly internationally are trained on the differences between FAA and ICAO phraseology. It may surprise you to learn there are a lot more than just "declaring an emergency" vs "pan pan"

[@thegreyarea-WPP]

@@cc587 When I specifically say there is an ICAO list available, what makes you think that I meant that list only has two things on it? I may have spent my flying career in Typhoons rather than in civvy street, but it doesn’t mean that we do not have to know both NATO and ICAO phraseology. The entire purpose of ICAO phraseology is to make sure each individual country doesn’t fall into this habit of using something completely different. Imagine if every civil aviation administration of every country says “I know there’s the ICAO list for everyone, but we have our own way that we like to use”. How long is that going to work out well before someone is killed? Let’s say you’re over the South China Sea instead, would you be more alert if you heard “mayday, mayday” or if you heard “Wǒmen zhèngzài xuānbù jǐnjí zhuàngtài”? What if the person within the ATC only speaks English and Tagalog at that point?

[@GigglesClifton9]

Nice try mate but you'll never convince the Americans on this Channel they have anything to learn from the rest of the world or that their system is anything other than the best way of doing things. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[@johnevans7006]

This is ironic, as that Avianca flight that let their fuel tanks get full of air over NYC didn't exercise proper ICAO terminology. You might want to stow the bias you're exhibiting here.

[@thegreyarea-WPP]

@@johnevans7006 The fact that nowadays correct phraseology is something hammered home to pilots around the world and yet you rarely hear pilots in the US using “mayday” and almost never hear them use “pan pan” at a time where this is exactly what should be done isn’t a matter of bias. It’s just a statement of fact. I’m not saying that every pilot from other nations gets it right every time, but if you listen to emergency transmissions from around the world, you’ll find that calling “mayday” is the norm, whereas in the US it seems to be a rarity and “pan pan” is almost never used when it should be. I have bias against Americans. My late fiancée was one, as are many of my friends. I simply have issues with people not following the correct procedure when those procedures are there to save lives. Had the pilots of Avianca 052 done so, many people would still be alive. It is because of that accident that such phraseology became imperative to learn and use correctly. My aim is not to simply point a finger at American pilots for getting it wrong, it just happens to be common practice in the US more than anywhere else. The whole point of me saying this is to make sure such an issue is avoided by any pilots who read this. It’s no different to me pointing out the importance of a common language in communications about a weather issue, something that was missed by one flight because the radio transmissions about it to another flight were in Spanish, something that left one flight heading into something far worse than expected when understanding Spanish would have led to a change of course. I don’t care where anyone is from, their race, gender, sexuality, hair colour, religion, or any other thing that people seem to have prejudices over. I just want to get a message across to other pilots of exactly why correct phraseology is important. If the majority of those not using the correct phraseology predominantly happened to be from the UK, I would be asking why it is that they’re the ones that are most often using the wrong phraseology. The fact that it happens to be Americans who do this more frequently than others is not some kind of xenophobic thing. It is just a correlation of events that then make me question why this is common in that one area on the map. Since that statistical frequency bias happens to be in that one area, then it’s the one that needs to work on changing this most of all. I’d point it out wherever it happens to be. It’s not any kind of personal bias, it’s just an observation of where it is statistically most relevant. It’s simple mathematics to me. If you happen to be a pilot and you already use the correct phraseology, this isn’t aimed at you. I know how butt hurt some people get when anyone points out that it is those from their own country who are the most regular offenders in certain situations, but this is simply what the data shows. Nationality is meaningless to me in any other sense. It’s just something no one had a choice in when they came from their mother. I’ll only care where someone comes from the day someone from another solar system approaches me. If other pilots read this and it helps them to use the correct phraseology and it helps them understand why it is so important, that’s all I could wish for. If it one day helps to keep people alive, even better. Avianca 052 is a perfect example of why it’s important.

[@happyhour5690]

I was on this flight!

[@Michael_K_Woods]

2 hours sitting on the taxi way must have sucked. Or did they deplane you?

[@revcrussell]

If it was worth shutting down the runway at all they should have shut it down before the next plane landed. It is completely inappropriate to let stack these landings so close. At least order a go-around.

[@Look_What_You_Did]

Says you...

[@freevillein9763]

It sat for two hours before being towed in, with both engines off? The poor passengers! 😢

[@ptrsrrll]

The APU would have been running..

[@jonathanbott87]

​@@ptrsrrllwould they have fuel for it?

[@ptrsrrll]

@@jonathanbott87 Yes, the APU has reserve fuel, but also, the aircraft had fuel to run it's engines. They were told to turn them off by the emergency services.

[@TSE-gv1jy]

Bit strange that AREF is not allowed to cross an active runway while responding to an emergency. At this stage it was not clear how major the fuel leake was. The fuel could easily ignite at hot enginge parts every second...

[@aussiebloke609]

Crossing an active runway without permissions could mean a second, simultaneous emergency - which is an even worse idea. Remember that "active" means that planes are currently landing and/or taking off from it.

[@TSE-gv1jy]

@@aussiebloke609 Sure, but why not giving one approching plane a GA let the AREF do their thing. "Hey there is a huge potential fire hazard with several hundred of people in danger - pls take the long way around." Thats just a strange set of priority to me.

[@sarahalbers5555]

Yikes, that's a scary thought...

[@ysfsim]

​@@TSE-gv1jyPlanes always have the right of way. Its more pressing to get them on the ground rather have them congest the airspace unnecessary

[@dermann439]

​@@ysfsim No, they have not.

[@volvodadfast]

As Kennedy Steve used to say, N89RP is one of those Top 1%.

[@eddiethecurler]

I love all the accents in this one.

[@HCMCDrives]

If you had an emergency aircraft, would you not consider taking the plane ahead out of sequence, rather than continuing it with "caution wake..." - seems an unnecessary risk.

[@Jopanaguiton]

Because the emergency aircraft can just land a hundred feet after the thousand foot marker to avoid wake turbulence. Also that heavy is most likely an international flight and sending them off will most likely cause a minimum fuel. Now you just made your self 2 emergencies instead of one.

[@chrisschack9716]

It was 8 miles in trail, the warning had to be given but it wasn't a huge concern. 5-6 miles and I'd start to worry.

[@Xanthopteryx]

@@Jopanaguiton And if something happens with the first one? Like the incident with asphalt on the runway getting loose or a flat tire or something else. Then... problem.

[@Parc_Ferme]

It was not so serious. Otherwise he would declare MAYDAY or PAN-PAN.

[@N1120A]

8 miles in trail at 2.5 miles a minute means more than 2 minutes separation, so no wake issue

[@alien216]

I was flying the day before from MXP to JFK...why i'm not surprised that was happened something when I was in NY? Luckly, wasn't my plane. However, I'm worried that one day something really serious will happen in US airspace.....

[@rudiklein]

At the same time: light precipitation was reported near the airport. 😅

[@mrman5517]

it seem extremely unsafe to clear a second aircraft to land on the same runway that is currently handing an emergency with unknown leaks or debris. what kinds of clowns are running this circus?!

[@VASAviation]

Are you an ATC?

[@incandescentwithrage]

​@@VASAviationYou make good videos, but also leave some stupid comments

[@Look_What_You_Did]

@mrman5517 Please tell us all of your many many qualifications...

[@bd5289]

So, those passengers had to sit on the plane on Foxtrot for 2 hours before being towed to the gate?

[@VictorHahn]

Plane: "We're declaring an emergency, suspect a fuel leak and need to land as soon as possible" American ATC: "Follow a heavy 8 miles ahead, caution wake turbulence" 🤦

[@Look_What_You_Did]

Well they are not going to get advance in front of that aircraft. But hey you rock emojis. So you MUST be the most knowledgeable person in any room.

[@miguelr1784]

Just imagine the heavy ahead blocks the runway. Better give them a go around instruction and let the emergency aircraft land with no risk

[@ZeroSpawn]

Must of sucked to be a passenger trapped in the flying propane tank for 2 extra hours.

[@thedownwardmachine]

What a clusterf that incident created

[@VASAviation]

Where is the clusterf?

[@thedownwardmachine]

@@VASAviation the mess on the runway, the emergency services tryin g to cross it, the closure of the runway, the rerouting of the aircraft that had been on approach for that runway. The controllers handled it well, but one problem (leaking fuel) that results in a bunch of other problems is a clusterf in my book.

[@fernandopenah]

I was at the charlotte airport waiting for our plane to arrive. Turns out our plane was in storage as it arrived by truck to the terminal. They proceeded to fuel it and minutes later the wing started spilling fuel. It took a few seconds for the fueler to realize what was happening. He ran to the wing and did something and then started laying down pads around the spillage. I was like, wtf. This was a 737.

[@jonathanbott87]

The pads are specific fuel/oil absorbent pads to prevent a eco problem. Not sure on cause of spill - maybe overfilled it.

[@Alexjaeger1024]

​@jonathanbott87 I'm assuming something like a Pig mat for fuel.

[@ishan4763]

L.A. Flights caught this on their stream

[@forsureacarguy1239]

Where’s the king air video from yesterday in Cali?

[@VASAviation]

Where is it?

[@forsureacarguy1239]

@@VASAviation Apologies - it occurred in California. Sounded like pilot was incapacitated and PAX had to land the plane. N6077X out of HND

[@N1120A]

​@@VASAviation passenger landed it. Bakersfield

[@yumi456]

Isn't jet fuel flammable? I could imagine that the planes landing could in some way make some sparks and make it all burst into flames?

[@jerseyshoredroneservices225]

Yes it's flammable but not very. It would take a pretty significant source to ignite it, not just some sparks. Something like heat saturated brakes or an electrical short might do it especially in a confined area but that's different than some sparks on earth runway.

[@Tevildo]

Not particularly - it's closer to diesel than gasoline, and has a flash point over 100 F. It'll still burn in the right conditions, but it's not going to ignite from a casual spark.

[@nonnymoose7005]

​@@Tevildo Do you mean 100C? The tarmac itself could easily be 100F.

[@Tevildo]

@@nonnymoose7005 No, 100 F, 38 C. Jet fuel _will_ catch fire from a spark on a hot day, and still needs to be treated with caution. It's just not as flammable as gasoline.

[@andij605]

and it affects breaking performance

[@HotelPapa100]

What happened to 'port' and 'starboard'? I thought these terms were to be used to refer to left and right when referring to the aircraft's orientation.

[@tylerstrauss6354]

textbook, nice work ATC + FR

[@ksthebest]

Textbook to keep the runway open? In the US, maybe.

[@jonathanhunt6959]

Y’all got an odd definition of emergency down there, y’all.

[@iatsd]

Yet another example of US ATC being unable to organise a piss-up in a brewery. What a complete clown car performance

[@Ksweetpea]

I flew into and out of JFK last week (first time ever) and I'm considering myself lucky that on landing, we only had to wait to cross one runway for an A380 for a couple minutes, and that we only queued for 40 minutes on departure 5 days later

[@iatsd]

@@Ksweetpea All the NY area airports are crappy. As is Boston. Americans just don't seem to understand how to design or run airports - but then, customer service has never been a strong suit for America, culturally speaking.

[@davedoe6445]

@@iatsd customer service is a strong suit in america if you want flattery though

[@slipperyslope3912]

N89RP: What a voice.

[@brmam1385]

Jesus, really?!? That’s what you’re thinking of? You’re not someone I’d ever want to fly with!

[@slipperyslope3912]

@@brmam1385 Sorry that all of the testosterone has flowed out of your body. Mine hasn't.

[@Look_What_You_Did]

@@brmam1385 I bet you're the type to let jesus take the wheel.

[@RobFeldkamp]

As a student PPL-er i am always baffled by the quality of JFK ATC, fluency at which ATC and pilots speak.

[@N1120A]

What?

[@scottw5315]

It's not a Boeing. I'm confused.

[@markhamstra1083]

Ever since Boeing acquired McDonnell-Douglas, it’s only a matter of time until a JetBlue Airbus has an accident - but that’s to be expected given the number of DEI hires and the way the FAA is run.

[@fsxn3rd]

First! Fantastic Video

[@NicolaW72]

I´m probably the 11682nd...😇 - and yes: fantastic video.