Airbus A340 EMERGENCY - Engine Failure

Share
Embed

Comments • 6 757

  • Yashsvi Dixit
    Yashsvi Dixit 3 hours ago

    This incident is also mentioned on the Wikipedia article on 'Fuel Dumping'.

  • Chris JK01
    Chris JK01 8 hours ago

    lol the first officer standing at the back thinking ' the fuck if I know'

  • IbrahimSiddiqConlon

    really; the days of paper/book ecam/trouble shooting checklists must end (in my view); surely, in 2018/2019 when we can google anything with predictive text, it would save time to have same for pilots under pressure and emergency warnings. Surely it will make things more accurate. who agrees/disagrees? comments?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern Day ago

      ECAM gives steps to take to resolve alerts anyway (colour coded), so that's already catered for. Whether or not the action makes any sense (eg transferring fuel from the RH wing tanks to the LH wing tanks to counter an imbalance due to a big hole in your left wing due to the #2 engine suffering an uncontained failiure a-la QF32 is a balance between aircraft controllability and retaining sufficient fuel to make the emergency landing destination) is a different story.
      Airbus already has electronic manuals - and I believe Boeing does also. Whether or not there is a regulatory requirement for both to be onboard I don't know. In this video they use both. Portable electronic devices have some definite advantages, but some potential drawbacks too; imagine the pickle crew would be in if both pilots had tablet devices on their laps - hit some turbulence - and ended up with 2 smashed screens - no paper backups - and perhaps even a lithium battery fire thrown in for good measure due to the damage. Paper manuals are also better at facilitating flicking back and forth between a number of sections.
      I think you'll find that existing systems work pretty well.

  • Varun Mallya
    Varun Mallya 2 days ago

    Auto generated English subtitle just said ' fish swimming in the engine '

  • 983reece
    983reece 2 days ago

    All the farmers below out with their buckets, raining fuel...

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern Day ago

      It evaporates almost instantly when released at altitude like this - none of it ever reaches the ground.

  • goosey mcgooseface
    goosey mcgooseface 2 days ago

    Guatemalan lobster........😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

  • Rob Quinn
    Rob Quinn 3 days ago +1

    As an aside, is it just me, or does Swiss German sound more Dutch than German? (vocabulary notwithstanding)

  • Jon Karle
    Jon Karle 3 days ago

    Check oil filter

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 3 days ago

      +Jon Karle Although how it happened twice in 2 days we'll never know.

    • Jon Karle
      Jon Karle 3 days ago

      +Colin Southern that would have been my second guess

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 3 days ago +1

      Jon Karle Close. It was a failed fuel/oil heat exchanger.

  • Masterjel
    Masterjel 4 days ago

    Why was the plane allowed to fly at all while the same thing happened the day before during the test flight?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 4 days ago

      Good question. Presumably because the fault was believed to be fixed. The issue turned out to be a failed #3 engine fuel/oil heat exchanger; it's possible that the test flight had a different fault that's produced the same symptoms - or the replacement heat exchanger was faulty - or "something else".

  • Andrew Aldridge
    Andrew Aldridge 4 days ago +1

    I'd declare an emergency blow job from the Co pilot

  • Anton Kurnia Purba
    Anton Kurnia Purba 4 days ago

    Jijik denger logatnya bicara. Kyk banyak dahak di tenggorokannya.

  • Jack Rainbow
    Jack Rainbow 4 days ago

    shit quality. shit video and its an old re upload of an old re upload.

  • Всеволод Юрьев

    Нарочно не придумаешь - заснять такую ситуацию. А экипаж молодцом!

  • Marcel D'avis
    Marcel D'avis 5 days ago

    How not to use EICAS

  • CWLDOC
    CWLDOC 6 days ago +1

    "Hmm, let's take a look at the page on 'engines' and see what it says to do..."

  • Richard Parker
    Richard Parker 6 days ago

    Abort 🤣

  • Ciprian Popa
    Ciprian Popa 7 days ago +1

    Imagine a surgeon when has an issue during operation asking for the anatomy manuals.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern Day ago

      IbrahimSiddiqConlon Short answer is “they have both”. They actually had 2 issues - engine temp too high and IDG temp too high - captain was on the IDG checklist which was technically still relevant, but not the one he wanted to be on all the same.
      In-flight training videos just aren’t required.

    • IbrahimSiddiqConlon
      IbrahimSiddiqConlon Day ago

      +Colin Southern yes; but WHY cannot they have ipod/PDA etc with all things DIGITZED as primary procedures (with backup paper format); it will be much more accurate, fast and comprehensive; possibly with tutorial videos, information videos on procedure for each possible emergency situation. SURELY that makes sense-not old paper formats; its slow and you saw the captain almost make a mistake by going to electrical section rather than engine.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 4 days ago

      There's no emergency so serious that they can't make it worse by doing the wrong thing - or even the right thing at the wrong time. Checklists give predictability.

  • Alpha Kilo
    Alpha Kilo 7 days ago

    Forget about those !!

  • Joe Marinaro
    Joe Marinaro 7 days ago

    The subtitles are like someone who speaks English just gave it a go

  • MangoHombre
    MangoHombre 7 days ago

    The co-pilot needs to inflate the auto pilot.

  • Albert Greuter
    Albert Greuter 8 days ago

    After years of visiting my aunt in Basel I understand the Swiss Dialect. Given my great-great grandfather was Swiss (from Münchwilen) it's good I can understand the dialect.

  • Luc Lafleur
    Luc Lafleur 8 days ago

    In chocolate we trust!

  • Mary Vernoski-Keyzers

    I'll take that fuel your dumping, need to find huge storage tank 😕

    • Mary Vernoski-Keyzers
      Mary Vernoski-Keyzers 8 days ago

      +Colin Southern damn can't use it, sell it 😁

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 8 days ago

      It's Jet A1 - high-grade kerosene - not sure what you'd be able to do with it.

  • Sinan Bilgic
    Sinan Bilgic 8 days ago

    The subtitles😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣

  • Demian Radu Cosmin
    Demian Radu Cosmin 9 days ago

    surprisingly how poor the English in a Swiss flight deck can be especially in a somehow emergency situation ...

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 9 days ago

      They're not speaking English. Nor are they required to.

  • Cloudminster
    Cloudminster 9 days ago

    Accepting that safety is paramount...where does that 53 tons of fuel actually 'go'. Is it literally sprayed away into the air and onto the ground? 53 tons is basically 53 cubic meters of liquid, like the shallow end of a 25m swimming pool dropping from the sky. Or is there some fancy method when dumping to effectively 'cleanse' the fuel? Imagine hiking in the alps and getting hit with this...I guess of course they do it slowly and 'mist' a large area.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 9 days ago

      +Cloudminster No problem. Well, it's not exactly ideal, but there isn't many alternatives. Fuel consumption per mile flown actually increases when they lose an engine because they have to use a higher thrust setting (called MCT - Maximum Continuous Thrust) on the 3 remaining engines - fly at a less efficient altitude (lower tail winds) - and at a slower airspeed - so they wouldn't have enough fuel to make it to Shanghai on 3 engines from that part of the flight (they were in departure phase). If they stop for fuel somewhere they can't take off again on only 3 engines. The aircraft isn't certified to continue on 3 engines (so continuing would be illegal). If they landed without dumping they'd be 53 tonnes above maximum permitted landing weight which risks undercarriage damage, or a brake fire, or even a runway over-run (only 1/2 the normal available reverse thrust). So dumping is by far the safest option. Here's a link to a video of an A340 that stopped from max weight using only brakes for a brake test: tvclip.biz/video/irTizOVM-3U/video.html

    • Cloudminster
      Cloudminster 9 days ago

      Colin Southern, really does help thank you. I often wondered so this is quite encouraging. So there's basically nothing damaging happening at all.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 9 days ago

      It's dumped as droplets which in-turn get ripped to shreds in the wake turbulence a split second later. When dumped at altitude like this it evaporates almost instantly and - being a hydrocarbon - is broken down by UV radiation into hydrogen and plant food over the next few weeks. None of it ever reaches the ground. Jet A1 has a specific gravity of about 0.8 - so 53 tonnes (not tons) has a volume of about 66 cubic meters. Hope this helps.

  • Lodia Moore
    Lodia Moore 10 days ago

    The process of dealing with an A340 engine failure is obviously very guttural.

  • JE DIST
    JE DIST 11 days ago

    I could only wish I was married to such a smart woman like that,, such a stressful occupation,,she probably orgasms hard on her husband,,,,,,,, apologies,,, just what I was thinking

  • Marie Reynold
    Marie Reynold 11 days ago

    Xx

  • Grave 4410
    Grave 4410 11 days ago

    when you have engine failure but the monitor tells you to please wait

  • ozbdguy
    ozbdguy 11 days ago

    "vintage Flopsy chat engine"

  • Teody Pascual
    Teody Pascual 11 days ago

    I am wondering where those 53 tons of aviation gas will go??? No more environment clearance ??

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 11 days ago

      When released at altitude like this none of it ever reaches the ground; it evaporates almost instantly and the vapor gets broken down by UV radiation over the next few weeks.

  • justininvestor
    justininvestor 11 days ago

    As a seasoned captn on a piper cherokee I would of continued on with the flight
    and landed in shanghai where I would of made pationate love to my first officer.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 11 days ago

      1. On 3 engines they have to fly with higher thrust settings - at a less efficient altitude - at a slower speed - with less favorable tail winds so fuel consumption per mile flown actually increases and they wouldn't have enough fuel to reach their destination (and they can't stop and refuel because they can't take off again on 3 engines).

      2. Even if fuel wasn't an issue they would then have to fly personnel, equipment, and spares from Zurich to fix the problem; the aircraft would then be grounded for even longer affecting the travel plans of more people who's flights would have to be cancelled.

      3. Safety issue - it's not know what's causing the issue - there's a small chance that it could affect the other engines later on in the flight.

  • atlmiamifan
    atlmiamifan 12 days ago

    Why not just finish the flight?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 9 days ago +2

      Let's play "flight planning 101" for a second.
      From Swiss Air's website - Flight 188 Zurich to Shanghai is 12:00 hours - www.swiss.com/flights/ch/flights-zurich-zrh-shanghai-sha#t-page=con_pane2
      From this video - with 3 remaining engines at MCT fuel flow can be seen to be a total of 7900 kg/hr - and fuel on board remaining is 78720. Therefore duration at that point would be 9 hours and 58 minutes - lets call it 10 hours. So even if they could have maintained their normal flight planned ground speed (which they can't) they'd have needed to have been 2 hours into this flight even to have been able to scrape into Shanghai on fumes - and they weren't 2 hours into the flight - they were still in departure phase - so no way in hell would they have had enough fuel even if the aircraft was certified to continue (which it's not). Stick to flying 172's dude.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 9 days ago +2

      +Csaba Balog Nothing misleading in what I wrote what-so-ever. Frankly you're starting to piss me off; having a PPL for 6 1/2 years doesn't qualify you to comment on heavy metal operations. It's absolutely not debatable that when you go from 4 engines to 3 fuel consumption per mile flown increases for the reasons mentioned. At the point where the #3 engine fuel/oil heat exchanger failed they were still in departure - they would not have had sufficient fuel to make it to Shanghai with legal reserves - and they sure as shit can't land somewhere for more fuel and then take off again on 3 engines. So regardless of any other logistics it's game over right there and then with regards to any thought of continuing. Interestingly, a BA 747 did continue towards their destination after losing an engine shortly after take off (unlike the A340, the B747 is certified to continue on 3 engines) and guess what - they had to land short due to insufficient fuel (in this case it made more sense to carry on because (a) the aircraft was certified for it and (b) they were flying towards their maintenance facilities - not away from it). I might add that the FAA were NOT happy with them for doing it either.
      Dumping 53 tonnes is never ideal, but at the end of the day it all evaporates instantly when dumped at altitude like this and is broken down by UV radiation in the following weeks - so environmentally it's of no consequence. In contrast having to land 53 tonnes over weight carries a very real risk of undercarriage damage and brake fires (considering that they're down to only 50% of available reverse thrust).
      If you think my point #2 is "shit" then you really don't have a clue. Seriously. Fuel aside, are you seriously suggesting that illegally carrying on to a foreign destination where the aircraft will by law be grounded until it's been fixed and test-flown again - with ALL the down-stream flight cancellations/disruptions that that entails is a better option than returning to their home engineering base that's 15 minutes away - has spares, equipment, and personnel available AND a replacement aircraft? If you think that then you really do have shit for brains.
      No clue of engines/airplanes? Hmmm - spent 7 years working on military ones ...

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 11 days ago +2

      1. On 3 engines they have to fly with higher thrust settings - at a less efficient altitude - at a slower speed - with less favorable tail winds so fuel consumption per mile flown actually increases and they wouldn't have enough fuel to reach their destination (and they can't stop and refuel because they can't take off again on 3 engines).

      2. Even if fuel wasn't an issue they would then have to fly personnel, equipment, and spares from Zurich to fix the problem; the aircraft would then be grounded for even longer affecting the travel plans of more people who's flights would have to be cancelled.

      3. Safety issue - it's not know what's causing the issue - there's a small chance that it could affect the other engines later on in the flight.

  • Craig Arnold
    Craig Arnold 12 days ago

    seen grass growing vids more interesting

  • Micky B
    Micky B 12 days ago

    That's a training simulator.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 11 days ago

      Negative. You'll never see sunlight in a sim - nor chocolates for that matter. And dumping 53 tonnes of jet A1 would have made a real mess on a sim hangar's floor. It was a real flight that was coincidentally being recorded by PilotsEye TV anyway. You can read more about it here: pilotseye.tv/en/route/a340-pvg-shanghai-engine-overheat-thomas-frick/ The overhead was caused by a failed fuel/oil heat exchanger for the #3 engine.

  • jack scenic
    jack scenic 12 days ago

    Oh Wow.. Dump 53 tons of fuel...great for our oceans. Thank you so much for continuing to kill our marine life.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 11 days ago

      When released at altitude like this none of it ever reaches the ground; it evaporates almost instantly and the vapor gets broken down by UV radiation over the next few weeks.

  • Michael Thomas
    Michael Thomas 12 days ago

    Thank you Captain and crew. I feel at ease as a passenger with professional such as you and your crew.
    Just wondering though, what happens to the dumped fuel? It just disperses and adds VOC's to our atmosphere?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 11 days ago +1

      It's released as droplets which in turn get ripped to shreds in the wake turbulence a split second later resulting in it evaporating almost instantly. From that point - being a hydrocarbon - it's broken down by UV radiation into hydrogen and plant food over the next few weeks.

  • fethulgulub
    fethulgulub 12 days ago

    super spannend

  • capttovgmc1500
    capttovgmc1500 13 days ago

    Why did they have to dump the fuel?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 11 days ago

      capttovgmc1500 You’re welcome.

    • capttovgmc1500
      capttovgmc1500 11 days ago

      Colin Southern, thank you for the explanation

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 11 days ago +1

      Aircraft like this have a maximum permissible takeoff weight that's considerably higher than the max permissible landing weight. If they landed overweight they risk undercarriage damage and/or a runway over-run from having to brake an extra 53 tonnes with only 1/2 the normal amount of reverse thrust available.

  • Kabeer Kollins
    Kabeer Kollins 13 days ago

    This German/Dutch language is so annoying & sounds harsh. English always the best language.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 13 days ago

      It's Swiss German - and I'm sure that it sounds completely normal to them.

  • avgeekfabi
    avgeekfabi 14 days ago

    We have to dump 53 tons of fuel
    Headshot

  • Igor Tereshchenko
    Igor Tereshchenko 14 days ago

    Swiss cheese, chocolate and ice cream in Recaro seats. Best airlines!!

  • nobodyhasthis yet
    nobodyhasthis yet 14 days ago

    at 2:58 the camera guy says " for Christ sake after today officially quit from aviation TV"

  • Arturas1244
    Arturas1244 15 days ago +1

    enviroment who cares

  • NPC_1138
    NPC_1138 15 days ago

    (incomprehensible)
    xD

  • kommi1974
    kommi1974 15 days ago

    That's a sexy copilot.

  • Psyop Factory
    Psyop Factory 15 days ago

    Beware! The same A.I that is generating the subtitles is driving TESLAs.

  • LIANG XU
    LIANG XU 15 days ago

    Why didn't they just continue the flight to Shanghai since it can fly with 3 engines?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 15 days ago

      LIANG XU No problem.

    • LIANG XU
      LIANG XU 15 days ago +1

      +Colin Southern
      Thanks a lot. learned a lot.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 15 days ago

      A number of reasons:

      1. On 3 engines they have to fly with higher thrust settings - at a less efficient altitude - at a slower speed - with less favorable tail winds so fuel consumption per mile flown actually increases and they wouldn't have enough fuel to reach their destination (and they can't stop and refuel because they can't take off again on 3 engines).

      2. Even if fuel wasn't an issue they would then have to fly personnel, equipment, and spares from Zurich to fix the problem; the aircraft would then be grounded for even longer affecting the travel plans of more people who's flights would have to be cancelled.

      3. Safety issue - it's not know what's causing the issue - there's a small chance that it could affect the other engines later on in the flight.

  • Narusegawa
    Narusegawa 16 days ago

    bro give him chocolate

  • xenon53827
    xenon53827 17 days ago

    "Dumping fuel now!"
    Down below, a soon to be unlucky householder has just lit a bonfire in his garden… ☠️

    • xenon53827
      xenon53827 16 days ago

      +Colin Southern ooh thanks, I'll go search.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 16 days ago

      +xenon53827 There's a few clips floating around of fighter jets flying through the vapor and igniting it - they're pretty impressive.

    • xenon53827
      xenon53827 16 days ago

      +Colin Southern Darn, I was just imagining what it would look like. BOOM!

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 16 days ago

      When released at altitude like this it evaporates almost instantly. None of it ever reaches the ground.

  • Equaliser
    Equaliser 17 days ago

    Very impressive, excellent team work.

  • Mehmet Eren
    Mehmet Eren 18 days ago

    good job chocolate. You saved the day.

  • Agrx Drowflow
    Agrx Drowflow 18 days ago

    53 tons of fuel dumped on that huge glacier. (12:24) Al Gore called. Not happy.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 18 days ago +1

      Negative. When dumped at altitude like this it evaporates almost instantly; none of it ever makes it to the ground below.

  • Proman476
    Proman476 19 days ago

    Crrrr Chrrrr Phlegm ggrrr phlegm

  • Aris Ismar
    Aris Ismar 19 days ago

    9:35 that is Indonesian language over the radio for sure

  • Alexander of Macedon
    Alexander of Macedon 19 days ago

    pan pan pan ... no mayday since there is no emergency ... bring coffee and chocolate please

    • bellesogne
      bellesogne 17 days ago

      No chocolate?
      Affirm. No chocolate.
      Squawk 7700.

  • Channel Apapun
    Channel Apapun 21 day ago

    anyone !!
    DO NOT use the AUTO GENERATED SUBS !!
    i repeat
    DO NOT use the AUTO GENERATED SUBS !!
    or you will have to face the consequences

  • Yuel zacob
    Yuel zacob 21 day ago +2

    What the heck are they reading the manual for? Aren't they suppose to know it before they fly the plane?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 2 days ago

      Steve Turner I don’t think it would run for very long on kerosene.

    • Steve Turner
      Steve Turner 2 days ago

      Geeze my Volkswagen could use 53 tons of fuel for 2 years

    • Yuel zacob
      Yuel zacob 18 days ago +1

      +Colin Southern I see. Thanks!

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 21 day ago +10

      Safety first; there is no emergency so urgent that you can't make things worse by doing the wrong thing - or even the right thing at the wrong time - or something out of sequence. Pilots have 2 kinds of NNCL (Non-normal Check Lists) - the first are what are termed memory items; things that you have to know from memory because there isn't time to look them up. A good example is a pressurization failure - if they didn't get on oxygen immediately they'd be unconscious by the time they looked it up if it occurred rapidly whilst at 39,000ft. Non-critical things - like this - must be handled by working through the manual; any pilot who tries to do things like this without working the manual probably won't have a job for much longer (if they don't kill everyone before hand ... as has happened before). These aircraft are hellishly complex - it would be crazy to rely on pilots having to remember hundreds of checklists and be expected to get them 100% correct in an emergency.

  • Mussa Hail
    Mussa Hail 21 day ago

    There's something about him the way he talks like ready to burst out in laughter any min lol..like he's walking in a park 😀

  • 19580822
    19580822 21 day ago

    We recently experienced a compressor stall in a MD-90, and had to execute a 1 engine landing. A bit nerve-racking, but the landing was smooth as glass. The pilot told us that they practice single-engine landings on the simulator. How comforting! I believe the engine was an IAE 2525. An improvement on the JT8D? I wonder.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 21 day ago

      In reality all landings are done with zero engines (we retard them to ground idle as part of the final part of landing). Aircraft piloting is all about energy management - we have 3 sources of energy that we manage; chemical energy (fuel) - potential energy (altitude) and kinetic energy (speed). For the descent phase you're wanting to lose potential and kinetic energy - so we reduce engine power (saving chemical energy) and put out flaps which increase drag. So in practice, single engine approach and landings are no particular big deal - and even less so with fuselage mounted engines as they produce far less asymmetric yawing. Commercial aircraft will fly quite happily on 1 of 2 engines (but at a reduced maximum altitude and speed) - and can even take-off on one engine if the failure occurs after V1 (the speed during the takeoff roll that the window of opportunity to abort the takeoff has closed). The A340 here could maintain flight on just 1 of 4 engines after the fuel dump. Hope this helps.

  • Road Racer
    Road Racer 21 day ago

    If I were the pilot and I knew I was going to die I'd ask the co-pilot for a blow job. At least you'd leave this world happy!

  • Range Man
    Range Man 22 days ago

    I'm not sure I would have said "to protect the engine" first....

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 21 day ago

      +Range Man I wouldn't over-think it; could probably have been announced in 100 different ways - the one he chose did the job just fine - other ways would have probably have been fine too.

    • Range Man
      Range Man 22 days ago

      I was speaking about his announcement to the passengers...I don't think they even needed to know specifically about the engine...

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 22 days ago

      An uncontained engine failure can ruin your entire day.

  • Range Man
    Range Man 22 days ago

    Engine problem determined one day earlier, and it was put back in the air ? whose in charge here? the FAA tombstone agency ?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 21 day ago

      +Range Man Wouldn't be the first time. One of our RNZAF Hercules has a problem once - an entire role of muslin cloth had been left in a fuel tank after a servicing ...

    • Range Man
      Range Man 22 days ago

      6. contamination clogging cooler ?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 22 days ago

      I was curious about that myself. The overheat was caused by a failed fuel / oil heat exchanger. The only possibilities I can think of is (1) it was a different fault to the one the day before, but one that had the same symptoms & result. (2) The replacement part was also faulty. (3) Fault misdiagnosed and test-flight not flown (4) Wrong part changed (eg for #4 engine) or (5) "something else".

  • Boulderguru
    Boulderguru 22 days ago

    Erstmal ne Schoki!!!! :D

  • Mic Krout
    Mic Krout 23 days ago

    Im being taught german by a swiss instructor, i didnt know how great a instructor he was until this video. I didnt need to make a conscious effort to pick up most of the conversation, I wish we had more teachers like him.

  • Tom Jabar
    Tom Jabar 24 days ago

    Wow, if its 1 euro per liter, its cost 53,000 euro damping out ..

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 23 days ago

      USD $671.87 per metric ton at todays price = so that's USD $35,609.11. Far cheaper than repairs to undercarriage or to the entire aircraft from an over run trying to brake an extra 53 tonnes with only 1/2 the usual reverse thrust available. A litre of Jet A1 doesn't weigh 1KG by the way, so it's not 53,000 litres.

  • Saket Roy
    Saket Roy 24 days ago

    Engine 3 high temp checklist:
    Shut engine 3
    Gen 3 off
    Descend FL2300
    Dump fuel
    Eat chocolate

  • Mike Incognito
    Mike Incognito 25 days ago

    Why are they vomiting when they talk

  • mfuji02
    mfuji02 25 days ago

    4 engines ftw

  • RadioactiveGMS
    RadioactiveGMS 26 days ago

    Who the fuck is recording that, the guy just vanish when the face cams are on

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 25 days ago

      +RadioactiveGMS You're welcome. You'll never see sunlight in a sim - nor chocolates for that matter. Plus, dumping 53 tonnes of kerosene on the sim hangar floor makes a real mess. You can see more of PilotsEye TV stuff here: pilotseye.tv/en/ - look under flight paths - A340 Shanghai for more about this event.

    • RadioactiveGMS
      RadioactiveGMS 25 days ago

      Thanks for the explanation, for a second i thought it was a simulation

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 26 days ago +1

      The flight was being recorded by PilotsEye TV (who have recorded lots of flights; the package and sell the content to aviation enthusiasts). The cameraman ducks down behind the first officer's seat or leaves the cockpit altogether; the footage is edited for sound continuity - I know of at least one part where they've substituted a generic video scene to keep the audio as it should be (you can see the altitude change for that clip) - probably because it was an important audio part but the camera man was in the scene. Hope this helps.

  • Petit Louis
    Petit Louis 26 days ago

    06:58 reminds me of the recon drone from Empire Strikes Back...

  • nivia Maeva Trindade
    nivia Maeva Trindade 26 days ago

    The Captain announcing the emergency over the speakers: Khhrrrrr. Krrrr khhhh khhhhrrrr krrrrrr!! Kkkhhhr khhhrr khhhhhrrrrrrr!

  • Fillaaaaa
    Fillaaaaa 26 days ago

    Macht mal Untertitel an das ist nicht zum aushalten :DDDDDD

  • Saurabh Malhotra
    Saurabh Malhotra 26 days ago

    Are they googling the solution? 😱

  • Mike Clark
    Mike Clark 26 days ago

    So, no harness on these pilots. What if they hit clear air turbulence? They would be on the cockpit floor. Careless.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 26 days ago +1

      They're still wearing lap belts which is all that's required (legally and safety-wise); shoulder harnesses are only required where there is the possibility of longitudinal decelerations (ie takeoff and landing).

  • magni hansen
    magni hansen 26 days ago

    Holy shitt !!! A female pilot ??? Will never fly with a female pilot !!!!!!!! Women are to stupid !!!!!!

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 26 days ago +1

      And yet she can fly the A340-300 a lot better than you. Guess that says all that needs to be said about your intelligence.

  • Monsieur Mouse
    Monsieur Mouse 27 days ago

    Too bad they all died

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 27 days ago

      Right after the safely made it to Shanghai on the replacement flight too. Gawd-damn that coincidental spontaneous human combustion.

  • Reinaldo Rodriguez
    Reinaldo Rodriguez 27 days ago

    incredible footage of airbus engine failure.High Drama....

  • Kurt Ingalls
    Kurt Ingalls 27 days ago

    53 tonnes of fuel.....wow!!!!!!

  • Peter Stählin
    Peter Stählin 27 days ago

    Was für eine beispielhafte und professionelle Teamarbeit der beiden Piloten.

  • Paul Gosney
    Paul Gosney 28 days ago

    Lucky they didn't keep having engine issues.. the scenario could've been very different.

    Pilot comes on the PA to announce, "we have some bad news. One of the engines just failed and as a result, we will be delayed by 30 minutes."
    A bit later, the pilot returns, "we have some more bad news. Another engine just failed, and we will be delayed an additional hour."
    Another bit later, "Sorry folks, more bad news. A third engine just failed, and so, since we will be running only on the one remaining engine, the flight will be delayed by another two hours."
    At this point, a disgruntled passenger turns to his neighbor and says, "I sure hope that last engine keeps working or else we'll be up here all day!"
    #Badum-tish!

  • Mark A. White
    Mark A. White 29 days ago

    I get the part where as English is the international language. In which I'm fluent in. But are these folks speaking German or Swedish lango?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 29 days ago +1

      They're speaking Swiss German. English isn't required in aviation (that's a common misconception) but it must be available as one of the languages when communicating with ATC so that there is a language in common if needed. Crews speak their native language in the cockpit (it reduces the chances of a misunderstanding - especially during an emergency). The majority of the radio conversation we hear in this video is between the aircraft and their operations base in Zurich where - again - they're free to use any language they choose. All ATC comms in this video were in English.

  • Neil Nimmo
    Neil Nimmo 29 days ago

    Staged. Too many cameras, this was a drill.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern 29 days ago

      No - not a "drill". The flight was being recorded by PilotsEye TV anyway. More info about it on their website: pilotseye.tv/en/route/a340-pvg-shanghai-engine-overheat-thomas-frick/

  • PC GUY 1241
    PC GUY 1241 Month ago

    One of the most calming captain announcements for an engine problem!

  • janibonneil
    janibonneil Month ago

    If that happened to Delta people would have to wait days for another available plane.

  • Dj Mastermind
    Dj Mastermind Month ago

    how to fly any Airbus except the a350.
    step 1: push the start button. 'joke'
    step 2: check all flaps and make sure they move
    step 4: click a few buttons and you're good to take off.
    step 5: takeoff
    How to fly any boeing plane
    step 1: enter the 43 digit combination key along with 50 locks then press a button to open the button to start then enter a 5 digit pin to confirm starting the plane
    step 2: check all flaps and angles each flap at 10 degrees- 40 degrees make sure they are not moving too slow or too fast.
    step 3: check all your barometers, click every button in the cockpit and make sure every piece of electronic works.
    step 4: apply pushback by truck. then apply gentle force to 100 different thrust controls, then you're good to go.
    step 5: repeat steps 1-4 3x and then you're clear for takeoff.

  • Ivan D
    Ivan D Month ago

    Wenns mal deutsch wäre aber das ist so mega krebs was die sabbeln

  • W. McMaster
    W. McMaster Month ago

    aaaaand there goes a lifetime of fuel for me. aaaand it's gone!

  • nigel day
    nigel day Month ago

    Heres a few ECAMS that would snap him out of his coffee and choccy coma "overspeed overspeed " retard retard " ooo heres a good one whilst in flight "rudder ratio" and lastly "stall stall" not to be confused with the oh shit were going in wich is stallall wich sounds like stall but isnt there is a pause in the breif sence of security thyinking that .....yu crash

  • D4nisworld
    D4nisworld Month ago

    dumping 53 tons of fuel you mad. what a waste of fuel and pollution that will have caused.

    • Sccratlanta
      Sccratlanta Month ago +1

      Are you stupid or something D4?

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern Month ago +1

      The alternative was to land 53 tonnes (not tons) overweight risking undercarriage damage or a runway overrun from having to brake an extra 53 tonnes with only 1/2 of the normal reverse thrust available. Long term it doesn't cause any particular pollution; the fuel is released as droplets which are ripped to shreds in the wake turbulence a split second later and evaporate almost immediately when dumped at altitude like this. Then over the next few months - being a hydrocarbon - it's broken down by UV radiation into hydrogen and plant food. None of it ever reaches the ground.

  • Free Man
    Free Man Month ago

    Chem Trails!!!!
    No reason to dump fuel!!!!!!
    B.S. All staged nice Freemasonic 3 stripe tie.Up and to the left.

    • Free Man
      Free Man 27 days ago

      +Colin Southern Hahahahahahahaha are you saying a A330 can refule 63 tons of fuel in 1 hour through a 2 inch rubber reinforced hose with a pump the size of a lawn mower.
      And i bet you beleeve in Santa Claws and NASA really spent 12 billionon a pen that writes upside down. While the russians just used a pencil.
      No wonder the Yanks use the Russians to fly out to sea as we have never beenout side the dome.

    • Free Man
      Free Man 27 days ago

      +Sccratlanta Ex parra ex metalurgist ex fitter machinist pressure welder certified and studying law and 3 languages.
      Air is fuel top fuelers run on Nitros oxide.
      oxygen and nitrogen moron.
      Whie mixed these gasses are relatively inert without a ignition fuel but separated oxygen is super volatile it is an oxidiser.
      Most dangerous gas i have ever worked with.
      Hydrogen is the safest despite the B.S. hindinberg propoganda it evapourates at something like 30 metres per second and lpg sits on the ground.

    • Sccratlanta
      Sccratlanta Month ago

      +Free Man you're really stupid. And yet we drive cars that have fuel tanks. Fuel is stored in wings and in the body, get over it moron.

    • Free Man
      Free Man Month ago

      +Sccratlanta Ok 53,000 is 53,000 litres is 53 cubic metres. In the wings.
      It is called frequency resonance, to seperate the Oxygen and Nitrogen from Air.
      Look up the JoeCell dim whit it is not zero point energy, B.S. From Physicists.
      Fuel is used to ignite air not the other way round moron.

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern Month ago

      +Sccratlanta LOL - yep - I think so. If / when a verified heavy metal pilot says the same thing THEN I'll give it slightly more credibility. Just wish I could place real-money bets on who's right in these situations - I'd make a killing.

  • Doremi Fasolla
    Doremi Fasolla Month ago

    Very interesting topic-thanks for uploading this technical information.

  • biene
    biene Month ago

    bei 9:08 sagt er "pan pan pan" = bevorzugte Behandlung erbeten

  • JOHN OLEJNIK
    JOHN OLEJNIK Month ago

    Fake fake fake. All transmission is English only

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern Month ago +1

      Contrary to popular misconception, English is only required to be be ONE of the languages available so that there is a language in common if needed. Within the cockpit crews speak in their native languages (it's safer - especially during emergencies - as there is less chance of a misunderstanding). The majority of the conversation you hear over the radio is with their operations base on their company frequency where - again - they're free to use any language they wish. All conversations between the aircraft and ATC in this video we're in English. Nothing fake about the video in the slightest; it was a commercial flight from Zurich to Shanghai being filmed by PilotsEye TV anyway. The fault was a failed fuel/oil heat exchanger.

  • John Allen
    John Allen Month ago

    Great video but it would have been great to have them speak English

  • RonaLs gibs
    RonaLs gibs Month ago

    How it happened on Indonesian Will make crush 😂

  • Brian M
    Brian M Month ago

    wondering why they can't continue with just the 3 engines

    • Brian M
      Brian M Month ago

      +Colin Southern hmm interesting, makes sense

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern Month ago +1

      A number of reasons:

      1. On 3 engines they have to fly with higher thrust settings - at a less efficient altitude - at a slower speed - with less favorable tail winds so fuel consumption per mile flown actually increases and they wouldn't have enough fuel to reach their destination (and they can't stop and refuel because they can't take off again on 3 engines).

      2. Even if fuel wasn't an issue they would then have to fly personnel, equipment, and spares from Zurich to fix the problem; the aircraft would then be grounded for even longer affecting the travel plans of more people who's flights would have to be cancelled.

      3. Safety issue - it's not know what's causing the issue - there's a small chance that it could affect the other engines later on in the flight.

  • addiey qamar
    addiey qamar Month ago +2

    this is simulator

    • Colin Southern
      Colin Southern Month ago +3

      No. It was NOT "a simulator". It was a real flight from Zurich to Shanghai. The problem was a failed #3 engine fuel/oil heat exchanger. The flight was being recorded anyway by PilotsEye TV (who create many high-quality cockpit footage like this); the failure was just a lucky coincidence for them and a not-so-lucky one for passengers and crew. You can read more about it here: pilotseye.tv/en/route/a340-pvg-shanghai-engine-overheat-thomas-frick/ or look at more of their great footage here: pilotseye.tv/en/flightroutes/ You'll never see sunlight in a simulator - or chocolate for that matter. Nor will you see fuel being dumped from wings (it would make a mess of the sim hangar floor ...). Not a simulation in any way, shape or form.

  • roo dy
    roo dy Month ago

    Super Team !