Yeah, you could hear their disappointment. Well, maybe next time...

It was good that the pilots didn't hesitate, just fired the bottles off even though there was no indication. Awesome job.

@@roddy222 Not to be an ass but a fire department telling you there is fire... that is a solid indication.

@@aebalc The pilot reported that he didn't get an indication in the cockpit, as in: no warnings came on. So, the comment is indicating that the crew trusted fire without an indication.

@@SpartacusColo There are instances when a fire indication isn't shown in the cockpit. It depends on the area of the engine that caught fire. For example, a tailpipe fire wouldn't be detected by the fire loops but it would be very visible from outside.

Agreed! For all we know, ARFF Command could have been on the toilet when the video starts. Tower, ARFF, and the flight crew all did a terrific job here.

Between 80kts and V1, Southwest will only reject for: engine failure, fire/ fire warning, predictive windshear warning, or aircraft is unsafe/ unable to fly. Airspeed indicator(s) failure is minor and doing a high speed abort for something like that would be more risky than just taking off and coming back to land.

We call them loops…fire loops

This event is handled in their simulation training along with other events that rarely happen.

@@paulkurilecz4209 Of course it it... And they brief it in the below/before the line pre takeoff briefing. But a simulator can't add danger or the knowledge everyone dies if the pilot balls it up. And the briefing is intended to shorten the startle period, but even then there's a sense of unreality that people describe experiencing in emergency situations. They still did a very good job...

@@a24396 SWA's simulation training is to have their cockpit crews go through normal take off and landing procedures and then at some point the IP will "flip a switch" on the simulator to cause any number of problems either single events or multiple events. If you haven't been in a modern day flight simulator, you should. Your mind's and body's reaction will convince you that it is absolutely real. I had an opportunity to "fly" a 737 simulator and go through the Delta 191 approach. I managed to successfully go around and then land. After "landing", my heart was racing, my shirt was soaked in sweat in the armpits and back and my knees were weak. So, convince my limbic system that it wasn't "real". The IP told me that my gear came within 10 feet from the ground. My response was better 10 feet above than 10 feet below.

Nothing ever good came from panicking.

Lmao.

Trying out new high speed taxi. Got to be careful with those brakes.

This reminds me of the animations from an old Onion video "Obama replaces high speed rail plan with high speed busses" Thank me later, it's hilarious

@@highviewbarbell I'd never seen that, still laughing. I loved it! Thanks!

It’s not high speed taxi. It’s just a really small airport.

Yep, had a passenger get up on landing in an AirAsia flight to KUL, he was escorted off the plane and I later seen him in and held in police custody while i was killing time in the airport. Not the best way to start a holiday. Simple, Follow there instructions. Cheers.

Just go. It’s not taking off. Too bad.

I’m not going around because someone stood up. In 24 years I’ve landed twice while someone was taking a dump. It happens. Nor should flight attendants get up to put someone back in their seat. There’s a PA system for that. If a passenger gets hurt, that’s on them.

When you have to go, you just have to go. Would you rather go around or clean up a soiled seat...

@@BobanVagene if only that were true. The passenger will get injured. That will cause a delay, so everyone is inconvenienced. Then the passenger will sue the airline because he or she got injured. It may never go to court because the airline might decide to settle, as a cheaper alternative to fighting in court. Then ticket prices will go up in order to cover the losses by the airline. All because some jerk chose not to follow rules.

Well said!

And they think planes can fly without a pilot/co pilot. Stupid thinking.

Why didn't the pilot take off? Passengers have places to be and it didn't sound serious enough to cancel a flight

Seriously? Some of the most stupid accidents have happened in the US.

Btw, the world trade center was in the US...

And the thousands of similar incidents not reported in 2nd world countries.

@@johnlawrence7386😂 the hate instantly you know nothing stfu

@@flo7844literally nothing to do with nothing but thanks

It's an extra $59 per plane that the airlines does not want to spend.

@@lilolme69 It's another couple of holes in the skin of the plane causing an additional weakness to the airframe. Plus it adds a small, but increased amount of weight to the plane, thus requiring more fuel. But I tend to agree it would likely be worth it.

@@merlinathrawes746 Just build it in to new planes. If they would have started this in 2000, it would be almost 25 years since then and would be on almost all the planes by now.

Some of them do have cameras mounted externally, (atop the tail usually) not only that you can also watch it on the in flight entertainment screen, although that wasn't its original purpose. Several videos of it on here.

Boeing struggle to put tech from the 1990s in their 737s, how could you possibly think they’d justify anything from this century…

I'd guess good headsets and good radio recievers help

Police scanners are even worse!

I'm not a pilot, but have private pilot friends and liked to listen to ATC traffic on some United flights. Knowing the situation is really important, that helps here! A lot of the understanding comes from pilot and ATC having a very good idea of what might be said, and why, and of the limited vocabulary that is used. Oh, and knowing layout of the runways and taxiways - something we don't really have here!

There's one more factor: They're a lot closer to each other than the receiver used by LiveATC. The LiveATC receiver could be anywhere within a few miles of the airport. A quiet mumble on our end might be a loud mumble to them, or at least a mumble without any interference.

As a native english speaker, I most certainly do not understand them! Then again I don't usually do well with song lyrics, either.

I don't know if I would even call this a near miss.

You sound like my wife after a passionate night of love making...

@@YOURDADSDILDO Bruh she was lying to u

@@YOURDADSDILDO Best reply I have ever seen to a comment

Professionalism?? 1). The tower controller was not not paying attention and had to ask the pilots to repeat their rejected runway call. 2). The tower controller did not read back and confirm that he had called the fire department. 3). The pilot and ARFF had a difficult time establishing communication, not sure who was on what frequency. You call that professional?? Wow, your standards are woefully insufficient.

@mikek5298 Found the person who has never been in an emergent situation. If someone suddenly comes across the radio with something unexpected and alarming, its pretty much standard to make sure you heard what you thought you did either by asking for say again or a readback of what they said to confirm if you werent 100% sure. Sure the controller should had confirmed fire was on the way but hes probably scrambling to get everything rolling. And the same for the pilots. They might have been on multiple frequencies themselves. Its easy to sit there and armchair quarterback from the safety of your home but when youre actually in an emergent situation, its wildly different. Stuff is happening really fast and whats most important is making sure everyones safe. They acted with professionalism. Was it perfect, no. But that still doesnt give you the right to judge.

Someone had to make the incident about them, I would bet the were trying to get a selfie with the engine fire background. A lot went on between a lot of people during a very short time and only the people who just had to sit and stay alert screwed up

That's his takeoff clearance. Once airborne from the runway he's being instructed to make a slight right turn to a heading of 190. In this case he never got that far and rejected prior to getting airborne.

First, it sounded like the engine was on fire for all of 10 seconds, in a large part because of my second point. As demonstrated here, those engines can put out fires with internal systems in many cases. It sounds like there was no need for the firefighters to actually get involved when the crew was able to put out the fire by "firing a bottle". They even observed the fire appeared to be out. Now, I'm assuming what you're really pointing out is the apparent conflict of the fire fighting crew backing away instead of fighting the fire. What makes you think they couldn't fight the fire while backing away? I'm going to assume the fire crew actually did have a truck capable of spraying given the pilot's comment about firing the bottle before they sprayed. Hell, that comment by the pilot or co-pilot alone potentially shows he considered the fire truck to be in a position to react appropriately if needed. Do you know the reach of those sprayers on those trucks? I don't, but I've seen videos of them being used in a more....ceremonial...fashion. They don't have to be right on the plane to spray an engine fire. Maybe they have to back away because they're too close and the nozzle can't depress far enough to aim down? Maybe it's considered safer to keep a minimum distance away when spraying down an aircraft? I don't know have the answer to this, but I HIGHLY doubt they were backing away in a manner that prevented them from fighting the fire as you seem to be implying. But let me emphasize....in this case, they were not needed to put out the fire. So why throw shade at them when you know so little about the situation or what they're trained to do?

One of the first rules of fire/rescue you're taught is, "We don't trade lives." We won't sacrifice ourselves to rescue you. It's not because we're more valuable than you, but because the loss of one of us means not only do we now have an additional victim to deal with, but we also have 1 less rescuer and several more who have to deal with them, so it's a minus 3-5 for us. And it might be minus a lot more of you if that tips the balance and compromises the operation. I assure you those firefighters knew exactly how far they needed to back off and still be able to put that engine out and evacuate the plane if needed. They probably also needed to back off simply to give the plane maneuvering room.

Please enlighten me. What accident are you referring to at srq?

Yep

I sure wouldn't get up, but I'd be planning my steps to the exit doors on the right wing.

And the one in Las Vegas a few years ago where they evacuated on the runway. Rejected takoff due to a fire.

It's also takeoff....Like they probably just got on within 30 minutes. If they actually took off no way they would have been able to get up any faster.

It's spelled you're, with an apostrophe.

They are basically fire extinguishers that are plumbed into the engines and nacelles. There is usually one per engine plus an extra. They are a last resort. I promise that the plane went nowhere for a while.

@@wmason1961 Incorrect, it's where the pilots break open a bottle of alcohol to celebrate because they know it might have been much worse :)

@@wmason1961 You rarely go away with a failing engine anyway. Plus the brakes and tires that will probably need replacement because of damages from the RTO.

Why? Do you think planes are designed in such a way that an engine fire can ever reach the fuel? Do you think they had a 6 year design it? Or do you just watch too many movies? Airplanes are safe, get over your irrational fear.

@@kkjjqrysdgadff7782 fuel is in the wings, right above the engine... Hence pulling the bottle immediatly after hearing the word "fire".

@kkjjqrysdgadff7782 It always amazes me how KZfaq comments will take any opportunity to jump to condescension and disdain. Chill out, will you?

@@kkjjqrysdgadff7782 There's a report from the United States Department of Transportation called "Potential for Fuel Tank Fire and Hydrodynamic Ram from Uncontained Aircraft Engine Debris" that shows how wrong you ARE, Skippy. You just sit there and let the adults talk, okay?

@@maxsdad538 What!? No response from kkjj7782? Still reading I suppose!

Each engine has two canisters of fire extinguishing agent that the pilots can discharge into the nacelle if needed. There are also fire bottles for the APU and the cargo holds.

Two bottles per engine? On the B727 at least,there were only two bottles for the three engines. Must have come a long way.

Carefull you will hurt some stupids feelings

Most of the time it’s a passenger that has to use the restroom and was hoping to use the restroom while in cruise. Sometimes they’ve been holding it in so long they have no choice. Especially the female passengers. It’s a lot harder for them to hold it in because of they’re anatomy. It is what it is.

Is the video in real time or did the creator maybe remove several minutes of delays?

@@Mr_Bones., their anatomy. They are not the anatomy. They have an anatomy.

The fire was in the engine and due to no fire warning in the cockpit it was likely in the tailpipe unless the fire detecting system was damaged during the failure. Tailpipe fires are "safe" as the fire is occurring in a part of the engine that is designed to handle the high heat. In normal instances of a tailpipe fire the pilot would motor the engine (spin it without fuel so the engine doesn't actually start) to blow the flames out and then would continue on. In this case since the engine that was on fire was damaged the option to motor that engine is not available so the pilot dispensed a fire extinguisher bottle into the engine to prevent the fire from spreading and allowed the fire department to maintain visuals on the state of the fire. Had the pilot ordered an unnecessary evacuation there would have been confusion on the ground, and injuries would be likely making it a worse situation than it was. This plane probably waited the required time to allow the brakes to safely cool and then proceeded to the terminal where the passengers disembarked normally.

The brakes heat up after you stop. They don't reach max temperature until several minutes later. It's easier and safer to stay stopped, have the ARFF trucks prepositioned and ready, than it be moving, catch fire, and have an increase in potential for total brake failure. At which point ARFF trucks are scrambling to get into position with 150,000lbs still moving uncontrolled with 180 people on board.

Each engine has two extinguishing bottles that the pilots can activate in the flight deck. It’s activated with a pull and twist motion.

@@mlx39996 Thank you for the explanation.

they said engine smoke at first, then fire

A fueler providing his uneducated opinion? It’s like a janitor telling a surgeon he thinks he ignores safety standards.

@@LEVELGAZANOW Im a pilot Mr Uneducated. Talk about not being part of the crayons. Watch your mouth boy

You don’t need a degree to see things arn’t correct.

@@TangoDelta8111 when an uneducated person in the field of aviation doesn’t understand what is going on, you need a touch of common sense and not a degree. This jackass doesn’t have a clue what he’s talked about

@@LEVELGAZANOWwhy can’t a janitor point out that a surgeon is ignoring safety standards? that seems like a totally plausible scenario

It would be very bad for the ARFF garage to be hit in a crash, so it shouldn't be built too close to runways. And the runways themselves are often a few kilometers long, so it doesn't make a ton of sense to set up hoses along the entire length. They wouldn't have people to immediately operate them, since that's a lot of people standing around all day - standing inside the runway safety zone where the danger of being hit by a crash is greatest. For an emergency landing, ARFF does move closer to the active runway, but they get called ahead of time.

@@jordanrodrigues1279 I suspect the speed-of-molasses-FAA has a lot to say about what can and can't be implemented. An engineer tasked with designing a fire suppression system for an airport would look at the data and determine that most fires occur on the runways and then implement a set of remotely controlled foam dispensing units along the length so that an aircraft in distress would slide into a mountain of foam thereby diminishing the fire even before the bits had come to rest. Thereafter the ARFF can drive the 2 miles or so to the scene. I'm reminded of the Air Korea San Francisco crash where it seemed to take forever for the fire crew to arrive as the plane burned and where at least one of the fatalities occurred as a result of being run over by the ARFF truck. As they say in primary school - could do better.

They didn’t. Sounds like fire was observed by the firefighters on the ground. They relayed that to the pilots who decided to use the extinguisher.

That’s correct. Even if you have no fire warning indication on the cockpit but you receive and indication verbally or visually by someone outside the aircraft, you’re gonna assume the worst case and discharge at least one hrd bottle.

Initially they had an indication of engine failure but not of fire. Something also made them think a tire was flat on that side so presumably there was also some noise and/or vibration that would have made them reject takeoff even if there wasn't instrumentation telling them about a problem.

A tail pipe fire won’t indicate, it’s usually fuel that bypassed the n1 assembly, unburned fuel, not a hazard to the engine exactly because it’s in the tail and normally we just spin the engine blades and it will blow itself out (usually occurs during start with a failed igniter) but I would of released a bottle myself just in case…

In their rejection call they say engine failure, not fire.

thats a heading assignment after takeoff

@@tikkin11 Yes, and 190 off a heading of 180 is not that much really...

Has to do with more of the tires than a break fire.

@@chasefriesen6633, brakes, not breaks. Those are not the same thing.

@@seriouscat2231 thanks for that. Lol. Must be a slow day in your world.

@@chasefriesen6633, yeah. I'm trying to work myself up to something useful but I'm not sure if it's working.

@@seriouscat2231 nope what you did was beyond useful. I now know the difference between the two words.

probably for the best given it failed and caught fire