Ooops sorry guys I forgot to comment that line of code in the ATC auto response software. I will have an updated version of the software soon 🤣. Current: if voice_over == option_two: text_speech = “Okay, very good”

@@user-gy8be9cf7i Okay, very good.

@@Aran2323 Indeed, okay, very good.

the same as u forget your keys at home, but u don't want to pay money for that return

They are trying to avoid paperwork 😂 I wonder though if they actually found what hit them.

Yes.

@@chrisc161 I`m wondering, too. Probably a drone or a big bird.

@@NicolaW72 Nicola ...it could have been your brother Nicolas and six reindeer. ??

Listening to lots of ATC, there are some dialects that lend to heavier accents and tougher communication (including NYC accent 😂)

English is popular in Portugal and widely spoken. Unlike other European countries, Portugal doesn't dub their English TV content so they have a lot of exposure, especially to British TV channels. Even the more elderly parts of population (~40-55 age range) speak it somewhat.

@@WhineMorePlease I get what you mean, but calling 40 year olds elderly is absolutely hilarious

@@redwitch95 That was "more elderly." Apparently the "slightly elderly" are "30-40."

Lol ATC is always tryna get someone in more trouble feels like

In this case it was the completely right call by ATC.

The airline gets billed for ARFF services meeting the plane I am pretty sure.

@@JohnSmith-zi9or Why didn't they continue to their destination then? They were obviously concerned about damage.

​@@JohnSmith-zi9oran overweight landing can lead to overheated brakes, which could catch fire or an extended landing past the end of the runway. Neither one is a certaincy, but a good reason to roll the trucks. Making sure the plane left no debris on the runway is also a good idea, but not an emergency.

So... def good they didn't try to head to Portugal 😬

It returned today to LIS

Pilots/airlines delay declaring an emergency as long as they can because there’s a TON of paperwork and follow up investigation once the emergency is declared. It also grounds the aircraft/pilots for an extended period and forces the passengers into an uncomfortable emergency deplane and that can cause negative sentiment in an airlines reputation. In summary, it all comes down to money. Emergencies ground airplanes and ground airplanes don’t make moolah.

@@usefulprogrammer9880 Is there rule that requires they come down the chutes? Something like this sounds like a de-plane via the jetway, which they have to do anyway.

@@JimAllen-Persona They have mobile staircases at most airports, for when passengers need to deplane somewhere other than the gate. The emergency slide is for cases where it's a serious enough emergency that they don't have time to wait for the stairs to arrive.

@@usefulprogrammer9880what you talking about. Nobody forces an emergency deplane

@@fischerhansen5647 I don’t think I worded my original comment correctly. I didn’t mean emergency deplane, I meant deplane due to an emergency. There’s circumstances where a plane declares emergency and passengers deplane as they would any other time at a gate, but they still were forced to deplane due to the emergency.

They hit what the captain described as a "big bird". The plane must be quite fecked.

And he'd set 7700 in the box, so... emergency then. LOL!

@@cageordie I suspect they get billed for a truck roll.

@@jamesphillips2285 Nope.

@@cageordie No they didn't, ATC did that on their behalf, it will appear like that on their screens regardless of what you punch into the transponder. Any other aircraft can declare a Mayday on behalf of another aircraft and ATC will paint that plane 7700 regardless of crew actions (who might be way to busy to worry about the transponder).

@@goodshipkaraboudjan Not true...at all !! In most "emergency situation " you will just keep the transponder setting you have unless asked to change it by the Controller. A7700 can only be selected by the pilot. It is used to draw attention when communication is poor and to draw the Controller's attention in a sudden emergency. ..like an emergency descent. The Controller is REQUIRED to have the emergency services on standby for overweight landings. No choice. You are obviously not a pilot? ? True?? .

Not a pilot: but they could have had 22L in the computer already. Does 22R have an ILS? Sounds like they made use of that system to land.

(4:05) “Winds 240 at 7”

22L is longer by about 200m.

22R has a massively displaced threshold for landings so the landing distance available is similar to 22L

The only real explanation I can think of, is 22R would be far worse to shut down if the aircraft had to remain on the runway. Additionally, there is an emergency system at the end of 22L that would stop the aircraft in the event it overran the runway. However, my gut says it was just operationally the best option and the pilots did not request 22R.

Agreed 100%. Came here to comment the same.

The tons thing is very confusing for me as a non-native. I learned that the translation of the word "tona" is "ton", plural "tons", and went on with it. Much, much later I learned that this is NOT 1000 kg, as it is in my language. On top of that, "ton" and "tonne" are pronounced the same, so even after knowing the distinction I still don't know the difference in speech, unless I ask specifically. (Luckily, this was inconsequential for me, but I could imagine a scenario where this would be a *massive* problem)

A "metric ton" would be 1000 kgs but a "Ton" would be 2,000 lbs. So quite off yes

Endurance is flight (not plane) specific due to onboard weight. Would be too challenging for ATC to determine w/out more questions. I believe the pilot just has to toggle the display to the correct readout.

@@jakistam1000 If you need to be precise in speech and it isn't obvious from the context you need to say "short ton", "long ton", or "metric ton".

@@jonathanbott87 For terminal operations you declare the quantity of fuel (pounds or kilos), *not* the time. They want to know what to expect for fire and spillage, they don't care about endurance. Endurance is only a factor for certain enroute situations, but as it relates to the airport, they want the mass.

@Patrick in Ottawa - I was just about to make a similar comment. I agree completely. I do not believe that a commercial pilot with international experience lets the thought of paperwork or no paperwork dictate his decisions in such a situation. More likely the point was to communicate that the aircraft and passengers were not in immediate danger.

@@lisanadinebaker5179 Then why is he landing overweight? ?

Patrick... You are obviously not a pilot. The Controller did not make it an emergency. It is a mandatory requirement for emergency services on standby when there is an overweight landing. Ask a lawyer. .... If the pilots are not that concerned why land overweight?? That poor Controller was trying to determine the risk. Just call PAN PAN. I have a possible URGENT situation due to possible damage. The pilots communication was poor, confusing and non standard. Their knowledge of normal international airport safety regulations was zero. If there is a longer runway available , why not take it.

@@daftvader4218 why do you have to be condescending? Not everyone knows all the requirements overweight aircraft landings. Also the return button and space bar are different

@@jackbriant7800 - he’s a troll. Everyone “isn’t a pilot” according to him yet you ask him questions about stuff and he has no answer. I suspect he’s a pilot wanna be and is on these aviation ATC channels flexing. Literally a quarter of the comments in comment sections such as this are from him flexing on everyone who he feels superior to.

@@JohnSmith-zi9or You don't get it. The crew should declare a PAN.

​@@JohnSmith-zi9or "declare an emergency" is weird US only stuff though, is my point--we need to get rid of it and use standard ICAO terms only

If he doesn't have to break any rules and doesn't break any equipment the likelihood that there would be any paper work is pretty close to zero. Even if there were any paperwork, that's a stupid reason, not to declare. But unfortunately, you are probably correct.

There is a common misconception that emergencies require a large amount of paperwork, which scares pilots away from declaring. There is generally almost no paperwork directly related to the emergency. They have to report to company that they diverted anyway, and they probably have to file a safety report for the damage anyway, so declaring doesn't add anything more

Thanks, I was wondering why he was so insistant on the non-emergency label. Does that add negative points for the pilots?

My guess is rolling the trucks costs money: but so does coming back for an extra landing.

When this happens it almost sounds like they think they have to pay out of pocket for the truck roll.

22R has a displaced threshold so it is actually shorter than 22L. The pilots probably briefed returning to 22L, so that’s what they went with.

Sums up this terrible crew.

@@EdOeuna Rubbish

@@daftvader4218 - 22L is 2560m in length. 22R is 2376m in length. The only rubbish here is your poor attempts at trolling. You can’t even get runway lengths correct. So must much for your 43 years of flying experience. Back under your bridge Mr Daft.

Do you have my vector, victor?

Lmao😂😂😂😂❤

Very curious as to the answer of your second question.

Or the situation doesnt require declaring an emergency and they just wanna return for safety reasons

Ego.

The trucks roll for free. They are paid for by the airport out of the gate and landing fees airlines pay, or they may be part of a larger city fire department. They still get paid even if there are no aircraft emergencies.

Maintain 3000' I believe means 3000' or higher, gives them some flexibility but says below 3000' maybe is a 🏢 or 🏔️ or just limit of airspace

paperwork and possibly involved in an investigation to what happened

I’m a pilot and I reckon it’s to communicate that they don’t need priority.

I’ve only declared an emergency once in 42 years of flying. There are no negative connotations that I’ve felt are attached to doing so, but your point is well taken. I think pilots by nature are not prone to being rattled under situations that others would find stressful. So I think it’s not so much wishing that things will be ok as much as it’s thinking that most situations aren’t a big deal. With an overweight landing there is a required inspection but this is mandated whether an emergency is declared with ATC or not. The other concern is overheated brakes but with a long runway is not usually a problem. It is, however, why the tower declared an emergency on behalf of the flight. They want the trucks out there in case there is a tire/brake pad fire. Also, the ARFF crews don’t get called out often so they will push the button whenever there is the slightest chance they will be needed just so everyone gets the practice.

I've also heard that emergencies lead to a ton of paperwork after landing, which most pilots would rather not have to do

Like he said - Ops normal, no SOP will require declaring and emergency because there isn't one. They're just erring on the side of caution to go back and have the plane looked at but there is no emergency.

@@jg-7780 Not declaring an emergency when there is one is more than paperwork so that's not at all a factor.

Pounds and gallons are the universal standard…in all 50 states. 😂

@@mtnairpilot "Universal" and "all 50 states" is like an oxymoron...

@@mtnairpilot oh 😅

Yes, it's a backwards country.

Kg x 2.20462 = Lbs. Oh just double it and add 10% Don't you guys fly worldwide! ??

There is no confusion. In the terminal area, fuel should be reported in quantity for firefighting and spillage reasons. Endurance is not what they're concerned about with that question. Any units are acceptable as long as the units are stated (pounds or kilos). In the US, each controlled airport has a Letter of Agreement with the Airport operator/Fire Department that will state: ATC will give Fire/Rescue the fuel in a "mass quantity" so they may prepared with proper manpower/equipment.

@@llaughridge Well there seems to be a lot of confusion, because there is many emergencies on YT where the controller asks for a different unit other than what the pilot reported. Go look for yourself.

A metric ton is 1000kg , meaning 2,204.6 pounds. 🙄

@@BluePuri You have not understood what I have said.

I agree. Unfortunately, getting to that state would make things (temporarily) harder for those who don't already use metric

China uses metric altimeter and it’s an extra unnecessary step to convert every FL or altitude during climb or descent.

The atc didn't ask for a conversion from kilos to LBS. They asked for confirmation that the weight was in Kilos.

@@bgdg323 They first asked for the weight in lbs., then when he gave it in kilos he confirmed it was kilos.

@@EdOeuna Um, TAP is Portuguese, not Chinese.

Thanks for your support

They are definitely not. . Hence this report.

Car 99 followed the aircraft on landing

It's not an emergency. Like he said - ops normal.

No.

Not at all, there is no emergency to declare because ops normal. Now if there was an actual emergency and they didn't mention it then that would be picked up and reported on the ground and they'd likely be facing legal action. Cost has no factor in whether or not an emergency will be declared.

Wouldn't bother with the PAN, like he said - Ops normal.

MILES... EXACTLY. One of the very few professional pilots here. A breath of international standard FRESH AIR.

@@goodshipkaraboudjan You are obviously a pilot. What ops normal about an immediate return?? What's ops normal about landing overweight. ?? What ops normal about possible skin damage ?? Do tell me..... You like oxymoron. .... Suits you.

@@daftvader4218 You don't know more than the crew did at the time. I've flown A320/21s for two airlines in Australia and Asia. At no time in the Ops Manual or any SOP for the airlines does it state declare an emergency when there isn't one. Best to er on the side of caution as they did. If you've flown (you haven't due the following) - an overweight landing in the bus isn't part of the emergency section of the POH/Check lists. Now get more upset and go away.

@@daftvader4218 Daft is a fitting name.

@@JohnSmith-zi9or No they are not. There are lots of additional considerations. There is an overweight check list. There are additional performance considerations. Like an overweight landing check for a start. There is nothing normal about exceeding the approved landing weight. You are no pilot. ... True??

Totally wrong What's funny ....?? Any overweight landing and any non normal landing where there are potential safety / performance issues REQUIRES the emergency services on standby. The Controller has NO choice. Those pilot that do not realise this need extra training . Ask any Lawyer....@!#!

@JohnSmith-zi9or when you need to return to the airport overweight full of fuel creating increased risk for issues during landing. That would be a gold example....

@JohnSmith-zi9or well atc said it was airport policy. I would assume there's a reason behind the policy. But hey, you're an internet expert...

@JohnSmith-zi9or sure, the policy deeming this an emergency is wrong and you know better. Got it.

@@Farnsworth11 - from the pilots perspective it isn’t an emergency. It is a normal approach and landing technique. There may be some differences with configuration and, therefore, associated speed. For me, overweight single engine has to be flap 20. Overweight landing above 300T has to be flap 25, otherwise flap 30 below 300T. However, ATC have a different set of procedures to follow and their procedure might be that any aircraft landing with a non-normal situation needs to be regarding as an emergency. Maybe they can’t roll the trucks without an emergency having first been declared. Where I work you can’t land overweight unless you’re in an emergency or non-normal situation, which would add another twist to this scenario for me.

@EdOeuna I understand that some pilots may take more risks than others. Yet, my point remains, sop's are written for a reason and this situation is deemed an emergency by sop. Regardless of whether the pilot in the clip agreed or the ones on the internet. It was and still is an emergency.

They are not squawking 7700

US airline pilots are also notorious for stereotypically putting on the seatbelt sign at the first hint of turbulence. As much as I dislike the practice as a passenger, I guess it's not worth getting in trouble or causing the airline to be sued if there are any injuries, so I can understand it.

It's not.

But nothing worth saying.

🙄

It was worth saying. Don’t be jelly 😂

You don't fly over the ocean with possible structural damage.

I think if its loud enough to be heard over the noise of the engine it begs investigation.

The aircraft is now 5 days grounded in JFK. No indications doesn't mean no damage. You don't want to cross the pond with something broken or something hanging. They definitely found something if they aircraft has not moved in 5 days...

The aircraft didn’t detect any system failure, so nothing was physically wrong with the aircraft in regards to engines, hydraulics, electrics. Presumably they got the gear up, so that’s ok. They probably retracted flap so some degree, so the systems are working fine. In this respect the aircraft is working 100%. I don’t fly Airbus so I’m not trained in their philosophy in dealing with such emergencies, but with a Boeing the philosophy is that the aircraft talks to you through EICAS. No EICAS messages means all systems normal. There isn’t a checklist for suspected bird strike or possible leading edge damage. Now assuming they had leading edge damage, they can still fly perfectly fine. They might have a higher fuel burn, but they have 7+ hours of fuel, so there’s nothing stopping them from flying for a few hours holding or even towards Newfoundland, discovering an excessive fuel burn and then returning or diverting. If all systems continue to run ok, and no excessive fuel burn from a damaged leading edge, then continue. The aircraft are made to be resilient and pilots should be too. An A380 had a tyre failure on departure from Dubai and flew all the way to Sydney with a gaping hole in the main gear fairing about 6 months ago. I’m not sure if they reported any handling / noise / excess fuel burn, but they continued because the aircraft performed ok with no system failures. They even continued with the burst tyre because it’s not critical to the cruise portion of the flight. You can’t fly an aircraft based on “what if’s”.

You are not sure about Airbus philosophy but mention an incident involving an Airbus? It's not all about indications. They saw or felt the hit strong enough to consider they should return. They did so and the aircraft has been grounded for 5 days now. Something was definitely wrong, not even a ferry flight to base. They were there. You were not.

It's not a Mayday and you wouldn't hit 7700, it's a PAN maybe but like they said, Ops normal which makes landing overweight a bit of an odd decision. PAN would be the appropriate call. I've had bird strikes in similar circumstances and a Mayday call would be complete overskill. Shit for a contained engine failure our SOP (different airline) is PAN.

Nothing makes me smile more than some lame person being the *second* person to comment "First". Get a life mate...