It was great to follow this emergency as it developed yesterday together with all of my Discord members. Join VASAviation's Discord -- https://discord.gg/ap5reFs

Yep, I caught that one on camera.

Nice video, but I was hoping to hear how they got that 22L approach instead of 27/28

Pilots requested

Did the pilot mean they have N1 rotation but no N2 ?

They had to ensure that the Flanger and Slepecki valves actuated as intended thus redirecting the vibrations into aircraft seating.

They were still keeping engine at idle so they still have N2 (as well as N1) rotation.

A good example of dealing with the situation in hand. Descending to jettison fuel is a little strange, and the instruction for direct to the VOR and hold could have been easier with the 3 letter ident given in the first place. I guess the vibrations weren’t that bad otherwise they’d have shut down the engine.

海外でも取り上げられるんだ

okay that whine....yikes, had to turn my volume WAAAY down and could not make out lots of the voice, thank god for the captions!

I thought the water was tasting strange lately

What goes into deciding of they should dump fuel or land overweight? I'd think that for something like engine vibration, the plane would be down for long enough that the overweight landing inspection wouldn't delay the return to service. Assuming they were confident they could land without damage, why not save the time and fuel?

Boeing see overweight landing as a bad thing and never suggest it is done in a checklist. It would on,y really be acceptable with a dire emergency like an uncontained fire.

They are heavier than their maximum landing weight, thus fuel dumping. Most planes don't even have the abiliy and instead request a holding pattern until they burn enough fuel.

Basically you have to look if the emergency is a immediate threat to lives or not. Fire is an immediate threat. Most other things are not. One other perfectly good engine; got all the time you need.

I was a plane in the 80s that had a hydraulics problem and we had to return to Hartsfield. The pilot was talking to us right after takeoff telling us how long the flight would be etc.. All of a sudden we could hear the alarm going off in the cockpit and the pilot stopped talking in mid-word. We immediately turned around. We saw the fuel being dumpled and the pilot came on and told us that is what they were doing. We dumped over Georgia somewhere and it didn't take that long to dump it. I don't know why it would take 40 minutes to dump fuel. We landed with fire trucks along the runway just in case. We got back on the same plane maybe an hour or so later to finish the trip. I wonder if they put fire trucks along the runway for this plane. It might be standard.

Bit bad they were dumping over a lake!.....

I'm on Flightradar24 all the time. Didn't know there was a squawk 7700 feature and had just turned it on and this happened. I watched the entire flight after emergency was declared. The thing that stood out was the last thing he did was slow down over the lake to basically stall speed and then speed up. I figured he was seeing what the plane would do for an approach. Also on approach he got down to 127 knots which he had just before. I thought that speed was too low? Anyways cool feature.

I think the speed indication on FR24 is ground speed. as you know chicago is famous as windy city, normal flying speed in against wind, resulted slower ground speed. I think it was good choice to make low ground speed landing in this kind of non-normal one because it is safe side. I think that is the reason why they requested RW22L to land.

Pilot was so calm, probably nothing phases him.

Unless they were closed, being a 77W captain and knowing the KORD runways, I would have landed 28R/C. Yes, 22L is 8000'+ total length, not counting G/S touchdown point, but after dumping fuel the aircraft would be close to max landing weight. The long 28's (C/R) would be choice one, and demanded for, if open. Happy all went well though.

They reported that left engine running on idle, it means right rudder was required to keep the airplane flying. crosswind from left on RW28 requires also right rudder to align runway before touch down, so crosswind compensation capability was reduced some amount in this case. also, ground speed would be higher than RW22, so RW28 landing is much hard to handle in short time and high sink rate.

ANA probably has more conservative x-wind limits than your operator so he requested 22 with the wind 200

@VASAviation - 21kt x-wind, on a 13,000’ runway in a 777, single engine (that is if they shut it down or at idle, however the approach most likely would have been flown considering single engine). . Easy decision to make there for me. 28R.... No sense in going for minimal pavement if it can be avoided. Plus, would’ve been an emergency situation. Keep all options open.

Have you considered the wind at all?

From what I could work out, considering the hour or so up front 'checking', plus the hour or so waiting and dumping, plus another 40 mins to hour afterwards they could have flown to Tokyo and landed there in that time! ........ Okay, a bit of an exaggeration and a 'tongue in cheek' comment, but I'm just often amazed by how much time pilots seem to faff about when they've had a fire, are having a fire, lost an engine, got vibrations, or any of those other 'emergency worthy' incidents which we see on the channel. I would have hoped that my pilot would get me down in the fastest possible time! Being military, I've never flown commercially, but we were always taught to get our butts on the ground as fast as possible in any incident (preferably with the plane) and I would have thought that with a couple of hundred passengers, that would be even more critical!

I fell asleep listening to japanese pilot😴😴

I thought the English was pretty good for what I assume was a Japanese pilot. All well done.

@rylan s. Yup. But there is adequate and there is good.

Yes all atc and pilots must have adequate English speaking skills

What about the B767 masAir cargo yesterday from LAX? It circled around Catalina island for about 1 hr

Great work as always!!

I feel so cool cuz I got the Flightradar24 notification for the 7700 call and watched it circle 😎

A Pilatus PC-12 lost one of its tires and landed safely at KORD today as well

VASAviation - sorry no, I was trying to find it myself

You know the reg?

CHIII TOWN BABY!

Wow, that was fast! I got a FLIGHTRADAR24 alert, and was able to find it on ATCLive so I could listen, as well!

Why would they NOT dump more of that 70,000 pounds of fuel while they were out over the lake? Why land with a partial dump instead of a full dump?

@VASAviation - I was thinking fuel jettison to reduce FIRE Risk and the payout on just one sever burn claim would more than pay for a full fuel load never mind one wrongful death claim.

A full dump?? Fuel costs money, you know...

Fuel is expensive, so why dump more than necessary for a safe landing. I'm sure the airframe had sufficient margin to land with the load the pilot decided to land with.

Man the communication on both sides of this is horrible. You must be clear and concise on these exchanges. Just one missed word can alter the entire meaning and intention of what you are trying to convey. Scary.

I think all did well expect the first female controller. She was mumbling and speaking very quickly taking in account it was a non-native speaker on the other end. Quite correctly the Japanese pilot spelled out any unclear words.

One learns quickly to speak slowly, precise and concise. Always remembering that English is not the pilots mother tongue. Enjoyed working JAL and ANA pilots always polite and courteous.

I am an ANA dispatcher at ohare. One of the left fan blades had a tip frey off to expose the material underneath the outter coating which caused the imbalance. My coworker was working the flight yesterday. Good video

@nightstalker same thing for reservations. Like for Singapore, they have a base in Houston taking calls for US basted passengers. They are actual Singaporeans answering the phone out of IAH area.

@Avan Valenziano sunline correct

@RetiaryWorm471 na its called sunline but most people dont know what that is

I learned something today about airline dispatchers. Interesting! Thank you!

@RetiaryWorm471 most likely mainline ANA or Sunline. Lots of foreign airlines use subcontractors like Sunline or Swissport, but I know a lot of the ANA guys are mainline

777: I got some bad vibs man.

Omg!! I saw this on Flightradar24 yesterday!! I was so confused seeing it go back to Chicago

She wasn't giving them good vibrations.

Good stuff. Looks like Flint just got some extra clean drinking stuff.

I'm not a Debbie Downer, but dumping fuel over a lake? Granted, not as bad as the dump over elementary schools with kids on the playground, and I'm no tree hugger either. Yet, it seems there's no real parameter for fuel dump. Kids, lakes, etc... Affecting many. Are there any established rules for dumping? Clearly, dumping is needed at times...

@MilkBoy17 you have to do it at a certain level that it does vaporize, correct?

It'll vaporize well before reaching the lake. Ideally you do it over a rural area but there isn't really much of that in the ORD area. It's nowhere near the environmental threat that people make it out to be. They aren't dumping thousands of pounds straight into the lake.

I saw it flying around on Flightradar24

No fun at all holding and running checklists. They did great. Thanks for posting.

In these situations, more often than not when ATC asked about fuel remaining, they get told the endurance, when they want to know the amount. Surely this is something that could be conveyed to pilots during training to avoid the need for further communication.

Don’t forget that asking for fuel in pounds would confuse pretty much every single non-US operator.

In many videos on this channel ATC asked specifically for "remaining in minutes" or "remaining in pounds" and sometimes they first asked for endurance and later before the landing he ask again for the amount

Endurance is important to know after a number of planes crashed due to fuel exhaustion as a result of atc misunderstanding the urgency of the situation. Amount is important for ARFF to know to properly respond to crashes. So it depends on the emergency and ATC should specify which they watch

on the other hand ATC could just ask for pounds specifically orthe pilots could tell them both mass and time...

Yeah, over the lake. That is the best place to dump jet fuel. At 6000 feet too. Would not want to go high for more dispersion. And put fuel right into the water instead of a chance to evaporate on land before getting the the water table. Follow the science. Yeah. Right.

Yes! Coverage on the flight! Thanks VASaviation! Super happy that you did this! By the way, got any tips for an aspiring pilot?

Sad they had to dump fuel into the lake

@Mike K Well unfortunately it turned into air pollution and will eventually recollect in water somewhere.... What goes up must come down. The only good news is refined hydrocarbon breakdown, compare to pesky heavy metal or plastic.

@JJ Arneson Most of it evaporates before ever touching the ground, and what does floats on the top of the water and evaporates within one hour. Don’t fret; your Mother Earth is safe.

4:50 That sounds like they said "now we are start[ing] fuel dumping" not "done"

Jumped on this vid - wanted to know where they were dumping fuel around me - guess the lake is the best bet around Chicago

why did they want to delay 40 min after dumping fuel?

I see... it's really hard to understand the pilot at 4:50 , seems like the ATC thought they're done as well. but almost exactly 40 minutes later he reports ready for approach. that makes sense. so thank you! ...but why did he want to hold for 1 h initially then? took him about 1,5 hrs in the end, but did the pilot just figure that's how long they are gonna need for everything at 1:44 ?

I think there was a misinterpretation. Vas Aviation wrote, "we are done fuel dumping," but I think he said, "we are starting fuel dumping." It took 40 minutes for the fuel dump.

It was nice that they were concerned about where their fuel dumping could take place.

@Derek in British Columbia • Noted! I follow Juan too😁

gomphrena -beautiful flower- 6000ft or above is recommended for complete atomization of the fuel. (Information from Juan Brown, on Blancolirio channel).

Is there an ideal flight level for fuel dumping? Specifically, anything under FL10 seems low. Do ice crystals form around fuel droplets any higher, and would that surely be more environmentally risky? As always, the safety of the passengers and crew is of utmost importance and I understand fully the need to dump and get at or below safe landing weight. I was just curious.

5,000 and above fuel evaporates before it hits ground. Lake is just a safety measure.

@Peter Gardner I don't think jet fuel will evaporate in the low temperatures that they were having that day. It most likely be really fine Mist that comes down

Dumping fuel over a lake? I understand that it might be needed, due to the overweight of the aircraft, but is this *really* the best area to do so with 6000ft AGL?

typically fuel dumping over 4000 feet would not pose a threat to the environment

@SanSan Look at Phil Lee's reply to me.

@My Nintendo Gaming Feed How is it r/whoosh ahsn your initial statement is not even a joke? Enlighten me please sensei

@Ruben Villanueva It dissipates and spreads, yes - but tons of fuel will not magically disappear :-)

The fuel dissipates within 1,000ft after dumping. ATC provides a 2,000 ft buffer below from other aircraft. An excellent area to dump, little traffic and no population below.

My favorite airline!!

Just because I'm new at this... Isn't 6000 a little low to fuel dump? Learning... be gentle! Lol

No way that the suburbs are the better choice. It's a shame for the lake, but much lower human impact there, and frankly probably much lower impact for any wildlife over 1kg in size, not just humans

@blackhawks81H I think there might have been more paperwork if they dumped on the suburbs and it didn't evaporate...

It's pretty close to the bare minimum. Probably OK. Likely most would have evaporated before reaching the ground, but at that altitude it's not 100 percent guaranteed, which is why they did It over the lake instead of the suburbs. Although I'd personally have preferred the suburbs. Then again, I like nature more than people because nature F's me over a lot less. Lol So your mileage may vary.

English proficiency is unacceptable.

What, specifically, do you find unacceptable, oh grand ICAO-4 master?

Both sides did a good job, he communicated, there were times that needed to be verified, which was done, like 40 or 14, and the pilot answered by saying forty and "four-zero" to be extra clear. He followed ATC directions working under stress and the plane landed safely and all passengers got off.

@Roderick Campbell No problem. Thanks for clarifying.

@Falcon I apologize. My signals became crossed. I was commenting to the original poster and not you. You and I appear to be in complete agreement. Sorry.

Compared to flying in country, their English and ability to convey intentions are quiet good.

Why the tone whenever they talk?

@AaronShenghao Cool thanks

Radio record with 3rd party and likely armature equipment were used. Bad reception and post processing also plays a role here.

Step mic I think?

All very on point and professional. This didn't exactly unfold quickly, but that's good.

Great job! You’re fast and phenomenal. I watched Detroit Metro having issues yesterday due to fighter jet activity. It was wild but fun!

Any more info on this? Maybe the time or something? I live and fly around there so I’m interested.

Isn't it unusual to land on 22L? Would they have requested that because the winds were 200 at 21 so it's less of a crosswind compared to 28C/R?

@UnshavenStatue The answer is in the video. The wind is 200 at 21 so it would have been a high crosswind on one engine if they landed the regular runways.

@jr132 22L is literally the worst possible runway regarding normal West flow parallel landings. It's quite literally the *only* runway which fucks up all three west flows, so it's a worst case scenario for a controller. They must have had a very good reason to request the worst possible runway from a controller's perspective

Look at the KORD chart, Wind favors 22L, 20 degrees off the nose. Taxi route to UAL cargo area shortest and easiest to do.

Its extremely unusual except for when winds are blowing in a very specific direction. As suggested below, it could be due to wind pressure on the affected engine or due to convenience of not having to stop normal ops on the East/West parallels.

Maybe it was the winds, one engine out probably significantly reduces cross wind margins. 22L is definitely not the longest nor most convenient for controller, so they must have had a good reason to request a shorter runway. Certainly the only thing I can think of is reduces cross wind tolerance with a dead engine

I watched the whole thing live last night. Cool to have the audio to it 👍🏻

I saw the plane fly over me

Glad it ended safely

First

yeah

Saw this one yesterday on FR24. You are quite fast!

Robert Fuller same here! I searched through like all the Chicago channels lmfao

@ismael Flores How do you figure that?

Saw it too

@James Collier I have a silver pass yes, it's only $10 a year so doesn't break the bank

Same

thanks