ajsljet45 wrote:

btfarrwm wrote:

Here's a link to the ATC audio recording. First contact at ~2m in the recording. Trouble starts at ~2m55s. No transmissions from the aircraft but ATC transmissions are there. Accident aircraft is Rhodes 810.

https://archive.liveatc.net/phnl/PHNL1- ... -1130Z.mp3

I’ve always been meaning to ask - why is it so damn important for ATC to insist on knowing fuel and souls onboard when pilots are dealing with life or death situations like this? Could this not be determined after the accident if it occurs? Is it so critical that ATC must distract the pilots from the task at hand to give that info at that moment?

We ask as a "when you have time available" for these very damn relevant bits of information - doesn't take more than a few seconds to inform us. Every crew know they will be asked this in an emergency. The crew flying are not the only people scrambling to save lives when the sh1t hits the fan.

So...

First, how would the coast guard know how many crew members to rescue in the ocean in the middle of the night. Standing by for your answer.

Second, we need to know how much fuel so I can (a) know how far to start considering alternates for them, and (b) in the event of a botched landing the fire crew need to know how much Jet A1 and passengers they're going to be dealing with. We need to alert the hospitals etc to prepare for the worst.

I guess that's not obvious, but keep up the disdain for the ATC.

KingOrGod wrote:

We ask as a "when you have time available" for these very damn relevant bits of information - doesn't take more than a few seconds to inform us. Every crew know they will be asked this in an emergency. The crew flying are not the only people scrambling to save lives when the sh1t hits the fan.

It annoys me that we have the endurance, POB, and survival equipment on the flight plan, however the ATC filing ignores the supplementary information.

With the digitisation of ATC messages, no real excuse that information cannot be stored in the data block.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Ceamajay wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

If it’s not fuel contamination, there aren’t many other explanations for both engines failing.

I agree that an EPA exemption for DEF in airside airport vehicles makes a great deal of sense, at the very least until better safeguards and practices can be developed to avoid cross-contamination. Every dock hand at every marina knows not to put water into a fuel tank or fuel into a water tank, but as long as boats have two holes about the same size, every once in a while some poor schmuck in a hurry is going to put the wrong hose in the wrong hole. And they're usually not doing it in Chicago during a blizzard.

That being said, in this particular incident, my money is on our feathered friends. God willing, the pilots will have a full recovery and can tell the NTSB which one of us was right.

Not a lot of large birds in Hawaii, no geese, either.

The Hawaiian state bird is a goose. Nene, “The Hawaiian Goose”. But to your point, this goose does not fly.

KingOrGod wrote:

We ask as a "when you have time available" for these very damn relevant bits of information - doesn't take more than a few seconds to inform us. Every crew know they will be asked this in an emergency. The crew flying are not the only people scrambling to save lives when the sh1t hits the fan.

So...

First, how would the coast guard know how many crew members to rescue in the ocean in the middle of the night. Standing by for your answer.

Second, we need to know how much fuel so I can (a) know how far to start considering alternates for them, and (b) in the event of a botched landing the fire crew need to know how much Jet A1 and passengers they're going to be dealing with. We need to alert the hospitals etc to prepare for the worst.

I guess that's not obvious, but keep up the disdain for the ATC.

Thanks for the informative post.

I'll also point out that when the crew asked for the Coast Guard to be alerted, ATC responded that they already had.

That must have taken at least one worry off the crew's mind.

As you say, the crew wasn't the only one struggling to try to improve the odds of a good outcome!

I'm wondering, would the controller have any assistance at that time of night?

889091 wrote:

I noticed 2 different voices from the crew of 810.

Why did the PF feel the need to take over comms towards the end? Of did they swap roles, similar to what Sully did when he said, "my aircraft"?

Pretty sure the captain took the radio at the last minutes. Honestly, he was the one that was clear, precise, and straight to the point. As mentioned earlier, if the radio had been handled from the start with who I believe was the captain, I think that plane would have made it to a runway.

F9Animal wrote:

889091 wrote:

I noticed 2 different voices from the crew of 810.

Why did the PF feel the need to take over comms towards the end? Of did they swap roles, similar to what Sully did when he said, "my aircraft"?

Pretty sure the captain took the radio at the last minutes. Honestly, he was the one that was clear, precise, and straight to the point. As mentioned earlier, if the radio had been handled from the start with who I believe was the captain, I think that plane would have made it to a runway.

Not sure what exactly that has to do with making it back - whether PF or PNF, the captain was in charge.

26point2 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Ceamajay wrote:

I agree that an EPA exemption for DEF in airside airport vehicles makes a great deal of sense, at the very least until better safeguards and practices can be developed to avoid cross-contamination. Every dock hand at every marina knows not to put water into a fuel tank or fuel into a water tank, but as long as boats have two holes about the same size, every once in a while some poor schmuck in a hurry is going to put the wrong hose in the wrong hole. And they're usually not doing it in Chicago during a blizzard.

That being said, in this particular incident, my money is on our feathered friends. God willing, the pilots will have a full recovery and can tell the NTSB which one of us was right.

Not a lot of large birds in Hawaii, no geese, either.

The Hawaiian state bird is a goose. Nene, “The Hawaiian Goose”. But to your point, this goose does not fly.

The amount of false information in this place gets worse each day. The Nene can and does fly.

ATCJesus wrote:

AngelsDecay wrote:

I fully recognize this is not important for the final investigation, but it really surprises me i've never heard in the entire ATC comms the words "Pan Pan" or "Mayday"...i really wish all the best for the pilots.

Nobody in the US uses mayday or pan pan usually unless they are a foreign pilot or maybe a GA pilot. Trust me, that doesn’t make a difference to controllers. If you tell us there’s literally the smallest thing wrong with the plane, we are treating it as an emergency.


The speculation about ATC in this thread is wild…

"Nobody in the US uses mayday or pan pan usually unless they are a foreign pilot or maybe a GA pilot. Trust me..."

Before I retired, for our global fleets (757s/767s, 777s, 787s), were training to use Mayday, Mayday, Mayday worldwide as that was understood around the globe. "Declaring an emergency" is mostly a U.S. thing.

F9Animal wrote:

889091 wrote:

I noticed 2 different voices from the crew of 810.

Why did the PF feel the need to take over comms towards the end? Of did they swap roles, similar to what Sully did when he said, "my aircraft"?

Pretty sure the captain took the radio at the last minutes. Honestly, he was the one that was clear, precise, and straight to the point. As mentioned earlier, if the radio had been handled from the start with who I believe was the captain, I think that plane would have made it to a runway.

We don't know who was in what role, but it seems odd to me that the PNF handles the coms in an engine failure situation, especially close to the ground. It seems the PNF has a higher workload than the pilot flying the plane. The PNF is running checklists, trying to restart the engine, reconfigure the plane and monitor the instruments all at the same time. With US1549 Sully was flying the plane and handling coms, probably because Skiles was swamped with other tasks.

btfarrwm wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

889091 wrote:

I noticed 2 different voices from the crew of 810.

Why did the PF feel the need to take over comms towards the end? Of did they swap roles, similar to what Sully did when he said, "my aircraft"?

Pretty sure the captain took the radio at the last minutes. Honestly, he was the one that was clear, precise, and straight to the point. As mentioned earlier, if the radio had been handled from the start with who I believe was the captain, I think that plane would have made it to a runway.

We don't know who was in what role, but it seems odd to me that the PNF handles the coms in an engine failure situation, especially close to the ground. It seems the PNF has a higher workload than the pilot flying the plane. The PNF is running checklists, trying to restart the engine, reconfigure the plane and monitor the instruments all at the same time. With US1549 Sully was flying the plane and handling coms, probably because Skiles was swamped with other tasks.

That is how we did it, PF flies and talks outside, PM does the checklist, calling for confirmation of correct switch selection where required.

Regarding the posts on nene: they appear rare on Oahu. According to Wikipedia, there are 2500 on the Hawaiian Islands but it talks about a single pair spotted near Turtle Bay about 5 year’s ago. And that was the first they had been seen on Oahu in a few hundreds years. I used to live on the Big Island. The nene frequented a golf course I played and they regularly flew over my house. But that’s not Oahu. So I am pretty sure we can rule out a nene strike.

No Mayday call?

Nobody in the US uses mayday or pan pan usually unless they are a foreign pilot or maybe a GA pilot. Trust me, that doesn’t make a difference to controllers. If you tell us there’s literally the smallest thing wrong with the plane, we are treating it as an emergency.

So you staying in the USA its is non conformance to ICAO standards?

See the AIM on the FAA website here.

You just lost 50% of your thrust. this is a 46 year old aircraft, with JT8D-9 engines which would be a bit underpowered compared to an -15 or -17 engines, and flying away from two suitable airports while flying at 2000 feet, talk about working with loaded dices.

Then after the crash sound like the ELT failed because it tolk the rescues some time to located the wreckage./ Survivors

Mayday is a distress call that is used to signal a life-threatening emergency, usually on a ship or a plane, although it may be used in a variety of other situations. A typical distress call will start with the word “Mayday" being said three times in a row so that it is not mistaken for another similar-sounding word or phrase. This is followed by relaying the information that rescuers would need, including the nature of the emergency, the location or last known location, current weather, type and identity of craft involved, fuel remaining and the number of people in danger. The distress call has absolute priority over all other transmissions.

Every aircraft is ETOPS rated thats Engines Turn or Passenger Swim


Interesting take on the accident [urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsjIMAr3nZk][/url]


Its great both crew member survived.

But looking forward to seeing the final report from the NTSB,

The real thing I think I see watching that video that had the liveatc and flightradar24 synced together is that the pilots started losing some altitude slowly while they were still heading away from the airport, but did not immediately ask to turn back. While there was certainly a fair amount of ATC stepping going on - I think most of it was ATC and the accident aircraft talking over each other by trying to either string multiple requests the other started to respond to, or, continuing to speak after making a clear request/instruction. That being said, I don't think there was a long delay in when the turn back started.

Basically, pilots were heading away - at their own request - to run checklists. Not abnormal - you hear this in most engine out situations. I think I remember the UA one in Denver recently extending a downwind to run checklists. They were turned back when the requested, with at most 10 seconds of delay for some talking over. They did not report to ATC there was an issue with the other engine (and maybe there wasn't) until they were on the way back. ATC will do what the pilots want/need - they will not automatically get you to the airport faster unless you ask for it, especially if the last thing they asked regarding that was for time to run checklists. Where they went down, shaving a few seconds off the turn back was not going to alter the outcome here unfortunately. The real question to me is were there warning signs that other engine was going to go that could have prompted them to request the turn back sooner, or did those signs not hit until after they started the turn back. Their significant altitude loss started around the same time they started the turn.

Hi, so couple things-

#1 It seems like landing on the ocean in the dark is quite a feat, so well done.
#2 I've read the ATC was not just handling this flight but other channels and flights as well.
#3 I've always loved this site because of the straight up no nonsense conversation. You can't judge any situation you weren't in.
#4 My cousin died in the Sioux City Iowa plane crash. So I'm not anything but someone who needed to understand how this all works so I wasn't scared to death to fly my entire life.
#5 Today I know enough to say, if you have NO IDEA what you are saying don't say it.

zeke wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

We ask as a "when you have time available" for these very damn relevant bits of information - doesn't take more than a few seconds to inform us. Every crew know they will be asked this in an emergency. The crew flying are not the only people scrambling to save lives when the sh1t hits the fan.

It annoys me that we have the endurance, POB, and survival equipment on the flight plan, however the ATC filing ignores the supplementary information.

With the digitisation of ATC messages, no real excuse that information cannot be stored in the data block.

I'm sure you are a great pilot but regarding ATC I'd say, "Stay in your lane". The controllers that pilots work with while flying have nothing to do with filing your flight plans. That would be so much extra information that we do not need to know about at least 99.9% of the time. I've worked radar and tower for over 12 years now and have only had to ask those questions about 6 or 7 times, thankfully. Adding it to the data block, clearly you've never been to an ATC radar facility. Data blocks are already large enough. Besides, unless your transponder is tied in to your fuel we would have no idea how much fuel you currently have if something arises a few hours in to your flight.

This was the middle of the night, this ATC did an excellent job while on the mid shift and most likely up in the cab by herself.

On the ATC communication: I understand that the controller may have been handling multiple channels alone, that the recording may be misleading, that the pilots hand their hands full, etc.

That said: (for example) It still took over one full minute from the initial transmission of trouble before the controller had any awareness of the trouble. I cannot imagine the final NTSB report glossing over the communication difficulties, even if communication was ultimately not a causal factor.

nm2582 wrote:

On the ATC communication: I understand that the controller may have been handling multiple channels alone, that the recording may be misleading, that the pilots hand their hands full, etc.

That said: (for example) It still took over one full minute from the initial transmission of trouble before the controller had any awareness of the trouble. I cannot imagine the final NTSB report glossing over the communication difficulties, even if communication was ultimately not a causal factor.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is some related recommendation to improve ATC communication, but I'm not sure it'll rise to an actual contributing factor. Even if she had gotten the info earlier, they still would have been heading away running their checklists. There was only minimal delay in their turn back towards the airport from a blip later on, only maybe 10 seconds. They still would not have reached the runway even if those step-ons had not occurred in all likelihood.

Halophila wrote:

Blankbarcode wrote:

Seems pretty close to the coast, any idea of the water depth around there? I'm so happy they're alright.

I'm an oceanographer - I think it's around 25 - 35 m in that area. So glad the pilots were rescued!

In 2002 the IJN 2 man submarine that was sunk just 3-4 miles from Pearl Harbor by the USS Ward, DD-139 was found at about 1,200'.

In 2001, the Japanese student training ship, the Ehime Maru, who sunk after colliding with the USS Greenville, SSN-772 was found at 2,000'

My guess, and it is just a guess, both JT-8Ds sucked in birds, resulting in the loss of both engines, ala Cactus 1549 in January 2009.

Has anybody seen any updates on the condition of the pilots? Hoping the one in critical condition pulls through

MSNfan wrote:

Has anybody seen any updates on the condition of the pilots? Hoping the one in critical condition pulls through

From https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2021/07/0 ... rgo-fleet/:

"One of the pilots was critically injured in the crash, while the second was in serious condition. At last check, the Coast Guard said they were both in stable condition."

This was updated yesterday. I can't find anything more recent.

FX1816 wrote:

Adding it to the data block, clearly you've never been to an ATC radar facility. Data blocks are already large enough. Besides, unless your transponder is tied in to your fuel we would have no idea how much fuel you currently have if something arises a few hours in to your flight.

I have been to numerous facilities around the world, and I have seen facilities where controllers can click on the data block to expand it to see additional information. There is no reason the SAR information cannot be made available there, it has been provided by the operator.

In the old days there were limits on the telex messages and paper strips, now with digital data links the excuse has gone away.

FX1816 wrote:

Besides, unless your transponder is tied in to your fuel we would have no idea how much fuel you currently have if something arises a few hours in to your flight.

We use the extreamly complicated calculation of fuel at the start minus fuel used, surely a controller could use a calculator in their non life threatening 1g environment and deduct “few hours in to your flight” from the endurance to arrive at the remaining endurance.

FX1816 wrote:

this ATC did an excellent job while on the mid shift and most likely up in the cab by herself.

I disagree, seemed totally clueless that the aircraft was not maintaining altitude in a constant descent, way below a normal profile. A good controller would have seen that and mentioned it before the low altitude alert and provided the closer runway sooner.

F9Animal wrote:

889091 wrote:

I noticed 2 different voices from the crew of 810.

Why did the PF feel the need to take over comms towards the end? Of did they swap roles, similar to what Sully did when he said, "my aircraft"?

Pretty sure the captain took the radio at the last minutes. Honestly, he was the one that was clear, precise, and straight to the point. As mentioned earlier, if the radio had been handled from the start with who I believe was the captain, I think that plane would have made it to a runway.

That is a ridiculous statement. I can’t imagine what informed it. Do you understand how a multi crew airline cockpit is managed.

Revelation wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

We ask as a "when you have time available" for these very damn relevant bits of information - doesn't take more than a few seconds to inform us. Every crew know they will be asked this in an emergency. The crew flying are not the only people scrambling to save lives when the sh1t hits the fan.

So...

First, how would the coast guard know how many crew members to rescue in the ocean in the middle of the night. Standing by for your answer.

Second, we need to know how much fuel so I can (a) know how far to start considering alternates for them, and (b) in the event of a botched landing the fire crew need to know how much Jet A1 and passengers they're going to be dealing with. We need to alert the hospitals etc to prepare for the worst.

I guess that's not obvious, but keep up the disdain for the ATC.

Thanks for the informative post.

I'll also point out that when the crew asked for the Coast Guard to be alerted, ATC responded that they already had.

That must have taken at least one worry off the crew's mind.

As you say, the crew wasn't the only one struggling to try to improve the odds of a good outcome!

I'm wondering, would the controller have any assistance at that time of night?

It was evident she was working approach and tower combined in the cab, which we only do when there's an expectation of very low traffic volumes, so I'd say she'd be alone up there working the phones and the radio simultanously.

When I worked a similar sector combined at night I was alone - nobody else around, it was just a dozen freighters during the night. I am not familiar with the traffic density there at night.

zeke wrote:

FX1816 wrote:

Adding it to the data block, clearly you've never been to an ATC radar facility. Data blocks are already large enough. Besides, unless your transponder is tied in to your fuel we would have no idea how much fuel you currently have if something arises a few hours in to your flight.

I have been to numerous facilities around the world, and I have seen facilities where controllers can click on the data block to expand it to see additional information. There is no reason the SAR information cannot be made available there, it has been provided by the operator.

In the old days there were limits on the telex messages and paper strips, now with digital data links the excuse has gone away.

FX1816 wrote:

Besides, unless your transponder is tied in to your fuel we would have no idea how much fuel you currently have if something arises a few hours in to your flight.

We use the extreamly complicated calculation of fuel at the start minus fuel used, surely a controller could use a calculator in their non life threatening 1g environment and deduct “few hours in to your flight” from the endurance to arrive at the remaining endurance.

FX1816 wrote:

this ATC did an excellent job while on the mid shift and most likely up in the cab by herself.

I disagree, seemed totally clueless that the aircraft was not maintaining altitude in a constant descent, way below a normal profile. A good controller would have seen that and mentioned it before the low altitude alert and provided the closer runway sooner.

Sorry Zeke I have to call you out on this confrontational post.

As a real living ATC I have also visited many centres, and the vast majority are old and way outdated. We aren't allowed to increase fees to get the good stuff. I've worked on some of the latest, and at best the datablock can include ADES/ADEP/TYPE/WTC and not a lot else. We can sometimes include enhanced Mode S data, like HDG,IAS/MACH,Selected level on MCP, and BVR. That's it. Our systems are not networked externally to prevent exploitation by hackers. So there will never be a data exchange between ramp and ATC.

Approach units especially do not use CPDLC for clearances, as the persistent "Pilot answer late" is pointless. I can thus only deduce you know not how our systems work or how we actually work in terminal airspace. I've worked Oceanic and En-Route with CPDLC and that's fine with the delays.

To turn around and say "just deduct a couple of hours fuel burn" is just plain disingenuous. I don't have the fuel burn of every single engine type PROP/TP/JET *ever produced* memorised! Do you? I think not. I don't know how long your taxi out was, or how long you sat in a penalty box, and so forth. Do you tell ATC your CI? I doubt it. So let's stop this silliness.

No let's turn the table. I have been in jumpseats numerous times, along with LOFT sessions etc. So I know what is on your end too (granted not an A350, but I have flown too). On your ACTIVE FUEL&LOAD page you have the exact amounts. Displayed right there. Your PAX NBR and fuel. It would take just a few seconds to give us the accurate figures.

Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. You are professional aviators. And we are professionals at what we do. It's not like we are asking for the cricket score in the middle of an emergency. Ignore my call, say standby, or answer me. I won't harass you.

We are out there as a team. We don't want to see anybody die. And we do everything in our power to make that happen. I know that the fire crew and hospitals would rather have accurate data in order to prepare better. I get the feeling you'd be just as vocal if the coastguard missed a third crew member and they died because we asked ramp (and not the aircraft) and they said there were 2 POB and not three. I am sorry you feel we are just there to annoy you.

zeke wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

We ask as a "when you have time available" for these very damn relevant bits of information - doesn't take more than a few seconds to inform us. Every crew know they will be asked this in an emergency. The crew flying are not the only people scrambling to save lives when the sh1t hits the fan.

It annoys me that we have the endurance, POB, and survival equipment on the flight plan, however the ATC filing ignores the supplementary information.

With the digitisation of ATC messages, no real excuse that information cannot be stored in the data block.

Missed this one.

RPLs have no such information, at best maybe survival equipment. And a flight plan filed a day before will not have the accurate POB or endurance.

I always read threads like this and its curious how much second guessing there is of everyone involved.

KingOrGod wrote:

RPLs have no such information, at best maybe survival equipment. And a flight plan filed a day before will not have the accurate POB or endurance.

ICAO flight plans have the same fields

T54A wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

889091 wrote:

I noticed 2 different voices from the crew of 810.

Why did the PF feel the need to take over comms towards the end? Of did they swap roles, similar to what Sully did when he said, "my aircraft"?

Pretty sure the captain took the radio at the last minutes. Honestly, he was the one that was clear, precise, and straight to the point. As mentioned earlier, if the radio had been handled from the start with who I believe was the captain, I think that plane would have made it to a runway.

That is a ridiculous statement. I can’t imagine what informed it. Do you understand how a multi crew airline cockpit is managed.

To be fair I think there was a change of control, I think the FO may have taken off and flown initially then the CN took over when it was evident the situation was getting worse quickly.

KingOrGod wrote:

Sorry Zeke I have to call you out on this confrontational post.

As a real living ATC I have also visited many centres, and the vast majority are old and way outdated. We aren't allowed to increase fees to get the good stuff. I've worked on some of the latest, and at best the datablock can include ADES/ADEP/TYPE/WTC and not a lot else. We can sometimes include enhanced Mode S data, like HDG,IAS/MACH,Selected level on MCP, and BVR. That's it. Our systems are not networked externally to prevent exploitation by hackers. So there will never be a data exchange between ramp and ATC.

Approach units especially do not use CPDLC for clearances, as the persistent "Pilot answer late" is pointless. I can thus only deduce you know not how our systems work or how we actually work in terminal airspace. I've worked Oceanic and En-Route with CPDLC and that's fine with the delays.

To turn around and say "just deduct a couple of hours fuel burn" is just plain disingenuous. I don't have the fuel burn of every single engine type PROP/TP/JET *ever produced* memorised! Do you? I think not. I don't know how long your taxi out was, or how long you sat in a penalty box, and so forth. Do you tell ATC your CI? I doubt it. So let's stop this silliness.

No let's turn the table. I have been in jumpseats numerous times, along with LOFT sessions etc. So I know what is on your end too (granted not an A350, but I have flown too). On your ACTIVE FUEL&LOAD page you have the exact amounts. Displayed right there. Your PAX NBR and fuel. It would take just a few seconds to give us the accurate figures.

Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. You are professional aviators. And we are professionals at what we do. It's not like we are asking for the cricket score in the middle of an emergency. Ignore my call, say standby, or answer me. I won't harass you.

We are out there as a team. We don't want to see anybody die. And we do everything in our power to make that happen. I know that the fire crew and hospitals would rather have accurate data in order to prepare better. I get the feeling you'd be just as vocal if the coastguard missed a third crew member and they died because we asked ramp (and not the aircraft) and they said there were 2 POB and not three. I am sorry you feel we are just there to annoy you.

I am not interested in debating every point you have listed here it will just drag the way off topic, it is just so wrong on so many levels. The POB and FOB are irrelevant for ATC, ATC don’t treat a 737 any different if it has 200 or 2 POB, or 5 hrs or 31 minutes of fuel.

What you have posted maybe representative of the technology you use in your workplace, it is not indicative of say Eurocontrol where all the airliners squawk 1000 and it’s all VDL2 ADS-C with multilateration. Digital flight strips/data blocks and digital handoff is common in many parts of the world.

Pretty sure the captain took the radio at the last minutes

With both engines failed so no electrical power available from both engine electrical generators, the aircraft will be either powered by the APU or the Battery. With the aircraft being inflight a lot of load shedding done so now they are down to essential services and one of those critical system is VHF#1 or the Captains radio.

That's why the Captain was on the radio because the first officers radio isn't working.

On the Boeing 737-200 you only get 20mins of standby power from the battery if all other generators fail (APU, Engines x 2)

zeke wrote:

I am not interested in debating every point you have listed here it will just drag the way off topic, it is just so wrong on so many levels. The POB and FOB are irrelevant for ATC, ATC don’t treat a 737 any different if it has 200 or 2 POB, or 5 hrs or 31 minutes of fuel.

What you have posted maybe representative of the technology you use in your workplace, it is not indicative of say Eurocontrol where all the airliners squawk 1000 and it’s all VDL2 ADS-C with multilateration. Digital flight strips/data blocks and digital handoff is common in many parts of the world.

He already explained why ATC needs POB, it is ATC who relays that information to emergency services.

He already explained why ATC needs fuel on board, it helps them understand what alternates can be offered and it also informs emergency services to how much flammable liquid is on board.

Given the incident happened in Hawaii and not in Europe the things he wrote are on topic and the ones you wrote are off topic.

Revelation wrote:

He already explained why ATC needs POB, it is ATC who relays that information to emergency services.

He already explained why ATC needs fuel on board, it helps them understand what alternates can be offered and it also informs emergency services to how much flammable liquid is on board.

Suggest you have a close look at the FAA flight plan form excerpt I put above in reply 227, it has the endurance, POB (i.e. crew plus pax) and survival equipment carried onboard like life rafts, and life jackets.

ATC are clueless on how much aircraft burn per hour, however they insist on getting fuel as a weight in lb or kg in a emergency. Tell them how much fuel you have (as a weight) they have no idea how long that will last. That is why we list the total endurance (time) not the weight of fuel onboard is on the flight plan. ARFF on the other hand do know about aircraft as they have handbooks with the aircraft types, where the fuel is located, how much they carry, where the dangerous goods are, where the emergency exits are.

This rescue highlights how ineffective ATC is, this aircraft came down in ATC radar coverage where the last position was known, yet it took an hour for a helicopter to located the crew, one of which was actually picked up by a Honolulu Fire Department vessel, not the coast guard. Something is not right when a boat can beat a helicopter to a rescue. The aircraft came down so close to the USCG station at Barbers Point I wouldn’t be surprised is the impact point was visible from the station.

zeke wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

We ask as a "when you have time available" for these very damn relevant bits of information - doesn't take more than a few seconds to inform us. Every crew know they will be asked this in an emergency. The crew flying are not the only people scrambling to save lives when the sh1t hits the fan.

It annoys me that we have the endurance, POB, and survival equipment on the flight plan, however the ATC filing ignores the supplementary information.

With the digitisation of ATC messages, no real excuse that’s information cannot be stored in the data block.

The aircraft in question is in the middle of an emergency; presumably the POB is the same as when it took off (but not necessarily) but the fuel consumption may have been vastly different from what was expected. What if there was a massive leak, as happened to the A330 that ran out of fuel and landed in the Azores? What if an engine malfunction vastly increased fuel consumption? And what if it is discovered that the takeoff data was wrong, as happened to the Gimli Glider? And what if a structural breach caused some passengers and/or crew to be sucked out? It has happened more than once. So it is legitimate for ATC to ask those figures rather than rely on extrapolating from data filed at takeoff.

SEPilot wrote:

The aircraft in question is in the middle of an emergency; presumably the POB is the same as when it took off (but not necessarily) but the fuel consumption may have been vastly different from what was expected. What if there was a massive leak, as happened to the A330 that ran out of fuel and landed in the Azores? What if an engine malfunction vastly increased fuel consumption? And what if it is discovered that the takeoff data was wrong, as happened to the Gimli Glider? And what if a structural breach caused some passengers and/or crew to be sucked out? It has happened more than once. So it is legitimate for ATC to ask those figures rather than rely on extrapolating from data filed at takeoff.

1) if there is a massive leak the indications in the cockpit are unreliable
2) pilots should be then managing that engine malfunction and not talking to ATC
3) Gimli Glider didn’t have fuel indications both fuel quantity systems were inoperative. They did a manual dipstick of the fuel volume and used the lbs/litre conversion instead of the kg/litre conversion. When they calculated the result which was in lbs, it was enough to complete the trip that was planned, however the planned trip was in kg, however in reality 1/2.2042 or 45% less than they thought.
4) if person gets sucked out like AQ243 they would still be included in the POB, only times POB change is due to a confirmed death in flight (which normally never happens, or a birth).

zeke wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

Sorry Zeke I have to call you out on this confrontational post.

As a real living ATC I have also visited many centres, and the vast majority are old and way outdated. We aren't allowed to increase fees to get the good stuff. I've worked on some of the latest, and at best the datablock can include ADES/ADEP/TYPE/WTC and not a lot else. We can sometimes include enhanced Mode S data, like HDG,IAS/MACH,Selected level on MCP, and BVR. That's it. Our systems are not networked externally to prevent exploitation by hackers. So there will never be a data exchange between ramp and ATC.

Approach units especially do not use CPDLC for clearances, as the persistent "Pilot answer late" is pointless. I can thus only deduce you know not how our systems work or how we actually work in terminal airspace. I've worked Oceanic and En-Route with CPDLC and that's fine with the delays.

To turn around and say "just deduct a couple of hours fuel burn" is just plain disingenuous. I don't have the fuel burn of every single engine type PROP/TP/JET *ever produced* memorised! Do you? I think not. I don't know how long your taxi out was, or how long you sat in a penalty box, and so forth. Do you tell ATC your CI? I doubt it. So let's stop this silliness.

No let's turn the table. I have been in jumpseats numerous times, along with LOFT sessions etc. So I know what is on your end too (granted not an A350, but I have flown too). On your ACTIVE FUEL&LOAD page you have the exact amounts. Displayed right there. Your PAX NBR and fuel. It would take just a few seconds to give us the accurate figures.

Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. You are professional aviators. And we are professionals at what we do. It's not like we are asking for the cricket score in the middle of an emergency. Ignore my call, say standby, or answer me. I won't harass you.

We are out there as a team. We don't want to see anybody die. And we do everything in our power to make that happen. I know that the fire crew and hospitals would rather have accurate data in order to prepare better. I get the feeling you'd be just as vocal if the coastguard missed a third crew member and they died because we asked ramp (and not the aircraft) and they said there were 2 POB and not three. I am sorry you feel we are just there to annoy you.

I am not interested in debating every point you have listed here it will just drag the way off topic, it is just so wrong on so many levels. The POB and FOB are irrelevant for ATC, ATC don’t treat a 737 any different if it has 200 or 2 POB, or 5 hrs or 31 minutes of fuel.

What you have posted maybe representative of the technology you use in your workplace, it is not indicative of say Eurocontrol where all the airliners squawk 1000 and it’s all VDL2 ADS-C with multilateration. Digital flight strips/data blocks and digital handoff is common in many parts of the world.

ATC may not treat an AC with 2 vs 200 SOB differently but the rescue team snd emergency response sure as hell will.

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:

I am not interested in debating every point you have listed here it will just drag the way off topic, it is just so wrong on so many levels. The POB and FOB are irrelevant for ATC, ATC don’t treat a 737 any different if it has 200 or 2 POB, or 5 hrs or 31 minutes of fuel.

What you have posted maybe representative of the technology you use in your workplace, it is not indicative of say Eurocontrol where all the airliners squawk 1000 and it’s all VDL2 ADS-C with multilateration. Digital flight strips/data blocks and digital handoff is common in many parts of the world.

He already explained why ATC needs POB, it is ATC who relays that information to emergency services.

He already explained why ATC needs fuel on board, it helps them understand what alternates can be offered and it also informs emergency services to how much flammable liquid is on board.

Given the incident happened in Hawaii and not in Europe the things he wrote are on topic and the ones you wrote are off topic.

all atc is gonna is is forward that information. After that they are going to accommodate whatever the pilot wants to go by getting everyone else out of the way.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

He already explained why ATC needs POB, it is ATC who relays that information to emergency services.

He already explained why ATC needs fuel on board, it helps them understand what alternates can be offered and it also informs emergency services to how much flammable liquid is on board.

Suggest you have a close look at the FAA flight plan form excerpt I put above in reply 227, it has the endurance, POB (i.e. crew plus pax) and survival equipment carried onboard like life rafts, and life jackets.

ATC are clueless on how much aircraft burn per hour, however they insist on getting fuel as a weight in lb or kg in a emergency. Tell them how much fuel you have (as a weight) they have no idea how long that will last. That is why we list the total endurance (time) not the weight of fuel onboard is on the flight plan. ARFF on the other hand do know about aircraft as they have handbooks with the aircraft types, where the fuel is located, how much they carry, where the dangerous goods are, where the emergency exits are.

This rescue highlights how ineffective ATC is, this aircraft came down in ATC radar coverage where the last position was known, yet it took an hour for a helicopter to located the crew, one of which was actually picked up by a Honolulu Fire Department vessel, not the coast guard. Something is not right when a boat can beat a helicopter to a rescue. The aircraft came down so close to the USCG station at Barbers Point I wouldn’t be surprised is the impact point was visible from the station.

Evidently ATC not the only ones clueless Zeke. We pass the weight of the fuel to ARFF - who else is going to? The endurance helps me to help you.

That a rescue chopper couldn't locate somebody at sea, at night, is all of a sudden ATC "ineffective". Wow. Just wow.

You must have this all figured out. Were you there in the cab to analyse everything so you can make this flamebait comment?

bourbon wrote:

zeke wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

Sorry Zeke I have to call you out on this confrontational post.

As a real living ATC I have also visited many centres, and the vast majority are old and way outdated. We aren't allowed to increase fees to get the good stuff. I've worked on some of the latest, and at best the datablock can include ADES/ADEP/TYPE/WTC and not a lot else. We can sometimes include enhanced Mode S data, like HDG,IAS/MACH,Selected level on MCP, and BVR. That's it. Our systems are not networked externally to prevent exploitation by hackers. So there will never be a data exchange between ramp and ATC.

Approach units especially do not use CPDLC for clearances, as the persistent "Pilot answer late" is pointless. I can thus only deduce you know not how our systems work or how we actually work in terminal airspace. I've worked Oceanic and En-Route with CPDLC and that's fine with the delays.

To turn around and say "just deduct a couple of hours fuel burn" is just plain disingenuous. I don't have the fuel burn of every single engine type PROP/TP/JET *ever produced* memorised! Do you? I think not. I don't know how long your taxi out was, or how long you sat in a penalty box, and so forth. Do you tell ATC your CI? I doubt it. So let's stop this silliness.

No let's turn the table. I have been in jumpseats numerous times, along with LOFT sessions etc. So I know what is on your end too (granted not an A350, but I have flown too). On your ACTIVE FUEL&LOAD page you have the exact amounts. Displayed right there. Your PAX NBR and fuel. It would take just a few seconds to give us the accurate figures.

Aviate. Navigate. Communicate. You are professional aviators. And we are professionals at what we do. It's not like we are asking for the cricket score in the middle of an emergency. Ignore my call, say standby, or answer me. I won't harass you.

We are out there as a team. We don't want to see anybody die. And we do everything in our power to make that happen. I know that the fire crew and hospitals would rather have accurate data in order to prepare better. I get the feeling you'd be just as vocal if the coastguard missed a third crew member and they died because we asked ramp (and not the aircraft) and they said there were 2 POB and not three. I am sorry you feel we are just there to annoy you.

I am not interested in debating every point you have listed here it will just drag the way off topic, it is just so wrong on so many levels. The POB and FOB are irrelevant for ATC, ATC don’t treat a 737 any different if it has 200 or 2 POB, or 5 hrs or 31 minutes of fuel.

What you have posted maybe representative of the technology you use in your workplace, it is not indicative of say Eurocontrol where all the airliners squawk 1000 and it’s all VDL2 ADS-C with multilateration. Digital flight strips/data blocks and digital handoff is common in many parts of the world.

ATC may not treat an AC with 2 vs 200 SOB differently but the rescue team snd emergency response sure as hell will.

Exactly my point, and seeing as we're the switchboard with SMC/ARFF etc. I don't understand his anger and rage and derogatory comments accusations etc. Feel sorry for him really.

KingOrGod wrote:

That a rescue chopper couldn't locate somebody at sea, at night, is all of a sudden ATC "ineffective". Wow. Just wow.

The location the aircraft went down was known, it happened in radar coverage with ADS-B.

The pickup point was 19,156 ft (3.15nm) on the 118 bearing from Barbers Point, you think that is acceptable level of service for a rescue helicopter to take an hour to get there ?

Not like they had to work out where to go, the Fire Department already had their boat on the scene picking up one of the pilots.

It's great to see the pilots survived. A lot of hard work and a bit of luck goes a long way. I'm sure the NTSB will have improvements to suggest as there's always a way to make things better. At the very least there may need to be a regulation put in place that for airports above a certain size you cannot have a controller on both departure and approach unless it's an emergency.

It's amazing that we have all this data so quickly. Just imagine a couple decades ago, at best only the investigators could get all of this and even that would have been days or weeks after the incident. Now we have almost all of it within just a few hours.

zeke wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

That a rescue chopper couldn't locate somebody at sea, at night, is all of a sudden ATC "ineffective". Wow. Just wow.

The location the aircraft went down was known, it happened in radar coverage with ADS-B.

The pickup point was 19,156 ft (3.15nm) on the 118 bearing from Barbers Point, you think that is acceptable level of service for a rescue helicopter to take an hour to get there ?

Not like they had to work out where to go, the Fire Department already had their boat on the scene picking up one of the pilots.

The helicopter was not likely sitting on the pad, engines running and ready to go. While it would have fueled, prepped and ready, the crew would have to scramble, board, go through their startup and head to the crash site. Probably a 10-15 minute process before initiation of the search itself. By then the plane would have sunk but for random smaller pieces of debris.
The boat on the other hand (speculation) may have already been out on patrol and close to the crash location to start with. Who says the boat just didn't happen to be at the right place and right time to quickly come across their survivor. Likewise the helicopter may not have been in an ideal spot at the start of their search to quickly pickup their survivor. It was dark, over water with swells. There may have been many pieces of debris to examine.

You seem to have an awful high and mighty attitude toward the rescuers for someone who sees the world from the perspective of a computer operator observing the world safely from 37K feet. Particularly when judging highly trained and skilled professionals who regularly pluck people from oceans under all types of conditions for a living.

FlyHossD wrote:

ATCJesus wrote:

AngelsDecay wrote:

I fully recognize this is not important for the final investigation, but it really surprises me i've never heard in the entire ATC comms the words "Pan Pan" or "Mayday"...i really wish all the best for the pilots.

Nobody in the US uses mayday or pan pan usually unless they are a foreign pilot or maybe a GA pilot. Trust me, that doesn’t make a difference to controllers. If you tell us there’s literally the smallest thing wrong with the plane, we are treating it as an emergency.


The speculation about ATC in this thread is wild…

"Nobody in the US uses mayday or pan pan usually unless they are a foreign pilot or maybe a GA pilot. Trust me..."

Before I retired, for our global fleets (757s/767s, 777s, 787s), were training to use Mayday, Mayday, Mayday worldwide as that was understood around the globe. "Declaring an emergency" is mostly a U.S. thing.

I wouldn't say nobody. For example, in the UA328 incident they pilots declared MAYDAY call. Some airlines such as UPS also require pilots to use MAYDAY instead of using declare an emergency. US crews are also trained in ICAO terminology for operating internationally.

Update on search for weeckage:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... uxbndlbing

zeke wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

That a rescue chopper couldn't locate somebody at sea, at night, is all of a sudden ATC "ineffective". Wow. Just wow.

The location the aircraft went down was known, it happened in radar coverage with ADS-B.

The pickup point was 19,156 ft (3.15nm) on the 118 bearing from Barbers Point, you think that is acceptable level of service for a rescue helicopter to take an hour to get there ?

Not like they had to work out where to go, the Fire Department already had their boat on the scene picking up one of the pilots.

Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work like a TV show. I really get annoyed at this.

A crew has to be wakened, assembled, and briefed, the aircraft has to be preflighted and fueled, if not already on a hot standby. Run ups and safety checks have to be completed, and gear stowed. No reality is not TV, the government doesn’t pay for 24 hour hot standby in but a very few places and only at certain times.

zeke wrote:

Revelation wrote:

He already explained why ATC needs POB, it is ATC who relays that information to emergency services.

He already explained why ATC needs fuel on board, it helps them understand what alternates can be offered and it also informs emergency services to how much flammable liquid is on board.

Suggest you have a close look at the FAA flight plan form excerpt I put above in reply 227, it has the endurance, POB (i.e. crew plus pax) and survival equipment carried onboard like life rafts, and life jackets.

ATC are clueless on how much aircraft burn per hour, however they insist on getting fuel as a weight in lb or kg in a emergency. Tell them how much fuel you have (as a weight) they have no idea how long that will last. That is why we list the total endurance (time) not the weight of fuel onboard is on the flight plan. ARFF on the other hand do know about aircraft as they have handbooks with the aircraft types, where the fuel is located, how much they carry, where the dangerous goods are, where the emergency exits are.

This rescue highlights how ineffective ATC is, this aircraft came down in ATC radar coverage where the last position was known, yet it took an hour for a helicopter to located the crew, one of which was actually picked up by a Honolulu Fire Department vessel, not the coast guard. Something is not right when a boat can beat a helicopter to a rescue. The aircraft came down so close to the USCG station at Barbers Point I wouldn’t be surprised is the impact point was visible from the station.

I'm not sure I follow what your grip about ATC really is.

Having said that, the FAA doesn't do a good job of training ATC staff for emergencies. Having said that, it can't really since each is different.

Regarding the helicopter response time, I would venture to say the helicopter arrived on scene fairly quickly...after it was dispatched. Notifying and dispatching the Coast Guard isn't a streamlined, easy process. If I observed an emergency (boat, plane, whatever) requiring a Coast Guard response, my only option would be 9-1-1 from my phone. And that # is for CITY fire/police/medic.

Is there any report of the sea state when the put the 737 in? Was it a help or a hindrance? Could they see the water surface, given that it was nighttime? Would the landing lights do an adequate job, or was there moonlight?

About ATC, I think she needs to know souls and fuel for many basic reasons. SAR needs to know how many targets they have. Fire dept needs to know how much jet fuel is coming their way, I am just surmising it could affect their fire tactics.

I don’t want to get into into bickering, but I will provide some more info regarding ATC tower’s handling of emergencies in the US. We absolutely request info on fuel, souls on board, and nature of the emergency. Every time.

We have a phone in the tower that when we pick it up calls to 8-12 different agencies, including in our case the Coast Guard, Harbor Patrol, and sheriff marine units along with multiple fire stations on the airfield and coordinated ops centers for these agencies to provide further coordination. The idea is we make one call and get all those moving parts moving following their own protocols.

These agencies, the ones who will literally be saving the pilots/pax lives, require we provide this information. If we don’t they will ask, so this is why we ask the flight crew.

I understand the ability of us to look this information up, but the most accurate and timely info will come directly from the PIC.

Finally keep in mind that during a busy hour at LAX for example, there are over 130 arrivals and departures, with additional ground movements and helicopter operations occurring in the Bravo. This is all handled by a total of 4 ATCOs actually talking to the aircraft and another 4 working in monitor or supervisory roles. On a midnight shift after 12:30 in the morning, there are only 2 people in the tower.

The point I am trying to make is that ATC personnel handle thousands of flights per day with all the information they need to do just that. Developing some type of database to instantly look up flight plan info would not assist in day to day operations. Again the most accurate Information we can get comes directly from pilots, and if I could get the info elsewhere, I would still want to verbally confirm before passing on to emergency services.

One last point, as a controller even in the US, please use MAYDAY or PAN if you have an emergency that will require special handling. Telling us “I have an engine problem” doesn’t convey the seriousness to us or the other pilots on frequency.

moderate cloud cover & choppy

Waning moon with 35% illumination, so only a little light. METAR showed few and scattered deck at 4,000’ with 10 miles visibility. Somewhere I saw the swell was at 5’, so not calm but not horrible.

Flaps wrote:

zeke wrote:

KingOrGod wrote:

That a rescue chopper couldn't locate somebody at sea, at night, is all of a sudden ATC "ineffective". Wow. Just wow.

The location the aircraft went down was known, it happened in radar coverage with ADS-B.

The pickup point was 19,156 ft (3.15nm) on the 118 bearing from Barbers Point, you think that is acceptable level of service for a rescue helicopter to take an hour to get there ?

Not like they had to work out where to go, the Fire Department already had their boat on the scene picking up one of the pilots.

The helicopter was not likely sitting on the pad, engines running and ready to go. While it would have fueled, prepped and ready, the crew would have to scramble, board, go through their startup and head to the crash site. Probably a 10-15 minute process before initiation of the search itself. By then the plane would have sunk but for random smaller pieces of debris.
The boat on the other hand (speculation) may have already been out on patrol and close to the crash location to start with. Who says the boat just didn't happen to be at the right place and right time to quickly come across their survivor. Likewise the helicopter may not have been in an ideal spot at the start of their search to quickly pickup their survivor. It was dark, over water with swells. There may have been many pieces of debris to examine.

You seem to have an awful high and mighty attitude toward the rescuers for someone who sees the world from the perspective of a computer operator observing the world safely from 37K feet. Particularly when judging highly trained and skilled professionals who regularly pluck people from oceans under all types of conditions for a living.

According to the KHON interview with the USCG SAR crew, large pieces of wreckage were still visible when they arrived, including the tail.