ENGINE FIRE ON TAKEOFF | Air Canada B777 Emergency Return to Toronto! 

You’re a good person!

Hope they were ok

Excellent capture by the spotter!!

It was me.

I know 737 aviation posted about it when he was in Toronto unsure if they were the original poster.

I'm pretty sure this would be the standard everywhere at airports

@@hellomiami4012 Incidents I've heard on this channel from the US have often (not always) felt quite a bit messier, often without even a full understanding on whether there was an emergency for a while, because pilots somehow don't like to say it...

This has nothing to do with Canadians, if you're familiar even the slightest about the aviation industry, you would know this is the standard everywhere, what do you think they do elsewhere? Curse at each other during an emergency!

I do Customer Service for Canadian and I really love them! They are so kind, if they don’t understand my accent they just ask to repeat myself or slow down

Kindness of canadians? That is such a myth I don't know where that ever came from.

If a Boeing 747 loses an engine it may not even be a pan pan depending on the airline.

​@@VpmattSure, but the cost (both money and pollution wise) of running 4 engines is prohibitive these days.

Damn 🔥 that’s some knowledge! 👍🏼

Would thrust reversers be available in that scenario? If not, presumably that's a big limitation on a wet runway.

I heard some increased thrust on some videos, probably they powered up the working engine then?

😅

We're sorry aboot that

No it's "oat" ! So "out and about" is "oat and a boat" lol

Figured it ewt

They got it straightened oot and aboot

They forgot to ask for fuel on board, in gallons, hours, liters and/or fluid ounces, and souls on board, including/excluding redheads.

@@TDOBrandano This WASN'T a mayday, but a 'pan-pan'. My understanding is that for maydays, fuel and souls MUST be provided and pan-pans are urgent situations that are uncertain

@@TDOBrandano😂😂

I think Schiphol (AMS/EHAM) matches or exceeds them but yeah YYZ seems to have very good traffic control

@@OntarioTrafficMan Let's agree to disagree. Pearson Dave is underrated anyway LOL (IDK how everybody focuses on Kennedy Steve - our ground control up here in the YYZ region is spectacular, even on a bad day)

They fly themselves ... until they fail to do so.

Boeing and reliable in the same sentence? Unbelievable!

Btw, gusty winds, likely only flying a single engine approach on a wet runway and for sure overweight. Lots of things working against them. Yet they sounded as cool as cucumbers.

@@driventotears- the 777 is a joy to fly and is very easy to handle in such conditions.

@@EdOeuna a testament to how thoughtfully designed and well built that plane is. Boeing was a different company back in the early 90s.

​@@suratroadkingpvtltd5769 sorry pal. 777 and GE90 are great machines.

For a Rolls Royce

​@@deeremeyer1749 GE90

And they get paid half as much 😢

Sounded about the same as any actual situation, I can barely understand the AC pilot he's talking at the speed of light. Fully understand why often times things are asked twice or more. He slowed down his speech after a bit, but at first it was panicked and unintelligible really.

​@@profligatepassagesEveryone sounded pretty calm to me. No different to what I hear in Canada and the US.

@@pullingweeds yea generally speaking it was an identical communication, just seemed like he was rushing his statements a bit up to the panpan callout

@@profligatepassagesnever heard any panic, thought he was very clear and easy to understand. He told ATC to standby twice (meaning he will call them back with intentions when they are ready) but ATC kept asking him for intentions when they were likely in the middle of checklists. Only trying to help but in that situation it’s a bit distracting for the pilots. The pilots could’ve requested a hold earlier to prevent being interrupted. All in all very professional from both sides though.

The triple is the big brother of the 76. Both are great machines!

Indeed looks like it

Absolutely a compressor stall. Watch the original video if you can find it. Nothing else *thumps* and pops like that on a running engine, while allowing the engine to keep turning. If you know what a "backfire" is in the piston world, this is the turbine equivalent.

Air Canada confirms a compressor stall.

3 groups of PAN-PAN, which is how it should be done. It's written in the radio manual and regulations.

@@VASAviation Exactly. The adherence to proper phraseology is another trademark of the Canadians.

RLT will be disappointed.

also very funny that youtube added a "Translate to English" link to this post

​@@BigTunaTim76 I love when RU-vid does that, and there's no difference at all in the text when you click it. Surely the software could be set up to detect that result and not offer to translate.

I was wondering about that.

Did she declare a PAN-PAN?

@@somejoe7777 Yeah but I dodged it by authorizing a go around and came in for an emergency landing after dumping some fuel!

Scary, yes, but fortunately not very dangerous. Compressor stalls are loud and flashy, but typically just cause a loss of thrust from that engine. Sometimes the engine can even continue to operate at a lower power.

he only does the ones that crash

Which worked nice

As a Canadian, this is the most Canadian accent I’ve ever heard. 😅

When the pilot said "let us straighten this oot", I totally knew what he was talking aboot.

Just a way to acknowledge something that doesn’t require a readback.

2112

R.I.P. Neil

shhhhh

Commonwealth countries know how to deploy the PANPAN. Just sayin' ;)

We’re coming back for 23 …. Hopefully….😳

How you Yanks hear 'oot' when you guys say 'aout' will never cease to baffle me.

@@twinlamp Oot and aboot in a boot.....my friend from Calgary's dialect.

Exactly, do you put your TUQUE on do you put on a toque?

Yes, I believe they had to fly a holding pattern to dump fuel (2/3 of the way through this video AC872 got told to hold just outside the Runway 23 localizer, so that they weren't overweight when they were ready to take everybody back to Pearson.)

Not necessarily if they were already below their Max Landing Weight. Or they can just perform an overweight landing (landing above the max weight permitted).

@@dukeofrodtown1705 do you really think they dumped fuel in that circle at 3000 feet? Then you need to learn more about aviation and not come to your own conclusions. You cannot dump over populated areas at that low altitude and without telling ATC.

@@VASAviation Well technically you *can* makes the news if you do though. Thinking of Delta Airlines flight Flight 89; LA to Shanghai, January 14, 2020

@@VASAviation That's what I meant

If I had to guess, they could have gotten some departures out after they asked for a hold. In the initial phase ATC was uncertain of the urgency of the situation so cleared all the runways as a precaution.

Modern transport category jet engines typically don’t compressor stall or flame out unless there is some sort of mechanical failure preceding the event. My guess is something broke before the compressor stall and the engine will require maintenance.

Twin engine transport category airplanes are certified to fly on one engine, so there is no rush to land immediately. The crew needs time to complete the checklist for the non-normal (compressor stall) and determine what other systems might be affected. They may need to re-configure the airplane for single engine operation (eg. Start the APU, etc.). Then they need to compute the landing weight in order to plug it into the computer to compute the landing distance. Based on that, the crew then decide which airport and runway will result in the lowest-risk landing based on things such as runway length, and weather, to include winds. If the crew decide to utilize autoland, wind limits and system limits must be reviewed and briefed. If the crew decides to dump fuel, that checklist needs to be run and the dump needs to be coordinated with ATC. If an overweight landing is determined to be the best course of action, there is a checklist for that as well. Then the approach charts need to pulled up and the approach needs to be loaded into the FMS and briefed by the crew. Then the crew needs to run the IN RANGE, APPROACH, and BEFORE LANDING checklists. All this while communicating with ATC, the Cabin Crew, and Dispatch. It takes a while.

US ATC: fuel in pounds ? Pilot: we have 14,000kgs US ATC: fuel in pounds ? Pilot: 3hrs of fuel US ATC: fuel in POUNDS ? Pilot: we paid in Euros US ATC: FUEL IN POUNDS ?? Pilot: We've already landed...

I know it's a _serious_ comment when they slaughter punctuation this atrociously. Please, more caps, too. It makes you more sincere.

😂😂😂😂😂

It's used to tell someone that they've also received the other info in the transmission that isn't required to be repeated back. The first time he uses it seems to be a reflex and unnecessary (there wasn't anything in the transmission from ATC that he didn't need to repeat). The second time was to acknowledge the weather and runway condition.

Tower's a Newfie. Nuttin' ta worry about here, byes. Departure sounds like a local boy.

@@GWNorth-db8vn It's the tower, eh. Surprised no one said, "lard tunderin' bye."

@@GWNorth-db8vnthe dude in the tower is 100% Irish I know this because he’s my dad

@@adrianquinlan3989 - No one can tell them apart, anyway.

The controller has provided extra information not normally required (example: runway is wet) and "checked remarks" is the pilot confirming he has heard this extra information.

@@IcthioVelocipede thank you! I figured it was something like that, but having not come across it before I wanted to see if there was anything more going on with it

Go lower, you'll find it.

Inexcusable!

@@malcolm20091000pan-pan, not mayday, so yes it’s excusable

should have, ARFF wants to know.

Pan Pan is for severe mechanical issues but non life threatening; May Day is reserved for emergencies that maybe life threatening

If the pilots think there is no threat to life, they don't call mayday. Just pan pan.

It's easy: Pan Pan means: Urgency, someone needs more attention than others. Mayday means: Drop everything else you are doing! And an engine fire is not a "drop everything else you are doing" situation.

@@Quotenwagnerianer Little addition: an engine fire "on a twin or 4 engine airplane" is not a "drop everything else you are doing" situation. If this was a single engine cessna, engine fire or compressor stall on that single engine would be Mayday

@@harrynamkoong3361 I assumed this as a given. ;)

Only song I can remember all the lyrics to.

@@GWNorth-db8vn 😂

One of the hardest I've played on bass

@@VASAviation You're had a go at it?! 😳 My respect sir. I'd put it in the too hard basket 😂

Irish he’s my dad

That day was 27th December 1991. The plane didn't even have a dual engine failure check list. What it did have was an off duty pilot who had concocted a low altitude dual engine failure checklist in his head in his free time, so everyone survived.

You can't solve compressor stalls, theoretically they can happen whenever. New engine, old engine, doesn't matter

Panpan is the callsign for an emergency situation, similar to Mayday. Panpan as when a fault that affects flight ability occurs, meanwhile Mayday is when a fault that puts the crew and passengers immediately at risk occurs.

It’s Pan Pan x 3 (so 6 times) Mayday x 3

Nothing to do with Boeing

@@VASAviation I thought it was a triple 7?

​@@louisviola9763 Doesn't matter. Compressor stall can happen on any turbine application. Besides, Boeing makes the planes, not the parts that go onto the planes. The engines are General Electric's baby, but again, compressor stalls don't give a fig what brand the turbine is.

What does Boeing have to do with this?

@@VASAviation the engine explosion highlighted in this video, the whistle blower scandles where boeing whistleblowers are taking their own lives, 737-8 maxcomputer glitches that downed 2 planes, 737-9 max missing bolts on wings and doors, 737-9 max door violently expelled from the plane, 737 plane engine exploding where a passenger's half body nearly got sucked out the plane, boeing 767 safety slide exit slide detaches from the plane mid flight, fedex front gear fails to lower which forced it to land on its belly in Turkey, CEO Dave Calhaun stepping down, 737-8 engine falling off from a southwest plane. All these incidents happened in a short span of time and all these planes had the US government eyeing on boeing. I understand it could have been airline mechanics own problem where maybe they skipped a check list and possibly neglected to do their job but passengers, media, and the FAA are all eyeing on boeing as the culprit.

Boeing does not make engines

@@VASAviation yea, i think its G&E.

Zero idea you have, huh? There was only TWO positions involved here and the holding pilots requested for it. this was handled PERFECTLY!

It takes about 10 button presses to put in such a hold. Hardly difficult for two pilots.

Sometimes comments sound better in your head and shouldn’t be typed out. This was one of them, it just makes you look foolish

There was fire? Yes.

@@VASAviation . The drills for fire and a stall are different . Clearly this is a stall not a fire

Aviate, navigate, communicate. They were probably occupied with the engine fire while taking off, once you have everything under control then you communicate the emergency.

Aviation, navigate, communicate. Everyone knew there was an emergency. The pan pan declaration just made it clear what level of emergency so there was no misunderstanding.

Aviate... oh, they already told you why.

Don't crash it, fly somewhere safe, talk to ATC. Oh, somebody also call it Aviate, Navigate, Communicate. They told you already.

Yeh, rightio guys. Any pilot knows the ANC mantra. Watch the Thomsonfly bird strike and similar compressor stall that had an almost instantaneous Mayday call from the cockpit. That shut down comms on the frequency almost immediately and allowed the cockpit time and space to talk to the tower.

Not particularly, handled exactly as it should have been which meant no-one was harmed, just delayed/inconvenienced. Doesn’t look like a developed fire, more like a compressor stall. If it was a fire then they’d discharge the extinguisher to put it out, and they were never far from the airport/help. Doesn’t seem particularly dangerous at all, maybe alarming for passengers but I’ve no doubt the crew will have communicated and reassured passengers. Still far more likely to die on your way to the airport 🤷‍♂️

@@Strathclydegamer exactly, it might be a compressor stall

Nothing to do with Boeing haha