Found this first on vasaviation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca-0Bi2lZhg), which focus on atc communications. It looks like the pilots took 5 mins to report to atc for emergency landing request.
From other reporting it sounds like they didn't know they hit something until left side passenger(s) reported wing damage to flight attendants, who then reported to pilots. Also it wasn't an emergency landing request: no mayday, no pan-pan, their only request was for a particular runway presumably because it was the longer one, and they explicitly denied needing ground assistance.
How can an incident require turning back immediately (and requesting a specific runway!), but not require declaring an emergency? Here's an incident[1] from yesterday where an American Airlines flight declared an emergency after a tire blew. Meanwhile, this aircraft has visible damage to the wing.
>How can an incident require turning back immediately (and requesting a specific runway!), but not require declaring an emergency?
Dinking a wingtip is not an emergency. The damage looks alarming, but it's nowhere near anything vital. You want to get on the ground ASAP simply as a precaution, but you've still got full control of the aircraft and the capacity to land normally.
Blowing a tire is definitely an emergency, because your landing could go catastrophically wrong. You need to declare an emergency, because you may need a major response on the ground.
Having an emergency condition and declaring one on frequency are two entirely different things. By declaring an emergency you're more or less taking control of all surrounding airspace and doing whatever is necessary to achieve a safe resolution of your flight, the tower and ATC both become bound by your declarations as an emergency flight.
If your flight controls aren't damaged, you have enough fuel and/or aren't leaking any, and you're capable of flying the standard arrival pattern it may not be necessary to declare the emergency to gain the privileges above.
Emergencies are pilot's discretion. There's a non-communication exception in FAR 121 operations that doesn't apply here. At least in the U.S. there's no such thing as ATC declaring an emergency for a pilot, and likewise there's no such thing as ATC denying a pilot request once an emergency is declared.
Pilot language in the radio audio suggests the turn around is precautionary, there are too many examples of return to departure airport that are not emergencies. Also, they were offered both 4L and 4R, so it's not like they requested a runway that was not in use.
If there are no control problems, no system warnings, and the pilot sees no damage - on what basis do they declare an emergency? Very different from a blown nose gear tire which is a fire hazard on landing, might grind down the wheel, and some risk of nose gear collapse as well.
> At least in the U.S. there's no such thing as ATC declaring an emergency for a pilot
US ATC can declare an emergency and handle a flight as an emergency in the absence of a declaration from the pilot.
Source - FAA Administration Order JO 7110.65X, section 10. (and conversations with controllers over the years and a flight where I did not declare an emergency, but was handled in every regard as one, including asking souls and fuel on board [an unambiguous indicator])
> on what basis do [the pilots] declare an emergency?
FAR 91.3 gives them incredibly broad discretion and declared emergencies are, despite the name, fairly routine. No pilot would be violated for declaring an emergency under this circumstance.
Just because it looks bad doesn't mean it actually is bad. A blown tire has many more ways of causing a plane to fail during landing then a wing that isn't operating at 100%. As long as all the flight controls are operational and there is no leaking fuel I don't see why it would be considered an emergency.
Continuous video surveillance on 3-4 km of runway, from multiple angles, with night vision support, working 24/7? Might not be impossible, but surely not cheap.
I watch landing and takeoff videos frequently on YouTube from only one angle. The lenses are quite large and depth is very compressed but it’s sufficient to understand a lot of things relevant to an accident.
