I think the commentator meant that at the time they navigated and drove that damn aircraft into (not onto) the slopes and splattered those tourists into the rocks and snow on of that mountain (in late 1979), the DC-10 was about five years old.
@@ricarleite The DC-10 was a great aircraft with a great service record when you exclude pilot- and ground crew errors that led to several catastrophic crashes. But why pay attention to facts when you can be ignorantly negative?
@@generalyellor8188 this accident had nothing to do with the fact they were flying DC-10's. It was due to general low professionalism in the airline Air New Zealand. Poor communications within the company between the navigation department and the pilots, a cavalier cowboy attitude amongst the pilots. The same thing would've happened with any other airliner. However; the DC-10 did have a poor safety record in general. There was a design flaw in the cargo doors thats caused accidents and other mishaps. And the DC-10 didn't have good fuel economy compared to its two contemporary 1st generation wide-body airliners; the Boeing 747 and Lockheed Tristar, which is why Air New Zealand started doing these Antarctica flights to begin with; they couldn't make much money with them on long haul routes.
Bring me the milk Mother UTA flight 772 in Niger (Africa) and there was one that overran the runway in Colombia (South America), though this DC-10 was in freight service. Copa airlines flight 201 almost counts, but it crashed in Central America enroute to South America.
Africa, North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica. There are your seven continents - for those who failed miserably in geography at school.
@@kenbehzadi1185 Usually 500ft the standard height warning would be enough, unfortunately they were flying directly into a mountain, which of course meant the action of pulling up was futile. I agree though, if the sensor had been modified to alert the crew at 1000ft then they might of had enough time to climb out and clear the mountain.
Most DC-10 Failures were due to pilot error or maintenance errors. The one with the cargo door was a design defect, which took a while for the FAA to demand the problem be fixed... and even still, the plane did land. If you think about it, most plane failures seem to happen when there is a new series, the 737, DC-10 and some design issues are not worked out yet. After 5~8 years, they have generally perfected the manufacturing of that model. Chicago's crash was improper installation of the engine and damage during installation. During the 70s, the only wide-body airplanes were the 747 and the DC10 that could do the long-distance travel across the oceans.
sightseeing tour in either arctic circle is madness...the weather at the poles changes so rapidly they havent even begun to be able to forecast it with any certainty other than its changing rapidly...rip to all those poor souls...i cant imagine what it must have taken to even try to make any kind of recovery...prayers for all their loved ones, what a terrible loss to bear.
I flew on this aircraft in December 1975. ACK - NAN - HNL - LAX. The final leg to LHR was flown by a British Airways crew. Rock Hudson was a passenger from LA and my sister got his autograph.
Gus W actually he can make sure that he didnt try to hit on his sister and he died of Aids But yeah GaYs RiGhT LeGaLiZe GaY MaRrIaGe AnD SpReAd DiSeAsEs FACTS
Again, not an event I had known about, or remember. I could end up watching these all night. What is the best way to see your entire series, subscribe and see a list? Pretty remarkable, thanks. I'm always amazed at how good experienced pilots are who overcome mechanical or computer errors by their extensive knowledge of the fundamentals of flying. Good thing, too.
It was an excellent aircraft with a stellar record. Only when you factor in all of the catastrophes caused by pilot error and ground crew errors, do you get the crashes that make ignorant folk like you pee their pants.
There are a lot of strong feelings about the DC-10. Yes, they were involved in a lot of accidents and incidents. But I'm proud to say that I grew up in a DC-10, flying hither and thither and yon, with never the first hint of a hiccup (to my knowledge, of course), ever. Air travel was really cool back then, too .. when seats were spacious and comfortable, meals were awesome (and served with linen napkins!), and your every need was met by the gracious stewardesses. So I survived probably 50 DC-10 wonderful flights!
Most DC-10 Failures were due to pilot error or maintenance errors. The one with the cargo door was a design defect, which took a while for the FAA to demand the problem be fixed... and even still, the plane did land. If you think about it, most plane failures seem to happen when there is a new series, the 737, DC-10 and some design issues are not worked out yet. After 5~8 years, they have generally perfected the manufacturing of that model. Chicago's crash was improper installation of the engine and damgage during installation.
Sir Edmund Hillary, Mount Everest conqueror, had been due to act as commentator on this flight. He pulled out due to other commitments and his place was taken by Peter Mulgrew, one of his closest friends, who died in the crash.
Why would anybody pretend to be sightseeing if there is no visibility ? And why/how could a pilot dare fly at 1500 feet with little or no visibility in a region he has never flown ?
@@Zoomer30 they didnt know they were in sector whiteout because they hadnt been trained how to recognise it. They thought they were flying in clear air.
Paul DG I was reading a statement by a gentleman (Jim Morgan was his name I believe) involved in the recovery and it sounded like it was a horrible ordeal that took a major toll on the recovery team.
@@gullybear20 Well at least it's comforting to know that the bodies were in fact recovered. But as you mentioned, it must have been a very traumatic experience for those involved in the recovery process.
Paul DG I believe they were able to recover or at least identify the majority of the victims, so hopefully that brought a little comfort to the families and friends. That thought probably also helped the people doing the recovery work. It’s definitely not something I think I could handle. People who do those jobs have all my respect.
@@gullybear20 Very true. I think 901 was one of the first instances where counselling was offered to those who helped recover the bodies. That was pretty new in 1979. It's very common now though.
3 года назад
I'm not sure 'bodies' would be the best term to describe most of what they were able to recover, bar one or two of them.
Well my hell! Why would people sightsee to a place they couldn't see anyway? Again, miscommunication, poor training, and these pilots were on their first journey to Antarctica! Just tragic! 😭
And qantas has sightseeing flights to Antarctica even when this plane crashed although they did stop for a few years bc of this but they returned, goodness gracious😧
The point is they couldn't see Erebus right in front of them. They thought they were flying over McMurdo Sound. Water/Flat sea ice. That was because of a last minute change in their computer flight plan. How couldn't they see a massive volcano right in front of them? Antarctic whiteout. Erebus was completely hidden from them. And the pilots were cleared of any wrongdoing.
definitely dumb to fly at low altitude in such terrain with impaired visibility flying blind basically Mahon report or not the whole situation was a recipe for disaster, what smart pilot would do that
One of the best and most reliable airframes ever manufactured. But for some reason the DC-10 just couldn’t catch a break in the 70’s. Mostly because of pilot error or engine failures. But the -10 was a damn fine aircraft. Still is.
Everyone always trashes the DC10 as a death trap that was fundamentally flawed in its design but the vast majority of the fatal DC10 crashes were due to pilot error, improper maintenance procedures, other external factors (as is the case here) etc. IMHO the DC10 was an amazing and beautiful aircraft that never gets the recognition it deserves.
Wish the damn Government would at least recognize the Mahon report, Captain Jim Collins and First Officer Greg Cassin did nothing wrong, Pilot Error was the cause that suited Air New Zealand and it's owner (The New Zealand Government, the only shareholder being the finance minister who was also the prime minister at the time Robert Muldoon) simply because the pilots couldn't defend themselves as they were dead, I'm happy Justice Mahon brought out the truth at least, giving the facts as they were. We will remember the 257 souls that perished on Erebus that day. Great video and keep up the good work!
As someone without an ax to grind, and who is only remotely familiar with the crash, I watched this video with increasing alarm. First, to descend to low altitude to get under heavy weather, then to fly a couple of big loops with no landmarks to get their bearings, and then to take the word of a tour operator who claims he sees landmarks that aren’t there . . . The captain accepts all this uncertainty and danger and muddles through at low altitude in whiteout conditions . . . Those who place the blame in the whiteout disregard that the pilot n command had no business flying virtually blind near ground level in unfamiliar terrain. The pilot has the final say and didn’t want to disappoint the tourists. Instead he killed them all so they could get their money's worth out of hiring the plane. When this later commission discovered the flight plan had been altered and the plan the captain had with him was to take them over this formidable mountain, well the whole thing turns into what the Brits rightly call a cock-up. All this risk taking, the incompetent navigation, the folly of flying into a whiteout, and for what? So some plump tourists could take snapshots of the most barren place on earth for their souvenir albums? The hubris, The folly!
Interesting stance on this John, but as a Kiwi and hopeful future airline pilot who did my own research into this particular accident, here's a few things to keep in mind. Pilots, but especially the captain on any flight, always have the passengers needs, wants and concerns in the back of their minds. As stated in the video too, neither the captain nor the first officer had previous experience down in Antarctica, which explains the captain's general reliance on the tour guide, since he'd been there many times beforehand. Now lets get to the crux of the matter, the whiteout itself. Surprisingly, given the information the pilots had there wasn't a lot they could have done to prevent the accident. Obviously the captain could have taken the advice of the Scott Base controller, but he didn't, stating "would rather here first", but that really was his one chance to prevent the crash. The holding pattern was flown using the autopilot, and every time he finished the turn, he put the autopilot in 'nav' mode, essentially following the course he had entered into the aircraft before taking off from Auckland. What isn't stated in the video is that Lewis Bay, directly north of Mt Erebus, was experiencing sea fog at the time of the accident. As a result, what the captain was expecting to see, McMurdo Sound, and what he was actually seeing, Lewis Bay and Mt Erebus, looked identical! The low overcast layer and the sun behind him combined with this fact prevented the captain from correcting his course and doing anything about the situation he was in because his eyes tricked him into believing he was flying directly down McMurdo Sound, just as planned. I haven't even started about how Air New Zealand royally screwed up here, but I'll start now. Originally the Erebus flight plan took the aircraft directly over the top of Mt Erebus at fairly high altitudes, after which pilots would descend to give passengers a look at the surrounding icy scenery. In 1978, a year and a half before the accident flight took off, Air New Zealand purchased brand new computers for use by dispatchers to store the flight plans of the entire Air New Zealand route network. When the flight plan for Flight 901 was typed up on these computers, however, a seemingly minor error was made. Instead of S77E164 the coordinates on the computer were S77E166, resulting in a 27 mile deviation to the west, taking the Air New Zealand aircraft down a very similar track to the military track established by the USAF. On the morning of the crash, at about 2:30 in the morning, the "error" was noted and fixed. That fix would have played no role in the accident if the airline had warned the captain about the change in the flight plan, but they didn't, almost certainly sealing the fate of everyone aboard Flight 901. Given I may get a job with them as a pilot later in life, I will call it an honest mistake, but the fact that they continued blaming the pilots after this fact came out was completely disgraceful.
The Mahon Report was accepted in 1994 I believe. The report cleared the pilots of any wrongdoing. And rightly so. Navigation errors combined with whiteout caused the crash. It was made worse by Air New Zealand trying to cover up their mistakes and trying to push the blame on Captain Collins. Mahon's report says it all when on Paragraph 377 it states - "I am forced, reluctantly, to conclude that I had to listen to an orchestrated litany of lies". Mahon was brilliant during that inquiry and doesn't get the full recognition he deserves for getting the truth out.
And also it's worth pointing out that the DC10 had a bad spell of crashes in the 70's. ANZ probably would have blamed the aircraft if there was the slightest bit of evidence to support it. Because ZK-NZP was flawless during it's last flight, ANZ tried to find someone else to blame. That someone was Captain Collins.
Just awful...the change in flight plans and the crew not being informed of a flight level change of 2 miles in altitude is reprehensible. The pilots should not have been blamed nor should any of the nonsense regarding "whiteout". The miscommunicated change in route and altitude was the sole cause of this iconic crash. Those responsible should have gone to prison.
I really question the whole idea of a "sightseeing" flight on a packed wide-body jet. Unless you are sitting at or beside a coveted window seat, the small windows of jet are not suitable for observing mountains. Weather at any point is not really predictable, and often visibility is obscured as in this incident. The crew is under great pressure to give the pax their money's worth, so it means swooping dangerously low in hostile terrain with unfamiliar hazards.
Watch the film of the passengers aboard the jet before it crashed (it's eerie). You'll see they're having a good time, moving around the cabin and looking out the windows on both sides.
Antarctica isn’t an average sightseeing destination. It is a place of extremes, therefore extra measures should be taken poor weather means no-go. Also if radar shows low clouds (to 1,500ft) in a coastal environment it’s most likely fog. Not to mention descending to 1,500 feet in any proximity of a 12,000 ft mountain with out certain visibility on it at all times, why was the planes nav instruments not showing them they were flying in the direction of a mountain and not water, (discrepancies with South magnetic? Check a map). Accident due to outright arrogance as well as simple error IMO. Mount Erebus: named for a doomed ship, god of Greek underworld where dead pass immediately upon dying, Erebus is the offspring of Chaos, interesting.
1:16 Another fact: that commentator Peter Mulgrew was a close friend of Sir Edmund Hillary and was actually a replacement for him on this flight. That’s right, *the* Edmund Hillary could have died on this plane.
Really interesting podcast called 'White Silence' was released last month, marking the 40th anniversary of the crash. Delves into details of the flight and the subsequent investigations
I'm gonna say if ypu are flying a passenger jet around and you know there is a 12,000 foot mountain near you stay at 14000 until you can see the bloody thing
Years ago I was on a DC 10 from Chicago to Denver early AM flight and it was fairly empty about 89 passengers , in fact the pilot came on the intercom and said if we wanted a different seat go ahead we have plenty . We started our takeoff roll as normal and then for some reason we heard the engines go to what seemed to be full throttle and were pinned back in our seats and the plane jumped off the ground into a steep climb , don't know why this was maybe a landing plane too close behind us . But anyway I was quite impressed by the power and quickness of such a large plane granted we were light on that takeoff but I have no qualms about the DC-10 being a good strong performing plane the fact the pilot flew it into a mountain has nothing to do with the plane.
I had a very good friend at the time who's son had given him tickets for that flight as an anniversary gift. My friend couldn't make that date because of another engagement so waited to be booked on a later flight. The later flight never happened and the experience has haunted my friend ever since.
I lost a friend in this crash. Errors all round in Air NZ, but refusing any blame to avoid being sued. Morris’ and others behaviour was disappointing, to say the least. The DC-10 was a lovely plane to fly on. Qantas have continued their Antarctic scenic flights using a 747
I remember arriving home at 9.30 at nite in Australia and seeing the News flash that this plane was missing. I new straight away they were gone. Planes don't go missing then turn up ok very often. Unless your in the Bermuda Triangle
Will any of your dolts who think the DC-10 was a poorly designed/made aircraft please show me all the crashes that weren't caused by catastrophic errors by pilots and/or ground crew? The plane had a stellar rep amongst the airlines, the good pilots who flew it, and the people who worked on it.
"Sightseeing" through a tiny airplane window thousands of feet up over a vast expanse of snow would not be worth the price of the ticket for me. And literally flying blind over unfamiliar terrain at low altitude is not behavior I would expect from experienced pilots. Experience counts for nothing if you don't use common sense.
Err sightseers obviously. Have you got common sense stored in your brain. Qantas make sightseeing trips even today. And they make a tidy profit out of it.
@@HouseOfMitchell To you it might be. But judging from your comments you have the IQ of a baked potato. So I can see why you don't find it an interesting place to visit. And sorry to disappoint but I'm not American. Guess correctly and I'll give you a cookie.
to be picky the video shows the DC10 flying in poor visibility in what looks like a snow shower. However it was flying in clear air at the time of impact.
The 'pull up' warning comes from something called GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System). Without getting too technical, it relies on sensors underneath the aircraft. If the aircraft is getting close to the ground, and the aircraft isn't configured to land, a pull up warning sounds. It can give a warning in plenty of time to avoid a crash. But the speed of the aircraft also needs to be considered. The pilots here only had about 6 seconds warning. Given the speed the aircraft was travelling, there was no way to avoid it. They were flying into a slope, so the sensors couldn't pick up the ground to give the warning earlier. There is an Enhanced version of the warning system these days...but this took place in 1979. Hope that gives you a bit of an understanding how that warning works.
DarkLight753 but why wouldn’t there be be a straight-ahead-terrain-sensor in addition to the ground sensors? Seems like that would pick up a 16000’ mountain at 100 miles ahead with plenty of time to begin climbing or executing a turn.
Actually air new zealand maintained their DC10s very well and The airline had an impeccable safety record prior to the crash. The crash was not related to the aircraft itself but reasons which 40 years later remain a public debate.
@@themadmgtow5196 Read Peter Mahon's report. The cause is made pretty clear there. Air New Zealand apologized in 2009 I think...so, better late than never...they eventually accepted responsibility for the mistakes before and the cover up they attempted afterwards. But you are right when you talk about the maintenance and the aircraft. The DC-10 performed flawlessly during the flight. It was human error by ANZ navigation staff. The whiteout phenomenon was a contributing cause.
As FlightSafety’s motto goes the best safety device on any aircraft is a competently trainer crew. The 747 had cargo doors blow out. The L-1011 lost stabilizer control. The 707 had engines fall off. Etc etc etc.
@@themadmgtow5196 My mate was onboard the plane until 2 Am that morning preparing it. The plane had been in hanger for days undergoing total maintanace. They all knew straight away plane was % 100. He said it had most up to date navigation systems in world but no one allowed for co ordinates being changed without telling crew.
A lot of poor explaining about this. The "whiteout" they experienced was limited to the view ahead, not to the sides of the plane. Passengers were snapping shots right up to and actually at the very moment of impact!!
The pilot asked for 'go around power'. That means full power to CLIMB the aircraft and gain altitude. So they did try. As Doug has already said, there wasn't enough time.
Did they say sight seeing journey ? On a big commercial jet ...that's the first I ever heard of anyone using a jet like this for a site tour of what clouds ? I feel for the family and friends of the crash victims...but honestly it sounds like a really stupid thing to wanna do .
Sorry, I am unclear whether this airplane was being tracked by any radar. It sounds like the pilots were flying by pure visual such as it was. The weather can change dramatically in minutes in Antarctica. It was a long time ago but such an endeavor is highly foolish. I have been to Antarctica, by ship. To be honest I have never been to such a spiritual place and came away feeling ashamed that I went since I realized while there that people do not belong there. It is unbelievably beautiful, but it tries to kill you every second you are there.
I love your videos, but I don't understand why you always comment after the crash at the end of your video, "The aircraft was destroyed." That's obvious, to say the least!
I'm a New Zealander. Right after this crash I put up posters," Showing The World How Kiwis Fly",. Under the title "Erebus Airlines", I pointed out that kiwis are fat little flightless birds that dwell in woodland and have no idea what snow is, and those comments on DC 10's are right on the mark.I'd never use one..
CFIT - Controlled Flight Into Terrain. It's just a term investigators use as a cause to a crash. It does NOT mean the pilots deliberately flew into Erebus. It simply means the aircraft was under control and flying normally.
William McKay I found it informative and helpful. There does not seem to be bias. And it’s clear from the description the accident wasn’t due to problems with the aircraft. What am I missing?
Explain how it was obvious? Air New Zealand had being doing the Antarctic flights since 1977 without incident. And believe it or not, Qantas make regular trips to Antarctica even today.
I meant it was obvious when they mentioned the very poor weather conditions, and when they said the pilots believed they were clear of Mt. Erebus by 20-25 miles. It was obvious, at the moment, that their calculations were off and that they were going to slam into the mountain. Otherwise was simply commenting on what the attraction of flying over an Arctic terrain was. Not much to see and dangerous conditions.
The pilots thought they were flying over McMurdo Sound....over water. In fact, they were flying towards Ross Island, where Erebus is. Their flight plan was changed at the last minute and nobody told the flight crew. ANZ Nav team thought it was a small correction but the change turned out out to be almost 30 nautical miles. That's a massive change in aviation terms. The situation was made worse by the weather. Erebus was completely hidden by a weather phenomenon called 'Whiteout'. The pilots couldn't see Erebus in front of them. The Whiteout made the flight crew think they were exactly where they should be. Over McMurdo Sound. The first the crew noticed it was when the GPWS on the aircraft told them to "pull up" - indicating they were dangerously close to the ground. By then it was too late. Hope that explains it better for you.
I thought about this, the only way it could've worked was to have someone with a stop watch, giving the passengers who had access to the windows, say about 5 min, then when their time was up, switch positions with the other passengers, otherwise, there were passengers getting ripped off.
I watch quite a few of these and it seems the 70's and 80's were prevalent for air disasters.. not so much in 90's .. thank god in this decade they seem quite rare .. unless there's a pilot with depression of course 😡
There's one thing about this accident that has troubled me more than any other case that I have viewed and studied. It is my thoughts that this pilot [ Captain ] was just about the best of his fleet and airline an by all accounts a very straight arrow. I cannot be simplistic and think that he was just pressured, incompetent, or dismissive of safety. all the other factors involved have been considered. I was also wondering if the Radar altimeter enunciated 2500 feet before the GPWS Ground Proximity Warning System was activated.
Right, but the DC10 had an enunciation when the GPWS became active at 2500 feet. If I remember correctly it was a loud tone not the voice type that came later.
Tom A, The pilot of the KLM 747 was KLM's chief instructor pilot. He was one of the most experienced and accomplished pilots anywhere. His reasoning capacity was overloaded by too many contrary influences. If he didn't get airborne his duty time was about to run out and a replacement crew would have had to have been rounded up and flown from KLM in the Netherlands. The runway was supposed to have been clear. The airport was an alternate that was not normally used by heavies and was not fully equipped. He and his crew were very tired. The co-pilot should have overridden his captain's decision to start the take-off run without clearance but failed to do so.
I have had many occasions when Duty time became a factor but I have never [ in my experience ] found it to be a controlling factor in operational decision making. There was too much questionable background drama associated with this incident, that got spread throughout the industry based on supposition and incorrect inferences; not discounting the errors made. I don't know, in what world, copilots can take over and overridden a captains decision but I can assure as often as that is repeated and elixir[ed], that is not the position held by airline management or the FAA. and I will argue that any day of the week. The captain [ if not incapacitated ] is always in charge and legally is the final authority on the aircraft, as tempting as it may sound even when there is error that has to remain the operational standard.
Altitude callouts were performed by the Flight Engineer on ANZ DC-10's. So even though there was no automatic callout, the FE did the announcements. He can be heard giving callouts in the last few seconds of the CVR transcript. Al Grayson makes a good point about Captain Van Zanten - the KLM Captain involved in the Tenerife disaster. But many people fail to realise that in the case of TE901 the flight crew were not to blame. Navigation blunders made before the flight even took off. Combine this with Antarctic whiteout and then it's a disaster waiting to happen. Collins was deceived by the whiteout, so rather than knowing he was putting his aircraft in a dangerous situation - he thought he was flying 20+nm from Erebus. I suggest you read Mahon's report to get a better understanding of how all the factors combined in this crash. Mahon's report was finally accepted in 1994, clearing the flight crew of ANY blame.
Jonas Matheson just make sure you have at least a midrange i5 dedicated gfx and 6gb of ram to run xp11 smoothly I've done it on my i3 4gb Intel 520 laptop but on low quality and NOTHING ELSE running or it runs out of ram and even med-low quality runs choppy as hell on my hardware if you have a system like mine and or want all free add-ons that are okay get fsx otherwise get xp11 but pretty much every add-on for that is payware I've tried and steered clear of p3d ESPECIALLY V4
"The aircraft is a 5 year old McDonnell Douglas DC-10-"
Me: Here we go.
Video starts, and it's a DC-10
"Oh they're dead"
I think the commentator meant that at the time they navigated and drove that damn aircraft into (not onto) the slopes and splattered those tourists into the rocks and snow on of that mountain (in late 1979), the DC-10 was about five years old.
@@ricarleite The DC-10 was a great aircraft with a great service record when you exclude pilot- and ground crew errors that led to several catastrophic crashes. But why pay attention to facts when you can be ignorantly negative?
@@generalyellor8188 this accident had nothing to do with the fact they were flying DC-10's. It was due to general low professionalism in the airline Air New Zealand. Poor communications within the company between the navigation department and the pilots, a cavalier cowboy attitude amongst the pilots. The same thing would've happened with any other airliner.
However; the DC-10 did have a poor safety record in general. There was a design flaw in the cargo doors thats caused accidents and other mishaps. And the DC-10 didn't have good fuel economy compared to its two contemporary 1st generation wide-body airliners; the Boeing 747 and Lockheed Tristar, which is why Air New Zealand started doing these Antarctica flights to begin with; they couldn't make much money with them on long haul routes.
The DC-10... The only commercial aircraft to have crashed on all seven continents.
radon360 there’s never been a Dc 10 crash in Africa, South America
Bring me the milk Mother
UTA flight 772 in Niger (Africa) and there was one that overran the runway in Colombia (South America), though this DC-10 was in freight service.
Copa airlines flight 201 almost counts, but it crashed in Central America enroute to South America.
Antarctica?
Mr. Nobody, seriously? Antarctica? Are you aware of the video you are commenting on?
Africa, North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, Antarctica. There are your seven continents - for those who failed miserably in geography at school.
My god that pull up sound is way creepier than any other plane.
Why
The pilots never have enough time to pull up! Why can't they design it so it would warn way before it's too late!!
ken behzadi because it couldnt detect it due to the severe weather. Remember, this was 1979 before sensors were advanced to today’s standards
@@kenbehzadi1185 Usually 500ft the standard height warning would be enough, unfortunately they were flying directly into a mountain, which of course meant the action of pulling up was futile. I agree though, if the sensor had been modified to alert the crew at 1000ft then they might of had enough time to climb out and clear the mountain.
1979 was a terrible year for the DC-10.
yeah
The Seventies were a bad decade for air crashes, period. The DC-10, being so common, bore the brunt of them.
Most DC-10 Failures were due to pilot error or maintenance errors. The one with the cargo door was a design defect, which took a while for the FAA to demand the problem be fixed... and even still, the plane did land.
If you think about it, most plane failures seem to happen when there is a new series, the 737, DC-10 and some design issues are not worked out yet. After 5~8 years, they have generally perfected the manufacturing of that model. Chicago's crash was improper installation of the engine and damage during installation.
During the 70s, the only wide-body airplanes were the 747 and the DC10 that could do the long-distance travel across the oceans.
The 70s, 80s, and 90s were all terrible for DC aircrafts. Then again, all decades were terrible for DC airplanes because they suck.
Ella P DC-10s are still flying everywhere, they’re just MD-11s now. It’s almost the same plane, just without the stigma.
I remember the day clearly. I was 14. Almost no one in NZ didn't know someone who was affected by this tragedy.
Yea, I learnt about it this disaster in school last year. My family lost a member to.
Odd way to say nearly everyone knew someone affected.
Double negative ghost rider, don’t you go ahead and not try to don’t do that again buster
Peter Jackson wasn't affected.
sightseeing tour in either arctic circle is madness...the weather at the poles changes so rapidly they havent even begun to be able to forecast it with any certainty other than its changing rapidly...rip to all those poor souls...i cant imagine what it must have taken to even try to make any kind of recovery...prayers for all their loved ones, what a terrible loss to bear.
Might as well rename this channel to "Another DC-10 Crash"
Great video as always :)
Pope Hilarius gfy, yff
Might as well name This DC-10 has no idea why the pilot is flying it straight into a fucking mountain. WTF does this have to do with the aircraft ffs?
The DC-10 was not at fault. The pilots were NOT at fault. Jeez peeps, it's not hard to do research these days. Use something called the internet.
XD
I flew on this aircraft in December 1975.
ACK - NAN - HNL - LAX. The final leg to LHR was flown by a British Airways crew. Rock Hudson was a passenger from LA and my sister got his autograph.
Gus W actually he can make sure that he didnt try to hit on his sister and he died of Aids
But yeah GaYs RiGhT LeGaLiZe GaY MaRrIaGe AnD SpReAd DiSeAsEs
FACTS
By "ACK" I think you mean "AKL"??
Again, not an event I had known about, or remember. I could end up watching these all night. What is the best way to see your entire series, subscribe and see a list? Pretty remarkable, thanks. I'm always amazed at how good experienced pilots are who overcome mechanical or computer errors by their extensive knowledge of the fundamentals of flying. Good thing, too.
I would not feel safe flying in a DC-10 over Antarctica. Although this one wasn't the DC-10's fault, but still...
It was an excellent aircraft with a stellar record. Only when you factor in all of the catastrophes caused by pilot error and ground crew errors, do you get the crashes that make ignorant folk like you pee their pants.
@@generalyellor8188 jesus christ mate give it a rest
@@generalyellor8188 you good bro?
There are a lot of strong feelings about the DC-10. Yes, they were involved in a lot of accidents and incidents. But I'm proud to say that I grew up in a DC-10, flying hither and thither and yon, with never the first hint of a hiccup (to my knowledge, of course), ever. Air travel was really cool back then, too .. when seats were spacious and comfortable, meals were awesome (and served with linen napkins!), and your every need was met by the gracious stewardesses. So I survived probably 50 DC-10 wonderful flights!
How do you grow up in a DC 10? it was made to fly, not provide housing for anyone.
I think she means she flew a bunch of times in a DC-10 so the aircraft wasn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.
Most DC-10 Failures were due to pilot error or maintenance errors. The one with the cargo door was a design defect, which took a while for the FAA to demand the problem be fixed... and even still, the plane did land.
If you think about it, most plane failures seem to happen when there is a new series, the 737, DC-10 and some design issues are not worked out yet. After 5~8 years, they have generally perfected the manufacturing of that model. Chicago's crash was improper installation of the engine and damgage during installation.
Wow. Nice!
@@TexasCat99 The TWO with the cargo door, the other being one of the worst disasters in history. There is life outside the US too you know.
Sir Edmund Hillary, Mount Everest conqueror, had been due to act as commentator on this flight.
He pulled out due to other commitments and his place was taken by Peter Mulgrew, one of his closest friends, who died in the crash.
I see someone else immediately read the Wikipedia page for this flight 😆
Why would anybody pretend to be sightseeing if there is no visibility ? And why/how could a pilot dare fly at 1500 feet with little or no visibility in a region he has never flown ?
ATC granted approval for the flight to descend to that altitude
Solution for "sector whiteout". Climb to 30k feet so you don't run into any any volcanos
because he thought he was flying on flat sea ice. That's what the pre flight briefing lead him to believe.
@@Zoomer30 they didnt know they were in sector whiteout because they hadnt been trained how to recognise it. They thought they were flying in clear air.
Given the logistics and weather conditions in Antarctica, it must have been a huge challenge to recover the bodies (if they ever were recovered).
Paul DG I was reading a statement by a gentleman (Jim Morgan was his name I believe) involved in the recovery and it sounded like it was a horrible ordeal that took a major toll on the recovery team.
@@gullybear20 Well at least it's comforting to know that the bodies were in fact recovered. But as you mentioned, it must have been a very traumatic experience for those involved in the recovery process.
Paul DG I believe they were able to recover or at least identify the majority of the victims, so hopefully that brought a little comfort to the families and friends. That thought probably also helped the people doing the recovery work. It’s definitely not something I think I could handle. People who do those jobs have all my respect.
@@gullybear20 Very true. I think 901 was one of the first instances where counselling was offered to those who helped recover the bodies. That was pretty new in 1979. It's very common now though.
I'm not sure 'bodies' would be the best term to describe most of what they were able to recover, bar one or two of them.
Well my hell! Why would people sightsee to a place they couldn't see anyway? Again, miscommunication, poor training, and these pilots were on their first journey to Antarctica! Just tragic! 😭
And qantas has sightseeing flights to Antarctica even when this plane crashed although they did stop for a few years bc of this but they returned, goodness gracious😧
I'm thinking if the pilots couldn't see where they were going, the passengers sure couldn't see anything either. :/
There's a lot of large mountains around. Let's descend to an unsafe altitude for no reason guys
smokesgtp you sound absolutely stupid.
You have no idea what you're talking about dude.
Is that not exactly what happened?
The point is they couldn't see Erebus right in front of them. They thought they were flying over McMurdo Sound. Water/Flat sea ice. That was because of a last minute change in their computer flight plan. How couldn't they see a massive volcano right in front of them? Antarctic whiteout. Erebus was completely hidden from them. And the pilots were cleared of any wrongdoing.
definitely dumb to fly at low altitude in such terrain with impaired visibility flying blind basically Mahon report or not the whole situation was a recipe for disaster, what smart pilot would do that
Big fan of your work, X Pilot. Always an excellent and well-balanced summary. Cheers
One of the best and most reliable airframes ever manufactured. But for some reason the DC-10 just couldn’t catch a break in the 70’s.
Mostly because of pilot error or engine failures. But the -10 was a damn fine aircraft. Still is.
DC-10 has the worst luck of any aircraft. Aside from the cargo door situation, it always pilot error, or bad maintenance.
Scotty... Douglas rushed it into production to beat and take orders away from Lockheed L 1011.. which was the better aircraft
Everyone always trashes the DC10 as a death trap that was fundamentally flawed in its design but the vast majority of the fatal DC10 crashes were due to pilot error, improper maintenance procedures, other external factors (as is the case here) etc. IMHO the DC10 was an amazing and beautiful aircraft that never gets the recognition it deserves.
I Love The DC-10 to but i Dont Like The Bad maintance The plane had and how much people trashed it by saying its a death trap
Wish the damn Government would at least recognize the Mahon report, Captain Jim Collins and First Officer Greg Cassin did nothing wrong, Pilot Error was the cause that suited Air New Zealand and it's owner (The New Zealand Government, the only shareholder being the finance minister who was also the prime minister at the time Robert Muldoon) simply because the pilots couldn't defend themselves as they were dead, I'm happy Justice Mahon brought out the truth at least, giving the facts as they were. We will remember the 257 souls that perished on Erebus that day. Great video and keep up the good work!
As someone without an ax to grind, and who is only remotely familiar with the crash, I watched this video with increasing alarm. First, to descend to low altitude to get under heavy weather, then to fly a couple of big loops with no landmarks to get their bearings, and then to take the word of a tour operator who claims he sees landmarks that aren’t there . . . The captain accepts all this uncertainty and danger and muddles through at low altitude in whiteout conditions . . . Those who place the blame in the whiteout disregard that the pilot n command had no business flying virtually blind near ground level in unfamiliar terrain. The pilot has the final say and didn’t want to disappoint the tourists. Instead he killed them all so they could get their money's worth out of hiring the plane.
When this later commission discovered the flight plan had been altered and the plan the captain had with him was to take them over this formidable mountain, well the whole thing turns into what the Brits rightly call a cock-up.
All this risk taking, the incompetent navigation, the folly of flying into a whiteout, and for what? So some plump tourists could take snapshots of the most barren place on earth for their souvenir albums? The hubris, The folly!
Interesting stance on this John, but as a Kiwi and hopeful future airline pilot who did my own research into this particular accident, here's a few things to keep in mind. Pilots, but especially the captain on any flight, always have the passengers needs, wants and concerns in the back of their minds. As stated in the video too, neither the captain nor the first officer had previous experience down in Antarctica, which explains the captain's general reliance on the tour guide, since he'd been there many times beforehand.
Now lets get to the crux of the matter, the whiteout itself. Surprisingly, given the information the pilots had there wasn't a lot they could have done to prevent the accident. Obviously the captain could have taken the advice of the Scott Base controller, but he didn't, stating "would rather here first", but that really was his one chance to prevent the crash. The holding pattern was flown using the autopilot, and every time he finished the turn, he put the autopilot in 'nav' mode, essentially following the course he had entered into the aircraft before taking off from Auckland.
What isn't stated in the video is that Lewis Bay, directly north of Mt Erebus, was experiencing sea fog at the time of the accident. As a result, what the captain was expecting to see, McMurdo Sound, and what he was actually seeing, Lewis Bay and Mt Erebus, looked identical! The low overcast layer and the sun behind him combined with this fact prevented the captain from correcting his course and doing anything about the situation he was in because his eyes tricked him into believing he was flying directly down McMurdo Sound, just as planned.
I haven't even started about how Air New Zealand royally screwed up here, but I'll start now. Originally the Erebus flight plan took the aircraft directly over the top of Mt Erebus at fairly high altitudes, after which pilots would descend to give passengers a look at the surrounding icy scenery. In 1978, a year and a half before the accident flight took off, Air New Zealand purchased brand new computers for use by dispatchers to store the flight plans of the entire Air New Zealand route network. When the flight plan for Flight 901 was typed up on these computers, however, a seemingly minor error was made. Instead of S77E164 the coordinates on the computer were S77E166, resulting in a 27 mile deviation to the west, taking the Air New Zealand aircraft down a very similar track to the military track established by the USAF. On the morning of the crash, at about 2:30 in the morning, the "error" was noted and fixed. That fix would have played no role in the accident if the airline had warned the captain about the change in the flight plan, but they didn't, almost certainly sealing the fate of everyone aboard Flight 901.
Given I may get a job with them as a pilot later in life, I will call it an honest mistake, but the fact that they continued blaming the pilots after this fact came out was completely disgraceful.
The Mahon Report was accepted in 1994 I believe. The report cleared the pilots of any wrongdoing. And rightly so. Navigation errors combined with whiteout caused the crash. It was made worse by Air New Zealand trying to cover up their mistakes and trying to push the blame on Captain Collins. Mahon's report says it all when on Paragraph 377 it states - "I am forced, reluctantly, to conclude that I had to listen to an orchestrated litany of lies". Mahon was brilliant during that inquiry and doesn't get the full recognition he deserves for getting the truth out.
And also it's worth pointing out that the DC10 had a bad spell of crashes in the 70's. ANZ probably would have blamed the aircraft if there was the slightest bit of evidence to support it. Because ZK-NZP was flawless during it's last flight, ANZ tried to find someone else to blame. That someone was Captain Collins.
Joshua de Bueger
When there was no visibility they should've pulled up to be safe
Just awful...the change in flight plans and the crew not being informed of a flight level change of 2 miles in altitude is reprehensible. The pilots should not have been blamed nor should any of the nonsense regarding "whiteout". The miscommunicated change in route and altitude was the sole cause of this iconic crash. Those responsible should have gone to prison.
I really question the whole idea of a "sightseeing" flight on a packed wide-body jet. Unless you are sitting at or beside a coveted window seat, the small windows of jet are not suitable for observing mountains. Weather at any point is not really predictable, and often visibility is obscured as in this incident. The crew is under great pressure to give the pax their money's worth, so it means swooping dangerously low in hostile terrain with unfamiliar hazards.
Yet they continue. Qantas runs several a year, and middle seats are cheaper but still sell. Not my idea of great fun either.
Watch the film of the passengers aboard the jet before it crashed (it's eerie). You'll see they're having a good time, moving around the cabin and looking out the windows on both sides.
PLEASE don't say "descend 'down' to flight level ..." The word "down" part is implicit in "descend".
Antarctica isn’t an average sightseeing destination. It is a place of extremes, therefore extra measures should be taken poor weather means no-go. Also if radar shows low clouds (to 1,500ft) in a coastal environment it’s most likely fog. Not to mention descending to 1,500 feet in any proximity of a 12,000 ft mountain with out certain visibility on it at all times, why was the planes nav instruments not showing them they were flying in the direction of a mountain and not water, (discrepancies with South magnetic? Check a map). Accident due to outright arrogance as well as simple error IMO. Mount Erebus: named for a doomed ship, god of Greek underworld where dead pass immediately upon dying, Erebus is the offspring of Chaos, interesting.
4:28 that sounded Beautiful, and then it crashes 😪
I think one of the most frightening things you can here as a pilot , or even a passenger is the voice warning system in the cockpit
1:16 Another fact: that commentator Peter Mulgrew was a close friend of Sir Edmund Hillary and was actually a replacement for him on this flight. That’s right, *the* Edmund Hillary could have died on this plane.
3:26 Mt. Erebus is a volcano, the second highest in Antarctica according to the documentaries I've watched.
Really interesting podcast called 'White Silence' was released last month, marking the 40th anniversary of the crash. Delves into details of the flight and the subsequent investigations
I'm gonna say if ypu are flying a passenger jet around and you know there is a 12,000 foot mountain near you stay at 14000 until you can see the bloody thing
Years ago I was on a DC 10 from Chicago to Denver early AM flight and it was fairly empty about 89 passengers , in fact the pilot came on the intercom and said if we wanted a different seat go ahead we have plenty . We started our takeoff roll as normal and then for some reason we heard the engines go to what seemed to be full throttle and were pinned back in our seats and the plane jumped off the ground into a steep climb , don't know why this was maybe a landing plane too close behind us . But anyway I was quite impressed by the power and quickness of such a large plane granted we were light on that takeoff but I have no qualms about the DC-10 being a good strong performing plane the fact the pilot flew it into a mountain has nothing to do with the plane.
Great videos, no fluff all facts
I had a very good friend at the time who's son had given him tickets for that flight as an anniversary gift. My friend couldn't make that date because of another engagement so waited to be booked on a later flight. The later flight never happened and the experience has haunted my friend ever since.
Bullshit
@@jacobsavage8831 i agree
I lost a friend in this crash. Errors all round in Air NZ, but refusing any blame to avoid being sued. Morris’ and others behaviour was disappointing, to say the least. The DC-10 was a lovely plane to fly on. Qantas have continued their Antarctic scenic flights using a 747
God love them what an awful thing to have happened may they RIP
I remember arriving home at 9.30 at nite in Australia and seeing the News flash that this plane was missing. I new straight away they were gone. Planes don't go missing then turn up ok very often. Unless your in the Bermuda Triangle
I once saw video footage from a recovery team....it was just hundreds and hundreds of bits of body parts strewn everywhere...
Will any of your dolts who think the DC-10 was a poorly designed/made aircraft please show me all the crashes that weren't caused by catastrophic errors by pilots and/or ground crew? The plane had a stellar rep amongst the airlines, the good pilots who flew it, and the people who worked on it.
Air New Zealand 901 : November, 28th 1979
South African Airways 295 : November, 28th 1987
Lamia 2933 : November, 28th 2016
"Sightseeing" through a tiny airplane window thousands of feet up over a vast expanse of snow would not be worth the price of the ticket for me. And literally flying blind over unfamiliar terrain at low altitude is not behavior I would expect from experienced pilots. Experience counts for nothing if you don't use common sense.
Can’t blame that one on the DC10.
Good work! I love these videos! Keep up the good work!
As a direct result of this accident the standard pilot response to a pull up warning was dramatically changed.
The change in flight plan doomed the flight.
Oddly, the coordinates had been incorrect for years, but were over water. Someone noticed the mistake and fixed it, causing the tragedy.
Coming from New Zealand this was an awful tragedy for our country, happened 40 years ago now
Who wants to do bloody flight sightseeing trips to Antarctica anyway ffs
Err sightseers obviously. Have you got common sense stored in your brain. Qantas make sightseeing trips even today. And they make a tidy profit out of it.
@@DarkLight753 yes i know what sightseeing is you numpty, but Antarctica is shit boring
@@HouseOfMitchell To you it might be. But judging from your comments you have the IQ of a baked potato. So I can see why you don't find it an interesting place to visit. And sorry to disappoint but I'm not American. Guess correctly and I'll give you a cookie.
ANZ was already close to cancelling the flights due to low ticket sales. Most everyone in NZ who wanted to go (and could afford it) had already been.
@@DarkLight753 I'm an American and I agree with you!
to be picky the video shows the DC10 flying in poor visibility in what looks like a snow shower. However it was flying in clear air at the time of impact.
I think the 'pull up' signal should sound earlier ! There never seems enough time . The recovery mission must have been a nightmare 😢
The 'pull up' warning comes from something called GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System). Without getting too technical, it relies on sensors underneath the aircraft. If the aircraft is getting close to the ground, and the aircraft isn't configured to land, a pull up warning sounds. It can give a warning in plenty of time to avoid a crash. But the speed of the aircraft also needs to be considered. The pilots here only had about 6 seconds warning. Given the speed the aircraft was travelling, there was no way to avoid it. They were flying into a slope, so the sensors couldn't pick up the ground to give the warning earlier. There is an Enhanced version of the warning system these days...but this took place in 1979. Hope that gives you a bit of an understanding how that warning works.
DarkLight753 but why wouldn’t there be be a straight-ahead-terrain-sensor in addition to the ground sensors? Seems like that would pick up a 16000’ mountain at 100 miles ahead with plenty of time to begin climbing or executing a turn.
can't wait for the next episode !!
Why did a dc-10 ave 20 crew members aboard?
It was a "junket" flight, which means just there for a free ride. Ooops!
And this is how iron fist was born
So sad :(
Great video btw! 😊
If the Irish designed the warning it would say: "Pull up" "Pull up more" "Pull up like a dog"
“The aircraft was a DC-10” Well that’s all I needed to know
Actually air new zealand maintained their DC10s very well and
The airline had an impeccable safety record prior to the crash. The crash was not related to the aircraft itself but reasons which 40 years later remain a public debate.
@@themadmgtow5196 Read Peter Mahon's report. The cause is made pretty clear there. Air New Zealand apologized in 2009 I think...so, better late than never...they eventually accepted responsibility for the mistakes before and the cover up they attempted afterwards. But you are right when you talk about the maintenance and the aircraft. The DC-10 performed flawlessly during the flight. It was human error by ANZ navigation staff. The whiteout phenomenon was a contributing cause.
As FlightSafety’s motto goes the best safety device on any aircraft is a competently trainer crew.
The 747 had cargo doors blow out. The L-1011 lost stabilizer control. The 707 had engines fall off. Etc etc etc.
@@themadmgtow5196 My mate was onboard the plane until 2 Am that morning preparing it. The plane had been in hanger for days undergoing total maintanace. They all knew straight away plane was % 100. He said it had most up to date navigation systems in world but no one allowed for co ordinates being changed without telling crew.
What about Northwest 255 or El Al 1862? You should make a video on those crashes.
You're channel is excellent.. !
Someone: it was a "sector whiteout"
Me: Thanks,I stay home
Great RUclipsr
Mhm... Mhm.... No flights for me next 30 years...
that was in antatica
I don't think turning circles in a DC-10 over Antarctica is that good an idea
@@lauraharmour Qantas make regular sightseeing trips today using a Boeing 747. The type of aircraft doesn't make that much of a difference.
Sightseeing over Antarctica at high speed - white, ice, snow and more of the same zooming under you. I don't get it.
6:05 ended their sightseeing flights.... what sights are you paying to see in a white out? Excellent planning all around
A lot of poor explaining about this. The "whiteout" they experienced was limited to the view ahead, not to the sides of the plane. Passengers were snapping shots right up to and actually at the very moment of impact!!
Hi! Your videos are amazing. Can you do Delta 191?
X Pilot Thank you!
If I was flying a plane and the computer told me to “pull up,” I would probably, you know, pull up.
And just hit the mountain a little higher up. It was already too late. Remember the plane was at 1500ft, mountain.... 16000 or something like that.
The pilot asked for 'go around power'. That means full power to CLIMB the aircraft and gain altitude. So they did try. As Doug has already said, there wasn't enough time.
If you can't see crap..start climbing...
Doesn't seem to me that a sightseeing trip on a commercial jet to Antarctica is a very good idea, what sights are there other than snow and ice?
0:28 Plane in the picture is ZK-NZL, yet the crashed plane you say is ZK-NZP.
There aren't many good pics of ZK-NZP. A few, but not many high quality ones.
And it was ZK-NZP that crashed.
Why is it all the planes that hit Mountains get the warning pull up way to late ?
Sad mate😔✈️🇳🇿
Did they say sight seeing journey ? On a big commercial jet ...that's the first I ever heard of anyone using a jet like this for a site tour of what clouds ? I feel for the family and friends of the crash victims...but honestly it sounds like a really stupid thing to wanna do .
Sorry, I am unclear whether this airplane was being tracked by any radar. It sounds like the pilots were flying by pure visual such as it was. The weather can change dramatically in minutes in Antarctica. It was a long time ago but such an endeavor is highly foolish. I have been to Antarctica, by ship. To be honest I have never been to such a spiritual place and came away feeling ashamed that I went since I realized while there that people do not belong there. It is unbelievably beautiful, but it tries to kill you every second you are there.
The management handed them the wrong flying route out. You can see the comparison picture on Google.
How can you sightsee in Antarctica? Isn’t it pretty much always pretty shitty weather?
So many flight crew and still this came down . Very sad ..
I love your videos, but I don't understand why you always comment after the crash at the end of your video, "The aircraft was destroyed." That's obvious, to say the least!
What happens in Antarctica, stays in Antarctica.
alienrefugee51 ever heard of Ernest Shackleton?
"controlled flight into terrain"?
Yes, it means the plane was still controllable on impact.
I'm a New Zealander. Right after this crash I put up posters," Showing The World How Kiwis Fly",. Under the title "Erebus Airlines", I pointed out that kiwis are fat little flightless birds that dwell in woodland and have no idea what snow is, and those comments on DC 10's are right on the mark.I'd never use one..
... except it does not. CFIT means the plane was controllable when it crashed, it does not mean it was deliberate.
CFIT - Controlled Flight Into Terrain. It's just a term investigators use as a cause to a crash. It does NOT mean the pilots deliberately flew into Erebus. It simply means the aircraft was under control and flying normally.
This channel is really just a argumentative essay for why not to invest in a DC-10
William McKay I found it informative and helpful. There does not seem to be bias. And it’s clear from the description the accident wasn’t due to problems with the aircraft. What am I missing?
It, it...it actually wasn't the DC-10s fault this time!
Sightseeing in Antarctica? Why? It was obvious what was about to happen.
Explain how it was obvious? Air New Zealand had being doing the Antarctic flights since 1977 without incident. And believe it or not, Qantas make regular trips to Antarctica even today.
I meant it was obvious when they mentioned the very poor weather conditions, and when they said the pilots believed they were clear of Mt. Erebus by 20-25 miles. It was obvious, at the moment, that their calculations were off and that they were going to slam into the mountain. Otherwise was simply commenting on what the attraction of flying over an Arctic terrain was. Not much to see and dangerous conditions.
I'm so confused.. Descend to 1,500 ft with a large 12,000+ ft mountain lurking. Did they get turned around in the turns or Wtf?
The pilots thought they were flying over McMurdo Sound....over water. In fact, they were flying towards Ross Island, where Erebus is. Their flight plan was changed at the last minute and nobody told the flight crew. ANZ Nav team thought it was a small correction but the change turned out out to be almost 30 nautical miles. That's a massive change in aviation terms. The situation was made worse by the weather. Erebus was completely hidden by a weather phenomenon called 'Whiteout'. The pilots couldn't see Erebus in front of them. The Whiteout made the flight crew think they were exactly where they should be. Over McMurdo Sound. The first the crew noticed it was when the GPWS on the aircraft told them to "pull up" - indicating they were dangerously close to the ground. By then it was too late. Hope that explains it better for you.
sightseeing in the Antarctica. My I recommend Fiji or Tahiti as a better place to sightsee!
What is the meaning of alarm when a plane simply can't be pulled up?
I didn't know they did sight seeing commercial flights
What is the point of being on a sightseeing tour if you’ve got an aisle seat? Serious question
I thought about this, the only way it could've worked was to have someone with a stop watch, giving the passengers who had access to the windows, say about 5 min, then when their time was up, switch positions with the other passengers, otherwise, there were passengers getting ripped off.
I watch quite a few of these and it seems the 70's and 80's were prevalent for air disasters.. not so much in 90's .. thank god in this decade they seem quite rare .. unless there's a pilot with depression of course 😡
Be fair though ..sight seeing over Antarctica ... that's a dull as dishwater!.
Your videos are addictive and informative. If you narrated it would be the final touch.
Computer told them to pull up but they wouldn't listen. KA BOOM!
Why there's no crash animation like before???
A three hour tour....
A three hour tour....
Nice video
Really Cool!
Did they at least try to pull up?
There's one thing about this accident that has troubled me more than any other case that I have viewed and studied. It is my thoughts that this pilot [ Captain ] was just about the best of his fleet and airline an by all accounts a very straight arrow. I cannot be simplistic and think that he was just pressured, incompetent, or dismissive of safety. all the other factors involved have been considered. I was also wondering if the Radar altimeter enunciated 2500 feet before the GPWS Ground Proximity Warning System was activated.
Aircraft didn't have altitude callouts back then. They've only been around since the 90s.
Right, but the DC10 had an enunciation when the GPWS became active at 2500 feet. If I remember correctly it was a loud tone not the voice type that came later.
Tom A, The pilot of the KLM 747 was KLM's chief instructor pilot. He was one of the most experienced and accomplished pilots anywhere. His reasoning capacity was overloaded by too many contrary influences. If he didn't get airborne his duty time was about to run out and a replacement crew would have had to have been rounded up and flown from KLM in the Netherlands. The runway was supposed to have been clear. The airport was an alternate that was not normally used by heavies and was not fully equipped. He and his crew were very tired. The co-pilot should have overridden his captain's decision to start the take-off run without clearance but failed to do so.
I have had many occasions when Duty time became a factor but I have never [ in my experience ] found it to be a controlling factor in operational decision making. There was too much questionable background drama associated with this incident, that got spread throughout the industry based on supposition and incorrect inferences; not discounting the errors made. I don't know, in what world, copilots can take over and overridden a captains decision but I can assure as often as that is repeated and elixir[ed], that is not the position held by airline management or the FAA. and I will argue that any day of the week. The captain [ if not incapacitated ] is always in charge and legally is the final authority on the aircraft, as tempting as it may sound even when there is error that has to remain the operational standard.
Altitude callouts were performed by the Flight Engineer on ANZ DC-10's. So even though there was no automatic callout, the FE did the announcements. He can be heard giving callouts in the last few seconds of the CVR transcript. Al Grayson makes a good point about Captain Van Zanten - the KLM Captain involved in the Tenerife disaster. But many people fail to realise that in the case of TE901 the flight crew were not to blame. Navigation blunders made before the flight even took off. Combine this with Antarctic whiteout and then it's a disaster waiting to happen. Collins was deceived by the whiteout, so rather than knowing he was putting his aircraft in a dangerous situation - he thought he was flying 20+nm from Erebus. I suggest you read Mahon's report to get a better understanding of how all the factors combined in this crash. Mahon's report was finally accepted in 1994, clearing the flight crew of ANY blame.
Has anyone recreated the Tenerife accident on a flight sim?
What do you recommend as an easier flight sim to start off with? P3d, fsx or xp11?
Jonas Matheson fsx
X Pilot ok thanks I’ll probably get p3d because I’d like to try commercial flying. Can you still put commercial add ons for xp11?
X Pilot great thanks I’ll probably get xp11 then
Jonas Matheson just make sure you have at least a midrange i5 dedicated gfx and 6gb of ram to run xp11 smoothly I've done it on my i3 4gb Intel 520 laptop but on low quality and NOTHING ELSE running or it runs out of ram and even med-low quality runs choppy as hell on my hardware if you have a system like mine and or want all free add-ons that are okay get fsx otherwise get xp11 but pretty much every add-on for that is payware I've tried and steered clear of p3d ESPECIALLY V4
Just get me there, I'll go sightseeing on my own.
Good video
Why there's no crash animation in it???
Did they retrieve the bodies?