AIRBUS A300-600R Stall During Go Around And Crash

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 22 окт 2024

Комментарии • 23

  • @matthewtrainsandlifts
    @matthewtrainsandlifts 2 года назад +15

    Exactly what happened with an A310
    on September 24, 1994, at Paris (ROT381, REG YR-LCA)

  • @chrisaviationandgaming
    @chrisaviationandgaming 2 года назад +8

    The most terrifying accident ever happened in RCTP.

  • @TBP_0925
    @TBP_0925 2 месяца назад +1

    It’s China Airlines 676 in RCTP right?

  • @confusedcat1633
    @confusedcat1633 Год назад

    Not gonna lie, this is scary. You should do more stuffs like this to show the consequences of improper handling

  • @FuzionBoy
    @FuzionBoy 2 месяца назад

    Using AI, I was able to make a fictional plane crash, sorry if there are any mistakes:
    Incident Overview: On a tragic day in 1994, an Air France A300-600R, operating Flight 525, crashed during its approach to the airport, resulting in the loss of all 345 occupants on board. The aircraft was on an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach at an altitude of approximately 2,800 feet when a series of miscommunications and critical errors led to a catastrophic stall and subsequent crash near the air traffic control tower.
    Flight Profile: As the flight approached, the First Officer (F/O) transitioned to the Pilot Flying (PF) role. The initial communication from the cockpit indicated a concern about altitude, with the captain urging the F/O to capture the glide slope. The F/O expressed his efforts to comply, but the captain's impatience became evident as he emphasized the need to arrive on time and criticized the F/O for not paying enough attention.
    The cockpit conversation revealed a growing tension, with the captain asserting his experience and dismissing the F/O's concerns about their vertical speed, which was exceeding -1,000 feet per minute. As the autopilot engaged and the aircraft descended to around 500 feet, the F/O inquired about their landing clearance, but the captain did not respond.
    Critical Moments: As the F/O suggested a go-around due to the unstable approach, the captain remained unresponsive. When the F/O initiated the go-around procedure, the autopilot was unexpectedly disengaged, likely by the captain. This critical oversight led to a rapid increase in throttle, causing the aircraft to pitch up to approximately 20 degrees nose-up.
    The stall warning activated as the aircraft's attitude reached nearly 30 degrees nose-up. In a state of panic, the F/O realized the autopilot was disengaged and struggled to control the aircraft. The captain's commands to "push it down" were met with increasing urgency as the F/O, overwhelmed by G-forces, pleaded for assistance, stating, "It's too heavy! Help me!"
    Despite their efforts, the aircraft began to roll left and right, with the captain exclaiming, "It will crash! Push!" The altitude peaked at around 1,400 feet before the aircraft entered a steep dive, accompanied by Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) alerts.
    Final Moments: In the final moments recorded on the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR), the captain's despair was palpable as he uttered, "It's over!" just before the aircraft plummeted towards the ground. The crash occurred near the air traffic control tower, miraculously resulting in no injuries on the ground, but all 345 occupants aboard perished.
    Investigation Findings: The investigation into the crash cited pilot error as the primary cause. The miscommunication between the captain and the F/O, combined with the captain's decision to disengage the autopilot during a critical phase of flight, led to a loss of control and the subsequent stall. The findings underscored the importance of effective communication and adherence to standard operating procedures in aviation.
    In the aftermath of the incident, Air France and regulatory authorities emphasized the need for enhanced training programs focused on stall recovery and go-around procedures, aiming to prevent similar tragedies in the future. The loss of Flight 525 served as a stark reminder of the critical nature of crew resource management and the dire consequences of lapses in communication and decision-making in aviation.

  • @comeonwindows7
    @comeonwindows7 Год назад

    ngl this is also one of the most sad things to experience

  • @xXN1ckWa1k3rXx
    @xXN1ckWa1k3rXx 2 года назад +5

    Maybe like China Airlines Flight 140

    • @ivancojusna1
      @ivancojusna1 Год назад

      no ci 676

    • @maltheartistme
      @maltheartistme 8 месяцев назад

      yeah, but there’s less likely a chance of survival. china 140 had 7 survivors, but this one would most likely have one or none.

  • @Aviation_11
    @Aviation_11 2 года назад +5

    China airlines flight 676

  • @Boyeukhanhlynhatthegioi
    @Boyeukhanhlynhatthegioi 6 месяцев назад

    China airline 140?

  • @PedroHernandez-gm6hu
    @PedroHernandez-gm6hu Год назад +1

    China Airlines 140

  • @Guest-ct1uj
    @Guest-ct1uj 4 месяца назад

    thats china 140

  • @userQ_00we
    @userQ_00we 11 месяцев назад

    china airlines flight 140

  • @Anathcred
    @Anathcred 9 месяцев назад

    China airlines ci676

  • @bobdylan2843
    @bobdylan2843 2 года назад

    lol

  • @Lust.06963
    @Lust.06963 8 месяцев назад

    This is literally China airlines