This channel is probably the best discover I’ve made on RUclips this year. This guy deserves 10M, so professional. Thank you man for all your work you’re doing for us, highly appreciated
That's for sure, how many incidents have happened because the captain won't just fly the damn thing based on his knowledge...the Air France stall for example, gesh, set the engine thrust for what you are used to and hold the altitude and FLY...instead, they set the engine to idle nose UP....ARRGH....
@@billmorris2613 or actually, they aren’t supposed to disengage the autopilot once at cruising altitude. Obviously if it malfunctions that’s different, but all civilian aircraft must engage autopilot after take off and climb. What about disengaging just the automatic trim? Would that have been a good move?
In both cases, passengers were lucky they have had experienced pilots who knew how to react and counteract in out-of-manual situations. During those years, both Qantas and Malaysia Airlines were 5-star airliners, out of 5.
@@kirilmihaylov1934 the Captain wasn't in the cockpit when it was happening. He was in a toilet break. The Co- Pilot couldn't understand what's going. And by the time the Captain came back, realised what's happening and started to react, the plane hit the water.
It wasn’t stated here but I saw Captain Sullivan speak about the second event and he resigned right then and there never to fly again. He said reliance on computers to fly just isn’t safe anymore and you could never convince him otherwise after that event. This is coming from a US Navel Pilot who has seen it all.
Yeah, there is no way not to rely on the computers on an Airbus. Because Boeing still has manual cables to every control they need to add a big red smash button that instantly disconnects all automated systems and returns the aircraft to pure manual control.
@@member5488 I thought the flight control mode could decay to alternate and then direct/mechanical law which means the airbus control surfaces works just like boeing control surfaces
@@anttoni8867 I said "they need". Not that they have. If the banana republic pilots knew the 12 memory items they are supposed to, they could've stopped the run away elevator by simply reaching out and stopping the elevator trim wheel with their hand.
@@marcusreins6679 It's fly by wire, so there is still a computer in the loop, but yes, supposedly the computer isn't adding in it's opinion in direct/mechanical.
In the end, it all comes down to aviators aviating...kudos to the crews of both flights for overcoming planes that were fighting against them...great outcomes...
Hope the passengers were fully reimbursed the cost of the flight + any other damages they suffered - including mental problems. What sort of morons are making thee control systems ?????
Advise from a former programmer and former pilot: always expect the unexpected. If a CASE-like clause already has all possible cases covered, add an OTHERWISE clause to inform of unexpected error or CPU malfunction. And thoroughly check out your program visually following its sentences as though you were the computer.
They're automating all railway-signalling and -points/-switches, controlling vast areas remotely from a handful of giant control-centres. Even in the old days, it could just take a loose signal-wire to cause a train-wreck, so things don't look promising there
You do realize that these are not animations that the author made, right? The "animations" are simply the creator flying the aircraft in a flight simulator (in this case FSX) in a manner that reflects the events of the flight. This is very evident in his previous video, linked below. At 13:26 of his last video, it states that the aircraft collided with localizer antennae support structure, and it causes the aircraft to bank to the right. However, at 13:30, you can clearly see the right bank is pilot-induced, as the ailerons are not trying to correct the roll, but aggravate it. ruclips.net/video/LN52eWjY2F0/видео.html The fact that he uses a flight simulator to display the flight is likely the reason why he hasn't done a video on the deadliest single aircraft accident in history, JAL123, as in the flight, a large section of the vertical stabilizer was blown off (due to the rear pressure bulkhead failing, and causes a decompression that put a massive amount of stress on the vertical stabilizer, to the point of structural failure). This is impossible to portray in a flight simulator, and therefore he can't make a video on it. Furthermore, the majority of the explanation as to what happened is directly copied from the Wikipedia page on the accident, and he fails to even cite it.
@@chesterwang3070 He has always shown that the videos and representatinos are taken from flight simulator(s), if you seem so unhappy with these videos then you are welcome to unsubscribe and stop watching the persons content.
But they are all scratching the bottom of the airplane crash barrel now. Looking for anything that would generate income from the Google Commies instead of real work.
"After a brief discussion the pilots decided to land at the nearest airport." I bet that discussion went something like: Captin: LET'S GET THIS SHIT DOWN Crew: HELL YEAH
@@losttale1 Yeah seeing an automated system pitch the aircraft up and retarding throttles isn't something you want happening. Id be shitting my pants, thankfully there's professionals.
So interesting to watch this video. I was 18 years old back then and took this flight with my father and sister. And I never thought i would be alive and here today safely. TheFlightChannel surely made the best animation of the incident i have seen! Good job! ☺️
Apparently it was this incident that led to the 787 having two separate IRS switches instead of keeping the single one that the 777 had. This was due to the fact you couldn’t just turn off the individual IRS. It was supposed to be fault tolerant and not needing manually isolating.
@@MarcDufresneosorusrex Assuming you're referring to NH985, it happened exactly once in the entire history of the 787. Once. Plus, nobody was injured, unlike other planes with reverser issues.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Ask anyone, any landing you walk away from is a good outcome. Even that plane had issues or crashes and you still live, then it’s a really good outcome. If I ended up with a broken back, arms and legs after a plane incident like this or crash but survived, I’d happily call that a good outcome compared to the fact there was a high possibility of me and others being dead had the plane decided to go full red barbs and plunge the plane without pilots recognising the issue.
Back in the days when I used to fly with MAS airlines it has that distinctive perfume smell in the cabins. Good memories. Thankful everyone survives here.
I was on a flight coming back from Spain about 25 years ago the ride was all over the place and looking at the wings through the window, I honestly thought the wings can snap off here, never will I step on a plane.
Hey, people are going to pay MILLIONS to experience weightlessness. This crew and passengers got to experience it as part of their flight for no extra charge :)
This channel is so addictive ❤️. Undoubtedly one of the best aviation channels on this planet. It is so informative that I can even become a pilot today!
I've seen a documentary about QF72, and it was like a horror movie. When the plane pitched down, one of the flight attendants found himself lying flat on the ceiling of the galley with a broken spine, and one of the passengers pierced the interior plastic ceiling with her head, and when the captain managed to stabilise the plane, they both fell to the floor, breaking the flight attendant's knees and arms, and the passenger's foot below the knee and crushing 3 vertebrae. And yet no one died.
Thank goodness the pilots were able to land the planes safely. It's a testament to their abilities to be sure. I know I can speak for others and myself in expressing appreciation for your efforts in creating these videos. Thank you!
Great outcomes on both flights. Could you even imagine the rush of adrenaline that was going through the pilots veins during those episodes. They kept their cool and put their knowledge and experience to work when they needed it. Great job gentlemen and great job to the flight channel
Pilots fighting automation seems to be a recurring theme in crashes or mishaps like this. You'd think there would be a quick and easy way to instantly disable/override ALL automation in situations like this, emergency full manual control or something of the like.
I can't agree more. There shouldn't be a situation where automation fights against human intervention. Even though Rob Fraser responded to you saying, 'it's called turning off the autopilot", the captain did that and still had to fight for control...had to pull the joystick twice, so something was still fighting them.
Captain Sullivan explained that in the situation they were in, he thought back to training and did what he remembered. He'd let go of all the instruments in the aircraft instead of pulling and tugging and stuff. And this allowed the aircraft reposition itself in a stable enough condition for them to land. He resigned, said that pilots shouldn't depend on the computers of the plane so much. Also, the passengers that were injured were reeeeally injured. The ceiling of the aircraft was smashed from all the banging of heads. One passenger passed out after hitting their head. One passenger had twisted their foot/ankle all the way back, but still forced themself to get up in pain and strap themself inside the seat. Omg, Captain Sullivan is a ✨hero✨. Never forget that.
@@DST.73 NASA does multilayer redundancy: a parity between multiple independent compute units for upset detection/correction and radiation hardening of silicon to lower risk of upset. I reckon the former would be good enough for planes since they're not high enough to orbit the earth
The second flight being due to an environmental factor shouts out loud that there was a corruption due to 'cosmic rays'. These can cause an occasional 'bit flip' which would explain the misinterpretation of the data. It's a hardware error due to the lack of error correction down at that level ... that in itself is quite a disgusting but rarely mentioned decision made by INTEL.
@@aasishwarsaravana5748 I'll confess that I had seen that video but I didn't realise that it was this plane being mentioned. I had just logged Veritasiums' info into my cranium and regurgitated it without recognition of the source ... as one does lol :-)
At the beginning of this, I'd thought of the Qantas flight. I'd heard about it from a television documentary. The pilot eventually retired, stating that he no longer would place his life in the hands of software. If I recall correctly, he said something to the effect that today's control systems would probably kill him.
@@fallinginthed33p The Max wasn't really a code error. It was a Boeing greed and arrogance error. They designed a faulty aircraft which was unstable, tried to cover it up with a faulty system, failed to tell the pilots about it, and then were too cheap to have a simple safety feature like a AOA Disagree light on the aircraft to alert the pilots that the aircraft's AOA's were not in agreement on the ground. The fact that the MAX alternated the AOA sensors meant the faulty sensor would freak the system out on every other flight, making the second flight crew completely unaware what happened two flights unless they happened to fly the same plane that time.
After people are flung around the cabin, at that point, you just assume you're dead and that the plane will definitely crash. So just imagine how you feel when the plane lands safely without a single death.
For the event described towards the end, it is thought to be the result of a bit flip in the binary code, from a single event effect caused by high-energy atmospheric particles, as described in this video. From about 15:15 time stamp. ruclips.net/video/AaZ_RSt0KP8/видео.html
I was so excited for the Malaysian flight that landed just fine, and then the 'three years later' screen came up and my heart absolutely dropped in my stomach. So glad that everyone survived.
The fact that Quantas was the airline in the second video was a big hint. Quantas has never in its history had a crash. So, it was no question whatever happened there was going to work out fine.
There is so much going on here and so much to be learned. Many Aviation experts claim that electronic operation of the aircraft is safer because computers can think faster and their nerves do not wig them out in emergency situations. There is merit in this line of thinking considering the fact that there have been so many air disasters caused by flight crews panicking and in moments of high adrenaline essentially making wrong decisions and forgetting things. On the other hand, here we see plainly that relying on electronica can be equally or more dangerous. Fascinating.
@Baba Rajneesh It is called a wing stall. The plane doesn't generate lift, the wings do. Once airflow is interrupted over the wings, the wings stall causing the aircraft to fall out of the sky.
@Baba Rajneesh You comments on here mean you know literally SQUAT about airplanes, and less than squat about computers. So, just do the world a favor and go back to playing with your Lego blocks and leave this board to the adults to discuss the issues....
Im a Perth local and i had never heard of the Malaysian Airlines incident until now! The Qantas incident however was all over the media and was a super huge deal here. Never thought id see my city pop up on this channel but glad both incidents werent fatal.
Why do pilots insist in re using the auto pilot after events like this? The first thing that goes trough my head is flight computer is getting erroneous data ... take over at least until the end of the flight.
I wonder the same. It's almost as though they are so used to flying on autopilot and not comfortable flying manually that they are in denial and are hoping the problem has miraculously fixed itself between the first event and the second attempt to set it to autopilot.
@@lisas8244 Flying by hand while running through long checklists and talking to ATC can be exhausting. And that's while flying in good weather with a fully functioning plane.
@@fallinginthed33p They are getting paid to do a job. So am I. I'm not going to feel sorry because their job is HARD. This is the career they chose. I have respect for good pilots. But If that means working a little harder than usual, so be it. .Turning the auto pilot back on after it causing a near catastrophic crash, is absolutely ridiculous, and stupid. It again caused the plane to veer out of control..I work a solid 12 hours in an intensive care unit. Belive me, it is usually, MENTALLY, EMOTIONALLY, PHYSICALLY, EXHAUSTING. And then there are, joyus, wonderful, and even miraculous days when people turn around, and against the odds, survive, and go home ! That makes everything worth it.
@@johnfranklin5277 Except that claim is comically stupid. There were TWO autopilot systems on the aircraft, that are independent from each other. No one would ever expect both of them to malfunction or use corrupted data from the same computer. It is literally a one in a Billion incident. What I would fault the pilots for however was after the first sudden nose down command was to put the Fasten Seatbelt signs on, discontinue any service on board and have the crew seated until they figured out the issue.
Too bad about the spoiler at the beginning ..... when an aircraft behaves badly I like to mentally go through the system architecture to identify a possible root-cause ..... if you tell at the beginning what system was defective it takes the surprise away. Other than that, a very good video.
Thanks for the information. This highlights the fact of the over reliance of electronics and computers to fly an aircraft. Too many complex systems means more things that can go wrong. It’s a good thing that both planes were able to make an emergency landing safely.
@@AeiThop that's certainly not true . You can't think of it that way. Also bear in mind that software can crash any time for no reason .you have a computer so you know that pretty well . I don't like this computerization of everything nowadays
@@kirilmihaylov1934 TEM is a component of every briefing in flight training, in full recognition of this fact. Now mechanical faults can also cause crashes, but computer errors leading to crashes are extremely rare. Facts don’t care how you feel. It’s much better for computers to do most of the flying, with humans there to take over control in more knotty situations. Even space flights work this way.
The pilots were thrown out of their seats. Just imagine they'd been injured or knocked unconscious as happened in the cabin 😳 This was a scary episode. So glad they made it back in one piece.
As many people have said before if I ever heard the TFC music on a flight I'd break into a cold sweat - Great work. All your films are short, factual and informative. I've learnt a great deal from all of them. Thanks
This reminds me of the time I was on my Kabota z724x zero turn. It had rained and I was mowing on an extremely steep wet grass embankment closed to a 5ft drop off. I made the mistake of cutting in too close (pun intended) to the edge of the incline and suddenly felt the mower sliding at will toward impending death. I pulled back as hard as I could on both drawbars and at the last second felt my left back wheel dig solidly into terra ferma, allowing me to stop just an inch away from eternity's edge. My pucker-up gauge, as you might imagine, was reading a solid 10. And, although I was only the only soul onboard that day and no one was around to hear my inward screams, by the grace of God I survived to tell the tale. After changing my pants, I spent the the remainder of the day weed eating.
I am but a simple layman and enthusiast, but it would seem to me that these systems are designed to compensate for dangers and automate corrective manoeuvres accordingly - but why are pilot inputs unable to override this? It seems perverse to enable a computer the power to take almost full control with zero resistance...the pilots should always remain at the top of the hierarchy with inputs, in order to provide a last line of defence against data corruptions or errors. Lack of faith in the ability of pilots? Lack of training? Is it just cheaper to invest in a computer than it is an employee? Shocking really.
Yes, it's cheaper in the short run to invest in computers. That's why it's so hard to get a human when you call companies. But in the long run, it is NOT cheap. But tell that to administrators 😡
@Dennis Wilson Exactly. In Kubrick's 2001, the computer Hal2000 said, "I'm sorry, Dave(on trying to kill the last human) , I can't allow you to jeopardise the success of the Mission". It's becoming true. ruclips.net/video/dSIKBliboIo/видео.html
Unfortunately the FAA forced me to retire last year, simply because I turned 65, just two months after I had passed my required nine month, 2 day simulator proficiency check rides with flying colors. It's not easy being forced to leave a "job" that was your dream since you were three years old. I spent the last 33 years flying for Continental/United, and the last five years as a Captain on the 777. I was hired May 11 1987, just as all the automation you see today was beginning to come on line, so I have flown both sides of that coin, sort of speak. Everything from no autopilot 727's to, well the 777. Unfortunately I have also witnessed the very gradual but steady decline in actual piloting skills the dependence on all this automation has created. To the point, that even in the face of its obvious failure, as was the case on both these flights, there is an extreme reluctance to just shut it all down and just fly the airplane, manually. This point was really driven home to me one day, back when I was a Captain on the 737, on the first leg of a three day trip. The aircraft was a 737/900 for our flight from IAH to ORD. As usual I met up with my F/O in the weather briefing room one hour prior to departure to review all the paper work. As we did we saw that the auto throttle system was inop. Yeah, an inconvenience, but that's about it. And even though he said nothing immediately, I could see by the confusion on his face, it stopped in his tracks. And when I asked him what was wrong, he responded, "so how are you going to fly the plane?" Cars don't have auto throttles. Your muscle cell memory of how much throttle to utilize in order to meet a certain condition is so ingrained you never even think about it. And although in training certain engine values are given as target setting to use in different circumstances, he had no feel for where that would be relative to throttle position. So, I told him, "You are flying this leg." And, after a while, he stopped chasing his airspeed and began to get a feel for it and actually enjoyed it. As for turning off all the automation. Well, you can't turn off ALL of it, as both aircraft are fly by wire. But I know in a Boeing(never flew an Airbus)you can take it down to basic stick and rudder, including the throttles. Airbus throttles are different. Although they move like on a Boeing. all you're doing is moving them from one command gate to another. And, from what I've been told, everything between those gates is just dead space, with no affect on engine performance.As one Airbus pilot told me. "The throttles are there just to make you feel like you're doing something." Some emergency checklist do require you to to try to bring back online some automation features, but based on what was presented here, that did not appear to be the case. It appeared the Captains did it on their own, which made the situation worse. All this automation is extremely complicated and intertwined. What seems like a logical thing to do, or try to do, could very well be what gets you and everybody else killed. You follow the checklists, TO THE LETTER. If that doesn't work, you turn off everything you have a switch or button for. But that does not mean you EVER pull any circuit breakers, unless specifically instructed to by the checklist. Not that these guys did, I'm just adding that. You turn off what you're ALLOWED to turn off, leave it off, and hand fly the plane.
When the first incident ended and the video was only half finished, I figured there would be a second incident of the same type, and that this one would be fatal. Then I saw that the second plane was Qantas...
CASE: _"We should ease."_ COOPER: _"Hands where I can see them, Case! Only time I ever went down was a machine easing at the wrong moment."_ CASE: _"A little caution..."_ COOPER: _"Can get you killed, same as reckless driving!"_
Wow, great thinking and action by the flight crew/captain who did not give up! I can just imagine how hysterical the passengers were while this was happening.
Not exactly sure how I stumbled upon this RUclips channel, much less understand my current fascination with these videos and the anxiety they seem to stir up within me… but I dig it. One of my new favorite channels.
I think when a pilot make a decision to take over control... no computer or system shud have the capability to deny it... can't they make a master switch or something to just give pilot 100 percent control?...these kind of software malfunction are same like max airplane.. they haven't solve it since 2005
I've said it 1000 times. This is why people should fly airplanes, not computers. At the very least there should be one simple switch that gives full manual control with no automation involved.
This is such an obvious answer to the problem that it is a wonder that it must be pointed out, but the wonder is that it seems that it MUST be pointed out!!
@@mortimerschnerd3846 It's not an obvious answer, it's an ignorant answer. Automation is the reason that flying is safer today than at any time in history. Why do people like you hate facts so much?
As soon as I saw the second jet was from Qantas I knew the outcome would be favourable as the airline has had no passenger fatalities or hull losses in the jet era.
I’d like to say thank you for adding more information to the vids. I’ve been a big fan for months now, but don’t know a lot about aviation, so I didn’t always understand what was happening. Stalling, and other terms were ones I didn’t know, so I’d have to look them up. I really appreciate the extra explanations. 👍🏻
The second flight was the result of a "Bit flip" , in which high energy particles interact with the electronics flipping the bytes of information, in this particular case the angle of attack..Vertasium just had this exact flight explained in depth on his channel. Explains it much better than I just did. Thanks for the awesome job as always.
Nice cross-fade on takeoff. That was cool. I have to say, this channel is super polished, and the content is slick in story timing, graphics, music choice, etc.. Even the commercials seem to be timed perfectly during cliff-hanger moments! 🤣. Anyway, good job!
8:52 Somehow they survived that, with no trainings and no specific warnings for the failed ADIRU system. Glad it wasn't a death. If so, that would be my worst year since I was born in 2005 and typically a Malaysian.
Hey just wanted to say thank you for your videos. They are always extremely interesting to watch and I can't imagine the time and effort you put into all of them. How come you only did 1 where you narrated instead text on the screen? Anyways, keep up the great work!
I still don’t understand why the pressure applied on the yoke (or side stick) to pull the nose up didn’t have any effect on the airplane, considering autopilot was disengage.
Computers know best and think the pilot is trying to crash the plane due to the incorrect data they are receiving. Or the plane was fully trimmed up and pilots didn’t trim down
Computerized control systems in airliners will always save far more lives than they cost, but it seems to me that there should be a way for the captain to bypass all the sensors, and take full manual control of the aircraft. But, I'm just an ultralight pilot, and we basically sit on all our sensors, if you know what I mean, so what do I know...
What a nightmare! Once again shows the advisability of keeping your seatbelt firmly fastened throughout the entire flight. A bet quite a few of the passengers involved vow to never fly again.
The Qantas incident I remember well, (PER is my home port) as one of my University lecturers was on board the flight, he was interviewed on the local news and was quoted as saying to his wife on the second nose downs event "well, this is not good". The incident occurred over North West Cape in Western Australia, in close proximity to a U.S. naval communication station (Exmouth). The ATSB report stating "susceptible to the effects of some sort of environmental factor" led many people to speculate that the communication station may have been the factor. I am skeptical as I have flown the PER-SIN route on several occasions in an A330 and there has not been an issue. I don't think the possibility was ever completely ruled out though.
It is obvious that all aircraft need to have built in diagnostic systems that alert the pilots in real time as to the fault codes and also allow the pilots to perform emergency reboots without losing control.
2 comments: 1) Both Airbus and Boeing has procedures to enforce "direct mode" In "direct mode" the plane is still "fly-by-wire" but the input in the sidestick or yoke are relayed directly as movement of the flight control surfaces with no "interpretation" by the computers and no inputs from any sensor (angle of attack sensor, static and dynamic pressure, accelerometers, gyros". In other words, there are ways to "kill the computer" and fly the plane manually with as much automation as a Piper Cub. 2) Deadly automation? Really? Nobody died in these 2 incidents, and these problems were addressed so they don't happen again. Do you know how many lives the automation SAVED, though? The absolutely astonishing level of safety achieved in commercial aviation today, where there is 1 deadly crash every 10 million take offs approximately, is no doubt the result of better pilot training in things like upset recovery, windshear recovery, stall recovery, CFIT prevention, human factors, sterile cockpit, CRM, stabilized approach criteria and a long list of etceteras. Even today, when you see an accident, you almost always see a breach in one or more of these factors (being the only cause or a combination with other things like weather or technical faults). Yet, the impact of technology and automation in aviation safety has been even greater. Yes, automation brings its own failure modes that did not existed before, but the magnitude of the failure modes that are prevented or altogether eliminated by the automation is even greater, buy a lot. In other words, the computer might kill you, but the chances that it does so is almost negligible compared to the chances that it saves you.
This channel got me interested in airplane videos. I’d have to rate it to at disaster retelling. The amount of original audio and video is particularly good. It wouldn’t be fair to “advertise” other channels on here, but two I rate as up there with The Flight Channel are one which doesn’t do fatal accidents and the one mentioned by someone else here, whose Discord server I’m on and who runs a really big operation. The second video I’ve seen on other channels and needs a more thorough retelling - they named the Captain, Kevin Sullivan as the “other Sully”.
I shall always remember a flight from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati. Many miles out, while preparing for approach, the pilot dialed back the throttles so severely that I thought we'd stopped in mid air. The suddenness and severity of it scared the living daylights out of me. I was so pissed at that pilot! Even so, I can only imagine the sheer terror those passengers and crew felt.
@@larrybe2900 The flight was arranged by the company who would later hire me. Pittsburgh to Cincy was the first leg. Nonetheless, I could've driven the entire journey in a day.
Jesus, that was frustrating. I kept yelling "TURN THE AUTO-PILOT OFF!" When your plane starts making its own decisions that keep resulting in stalls and dives, surely you are ready to trust your own flying abilities as a pilot over certain death?
![[4K] Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 *EXTREME TURBULENCE STORM* 787-10 GO AROUND At London Heathrow](/img/1.gif)
This channel is probably the best discover I’ve made on RUclips this year. This guy deserves 10M, so professional. Thank you man for all your work you’re doing for us, highly appreciated
Yes! It would suck to discover this on a flight though..😳😳
Check out Mentour Pilot if you like this channel. It's even better!
Gggggggggggg GG GG from gggg gggg a good day gggg a good day gggggggggggg gggggg
Gggggggggggg g
Ggg a good day g
both pilots did exactly what they were supposed do; turn OFF all automation & fly the damn aircraft manually! Bravo!
Yup
I feel that the Malaysian plane persevered with the autopilot for much longer than they should have.
The problem is that sometimes they can’t turn off the automation.
That's for sure, how many incidents have happened because the captain won't just fly the damn thing based on his knowledge...the Air France stall for example, gesh, set the engine thrust for what you are used to and hold the altitude and FLY...instead, they set the engine to idle nose UP....ARRGH....
@@billmorris2613 or actually, they aren’t supposed to disengage the autopilot once at cruising altitude. Obviously if it malfunctions that’s different, but all civilian aircraft must engage autopilot after take off and climb. What about disengaging just the automatic trim? Would that have been a good move?
In both cases, passengers were lucky they have had experienced pilots who knew how to react and counteract in out-of-manual situations. During those years, both Qantas and Malaysia Airlines were 5-star airliners, out of 5.
That's true yes .look what happened to AF 447 a year later
@@kirilmihaylov1934 the Captain wasn't in the cockpit when it was happening. He was in a toilet break. The Co- Pilot couldn't understand what's going. And by the time the Captain came back, realised what's happening and started to react, the plane hit the water.
So they should be regarded as 5* airliners for guiding their plane back to safety. Well done to them for that!
@@MA-or4pf well done yes from what was very tough situation
And the most important thing about Qantas: zero casualties thru its history (even though Qantas is one of the oldest).
It wasn’t stated here but I saw Captain Sullivan speak about the second event and he resigned right then and there never to fly again. He said reliance on computers to fly just isn’t safe anymore and you could never convince him otherwise after that event. This is coming from a US Navel Pilot who has seen it all.
Yeah, there is no way not to rely on the computers on an Airbus. Because Boeing still has manual cables to every control they need to add a big red smash button that instantly disconnects all automated systems and returns the aircraft to pure manual control.
@@member5488 Does the boeing max have the same big red button as well?
@@member5488 I thought the flight control mode could decay to alternate and then direct/mechanical law which means the airbus control surfaces works just like boeing control surfaces
@@anttoni8867 I said "they need". Not that they have. If the banana republic pilots knew the 12 memory items they are supposed to, they could've stopped the run away elevator by simply reaching out and stopping the elevator trim wheel with their hand.
@@marcusreins6679 It's fly by wire, so there is still a computer in the loop, but yes, supposedly the computer isn't adding in it's opinion in direct/mechanical.
In the end, it all comes down to aviators aviating...kudos to the crews of both flights for overcoming planes that were fighting against them...great outcomes...
Best outcome of unforseen issues is a safe landing. Kuddos and praise on the flight crew
Hope the passengers were fully reimbursed the cost of the flight + any other damages they suffered - including mental problems.
What sort of morons are making thee control systems ?????
I was thinking the same!
That's true
French pilots of flight 447 didn't make it
As a software developer, these are my worst nightmares. That some undetected glitch will harm somebody.
Do you develop for aviation?
@@ashharkausar413 No thank god. But rather industrial, so there is always a chance for injury.
Advise from a former programmer and former pilot: always expect the unexpected. If a CASE-like clause already has all possible cases covered, add an OTHERWISE clause to inform of unexpected error or CPU malfunction. And thoroughly check out your program visually following its sentences as though you were the computer.
They're automating all railway-signalling and -points/-switches, controlling vast areas remotely from a handful of giant control-centres. Even in the old days, it could just take a loose signal-wire to cause a train-wreck, so things don't look promising there
@@ashharkausar413 He develops flash games
It never ceases to amaze me that this channel can produce professional level videos monthly.
Monthly? Actually they do it about once every week, if not more...
You do realize that these are not animations that the author made, right? The "animations" are simply the creator flying the aircraft in a flight simulator (in this case FSX) in a manner that reflects the events of the flight.
This is very evident in his previous video, linked below.
At 13:26 of his last video, it states that the aircraft collided with localizer antennae support structure, and it causes the aircraft to bank to the right. However, at 13:30, you can clearly see the right bank is pilot-induced, as the ailerons are not trying to correct the roll, but aggravate it.
ruclips.net/video/LN52eWjY2F0/видео.html
The fact that he uses a flight simulator to display the flight is likely the reason why he hasn't done a video on the deadliest single aircraft accident in history, JAL123, as in the flight, a large section of the vertical stabilizer was blown off (due to the rear pressure bulkhead failing, and causes a decompression that put a massive amount of stress on the vertical stabilizer, to the point of structural failure). This is impossible to portray in a flight simulator, and therefore he can't make a video on it.
Furthermore, the majority of the explanation as to what happened is directly copied from the Wikipedia page on the accident, and he fails to even cite it.
@@chesterwang3070 He has always shown that the videos and representatinos are taken from flight simulator(s), if you seem so unhappy with these videos then you are welcome to unsubscribe and stop watching the persons content.
Imagine pro videos every two days
But they are all scratching the bottom of the airplane crash barrel now. Looking for anything that would generate income from the Google Commies instead of real work.
"After a brief discussion the pilots decided to land at the nearest airport."
I bet that discussion went something like:
Captin: LET'S GET THIS SHIT DOWN
Crew: HELL YEAH
My thoughts exactly--an exceedingly brief discussion I expect.
Crew in high-pitched unison: "LAND! LAND! LAND!"
😂😂😂😂
I was thinking more like two words.
F@#K This.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I’m glad these flights did not end in a loss of life, frightening to watch these aircraft stall and nose pitch down
@@yhfhdcf they still say MH370 was a deliberate crash
@@MrCameronsterling nose pitch down is relief. nose pitch up is death
@@losttale1 good point
@@losttale1 Yeah seeing an automated system pitch the aircraft up and retarding throttles isn't something you want happening. Id be shitting my pants, thankfully there's professionals.
Pitching down is what you need in a stall, if you pitch up then you will stall
So interesting to watch this video. I was 18 years old back then and took this flight with my father and sister. And I never thought i would be alive and here today safely. TheFlightChannel surely made the best animation of the incident i have seen! Good job! ☺️
bhai fenk rha hai?
how did it feel when u were falling
Apparently it was this incident that led to the 787 having two separate IRS switches instead of keeping the single one that the 777 had. This was due to the fact you couldn’t just turn off the individual IRS. It was supposed to be fault tolerant and not needing manually isolating.
Yes, and the 787 has more than enough other things to terrify you!
Interesting. Thank you.
@@rogerhuber3133 such as?
@@larrydugan1441 thrust reversers
@@MarcDufresneosorusrex Assuming you're referring to NH985, it happened exactly once in the entire history of the 787. Once. Plus, nobody was injured, unlike other planes with reverser issues.
I'm starting to think Malaysia Airlines never had any luck with their 777s..
Note to self: never go on Malaysia air 777s or else stalls or getting lost is likely.
@@Griffw06 Or flying over a war zone and getting shot down by a SAM!
Also i think this is why malaysia will never fly their 777s again
And one vanished
Oh come on. You all need to stop being superstitious.
So glad they both had good outcomes!
Good outcomes? Several passengers were seriously injured.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Better than death. 🙃
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Ask anyone, any landing you walk away from is a good outcome. Even that plane had issues or crashes and you still live, then it’s a really good outcome. If I ended up with a broken back, arms and legs after a plane incident like this or crash but survived, I’d happily call that a good outcome compared to the fact there was a high possibility of me and others being dead had the plane decided to go full red barbs and plunge the plane without pilots recognising the issue.
@@OfficialSamuelC I agree
Back in the days when I used to fly with MAS airlines it has that distinctive perfume smell in the cabins. Good memories. Thankful everyone survives here.
I think there might have been another smell in both cabins that day certinaly if I’d been there
Didn't MAS get banned from UK airspace for flying LHR approaches on tank fumes?
Imagine how scary it was for everyone on board when the plane stalled.
It never stalled... But it was very very close to.
Thanks for correcting me.
Scary? People were severely injured on the Qantas flight.
I was on a flight coming back from Spain about 25 years ago the ride was all over the place and looking at the wings through the window, I honestly thought the wings can snap off here, never will I step on a plane.
My heart stopped while seeing and hearing that sequence of events. Grateful that all occupants survived.
Hey, people are going to pay MILLIONS to experience weightlessness. This crew and passengers got to experience it as part of their flight for no extra charge :)
This channel is so addictive ❤️. Undoubtedly one of the best aviation channels on this planet. It is so informative that I can even become a pilot today!
agreed
s
I know I sat here and watched every damn one of thise videos one day a couple months ago
You mean you can become a pilot someday…
Don't flatter
what terrifying moments those must have been. amazing video quality and editing as always.
Ya i wouldve shit myself no doubr
I've seen a documentary about QF72, and it was like a horror movie. When the plane pitched down, one of the flight attendants found himself lying flat on the ceiling of the galley with a broken spine, and one of the passengers pierced the interior plastic ceiling with her head, and when the captain managed to stabilise the plane, they both fell to the floor, breaking the flight attendant's knees and arms, and the passenger's foot below the knee and crushing 3 vertebrae. And yet no one died.
@@bogdan_n its a miracle but still very sad.
This is when the Pilots earn their money. Thanks for another professional, quality video.
really...
Thank goodness the pilots were able to land the planes safely. It's a testament to their abilities to be sure. I know I can speak for others and myself in expressing appreciation for your efforts in creating these videos. Thank you!
Great outcomes on both flights. Could you even imagine the rush of adrenaline that was going through the pilots veins during those episodes. They kept their cool and put their knowledge and experience to work when they needed it. Great job gentlemen and great job to the flight channel
I would puke when I landed from the overdose of adrenaline
lol, if they would panic they must be fired. all they did is use the common sense and the joystick/yoke
Pilots fighting automation seems to be a recurring theme in crashes or mishaps like this.
You'd think there would be a quick and easy way to instantly disable/override ALL automation in situations like this, emergency full manual control or something of the like.
There is, it's called turning off the autopilot and it's how both of these aircraft landed safely. You just saw that happen...
@@krashd didn't work with the 737 max tho
I can't agree more. There shouldn't be a situation where automation fights against human intervention. Even though Rob Fraser responded to you saying, 'it's called turning off the autopilot", the captain did that and still had to fight for control...had to pull the joystick twice, so something was still fighting them.
@@slp-mu6uj - the good thing about Boeing is that yon can turn off all automation and fly it like a Cessna.
Captain Sullivan explained that in the situation they were in, he thought back to training and did what he remembered.
He'd let go of all the instruments in the aircraft instead of pulling and tugging and stuff. And this allowed the aircraft reposition itself in a stable enough condition for them to land. He resigned, said that pilots shouldn't depend on the computers of the plane so much.
Also, the passengers that were injured were reeeeally injured. The ceiling of the aircraft was smashed from all the banging of heads. One passenger passed out after hitting their head. One passenger had twisted their foot/ankle all the way back, but still forced themself to get up in pain and strap themself inside the seat.
Omg, Captain Sullivan is a ✨hero✨. Never forget that.
The environmental factor is believed to be gamma rays corrupting a bit in the computer. It actually happens more often that one might expect.
Thank you for the information.
@@DST.73 NASA does multilayer redundancy: a parity between multiple independent compute units for upset detection/correction and radiation hardening of silicon to lower risk of upset. I reckon the former would be good enough for planes since they're not high enough to orbit the earth
I highly recommend this video: ruclips.net/video/AaZ_RSt0KP8/видео.html
@@russianbot842 Yup, that's where I got my information from. 😎
Lessons to be learned: Perth, Australia doesn't like airplanes.
Nice to see pilots who actually know how to fly airplanes.
I always stay buckled in unless going to the restroom.
Here in Brazil, this is mandatory, (of course, unless you need to go to the restrooms)
The second flight being due to an environmental factor shouts out loud that there was a corruption due to 'cosmic rays'. These can cause an occasional 'bit flip' which would explain the misinterpretation of the data. It's a hardware error due to the lack of error correction down at that level ... that in itself is quite a disgusting but rarely mentioned decision made by INTEL.
How strange I just watched a video about computers and cosmic rays this morning .
@@callumcurtis15 yeah Veritasium made a video on cosmic rays and this flight was mentioned
I suggest you watch that video, it is a good one
That's a good point. We don't usually think of that sort of thing.
@@aasishwarsaravana5748 I'll confess that I had seen that video but I didn't realise that it was this plane being mentioned. I had just logged Veritasiums' info into my cranium and regurgitated it without recognition of the source ... as one does lol :-)
Só glad everyone was okay!
These videos are amazing! I look forward to them coming up. Thank you for all your hard work!!
At the beginning of this, I'd thought of the Qantas flight. I'd heard about it from a television documentary. The pilot eventually retired, stating that he no longer would place his life in the hands of software. If I recall correctly, he said something to the effect that today's control systems would probably kill him.
This documentary was featured in the smithsonian (I think) and in veritasium’s video
He's lucky. A similar lack of redundancy and hidden defects in Boeing 737 MAX code led to the deaths of two entire crews and passengers.
@Baba Rajneesh This has nothing to do with communism genius. Try to keep up...
@@fallinginthed33p The Max wasn't really a code error. It was a Boeing greed and arrogance error. They designed a faulty aircraft which was unstable, tried to cover it up with a faulty system, failed to tell the pilots about it, and then were too cheap to have a simple safety feature like a AOA Disagree light on the aircraft to alert the pilots that the aircraft's AOA's were not in agreement on the ground.
The fact that the MAX alternated the AOA sensors meant the faulty sensor would freak the system out on every other flight, making the second flight crew completely unaware what happened two flights unless they happened to fly the same plane that time.
@Baba Rajneesh That may just be the most moronic comment posted on RUclips since the RUclips started. Like, literally a whole new level of stupid....
After people are flung around the cabin, at that point, you just assume you're dead and that the plane will definitely crash. So just imagine how you feel when the plane lands safely without a single death.
For the event described towards the end, it is thought to be the result of a bit flip in the binary code, from a single event effect caused by high-energy atmospheric particles, as described in this video. From about 15:15 time stamp. ruclips.net/video/AaZ_RSt0KP8/видео.html
Great video there! I didn't know this channel exists.
That was such an awesome Veritasium video
Yep, wonderful video.
So many channels to subscribe to, too little time to watch. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks Etop, i just knew it was Veritasium's video... People need to know,.
I was so excited for the Malaysian flight that landed just fine, and then the 'three years later' screen came up and my heart absolutely dropped in my stomach. So glad that everyone survived.
The fact that Quantas was the airline in the second video was a big hint. Quantas has never in its history had a crash. So, it was no question whatever happened there was going to work out fine.
The Qantas flight was huge news because of so many injuries.. Boeing reputation took a hit by then.
There is so much going on here and so much to be learned. Many Aviation experts claim that electronic operation of the aircraft is safer because computers can think faster and their nerves do not wig them out in emergency situations. There is merit in this line of thinking considering the fact that there have been so many air disasters caused by flight crews panicking and in moments of high adrenaline essentially making wrong decisions and forgetting things. On the other hand, here we see plainly that relying on electronica can be equally or more dangerous. Fascinating.
Can’t stop watching these. Wow I think this was the first one I saw where the stall happened and it ended well! Love to see it!
@Baba Rajneesh It is called a wing stall. The plane doesn't generate lift, the wings do. Once airflow is interrupted over the wings, the wings stall causing the aircraft to fall out of the sky.
@Baba Rajneesh You comments on here mean you know literally SQUAT about airplanes, and less than squat about computers. So, just do the world a favor and go back to playing with your Lego blocks and leave this board to the adults to discuss the issues....
please do psa 1771. ive been waiting for it for ages. i have not watched any other documentaries as i want to watch yours
Its air crash investigation
@@michellocci what?
Im a Perth local and i had never heard of the Malaysian Airlines incident until now! The Qantas incident however was all over the media and was a super huge deal here. Never thought id see my city pop up on this channel but glad both incidents werent fatal.
Why do pilots insist in re using the auto pilot after events like this? The first thing that goes trough my head is flight computer is getting erroneous data ... take over at least until the end of the flight.
I wonder the same. It's almost as though they are so used to flying on autopilot and not comfortable flying manually that they are in denial and are hoping the problem has miraculously fixed itself between the first event and the second attempt to set it to autopilot.
@@lisas8244 Flying by hand while running through long checklists and talking to ATC can be exhausting. And that's while flying in good weather with a fully functioning plane.
@@fallinginthed33p They are getting paid to do a job. So am I. I'm not going to feel sorry because their job is HARD. This is the career they chose. I have respect for good pilots. But If that means working a little harder than usual, so be it. .Turning the auto pilot back on after it causing a near catastrophic crash, is absolutely ridiculous, and stupid. It again caused the plane to veer out of control..I work a solid 12 hours in an intensive care unit. Belive me, it is usually, MENTALLY, EMOTIONALLY, PHYSICALLY, EXHAUSTING. And then there are, joyus, wonderful, and even miraculous days when people turn around, and against the odds, survive, and go home ! That makes everything worth it.
@@johnfranklin5277 Except that claim is comically stupid. There were TWO autopilot systems on the aircraft, that are independent from each other. No one would ever expect both of them to malfunction or use corrupted data from the same computer. It is literally a one in a Billion incident.
What I would fault the pilots for however was after the first sudden nose down command was to put the Fasten Seatbelt signs on, discontinue any service on board and have the crew seated until they figured out the issue.
Well, they turn on the auto pilot because they did not get erroneous data anymore. They did acted quickly though & fly the plane by themselves.
Greetings from Malaysia mate🙏🏻
Too bad about the spoiler at the beginning ..... when an aircraft behaves badly I like to mentally go through the system architecture to identify a possible root-cause ..... if you tell at the beginning what system was defective it takes the surprise away.
Other than that, a very good video.
Thanks for the information. This highlights the fact of the over reliance of electronics and computers to fly an aircraft. Too many complex systems means more things that can go wrong. It’s a good thing that both planes were able to make an emergency landing safely.
Just wait until they have self-driving cars. Mayhem will ensue.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329
There will still be accidents just different types of accidents. Man and computer will not co-exist driving a car.
Computer errors are far fewer than pilot errors when it comes to aviation accidents.
@@AeiThop that's certainly not true . You can't think of it that way. Also bear in mind that software can crash any time for no reason .you have a computer so you know that pretty well . I don't like this computerization of everything nowadays
@@kirilmihaylov1934
TEM is a component of every briefing in flight training, in full recognition of this fact.
Now mechanical faults can also cause crashes, but computer errors leading to crashes are extremely rare. Facts don’t care how you feel.
It’s much better for computers to do most of the flying, with humans there to take over control in more knotty situations. Even space flights work this way.
The pilots were thrown out of their seats. Just imagine they'd been injured or knocked unconscious as happened in the cabin 😳
This was a scary episode. So glad they made it back in one piece.
As many people have said before if I ever heard the TFC music on a flight I'd break into a cold sweat - Great work. All your films are short, factual and informative. I've learnt a great deal from all of them. Thanks
It would be funny and morbid if TFC videos were screened onboard an actual flight.
This channel I’ve been watching since around 2015 ❤️ and still to this day. Not as much as before but I still always have you in my notifications :)
This reminds me of the time I was on my Kabota z724x zero turn. It had rained and I was mowing on an extremely steep wet grass embankment closed to a 5ft drop off. I made the mistake of cutting in too close (pun intended) to the edge of the incline and suddenly felt the mower sliding at will toward impending death. I pulled back as hard as I could on both drawbars and at the last second felt my left back wheel dig solidly into terra ferma, allowing me to stop just an inch away from eternity's edge. My pucker-up gauge, as you might imagine, was reading a solid 10. And, although I was only the only soul onboard that day and no one was around to hear my inward screams, by the grace of God I survived to tell the tale. After changing my pants, I spent the the remainder of the day weed eating.
This is probably the best zero-turn mower near-miss description I've ever read. Like I was there with you. Godspeed.
When I watch these videos, all I’m thinking is “God bless pilots”.
God bless seatbelts.
@@brucelee4996 that's right. But again, without a professional pilot, seat belt won't save your life anyway
I can't imagine what goes through the minds of passengers as these scenarios are occurring.
In the case of the airbus, it was part of the open overhead storage door and some loose pieces floating around the cabin.
I am but a simple layman and enthusiast, but it would seem to me that these systems are designed to compensate for dangers and automate corrective manoeuvres accordingly - but why are pilot inputs unable to override this? It seems perverse to enable a computer the power to take almost full control with zero resistance...the pilots should always remain at the top of the hierarchy with inputs, in order to provide a last line of defence against data corruptions or errors. Lack of faith in the ability of pilots? Lack of training? Is it just cheaper to invest in a computer than it is an employee? Shocking really.
Well said.
The pilots need to be able to override the automated systems in an emergency and they need to be trained to fly by hand.
It reminds one of HAL, in 2001 A Space Odyssey, needing Dave to physically disable the machine.
Yes, it's cheaper in the short run to invest in computers. That's why it's so hard to get a human when you call companies.
But in the long run, it is NOT cheap. But tell that to administrators 😡
In theory is supposed to be redundunt chances of failure are very slim and when it fails it gives full control to the pilots.
@Dennis Wilson Exactly. In Kubrick's 2001, the computer Hal2000 said,
"I'm sorry, Dave(on trying to kill the last human) , I can't allow you to jeopardise the success of the Mission". It's becoming true. ruclips.net/video/dSIKBliboIo/видео.html
Well done to both flight crews for getting the planes down safely.
Unfortunately the FAA forced me to retire last year, simply because I turned 65, just two months after I had passed my required nine month, 2 day simulator proficiency check rides with flying colors. It's not easy being forced to leave a "job" that was your dream since you were three years old. I spent the last 33 years flying for Continental/United, and the last five years as a Captain on the 777. I was hired May 11 1987, just as all the automation you see today was beginning to come on line, so I have flown both sides of that coin, sort of speak. Everything from no autopilot 727's to, well the 777. Unfortunately I have also witnessed the very gradual but steady decline in actual piloting skills the dependence on all this automation has created. To the point, that even in the face of its obvious failure, as was the case on both these flights, there is an extreme reluctance to just shut it all down and just fly the airplane, manually. This point was really driven home to me one day, back when I was a Captain on the 737, on the first leg of a three day trip. The aircraft was a 737/900 for our flight from IAH to ORD. As usual I met up with my F/O in the weather briefing room one hour prior to departure to review all the paper work. As we did we saw that the auto throttle system was inop. Yeah, an inconvenience, but that's about it. And even though he said nothing immediately, I could see by the confusion on his face, it stopped in his tracks. And when I asked him what was wrong, he responded, "so how are you going to fly the plane?" Cars don't have auto throttles. Your muscle cell memory of how much throttle to utilize in order to meet a certain condition is so ingrained you never even think about it. And although in training certain engine values are given as target setting to use in different circumstances, he had no feel for where that would be relative to throttle position. So, I told him, "You are flying this leg." And, after a while, he stopped chasing his airspeed and began to get a feel for it and actually enjoyed it.
As for turning off all the automation. Well, you can't turn off ALL of it, as both aircraft are fly by wire. But I know in a Boeing(never flew an Airbus)you can take it down to basic stick and rudder, including the throttles. Airbus throttles are different. Although they move like on a Boeing. all you're doing is moving them from one command gate to another. And, from what I've been told, everything between those gates is just dead space, with no affect on engine performance.As one Airbus pilot told me. "The throttles are there just to make you feel like you're doing something." Some emergency checklist do require you to to try to bring back online some automation features, but based on what was presented here, that did not appear to be the case. It appeared the Captains did it on their own, which made the situation worse.
All this automation is extremely complicated and intertwined. What seems like a logical thing to do, or try to do, could very well be what gets you and everybody else killed. You follow the checklists, TO THE LETTER. If that doesn't work, you turn off everything you have a switch or button for. But that does not mean you EVER pull any circuit breakers, unless specifically instructed to by the checklist. Not that these guys did, I'm just adding that. You turn off what you're ALLOWED to turn off, leave it off, and hand fly the plane.
You're absolutely right, I'm coming from the same school as you.....
When you see qantas airlines and you can be calm because you know there won't be any casualties 😂
When the first incident ended and the video was only half finished, I figured there would be a second incident of the same type, and that this one would be fatal. Then I saw that the second plane was Qantas...
Why not Qantas has suffered fatal crashes, just not in jets as of yet.
@@pogmothoin1342 not in jets? Was the fatal accident suffered when part of the rear cabin developed a hole in the floor not in a jet?
@@moiraatkinson A total of 14 Qantas planes crashed prior to 1952 all involving fatalities , but to be fair 2 were shot down by the Japanese
CASE: _"We should ease."_
COOPER: _"Hands where I can see them, Case! Only time I ever went down was a machine easing at the wrong moment."_
CASE: _"A little caution..."_
COOPER: _"Can get you killed, same as reckless driving!"_
Pitiful!!!
This is why I wear my seat belt at all times when flying because this is a massive fear of mine, the plane suddenly dive bombs or rolls over.
Yupp same here, seatbelts always on.
Thank you for your time and much effort put into these videos. Well done. Great but terrifying outcome for this flight.
I’ve never seen TFC put 2 episodes in 1 video!!! Nice 👍🏽
This channel have a good contents with plane simulator and accurate informations. You deserve everything sir ❤
3:30 check the stab trim. 4:55 no, just no. 5:44 because it's still trimmed nose-up and airspeed increases so the stab has more authority.
Wow, great thinking and action by the flight crew/captain who did not give up! I can just imagine how hysterical the passengers were while this was happening.
Two things you NEVER wanna hear in the cockpit is that stick shaker and "pull up.... pull up"
It sounds like the investigation never found the "marginal" hardware failure in the A330. The failure is just a hypothesis.
Oh great. Sigh.
The editing is absolutely top tier
Not exactly sure how I stumbled upon this RUclips channel, much less understand my current fascination with these videos and the anxiety they seem to stir up within me… but I dig it. One of my new favorite channels.
I think when a pilot make a decision to take over control... no computer or system shud have the capability to deny it... can't they make a master switch or something to just give pilot 100 percent control?...these kind of software malfunction are same like max airplane.. they haven't solve it since 2005
I've said it 1000 times. This is why people should fly airplanes, not computers. At the very least there should be one simple switch that gives full manual control with no automation involved.
This is such an obvious answer to the problem that it is a wonder that it must be pointed out, but the wonder is that it seems that it MUST be pointed out!!
@@mortimerschnerd3846 It's not an obvious answer, it's an ignorant answer. Automation is the reason that flying is safer today than at any time in history. Why do people like you hate facts so much?
As soon as I saw the second jet was from Qantas I knew the outcome would be favourable as the airline has had no passenger fatalities or hull losses in the jet era.
I’d like to say thank you for adding more information to the vids. I’ve been a big fan for months now, but don’t know a lot about aviation, so I didn’t always understand what was happening. Stalling, and other terms were ones I didn’t know, so I’d have to look them up. I really appreciate the extra explanations. 👍🏻
The second flight was the result of a "Bit flip" , in which high energy particles interact with the electronics flipping the bytes of information, in this particular case the angle of attack..Vertasium just had this exact flight explained in depth on his channel. Explains it much better than I just did. Thanks for the awesome job as always.
A bit was flipped yes but couldn’t prove how it happened
Nice cross-fade on takeoff. That was cool. I have to say, this channel is super polished, and the content is slick in story timing, graphics, music choice, etc.. Even the commercials seem to be timed perfectly during cliff-hanger moments! 🤣. Anyway, good job!
8:52 Somehow they survived that, with no trainings and no specific warnings for the failed ADIRU system. Glad it wasn't a death. If so, that would be my worst year since I was born in 2005 and typically a Malaysian.
I'm Malaysian and this is first time I know about the incident
Wow, I was reading about this incident on a book just this afternoon. What a coincidence!
This channel is what got my interest back on aviation. Now it’s my dream.😁
great presentation as always--the on deck recorder never has heard the word f""" so many times as these guys struggled to control the plane
love from Malaysia 🇲🇾
So happy everyone survives, but how terrifying. Another great video!
you couldve put spoiler and a ton of lines before stating that
@@mr_carter3792
How exactly? Are you here to enjoy the unfolding of the entire story, or it’s just the deaths you are interested in?
Yes the FlightChannel made this happen. So when you go to sleep tonight make sure you know this.
@Mr_Carter3792 That’s your fault for reading the comments before watching the video.
People put that in comments all the time. Why you reading the comments before watching the video?
Hey just wanted to say thank you for your videos. They are always extremely interesting to watch and I can't imagine the time and effort you put into all of them. How come you only did 1 where you narrated instead text on the screen? Anyways, keep up the great work!
I still don’t understand why the pressure applied on the yoke (or side stick) to pull the nose up didn’t have any effect on the airplane, considering autopilot was disengage.
Computers know best and think the pilot is trying to crash the plane due to the incorrect data they are receiving. Or the plane was fully trimmed up and pilots didn’t trim down
Computerized control systems in airliners will always save far more lives than they cost, but it seems to me that there should be a way for the captain to bypass all the sensors, and take full manual control of the aircraft. But, I'm just an ultralight pilot, and we basically sit on all our sensors, if you know what I mean, so what do I know...
Really love the realistic graphics & sound. Thumbs up!
What a nightmare! Once again shows the advisability of keeping your seatbelt firmly fastened throughout the entire flight. A bet quite a few of the passengers involved vow to never fly again.
Amaizing!!!! Love the editing.... Thank you for sharing it....
The Qantas incident I remember well, (PER is my home port) as one of my University lecturers was on board the flight, he was interviewed on the local news and was quoted as saying to his wife on the second nose downs event "well, this is not good". The incident occurred over North West Cape in Western Australia, in close proximity to a U.S. naval communication station (Exmouth). The ATSB report stating "susceptible to the effects of some sort of environmental factor" led many people to speculate that the communication station may have been the factor. I am skeptical as I have flown the PER-SIN route on several occasions in an A330 and there has not been an issue. I don't think the possibility was ever completely ruled out though.
No need to refer to the news when you have TheFlightChannel!!✌🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
What is it with Malaysia Airlines and the 777
I dont think mas should ever use 777 again..
It is obvious that all aircraft need to have built in diagnostic systems that alert the pilots in real time as to the fault codes and also allow the pilots to perform emergency reboots without losing control.
These pilots are so skilled... i wish i could be them (in terms of skills.) Btw, these videos scare me kinda. Great job though! Keep it up!
This is without a doubt the best channel on youtube.
That guy in the lavatory on the Qantas flight: "Oh man, my mouth was open!"
Great video and kudos to both crews. Thanks much!!!
Don´t you just love it when computers work agaisnt you? Wow scary.
I always say this about your channel...GREAT WORK!! And the people really appreciate it 👍💜
Perth: Im aware of the effect I have on ADIRU
LOL
Great Effort..Keep It Up👍👍
2 comments:
1) Both Airbus and Boeing has procedures to enforce "direct mode" In "direct mode" the plane is still "fly-by-wire" but the input in the sidestick or yoke are relayed directly as movement of the flight control surfaces with no "interpretation" by the computers and no inputs from any sensor (angle of attack sensor, static and dynamic pressure, accelerometers, gyros". In other words, there are ways to "kill the computer" and fly the plane manually with as much automation as a Piper Cub.
2) Deadly automation? Really? Nobody died in these 2 incidents, and these problems were addressed so they don't happen again. Do you know how many lives the automation SAVED, though? The absolutely astonishing level of safety achieved in commercial aviation today, where there is 1 deadly crash every 10 million take offs approximately, is no doubt the result of better pilot training in things like upset recovery, windshear recovery, stall recovery, CFIT prevention, human factors, sterile cockpit, CRM, stabilized approach criteria and a long list of etceteras. Even today, when you see an accident, you almost always see a breach in one or more of these factors (being the only cause or a combination with other things like weather or technical faults). Yet, the impact of technology and automation in aviation safety has been even greater. Yes, automation brings its own failure modes that did not existed before, but the magnitude of the failure modes that are prevented or altogether eliminated by the automation is even greater, buy a lot. In other words, the computer might kill you, but the chances that it does so is almost negligible compared to the chances that it saves you.
Amen to that! Well stated.
This channel got me interested in airplane videos. I’d have to rate it to at disaster retelling. The amount of original audio and video is particularly good. It wouldn’t be fair to “advertise” other channels on here, but two I rate as up there with The Flight Channel are one which doesn’t do fatal accidents and the one mentioned by someone else here, whose Discord server I’m on and who runs a really big operation.
The second video I’ve seen on other channels and needs a more thorough retelling - they named the Captain, Kevin Sullivan as the “other Sully”.
I shall always remember a flight from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati. Many miles out, while preparing for approach, the pilot dialed back the throttles so severely that I thought we'd stopped in mid air. The suddenness and severity of it scared the living daylights out of me. I was so pissed at that pilot! Even so, I can only imagine the sheer terror those passengers and crew felt.
Can't one drive between Pittsburgh and Cincinnati faster?
@@larrybe2900 The flight was arranged by the company who would later hire me. Pittsburgh to Cincy was the first leg. Nonetheless, I could've driven the entire journey in a day.
grow a pair
The pilots don't control the throttle during landing, that is done by auto throttle unless you were flying in a Cessna or something....
@@redbaron6805 Okay, well, either way, it was frightening.
Amazing content! Keep making these kind of videos too. Not only accident videos.
Jesus, that was frustrating. I kept yelling "TURN THE AUTO-PILOT OFF!" When your plane starts making its own decisions that keep resulting in stalls and dives, surely you are ready to trust your own flying abilities as a pilot over certain death?
The autopilot was off on the QF72 flight and on MH it was turned off during the first climb and already off on the second climb
the beeping alert on the 330 indicated it had disengaged...
Did I just understand that practically the same error occured in a Boeing 777 AND an Airbus A330??? WOW! Thats frightening!
" Research shows entirely pilotless planes could save airlines $35 billion per year "