This is N747PA. The second 747 ever built. Clipper America. After retirement, she was shipped to Korea and turned into a restaurant. Aircraft has since been scrapped.
Yeah survival instinct kinda takes over and you tend to overlook stuff like that in a rush to get off a plane. You're afraid the plane's gonna explode or something so you jump off without realizing you're about to leap 15ft straight onto your tailbone.
I love some of these remarks...as an airline pilot for 37 years, most passengers that I have talked to over the years have more stories than I do. They scare me to death. Granted, this flight started with pilot error, it could of ended a lot worse. Flying is still the safest mode of travel, hands down!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pan Am Flight 845 Pan Am Flight 845 was a Boeing 747-121, registration N747PA, operating as a scheduled international passenger flight between Los Angeles and Tokyo, with an intermediate stop at San Francisco International Airport (ICAO: KSFO).[1] On July 30, 1971, at 15:29 PDT, while taking off from San Francisco bound for Tokyo, the aircraft struck approach lighting system structures located past the end of the runway, seriously injuring two passengers and sustaining significant damage. The crew continued the takeoff, flying out over the ocean and circling while dumping fuel, eventually returning for a landing in San Francisco. After coming to a stop, the crew ordered an emergency evacuation, during which 27 passengers were injured while exiting the aircraft, with eight of them suffering serious back injuries.[1][2][3] The accident was investigated by the NTSB, which determined the probable cause was the pilot's use of incorrect takeoff reference speeds. The NTSB also found various procedural failures in the dissemination and retrieval of flight safety information, which contributed to the accident.[1]
@@ufanisoneetze Nonsense: "In absolute numbers, driving is more dangerous, with more than 5 million accidents compared to 20 accidents in flying. A more direct comparison per 100 million miles pits driving's 1.27 fatalities and 80 injuries against flying's lack of deaths and almost no injuries, which again shows air travel to be safer." ( 2008 US only numbers) and some more numbers "Americans have a 1 in 114 chance of dying in a car crash, according to the National Safety Council. The odds of dying in air and space transport incidents, which include private flights and air taxis, are 1 in 9,821. That’s almost three times better chances than you meeting your fate by choking on food." (2015 US only numbers)
Imagine crash landing and being happy that you were uninjured only to realize the emergency slide is nearly vertical after you've already jumped and you take a 15 ft. drop straight on your tailbone.
His wording reminded me of phrases witnesses to great events in history have used. A kind of traveller's turn of phrase. Amusing when it's applied to describing an emergency plane landing. Would you not have guessed?
@@Dustshoe you know it didn’t strike me that way upon first reading, but I totally see it now, haha. I also misread your initial comment because of that. But I get what you mean!
In June (?) 1976 Pan Am´s 747 from Copenhagen to New York lost its one engine over Scotland. Plane landed in London. Before landing extra fuel was dumped during the plane was flying over North Sea, very close to London. After dumping extra fuel the plane made successful landing at Heathrow. I was a passenger at that 747. Luckily landing went fine. It took time when plane dumped extra fuel. I saw lights of oil platforms at North Sea. It was already late night. I still remember that flight. In London we had to wait about 6 - 7 hours and then we got a new 747. Flight from London to New York went fine.
@@leonardocaceres2540 I am now 67 years old and I am still work. Not yet 100 years. Do you discriminate and criticize people by their age? I am happy that I have visited about 70 countries and lived 10 years abroad.
From another report I learned that there was a last-minute change in takeoff runway, and they didn't have use of its full length, though there may have been some pilot error involved as well. Because of the takeoff accident, three of the four hydraulic systems were inoperative, which is why they made the hard landing on damaged gear. Some of the escape chutes were also damaged, and evacuation was delayed because the evacuation announcement wasn't made on the plane's PA system.
@@Michael.Chapman That is correct. For whatever reason, they did not know the runway they planned to use was closed starting several hours before they even pushed back from the gate. So they went to alternate runway which had 1000 feet of it closed, but didn't use the reduced length in some calculations. They did set flaps to 20 versus 10 but did not recalculate V-speeds so they were higher than needed to be, and the aircraft had a longer roll than needed. The aircraft could have taken off normally and safely from that runway.
Thank you so much for the time and effort . My many thanks to you and all whom spend hours and hours for people like me who love surfing you-tube for great entertainment videos. I subscribed.
I was there. I was a recent law school graduate sent by the law firm I was clerking for to its San Francisco office for the day from L.A. and I was at SFO for the return home. I walked into the main terminal and all of a sudden heard an announcement on the public address system: "The airport is now closed." That's pretty much all that was said. I looked out onto the runway in front of me and saw a 747 that had landed and was cockeyed. I don't remember how I got home that night but I think the airport re-opened a few hours later and I took a little PSA plane back to L.A. There was absolutely no security of any kind in those days. And air travel was pretty cheap. A year later PSA ran a $10 flight from SFO to LAX. I used to take my girlfriend up to SFO for dinner and fly back to L.A. Back then planes weren't full and you could catch a flight almost like a taxi and be in and out of the airport in just a few minutes. Those were the days.
What an awesome story Scott! Wow, $10 flights? I grew up in California (born in 70'), and I remember taking those flights from San Fran to Orange County to spend summers with my Dad - heck, if I remember correctly, we flew into LAX. Not sure if John Wayne was even open back in the early 70's?
LIES! hehehe, I wasnt born until 6 years later, but the amount you paid for gas/petrol for you car back then makes me want to cry when I fill up. Filling up your tank makes you think you are buying shares in the place too. But yeah, almost another world back then compared to crap we live with today.
In 1970 I flew from LAX to Oakland to visit my girlfriend (later wife) and PSA ran a plane the same way as a bus. For a ticket they gave you the cash register receipt. The cheapest gas I ever bought was in Hollywood for 28 cents per gallon.
Scott Tepper: I used to fly PSA,Hughes Airwest,United a lot in the 70s and early 80s as a kid....you're right about the experience. Us kids would jockey to get in the cockpit 1st. Many of the Pilots would put us on their laps. Imagine the crimes Pilots would face if that were to happen now? Wild child I was,I'd wait for the Flight attendants to leave the area where the beverages and food was kept.....take a couple of shot bottles to the lavatory. Company my dad worked for had a Promotional program where customers could get free PSA flights if they bought particular items at a well known Retailer. I remember when whole families would be in the terminal to see ones come in or leave on a flight.....99.9% people then all had smiles on their faces at the airport. I did not know how much my dad paid for my tickets then,but I do remember the smell of the ink on the Tickets that the Travel-Agent would print-up on one of those old school manual drum print/copy machines. Best part about getting to the airport early then...(my dad was a Red Carpet Member) the Chefs would make you any meal you wanted....unlike today where the food seems to be catered flight meals...and back then,they did not allow anybody in if you weren't a member or immediate family member taking advantage of that perk. As a kid, Red Carpet staff would take us to the plane before the plane would start General Boarding.
Pan Am Flight 845 was a Boeing 747-121, registration N747PA, operating as a scheduled international passenger flight between Los Angeles and Tokyo, with an intermediate stop at San Francisco International Airport (ICAO: KSFO). On July 30, 1971, at 15:29 PDT, while it was taking off from San Francisco bound for Tokyo, the aircraft struck approach lighting system structures located past the end of the runway, which seriously injured two passengers and caused significant damage. The crew continued the takeoff, flew out over the ocean and circling while it dumped fuel, and eventually returned for a landing in San Francisco. After coming to a stop, the crew ordered an emergency evacuation during which 27 passengers were injured exiting the aircraft, and 8 of them suffered serious back injuries.
I'm seeing some negative comments here, and I would agree that the crew didn't change with the situation well, but I don't think that they were aware of the problems with 2 of the airports runways until after they left the gate. So this was some really "on the fly" decisions being made here by the crew, and PanAm. Second, SFO had TWO runways being worked on at the same time.....really.....who had their head in the up and locked position when they let that happen. Third, Ground informed the crew that they had 1,000 feet of runway more than they actually had. You trust ground, it is their airport. As far as the landing goes, the airplane lost 3 of it's 4 hydraulic systems, the anti-skid system was inoperative in a braking system that delivers 3,000 psi of hydraulic pressure to the wheel brakes. That airplane doesn't do anything well on one hydraulic system. Two of the body gear were of little to no use, so all the braking was being done by 8 brakes instead of 16. That was the first landing tried without the body gear, so no one knew that the airplane would settle on it's tail once it's main landing gear dug themselves some 3+ feet into the ground. The Body Gear are further aft of the wing gear, so with them out of the picture, that created a high aft CG (center of gravity) on the airplane. Boeing didn't factor in the possibility that the slides may have to be used with the airplane sitting on it's tail. There is plenty of blame to go around here.
It was the crews fault , entirely. The crew made the decision to take off from the shorter runway . I wonder if they even received a flight briefing since they didn’t even know 28R was closed until after they pushed back from the gate which is strange , then miscalculated the take off speed for the short runway after changing the flap setting . Pilot error 100%
@@isras3780 nonsense. If I’m looking at a 10,000 foot runway and I’m in a lightly looses 757, I know I have enough but the calculations must be done. Many times I have taken an MD11 on a runway with zero stop margin. But the calculations have been done to assure that. If the wind changes, recalculate. Different flap setting? Different bug speeds? Different runway? Different power setting?
@@fukawininetynine5999 Sounds like humble bragging to me. Bottom line is you have the benefit of training that came years after thousands of experiences and analysis modeled into training programs, including modernization in aircraft and technology, to make better decisions. That is the nature of the game.
Yes I agree. 747 the Queen Of The Sky's. Boeing rolled out the last 747 ever made about 2 years ago. It's May of 2024 as I write this. My dad ran the crews that set the ceramic tile in Boeing's cafeteria in the Everett, Washington plant where 747's were built. I wanted to fly in one with dad before he passed....I'll never fly in one either but it's ok.
The evacuation slide from the upper deck looked useless as it was being blown around. It looks like anyone trying to slide down (I hope nobody did) could have killed themselves from the fall. Even with all the its damage, the plane was repaired.
The Pan American Boeing 747 struck the Approach Light Structure (ALS) at the departure end of runway 01R while taking off from the San Francisco International Airport. Two passengers, in seats 47G and 48G, were seriously injured by parts of the Approach Light System structure which penetrated the passenger compartment. The flightcrew continued the takeoff and then flew the aircraft for 1 hour and 42 minutes while assessing the structural damage and dumping fuel before landing on runway 28L. The aircraft had been dispatched for a departure from a closed runway and, upon changing to an open runway, the crew did not recompute the proper reference speeds for takeoff under the existing conditions. NTSB Oficial Report.
While the landing gear was damaged on takeoff, which prompted the emergency landing in the first place, one can clearly see that the sink rate before touch-down was aggravating the situation, and was partially responsible for the subsequent bounce, incorrect attitude on landing and then fire. This was almost a lot worse.
Was not the attitude incorrect because of the damaged horizontal tail wing? This is filmed, this damage, to the tail. The pilots surely did well to land the plane in the condition it was in.
This was my 1st Birthday! My mother and I would be in an AA 747 from LAX bound for HNL then Guam 2 years later to meet my dad who was stationed there dur'ing his final year in the Air Force. He loaded bombs onto B-52's after returning from dropping them on targets in Vietnam. They'd leave Guam, fly to Vietnam, unload their "cargo" over some jungle, or Hanoi, fly back to Guam, refuel and reload. My mother was 22 and my father was 23 and my mother packed us up less than 6 months later to go back to NY and stay w/ my grandparents while my father finished his tour there. She couldn't handle the Typhoons, Tropical Storms, and endless "giant" ants that marched through our "house", and the lizards. She wasn't very good about that stuff lol. She also said that my father worked 12 hours a day and that if she was going to be left alone all day with a 3 y/o she could do it at home and not be so lonely. I don't blame her. I on the other hand loved it apparently and made friends with the goat that belong to a neighboring native farmer. My mother also grew my hair long so when we returned to grandparents my hair was down to my shoulders and did a natural flip at the ends.
An incident like this today would be discussed endlessly the day after by people from Alaska to Australia. Back in 1971, an emergency landing of the new Jumbo Jet at SF would have gone unnoticed by the world. Perhaps a photo and a short column on page 10 of London's Evening Standard or in Le Monde would have been the sum of it (because it's the new Jumbo Jet). The three different camera angles somehow make this incident real. I know it was real. But the lack of sound combined with the degraded, washed-out colour scheme have a tendency to appear dream-like, as in our memory of the past. But how fortunate that there were three cine camera aficionados out there on that day in July, 1971.
The fact that there are multiple angles on something like this from so long ago in and of itself is remarkable. There's actually more angles of this not shown in this video too.
I was a flight attendant on this flight and it did make world news. Pan Am and TWA were the international airlines.. Pan Am was the first to have the 747.
Our family friend in Los Angeles was an investigator for Douglas plane crashes. He also attended Boeing plane crashes and Boeing investigated Douglas & Boeing. Each company wanted to know the "why" so they could prevent future accidents. He had been a test pilot in the 1950s. He had been to many many crash sites in the world (including a passenger jet crash in the Amazon Jungle) where the teams had to deal with head hunters). After this 747 crash I asked him how could Pan Am Pilots do such a thing? I thought they were the best.....He told me, in his experience 90% of all commercial plane crashes were pilot error and this particular crash in S.F. was due to a problem PanAm pilots had with 'over confidence'. I asked him how can I tell if the pilots on any plane I'm flying are safe. He said if they are staggering to the plane, get off... I know...these days the cockpit crew is already sitting down, and for years their door was locked.
Because when the aircaft hit the landing guidence lights of take off it damaged a number of hydralics electrics and including 3 evacuation slide device mechanisms
I worked at Yokota AB Japan in 1970. A Pan Am 747 was diverted from Tokyo to Yokota, because of a landing gear problem. I guess The Base had a longer runway, or something that made the landing easier at the base. The 747 was a new aircraft at that time. I believe the 747 entered service in 1970. It was the first time many of us had ever seen one I wonder if this 747 in this video is the same 747. I see this crash landing in the video is the following year.
I thought it was initially an unsafe landing gear issue but it looks like there was damage to the right horizontal stabilizer. It even looked as if smoke was coming from inside the plane.
He didn't "stress and slam it " The plane had lost 3 out of 4 hydraulic lines and had ZERO ability to flare plus had only 1/6 of his elevator control. Absurd comment!
I was an eye witness to this crash landing. True, miscommunication between flight crew and PanAm dispatch. Crew believed they had 1000 feet more or runway. Realized they would not make it so pulled running aft fuselage through approach lights for runway 19L at SFO. Three of the four hydraulic systems gone. Severely limited flight control and no nose wheel steering. A flying hi light just to get back on ground. One pax had broken ankle.
Unfortunately more than just a broken ankle. The approach light beams that poked up through the bottom of the aircraft sliced through four rows of seats. As if a miracle, those four rows were not occupied by people. A beam also amputated a guys foot. And severely lacerated another guys leg and arm. Both severe injuries.
I don’t think these videos are of the same landing? The one with the plane moving right to left across the video looks like a different airport to the video with the plane moving left to right across the video…. Emergency shutes are deploying differently
The aircraft bounced on landing because 3 of the 4 hydraulic systems were disabled. As a result the pilots didn't have full control of the plane. Also 2 of the 4 main landing gear were damaged so the remaining two had to take the full load. That they landed this plane successfully is a bit of a miracle.
Young man, the Village People were based on the east coast, in New York. It's the Flower Power People that would have been taking the field here in San Francisco. They might have been the ones driving those raised mobile stairways.
The Pan American Boeing 747 struck the Approach Light Structure (ALS) at the departure end of runway 01R while taking off from the San Francisco International Airport. Two passengers, in seats 47G and 48G, were seriously injured by parts of the Approach Light System structure which penetrated the passenger compartment. The flightcrew continued the takeoff and then flew the aircraft for 1 hour and 42 minutes while assessing the structural damage and dumping fuel before landing on runway 28L. After landing, the aircraft veered off the right side of runway 28L and came to a stop in the unpaved area approximately 5,300 feet from the approach end of the runway. The passengers and crew evacuated the aircraft using the emergency evacuation slides. Upon activation of the slides for evacuation, four of the 10 passenger slides failed to function properly and were not useable. During the evacuation the aircraft tilted slowly back onto the rear section of the fuselage. The aircraft had been dispatched for a departure from a closed runway and, upon changing to an open runway, the crew did not recompute the proper reference speeds for takeoff under the existing conditions.
There is no information here as to what happened. The link to San Diego Air & Space Museum produces nothing as does Wikipedia. There is isn't even a flight number, but I suppose it was 3573. Having a four-digit flight number is extremely rare.
This incident was profiled in a great documentary on the Smithsonian Channel called “747: The Jumbo Revolution” with interviews of flight attendants & passengers who were on board. Many injured when plane struck lighting & fences at take off. Unbelievable interior pics of metal pieces that impaled through cabin floor, seats.
During takeoff - came up through the bottom of the plane, actually impaling the leg of a passenger. That was a LONG hour of circling while they dropped fuel and did prep for emergency landing. Documentary was phenomenal. Lots of testing video - amazing footage.
Does anyone know anything about another 1970/71 incident when a 747 skidded off the runway at JFK on takeoff (bound for LAX I think)? I believe the cause was a stuck brake.
Seems to me Pan Am didn't know how to take care of the 747 planes they had. Early 1980's flew Pan Am 747 from Los Angeles to New York. I was sitting next to a big exit door. Once airborne, when I rubbed my face, it was greasy and it was black grease. I was baffled as to how that happened. After checking my surroundings, noticed a hissing sound and when I traced it, it was sound of air pressure with grease spraying from the door joint in my direction. A fine mist of lubricating grease from the cracks in the door. Long story short, changed my seat went on with my trip. I bet all these problems eventually caused their demise.
Well if you hit the approach lights on take off i would say a one bounce landing is about normal for this Capt. To be fair he was probably over weight on landing and landing with one damaged Horizontal Stabilizer.
they lost 3 of their 4 hydraulic systems, they had Control damage as well as lost some flight controls due to the 3 systems that were wiped out. So with reduced control it was a crap shoot trying to get the plane to do anything they wanted.. They aimed for the runway and hit it which is a miracle in itself. Sad thing is that Airlines want on time on time on time... safety comes in second or third sometimes. In this case the pilots and company had done the take off calculations way before departure which means that when they started to taxi they found out they were missing runway length. needless to say I think they fact no one died in this incident is a good ending to a bad day.
@@melynn66 Similar sentiment could be said about the United Boeing 777 bound for Honolulu from Denver that had an un-contained engine explosion yesterday, February 20, 2021. Landed safely no injuries or fatalities in air or on ground.
@@Vistamister Did the 777 lose any hydraulic systems? If not, it was just a routine return to airport for a single engine landing. Just saying The 747 has degraded flight controls due to the loss of 3 or the 4 hydraulic systems. Aircraft manufactures have improved safety with system redundancy quite a bit since the 1970's.
@@melynn66 The 777 engine situation could have been worse if it we 30 a 50 years ago. Aviation has come a long way. I was primarily referring to the fact no one died, like the woman on the Southwest jet sitting by the window, is a good ending to a bad day.
I used to work for PAN AM back in the 80‘s and in safety videos they explained why the slides initially were blown away. It was mainly due to the blast of helicopters nearby. N747PA is an icon of aviation!
I remember when this happened. We drove by the airport and saw the plane sitting nose high. I also attended a day or two of the NTSB hearings that were held at a local hotel close to the airport. This started because the crew had incorrectly determined the rotation speed and waited too long, thinking that they had to be at a higher speed, before rotating. As the airplane cleared the end of the runway it took out some of the approach lighting for 19L. This went into the aircraft and caused serious injuries to the passengers.
When the aircraft flew through the support lighting for the runway on take off, it ripped out the right body gear and left the left body gear dangling in the slipstream. When the aircraft landed, it didn’t have the support of the body gears and slowly tipped onto its tail. Hope that clears up the confusion. 😊
The tail of the plane actually tilted back and rested on the runway after all the passengers moved from the front of the fuselage to the rear after the front emergency slides failed to deploy properly due to the wind This then made the front of the plane rise up and then passengers had an almost straight vertical drop down the slides to the ground when they were deployed properly from help on the ground, but they couldn’t see that from inside the plane Several were injured as a result as they practically free-fell to the ground from the plane door
It's like the movies or TV cop shows when a rush of emergency vehicles sweeps in from out of nowhere at the conclusion of the incident. Like all's well that ends well!
Next time you board a plane take a moment to look down at the ground....look straight down between the gap between the jet bridge and aircraft. Think about how not funny it is to fall that distance.
The aircraft wasn't burning. The smoke and flames you see are from the brakes. The pilots slammed hard on the wheel brakes to stop the aircraft quickly. It's common to see when an aircraft makes an emergency stop on a runway. The forward exits couldn't be used because the 747 was at a high angle and there were high winds. Passengers that did use the forward chutes were injured. The 747 was registration N747PA. It was repaired and later went back into service.
still smoother than a average ryanair landing
This is N747PA. The second 747 ever built. Clipper America. After retirement, she was shipped to Korea and turned into a restaurant. Aircraft has since been scrapped.
That's a crappy way to go out
@@LMDProductionsOfficial this was such a precursor to Pan Am's doomed future - due to and with the 747. Awful. :/
I HAS NEVOR SEENS SUCH INCOMPETNECE.
She was practically brand new. Despite the extensive repairs needed, it was worth it, and she went on to have a long life with PA.
Yes, flew Pan Am until the company went under in 1991.
Ooh, let's all gracefully escape down the completely safe vertical slide...
Yeah survival instinct kinda takes over and you tend to overlook stuff like that in a rush to get off a plane. You're afraid the plane's gonna explode or something so you jump off without realizing you're about to leap 15ft straight onto your tailbone.
@@drosera88 como lo hicieron los sobrevivientes de Pan Am en el accidente de los Rodeos en 1977
I love some of these remarks...as an airline pilot for 37 years, most passengers that I have talked to over the years have more stories than I do. They scare me to death. Granted, this flight started with pilot error, it could of ended a lot worse. Flying is still the safest mode of travel, hands down!
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pan Am Flight 845
Pan Am Flight 845 was a Boeing 747-121, registration N747PA, operating as a scheduled international passenger flight between Los Angeles and Tokyo, with an intermediate stop at San Francisco International Airport (ICAO: KSFO).[1] On July 30, 1971, at 15:29 PDT, while taking off from San Francisco bound for Tokyo, the aircraft struck approach lighting system structures located past the end of the runway, seriously injuring two passengers and sustaining significant damage. The crew continued the takeoff, flying out over the ocean and circling while dumping fuel, eventually returning for a landing in San Francisco. After coming to a stop, the crew ordered an emergency evacuation, during which 27 passengers were injured while exiting the aircraft, with eight of them suffering serious back injuries.[1][2][3] The accident was investigated by the NTSB, which determined the probable cause was the pilot's use of incorrect takeoff reference speeds. The NTSB also found various procedural failures in the dissemination and retrieval of flight safety information, which contributed to the accident.[1]
what? no its not............ it's about 4 times as dangerous as a car. still pretty safe, but why lie about it?
@@ufanisoneetze Nonsense:
"In absolute numbers, driving is more dangerous, with more than 5 million accidents compared to 20 accidents in flying. A more direct comparison per 100 million miles pits driving's 1.27 fatalities and 80 injuries against flying's lack of deaths and almost no injuries, which again shows air travel to be safer." ( 2008 US only numbers)
and some more numbers
"Americans have a 1 in 114 chance of dying in a car crash, according to the National Safety Council. The odds of dying in air and space transport incidents, which include private flights and air taxis, are 1 in 9,821. That’s almost three times better chances than you meeting your fate by choking on food." (2015 US only numbers)
Sorry, bit I'll take the Train, thanks.
@@ufanisoneetze yes it is, statistically it is! your far more likely to be killed in your car than on a passenger flight.
Imagine crash landing and being happy that you were uninjured only to realize the emergency slide is nearly vertical after you've already jumped and you take a 15 ft. drop straight on your tailbone.
That looked a lot further than 15 feet. It was probably closer to 30 feet considering the nose was pitched up.
I remember this one. A passenger was skewered through the leg with a piece of metal the whole time.
Thank you for posting this! I can only imagine the fear and the deafening noise level inside the cabin!!!
I was on the hills to the west of the airport and watched the whole thing happen
It sounds like you could well have been at the Little Big Horn, too.
@@Dustshoe Why is it hard to believe?
His wording reminded me of phrases witnesses to great events in history have used. A kind of traveller's turn of phrase. Amusing when it's applied to describing an emergency plane landing. Would you not have guessed?
@@Dustshoe you know it didn’t strike me that way upon first reading, but I totally see it now, haha. I also misread your initial comment because of that. But I get what you mean!
@@Dustshoe Or watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon while standing on asteroid passing by
In June (?) 1976 Pan Am´s 747 from Copenhagen to New York lost its one engine over Scotland. Plane landed in London. Before landing extra fuel was dumped during the plane was flying over North Sea, very close to London. After dumping extra fuel the plane made successful landing at Heathrow. I was a passenger at that 747. Luckily landing went fine. It took time when plane dumped extra fuel. I saw lights of oil platforms at North Sea. It was already late night. I still remember that flight. In London we had to wait about 6 - 7 hours and then we got a new 747. Flight from London to New York went fine.
Any compensation for the experience and the delay?
@@Vistamister What a pity. In those days we got only a meal at Heatrow. :( That was all in 1976.
@@Vistamister I suppose I must be grateful that am still alive? :)
I think you're more than 100 years old..😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@leonardocaceres2540 I am now 67 years old and I am still work. Not yet 100 years. Do you discriminate and criticize people by their age? I am happy that I have visited about 70 countries and lived 10 years abroad.
I can't believe the landing gear took that first impact.Jesus,that was hard
I know why did they slam ot
From another report I learned that there was a last-minute change in takeoff runway, and they didn't have use of its full length, though there may have been some pilot error involved as well. Because of the takeoff accident, three of the four hydraulic systems were inoperative, which is why they made the hard landing on damaged gear. Some of the escape chutes were also damaged, and evacuation was delayed because the evacuation announcement wasn't made on the plane's PA system.
When the runway was changed, the pilots apparently did not make a necessary change to the flap settings to accommodate for the new, shorter runway.
It was all pilot error
@@spikeli99 I think flaps were increased from 10 to 20 degrees for the runway change, but V-speeds were not recalculated?
@@Michael.Chapman not sure!
@@Michael.Chapman That is correct. For whatever reason, they did not know the runway they planned to use was closed starting several hours before they even pushed back from the gate. So they went to alternate runway which had 1000 feet of it closed, but didn't use the reduced length in some calculations. They did set flaps to 20 versus 10 but did not recalculate V-speeds so they were higher than needed to be, and the aircraft had a longer roll than needed. The aircraft could have taken off normally and safely from that runway.
Thank you so much for the time and effort .
My many thanks to you and all whom spend hours and hours for people like me who love surfing you-tube for great entertainment videos.
I subscribed.
Pan am 747’s just look so decent
I was there. I was a recent law school graduate sent by the law firm I was clerking for to its San Francisco office for the day from L.A. and I was at SFO for the return home. I walked into the main terminal and all of a sudden heard an announcement on the public address system: "The airport is now closed." That's pretty much all that was said. I looked out onto the runway in front of me and saw a 747 that had landed and was cockeyed. I don't remember how I got home that night but I think the airport re-opened a few hours later and I took a little PSA plane back to L.A.
There was absolutely no security of any kind in those days. And air travel was pretty cheap. A year later PSA ran a $10 flight from SFO to LAX. I used to take my girlfriend up to SFO for dinner and fly back to L.A. Back then planes weren't full and you could catch a flight almost like a taxi and be in and out of the airport in just a few minutes.
Those were the days.
What an awesome story Scott! Wow, $10 flights? I grew up in California (born in 70'), and I remember taking those flights from San Fran to Orange County to spend summers with my Dad - heck, if I remember correctly, we flew into LAX. Not sure if John Wayne was even open back in the early 70's?
LIES! hehehe, I wasnt born until 6 years later, but the amount you paid for gas/petrol for you car back then makes me want to cry when I fill up. Filling up your tank makes you think you are buying shares in the place too.
But yeah, almost another world back then compared to crap we live with today.
In 1970 I flew from LAX to Oakland to visit my girlfriend (later wife) and PSA ran a plane the same way as a bus. For a ticket they gave you the cash register receipt. The cheapest gas I ever bought was in Hollywood for 28 cents per gallon.
Scott Tepper:
I used to fly PSA,Hughes Airwest,United a lot in the 70s and early 80s as a kid....you're right about the experience. Us kids would jockey to get in the cockpit 1st. Many of the Pilots would put us on their laps. Imagine the crimes Pilots would face if that were to happen now? Wild child I was,I'd wait for the Flight attendants to leave the area where the beverages and food was kept.....take a couple of shot bottles to the lavatory.
Company my dad worked for had a Promotional program where customers could get free PSA flights if they bought particular items at a well known Retailer. I remember when whole families would be in the terminal to see ones come in or leave on a flight.....99.9% people then all had smiles on their faces at the airport.
I did not know how much my dad paid for my tickets then,but I do remember the smell of the ink on the Tickets that the Travel-Agent would print-up on one of those old school manual drum print/copy machines.
Best part about getting to the airport early then...(my dad was a Red Carpet Member) the Chefs would make you any meal you wanted....unlike today where the food seems to be catered flight meals...and back then,they did not allow anybody in if you weren't a member or immediate family member taking advantage of that perk. As a kid, Red Carpet staff would take us to the plane before the plane would start General Boarding.
Oh I thought you were going to tell me you ended up marrying her.
Pan Am Flight 845 was a Boeing 747-121, registration N747PA, operating as a scheduled international passenger flight between Los Angeles and Tokyo, with an intermediate stop at San Francisco International Airport (ICAO: KSFO).
On July 30, 1971, at 15:29 PDT, while it was taking off from San Francisco bound for Tokyo, the aircraft struck approach lighting system structures located past the end of the runway, which seriously injured two passengers and caused significant damage.
The crew continued the takeoff, flew out over the ocean and circling while it dumped fuel, and eventually returned for a landing in San Francisco. After coming to a stop, the crew ordered an emergency evacuation during which 27 passengers were injured exiting the aircraft, and 8 of them suffered serious back injuries.
I'm seeing some negative comments here, and I would agree that the crew didn't change with the situation well, but I don't think that they were aware of the problems with 2 of the airports runways until after they left the gate. So this was some really "on the fly" decisions being made here by the crew, and PanAm.
Second, SFO had TWO runways being worked on at the same time.....really.....who had their head in the up and locked position when they let that happen.
Third, Ground informed the crew that they had 1,000 feet of runway more than they actually had. You trust ground, it is their airport.
As far as the landing goes, the airplane lost 3 of it's 4 hydraulic systems, the anti-skid system was inoperative in a braking system that delivers 3,000 psi of hydraulic pressure to the wheel brakes.
That airplane doesn't do anything well on one hydraulic system.
Two of the body gear were of little to no use, so all the braking was being done by 8 brakes instead of 16.
That was the first landing tried without the body gear, so no one knew that the airplane would settle on it's tail once it's main landing gear dug themselves some 3+ feet into the ground.
The Body Gear are further aft of the wing gear, so with them out of the picture, that created a high aft CG (center of gravity) on the airplane.
Boeing didn't factor in the possibility that the slides may have to be used with the airplane sitting on it's tail.
There is plenty of blame to go around here.
With so many hours and you still need to measure the runway???Can you look at it and know if it going to work????
If you cant you shouldnt be flying.
It was the crews fault , entirely. The crew made the decision to take off from the shorter runway . I wonder if they even received a flight briefing since they didn’t even know 28R was closed until after they pushed back from the gate which is strange , then miscalculated the take off speed for the short runway after changing the flap setting . Pilot error 100%
@@isras3780 nonsense. If I’m looking at a 10,000 foot runway and I’m in a lightly looses 757, I know I have enough but the calculations must be done. Many times I have taken an MD11 on a runway with zero stop margin. But the calculations have been done to assure that. If the wind changes, recalculate. Different flap setting? Different bug speeds? Different runway? Different power setting?
@@fukawininetynine5999 Sounds like humble bragging to me. Bottom line is you have the benefit of training that came years after thousands of experiences and analysis modeled into training programs, including modernization in aircraft and technology, to make better decisions. That is the nature of the game.
Best looking plane ever.
Yes I agree. 747 the Queen Of The Sky's. Boeing rolled out the last 747 ever made about 2 years ago. It's May of 2024 as I write this.
My dad ran the crews that set the ceramic tile in Boeing's cafeteria in the Everett, Washington plant where 747's were built. I wanted to fly in one with dad before he passed....I'll never fly in one either but it's ok.
The evacuation slide from the upper deck looked useless as it was being blown around. It looks like anyone trying to slide down (I hope nobody did) could have killed themselves from the fall. Even with all the its damage, the plane was repaired.
Hard to believe that was a brand new airplane then
Awesome vid!! ✈️
The Pan American Boeing 747 struck the Approach Light Structure (ALS) at the departure end of runway 01R while taking off from the San Francisco International Airport. Two passengers, in seats 47G and 48G, were seriously injured by parts of the Approach Light System structure which penetrated the
passenger compartment. The flightcrew continued the takeoff and then flew the aircraft for 1 hour and 42 minutes while assessing the structural damage and dumping fuel before landing on runway 28L.
The aircraft had been dispatched for a departure from a closed runway and, upon changing to an open runway, the crew did not recompute the proper reference speeds for takeoff under the existing conditions.
NTSB Oficial Report.
The long gone Burlingame Drive-In movie screen is visible in the background on one view.
While the landing gear was damaged on takeoff, which prompted the emergency landing in the first place, one can clearly see that the sink rate before touch-down was aggravating the situation, and was partially responsible for the subsequent bounce, incorrect attitude on landing and then fire. This was almost a lot worse.
Was not the attitude incorrect because of the damaged horizontal tail wing? This is filmed, this damage, to the tail. The pilots surely did well to land the plane in the condition it was in.
Sink rate was actually quite acceptable for a damaged 747.
Boeing built.
Other bogies held up well.
This was my 1st Birthday! My mother and I would be in an AA 747 from LAX bound for HNL then Guam 2 years later to meet my dad who was stationed there dur'ing his final year in the Air Force. He loaded bombs onto B-52's after returning from dropping them on targets in Vietnam. They'd leave Guam, fly to Vietnam, unload their "cargo" over some jungle, or Hanoi, fly back to Guam, refuel and reload. My mother was 22 and my father was 23 and my mother packed us up less than 6 months later to go back to NY and stay w/ my grandparents while my father finished his tour there. She couldn't handle the Typhoons, Tropical Storms, and endless "giant" ants that marched through our "house", and the lizards. She wasn't very good about that stuff lol. She also said that my father worked 12 hours a day and that if she was going to be left alone all day with a 3 y/o she could do it at home and not be so lonely. I don't blame her. I on the other hand loved it apparently and made friends with the goat that belong to a neighboring native farmer. My mother also grew my hair long so when we returned to grandparents my hair was down to my shoulders and did a natural flip at the ends.
Cool story we are a few months apart in age ..gezzzz I feel old when I see old footage from these days ..lol.
An incident like this today would be discussed endlessly the day after by people from Alaska to Australia. Back in 1971, an emergency landing of the new Jumbo Jet at SF would have gone unnoticed by the world. Perhaps a photo and a short column on page 10 of London's Evening Standard or in Le Monde would have been the sum of it (because it's the new Jumbo Jet).
The three different camera angles somehow make this incident real. I know it was real. But the lack of sound combined with the degraded, washed-out colour scheme have a tendency to appear dream-like, as in our memory of the past. But how fortunate that there were three cine camera aficionados out there on that day in July, 1971.
The fact that there are multiple angles on something like this from so long ago in and of itself is remarkable. There's actually more angles of this not shown in this video too.
@@drosera88 It is not remsrkable, All News outlets knew two hours Prior of the emergency. This is 1971, not 1871.
I was a flight attendant on this flight and it did make world news. Pan Am and TWA were the international airlines.. Pan Am was the first to have the 747.
Cause: The 747 Clipper "clipped" some structures on takeoff thanks to the pilots.
All that dirt sucked into the engines.
Built like TANK! She's fine, fuel her up, and send her back up. :) What a beautiful piece of history! Thank you!!!
Our family friend in Los Angeles was an investigator for Douglas plane crashes. He also attended Boeing plane crashes and Boeing investigated Douglas & Boeing. Each company wanted to know the "why" so they could prevent future accidents. He had been a test pilot in the 1950s. He had been to many many crash sites in the world (including a passenger jet crash in the Amazon Jungle) where the teams had to deal with head hunters). After this 747 crash I asked him how could Pan Am Pilots do such a thing? I thought they were the best.....He told me, in his experience 90% of all commercial plane crashes were pilot error and this particular crash in S.F. was due to a problem PanAm pilots had with 'over confidence'. I asked him how can
I tell if the pilots on any plane I'm flying are safe. He said if they are staggering to the plane, get off...
I know...these days the cockpit crew is already sitting down, and for years their door was locked.
I might add I flew Pan Am 747s RT Los Angeles - Honolulu several times after this. Great plane
Crazy, what a hard landing. The evacuation system ( slides ) ??????
Thanks for posting.
"The sea was angry that day my friends, like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli."
N747PA was final name Clipper Juan T Trippe converted into noodle restaurant in namyangju south korea and scrapped in 2010
Why were the slides so unstable. They would have done a better job at being flags tbh.
Because when the aircaft hit the landing guidence lights of take off it damaged a number of hydralics electrics and including 3 evacuation slide device mechanisms
It can be very windy at SFO
this was 71', they went right back to work on the slides after this, that's why the slides don't flap around today
I worked at Yokota AB Japan in 1970. A Pan Am 747 was diverted from Tokyo to Yokota, because of a landing gear problem. I guess The Base had a longer runway, or something that made the landing easier at the base. The 747 was a new aircraft at that time. I believe the 747 entered service in 1970. It was the first time many of us had ever seen one I wonder if this 747 in this video is the same 747. I see this crash landing in the video is the following year.
Did you see the name of the plane? It had clipper on it like clipper america, clipper victor, clipper Juan a trippe
@@railfandepotproductions No I didn't see the name on the plane. We were not allowed to be close enough to the plane to see the name.
@@MrGlendale111 maybe I could find info about the incident and maybe the plane involved
@@railfandepotproductions That would be great if you could find info on that Yokota Air Base landing
This is literally the day after my family moved to Hawaii, leaving SF on Pan Am!
GREAT JOB OF THE CABIN CREW.
Did that Front Wheel just come off the Ground??? WOW 😳
It looks like the rear body gear collapsed. On the approach it appears that one of the body gear is missing but I may be wrong.
Title is incorrect. Should be ‘Emergency Landings’.
I thought it was initially an unsafe landing gear issue but it looks like there was damage to the right horizontal stabilizer. It even looked as if smoke was coming from inside the plane.
Hey its amazing the guy landed even it bounced. Great job who ever that was the main thing is everyone was ok.
It was a crap landing. The pilot was stressed and slammed it.
He didn't "stress and slam it " The plane had lost 3 out of 4 hydraulic lines and had ZERO ability to flare plus had only 1/6 of his elevator control. Absurd comment!
I was an eye witness to this crash landing. True, miscommunication between flight crew and PanAm dispatch. Crew believed they had 1000 feet more or runway. Realized they would not make it so pulled running aft fuselage through approach lights for runway 19L at SFO. Three of the four hydraulic systems gone. Severely limited flight control and no nose wheel steering. A flying hi light just to get back on ground. One pax had broken ankle.
Unfortunately more than just a broken ankle. The approach light beams that poked up through the bottom of the aircraft sliced through four rows of seats. As if a miracle, those four rows were not occupied by people. A beam also amputated a guys foot. And severely lacerated another guys leg and arm. Both severe injuries.
jeezo, all you needed was an ice cream truck and I think everybody at SFO has turned up
Those emergency shoots looked about as useful as a chocolate fire guard
Chutes
Lucky emergency slides nowadays are built better to withstand the wind
I don’t think these videos are of the same landing? The one with the plane moving right to left across the video looks like a different airport to the video with the plane moving left to right across the video…. Emergency shutes are deploying differently
Today is 50th ANNIVERSARY!!!!!
July 30th 1971 - July 30th 2021 !!!!!
So they were super heavy upon landing so that is why the aircraft bounced and the rear landing gear or tires gave out?
The aircraft bounced on landing because 3 of the 4 hydraulic systems were disabled. As a result the pilots didn't have full control of the plane. Also 2 of the 4 main landing gear were damaged so the remaining two had to take the full load. That they landed this plane successfully is a bit of a miracle.
Problems with spoiler deployment (from hydraulic system malfunction) would also figure heavily in whether there's a bounce and how much of one.
Looks like everyone including the Village People turned up.
Who do you think was holding the camera LOL
Young man, the Village People were based on the east coast, in New York. It's the Flower Power People that would have been taking the field here in San Francisco. They might have been the ones driving those raised mobile stairways.
@@Dustshoe Hah! So true!
Good training for people.
I don’t recall ever hearing about this and my family and I were vacationing in California at that time.
The Pan American Boeing 747 struck the Approach Light Structure (ALS) at the departure end of runway 01R while taking off from the San Francisco International Airport. Two passengers, in seats 47G and 48G, were seriously injured by parts of the Approach Light System structure which penetrated the
passenger compartment. The flightcrew continued the takeoff and then flew the aircraft for 1 hour and 42 minutes while assessing the structural damage and dumping fuel before landing on runway 28L. After landing, the aircraft veered off the right side of runway 28L and came to a stop in the unpaved area approximately 5,300 feet from the approach end of the runway. The passengers and crew evacuated the aircraft using the emergency evacuation slides.
Upon activation of the slides for evacuation, four of the 10 passenger slides failed to function properly and were not useable. During the evacuation the aircraft tilted slowly back onto the rear section of the fuselage.
The aircraft had been dispatched for a departure from a closed runway and, upon changing to an open runway, the crew did not recompute the proper reference speeds for takeoff under the existing conditions.
There is no information here as to what happened. The link to San Diego Air & Space Museum produces nothing as does Wikipedia. There is isn't even a flight number, but I suppose it was 3573. Having a four-digit flight number is extremely rare.
It's Pan Am Flight 845 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_845
Pan am 845
Nice of the emergency services to eventually rock up. And of the crew to deploy the shutes….
This incident was profiled in a great documentary on the Smithsonian Channel called “747: The Jumbo Revolution” with interviews of flight attendants & passengers who were on board. Many injured when plane struck lighting & fences at take off. Unbelievable interior pics of metal pieces that impaled through cabin floor, seats.
MyzelleJenkins At take off or at landing?
During takeoff - came up through the bottom of the plane, actually impaling the leg of a passenger. That was a LONG hour of circling while they dropped fuel and did prep for emergency landing. Documentary was phenomenal. Lots of testing video - amazing footage.
One of the injured had his entire leg amputated. That must have sucked cause he did not Get to a hospital for more than two hours.
Does anyone know anything about another 1970/71 incident when a 747 skidded off the runway at JFK on takeoff (bound for LAX I think)? I believe the cause was a stuck brake.
Those people on the plane must have shat themselves!
Why did it end up in the dirt?
Seems to me Pan Am didn't know how to take care of the 747 planes they had. Early 1980's flew Pan Am 747 from Los Angeles to New York. I was sitting next to a big exit door. Once airborne, when I rubbed my face, it was greasy and it was black grease. I was baffled as to how that happened. After checking my surroundings, noticed a hissing sound and when I traced it, it was sound of air pressure with grease spraying from the door joint in my direction. A fine mist of lubricating grease from the cracks in the door. Long story short, changed my seat went on with my trip. I bet all these problems eventually caused their demise.
Very poor slides - I am sure after this incident they must have been re-designed!!
How many landings for the log book Captain, one or two.
Lol
Well if you hit the approach lights on take off i would say a one bounce landing is about normal for this Capt. To be fair he was probably over weight on landing and landing with one damaged Horizontal Stabilizer.
one.....In simulator
This is priceless , never seen it before. Should've rejected the landing after that long ballooning that could've saved the day.
damage was already done and he had to land at some point
they lost 3 of their 4 hydraulic systems, they had Control damage as well as lost some flight controls due to the 3 systems that were wiped out. So with reduced control it was a crap shoot trying to get the plane to do anything they wanted.. They aimed for the runway and hit it which is a miracle in itself. Sad thing is that Airlines want on time on time on time... safety comes in second or third sometimes. In this case the pilots and company had done the take off calculations way before departure which means that when they started to taxi they found out they were missing runway length. needless to say I think they fact no one died in this incident is a good ending to a bad day.
@@melynn66 Similar sentiment could be said about the United Boeing 777 bound for Honolulu from Denver that had an un-contained engine explosion yesterday, February 20, 2021. Landed safely no injuries or fatalities in air or on ground.
@@Vistamister Did the 777 lose any hydraulic systems? If not, it was just a routine return to airport for a single engine landing. Just saying The 747 has degraded flight controls due to the loss of 3 or the 4 hydraulic systems. Aircraft manufactures have improved safety with system redundancy quite a bit since the 1970's.
@@melynn66 The 777 engine situation could have been worse if it we 30 a 50 years ago. Aviation has come a long way. I was primarily referring to the fact no one died, like the woman on the Southwest jet sitting by the window, is a good ending to a bad day.
1971年7月30日、日本ではこの日雫石事故が起きていました。
Chvan hun, sun hun blia
Why did he land so hard? Was he trying to force the rest of the main landing gear out?
Probably was a heavy landing because he couldn't dump fuel and it was a non-stop to Asia.
Three of the plane's four hydraulic systems were damaged in the initial accident, so the pilot didn't have full control.
@@AZAFVET Actually they spent an hour & 42 minutes dumping fuel.
And what about those pilots?
I used to work for PAN AM back in the 80‘s and in safety videos they explained why the slides initially were blown away.
It was mainly due to the blast of helicopters nearby.
N747PA is an icon of aviation!
I was a flight attendant on this flight and yes It was the wind. No helicopters
Not a helicopter in sight sfo is very windy
I remember when this happened. We drove by the airport and saw the plane sitting nose high. I also attended a day or two of the NTSB hearings that were held at a local hotel close to the airport. This started because the crew had incorrectly determined the rotation speed and waited too long, thinking that they had to be at a higher speed, before rotating. As the airplane cleared the end of the runway it took out some of the approach lighting for 19L. This went into the aircraft and caused serious injuries to the passengers.
Hello Fellow RUclips algorithm
Just wondering why the flight crew decided to lock up the brakes and leave the runway.
Actually the landing gear was severly damaged during take off, that's why
The film shown to flight crews as the example of what NOT to do in an emergency.
팬암은 IMF보다 더 먼저 지난 1991년에 부도났었나요?
I wasn't there, and knew nothing about it - until watching this video....
Does anyone know what happened
Passengers will please remain seated until the plane has crashed to a complete stop.
Why did the nose come up, was the C of G out ????
The main aft body gear was damaged on takeoff and couldn't support the plane.
When the aircraft flew through the support lighting for the runway on take off, it ripped out the right body gear and left the left body gear dangling in the slipstream. When the aircraft landed, it didn’t have the support of the body gears and slowly tipped onto its tail. Hope that clears up the confusion. 😊
What im thinking is, maybe half of survivor passenger in this flight already meet their creator in 2021....
I would guess 70%.
Who watching this in 2020 this look old and nw sfo is the biggest airport I think
Watching in 2025, just over 4 years after that coronavirus lockdown ended. God are we blending!
It looks like the cargo shifted to the back
The tail of the plane actually tilted back and rested on the runway after all the passengers moved from the front of the fuselage to the rear after the front emergency slides failed to deploy properly due to the wind
This then made the front of the plane rise up and then passengers had an almost straight vertical drop down the slides to the ground when they were deployed properly from help on the ground, but they couldn’t see that from inside the plane
Several were injured as a result as they practically free-fell to the ground from the plane door
was this a revenue flight or test flight?
started as a revenue flight but turned into a COSTLY court battle so in effect it was a revenue flight for LAWYERS and PLAINTIFFS.....
exit worked like shit
It's like the movies or TV cop shows when a rush of emergency vehicles sweeps in from out of nowhere at the conclusion of the incident. Like all's well that ends well!
My thought exactly!!! Everybody along with camera crews, airplane mechanics, state troopers
0:47 Boe-ing!
😂
It always amazes me that you would call an aircraft company that ,,,, like a bouncy ball
Wow, so lucky there was no fire...
The slides were a complete failure.
And the 747 had not been flying very long when all this happened. Sounds like they needed more training.
2:08 bro ese pan am hizo como el vuelo 80 de Fedex 💀
What a mess
my, my, my
Вот это шасси. Выдерживает такую нагрузку
And yeah everything was the pilots fault.
Ёпта, прогресс остановился,50лет назад сделали этот Шедевр, нет слов!.
What even happend?
The dirt getting sucked into the #2 engine.
I guess this means cocktail service is canceled 😒
100 days after I was born.
Oh really woooow ..... well it was 1088 days before I was born :)))))))
Ooh my turn! 720 days after I was born, so I was pooping all over the place, just like the passengers! nice!
This happened the day before I turned 8 years old.
Seeing those slides flapping in the breeze was hilarious
Next time you board a plane take a moment to look down at the ground....look straight down between the gap between the jet bridge and aircraft.
Think about how not funny it is to fall that distance.
@@MyGoogleRUclips i imagine you falling and its even funnier ahahahahahahahahhahahah
@@bobdylan2843 Keep up the good work BD.
@@MyGoogleRUclips grow up, no one even fell from the slide and seeing it flap around like that WAS goofy
Very Badly designed chutes! and what heavy heavy landing. I'm surprised the under carriage did not collapse.
it took them at least 5 mins to evacuate whilst the plane was burning ...
The aircraft wasn't burning. The smoke and flames you see are from the brakes. The pilots slammed hard on the wheel brakes to stop the aircraft quickly. It's common to see when an aircraft makes an emergency stop on a runway. The forward exits couldn't be used because the 747 was at a high angle and there were high winds. Passengers that did use the forward chutes were injured. The 747 was registration N747PA. It was repaired and later went back into service.
raboesperto it wasent...
The wrong day to bounce it.He wasn't trying hard enough.
The hydraulic systems were compromised. When spoilers don't deploy, or deploy slowly, then just about any landing will bounce.
I saw this happen. Watched it land.