If you found this video interesting, consider supporting my work on Patreon, which gets you early access to new videos! 🟢www.patreon.com/GreenDotAviation
Good vid, but if your landing gear won't retract then you rtb asap. There's all sorts of problems with flying gear down. I'd like Mentour Pilot to cover this one. (if he hasn't already).
Especially if you don't know WHY the gear won't retract. (Hydraulics etc.) If the hydraulics have failed to retract the gear then what other flight controls might soon fail. I don't like this one.
But when the captain did nothing, he should've declared a fuel emergency or even mayday himself. This may require a lot of courage and probably doesn't improve collegiality, but it's better than letting yourself and hundreds of people getting killed by an arrogant moron.
First officer: We're burning fuel way faster than the FMS says, the FMS is obviously, visibly incapable of providing accurate information about fuel consumption with gear-down flight, we're going to run out of fuel, we need to divert to the nearest airport NOW! Captain: This is fine.
I appreciate the displays being so in sync with the narrative, especially the engine 1 failure checklist appearing then seeing all the displays wink out after losing engine 2.
Im a system specialist on A330/A350/A380 and i can vouch. The details in all the videos for Airbus Aircraft are ON POINT. An FMS FUEL PRED UNRELIABLE message can be seen on the aircraft i mentionned, im assuming due this incident!
@@GreenDotAviationNarration and displays moving in synchrony helps laypeople quite a bit, too. We can pause and zoom in on what's changed, getting some idea what the pilot's field of view would have been and the visual priority each indicator has.
I just began to follow this channel in the last 10 days and I can't applaud the narrative and graphic presentations enough. Among the countless other aviation channel subscriptions, there isn't one I know of that lays out the story more cogently. Brilliant work Green Dot Aviation. Thanks so much!
I love how the hubris of the captain in trying to avoid looking bad by doing the right thing and declaring a fuel emergency ended up making him look even worse when he crashed and then got exposed on the cockpit recorder as ignoring safety and being arrogant
I got 3 things from this video. 1. It's "ok" to fly with the gear down but actually it's not. 2. Confirmation bias, complacency and laziness will always lead you to something bad and 3. Green Dot Aviation as usual puts out fantastic, well narrated videos with outstanding Sims and graphics.
Well it's "OK" in the sense that the plane is capable of flight; however the increased drag means it will consume fuel much more quickly; this means the fuel you planned to use is now not enough to reach your originally intended destination.
@@troodon1096 It's "ok" in the sense that the plane won't immediately fall out of the sky, but it's not in the sense of wtf are you doing trying to fly all the way to your destination with the gear down, are you on drugs? Turn around and get the broken plane fixed.
@@sleazymeezytechnically it still is the safest way to travel, seconds only to train perhaps. Ships accident are more common, and even higher number for road crash. If you asked me, I would rather travel in a train or an airplane rather than riding a bus, thank you.
@@justinepaula-robilliard Can't find details on that Qantas Sydney to Singapore flight, but Qantas VH-ZNH had an incident last year flying from Sydney to Perth with a stuck gear and they turned around back to Sydney. It is obvious that with the gear sticking out, any aircraft meant to retract the gear will consume significantly more fuel. It also seems obvious that any airport you landed the aircraft in prior to taking off again is required to have safety and rescue equipment ready so that's not an issue either in a stuck gear situation. The reason there was no pan pan pan call was because of the captain making bad decisions so that in fact was exactly why they should've turned back. He was legally required to declare the fuel issue and later even declare a mayday. These are all reasons as to exactly why they should have turned back to their departure airport or at least a nearby airport. This captain was so determined to save the company some money as the airline had their technical staff at other airports than any he could divert to that he risked the entire aircraft and all the lives of those onboard... Ended up writing the aircraft off so very obviously very poor decision making from a captain... Do you have a flight number or other information to find that Qantas flight from Sydney to Singapore?
@@justinepaula-robilliard You are assuming this video is the first and only information I read/watched about this incident... Reasoning that an accident has multiple facets doesn't excuse the fact that the captain performed very poor here, as is also stated by the incident report. The captain made a decision and from then on refused to evaluate his own decision, something that is the main task a captain has. Even if the aircraft would've made it to the landing safely and with the legal minimum amount of fuel left over the performance of the captain was poor. CRM training as a result of this and similar incidents has luckily largely resolved this, though we still have occasional incidents. Here it is just shocking that it wasn't a captain arrogantly screaming that he/she was the big boss and the FO should stay quiet but it was a captain who refused clear signs that his decision was bad. You make a decision, days later you realize it was the wrong one. This can happen to anyone and is mostly fine, depending on how smart the decision was back then. Deciding that the gear out wouldn't consume significantly more fuel was already a bad decision but this is not the main concern. Deciding to not evaluate his own decision because the conclusion might be unfavorable is very bad. Deciding to not declare the fuel situation, as he was legally required to do, is becoming malicious, purposely hiding evidence... Deciding to at this point still not fly to a nearby military base by calling a mayday was terrible decision-making. Deciding after crashing to lie about 'sudden fuel loss before landing' to try and subvert the incident investigation and reduce bad press by playing the hero was malicious. This captain had bad luck: some incorrect bolt preventing his gear from retracting. He then chose to lie about, deceive and ignore the situation until he crashed. Nothing speaks positively for the captain in this incident, that doesn't mean the bolt started the entire incident, just that the captain caused it to become so severe.
@@justinepaula-robilliard Tenerife also was a collection of exceptions (terrorist attack, bomb threat at destination airport, diversion to Tenerife airport, small sized airport so taxiing over the runway, severe fog on runway, van Zanten (captain KLM 747) cutting in line, PA and ATC stepping on each other on the radio, ATC using non-standard and ambiguous calls on the radio which eventually lead to van Zanten ignoring his FO and ramming his aircraft into another... A tragic example of the same issue here: a captain deciding that his perfect scenario MUST be true and anything proving otherwise must be fake... It is not best practice to get as close to the destination as possible, it is best practice to be as safe as reasonably possible, where you got the idea that destination and convenience go over safety I don't know. Had the captain followed the procedure for gear out flight he would've known. Had he followed protocol instead of choosing to ignore the protocol and just use a computer which wasn't designed for it he would've realized his full situation and landed asap. The sole reason we have pilots flying an aircraft is because things sometimes change. We can make aircraft that would taxi, take-off, cruise, land and taxi all autonomously, but we'd still want two people sitting in the front in case anything unexpected happens. A captain is deemed a captain instead of an FO due to experience and leadership. This captain locked up in a wrong decision made based upon incorrect (though individually perhaps logical) assumptions. No matter how you twist it, this captain should not have been a captain on such a flight with the way he ignored all signs that he had a serious issue. It is true that some flights do fly with down gear, but never to their destination airport unless they have massive fuel reserves, which this HL flight didn't have. In any case I'm sure landing at an alternate airport and dealing with passengers having to stay at a hotel and possible visa issues is a lot of work but you know what is more work? Crashing an aircraft, or at least the aftermath... ;) No I do not solely blame the captain here, I am just amazed by his performance during this incident.
@@justinepaula-robilliard The manual does actually state that the FMS fuel prediction should not be used in non-normal flight conditions. aka gear down. This was in the manual at the time which is available but I can't post the link here becasue itll flag this comment as spam. While its good that they landed safely, if this was over an ocean for example this couldve turned the poor decisions by the PIC into fatal consequences.
True, that's what most people with normal logical thinking would do. I would instantly turn around and land if my gear wouldn't retract, even if only to save myself the trouble of dealing with checklists, fuel calculations, diverting, etc, etc. It would also not put me in the position to land at an airport not covered by my maintenance company, in which case I'd be creating huge extra costs to my airline.
I really enjoy Green Dot videos. You do a fantastic job. I especially like that you cover crashes that I've never seen on any of the other aviation channels. Keep the great content coming, thanks
I live near Graz and every time I heard about that flight I always wondered why they didn't land here in Graz. Now I have an idea! Thanks for your videos!
Same. I’m enjoying this newly found channel particularly because almost all the videos I’ve watched are new material to me, which is hard to find after a while. I think it’s amazing how anyone can put graphics together because I wouldn’t have a clue, particularly when it switches to a real photo of the plane.
In July, 2017 an Air india flight (probably an A320) from Kolkata to Mumbai had to land at Nagpur when the crew discovered they had forgotten to retract the landing gear and were running out of fuel.
I just feel irritated that he didn't kept the altitude. Like sure maybe something is not right, but just aviate the god damn plane brother, keep the altitude so if there really is a problem you can just glide there. Also he could've just kept the engines at idle up there, and power up on final. This is such a dumb crash idk
Agreed, to show you how bad it was, all he had to do was maintain cruising altitude a bit longer than normal at a reduced speed, even if only once the low fuel warning sounded, and he would have made it. But he didn't do even that, he just acted like this was a normal landing, because he didn't want to do anything that was out of the ordinary to avoid some perceived professional embarrassment.
Again, so interesting to see how one single thing - a bolt - starts a series of small mistakes that compound into a disaster (albeit one that thankfully was not deadly). I think it also illustrates the issue of computer-reliance. All too often it is "assumed" the computer knows everything, but in this case, it can only know what it was programmed to know about fuel consumption calculations. My wife's grandmother was one of the first female pilots in Canada, and in those days, you had to fly by what few analogue systems you had, and one heck of a lot of knowledge and understanding of flight. The one thing it seems we are slowly losing is as things becoming increasingly automated and computerized, that hands-on knowledge of how to fly manually is diminishing.
Yeah it should accommodate us, but not replace being able to actually calculate and have knowledge now lost due to heavy reliance on computers. I think if I would ever become a pilot (I would love to but hey, the money just for the license and then have access to a place is not within my reach whatsoever. So I’ll reinstall msfs2020 and try there with my joystick and just one throttle lol. Or crash myself on the mobile ones. However, if I could, I’d like the less computerized ones so I can actually fly manually and keep sharp about fuel, oillevels, take off speed and landing speed (and weight in case I would be flying to small villages in nowhereland and drop food and medical things) and all the things now generally calculated by a computer and only landing and take off are still manually done though many planes could even land themselves. I know that’s a time of high workload but imagine you basically have 15minutes or less on a 10h flight.
@@fluffy-fluffy5996 Yeah - to a similar degree, it's like all these new automated driving assistance things in cars. I would MUCH rather see money put towards creating (and enforcing) good drivers instead of relying on the car to do more and more _for_ the driver.
I dont know why but your videos kind of give me that winter day-cuddle up in bed- feeling. Also always watch them when im sick and can only lay on bed. Thanks for your content
I know it's weird but these videos are so relaxing for me. I assume because of his voice and the way he present it, however I learned so much from these videos that I could potentially try to land a plane if both pilots die. I know I would most likely fail but I know a lot about how planes work since i start watching this channel :)
@Andrew_koala - Thank you Andrew. I have been reluctant to make any comment about the speed of the commentary because all those making comments on this channel exclusively praise the presentation, for many good reasons. One small example here was my inability to clearly identify the name of the alternative airport to Vienna and Zagreb. Through a bit of research, I have concluded that it was *Graz* in Austria. Did anyone hear that clearly first time around, even though the name was repeated two or three times in the commentary?! I know it's perhaps an insignificant point, but a place name in these circumstances still matters!
If I was the FO and know the computer was not giving my the right info I would take a stopwatch ( I have one on my watch) and record the fuel loss over time. Then tell the capt we have N hours, min left in the tank. Simple to do.
And that is being done by routine on every flight, and as mentioned in the video they discovered they had consumed 60& more fuel than the flight plan estimate, however they made up an excuse that the climb to cruise uses more fuel.
@@se-kmg355 If they were so convinced that was true, the above suggestion would have proven or disproven this theory in minutes. They didnt seem to think any of this through very logically.
I think the most logical thing to do was to return to Crete (Hiraklion?) when they encountered the problem with the gear after take off. We do not know for sure but it seems as if they were urged by the airlines ops to proceed to an airport with the airlines maintenance facility. But even then, there were so many chances to land safely and avoid this crash...
Turning around would have prevented the issue, but I don't think it would've been appriopriate. They had a reasonable and well-founded belief that they could land safely, if perhaps a little short of their destination. It wasn't even incorrect in the broad strokes. The issue was that they failed to take appropriate action when it became undeniable that they were in an emergency, partly because they didn't have sufficient training and available information to identify the emergency earlier. I understand how the captain felt (I've fallen victim to plan continuation bias and expected utility bias myself, not to mention the likely financial pressure), but we can't excuse his poor decision making near the end of the flight. But when it was just getting started? Not every unusual situation is an emergency, and, even if it were, not every emergency requires you to turn around.
Deciding to divert to a base where maintenance is available and passengers' ongoing flights can be arranged is a very reasonable choice. It may also avoid having to make an 'over-weight' landing (airliners are certified to take off at heavier weights than they are certified to land at). In this case, however, the captain seemed to be very under-trained and unaware of the drag vs. fuel consumption realities!
@@gcorriveau6864 But safety should always be first, and than company and or passenger conveniences. And in case of overweight you can always either release fuel, or fly some time in a holding pattern to loose fuel to get under the max landing weight.
@@Ztbmrc1 That's true, but it makes no sense to do that. It's perfectly alright to get the airplane closer towards the destination, as long as you make sure not to run out of fuel! It's a far better option than flying a perfectly controllable airplane in a holding pattern for hours or dumping the fuel into the environment for no reason. A stuck landing gear is simply not that much of a deal!
I remember that aircraft remained on site at VIE for many years until the legal case was finally settled. I know the guy who drove the pushback tractor used to tow away the wreck. Interesting story, luckily noone was hurt.
I have difficulty believing it is permissible to fly an airliner with passengers on board with the gear down. The strain and stress on the gear and much higher fuel burn makes it imperative to land immediately. I guess I am always learning Good upload.
In my opinion this captain lacked CRM knowledge, he overruled or simply ignored/dismissed his first officer's inputs and suggestions. Moreover, as far as I know, no one in their right mind would decide to fly to the destination airport, with the landing gear down due to a landing gear malfunction. The normal action of any profesional crew, is to troubleshoot the malfunction with the use of the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook), and then decide if they are above the maximum landing weight or below the maximum landing weight (depending on aircraft type), in order for them to return to do a landing at the departure airport. If they are to heavy for landing, then they must tell the air traffic controller about their situation and ask permission to go over some specific airspace, in order for them to dump fuel thus bringing the current aircraft weight down to the maximum landing weight, and then land the aircraft safely. This captain ended up getting a severe case of what is commonly referred to in aviation as "Getthereitis Syndrome," and the outcome, sadly was predictable.
It makes you wonder if young pilots should not be teamed with old pilots ... that way at least you get a balance of respect in the communication twixt the pair.
Should be based on flying hours/experience. Never team up two newbies, that is at least a recommended outcome from a crash but if it is actually being executed? Dunno. 🤷♀️
Then you have two types of crews, the senile crew and the rookie crew, and i don't know which one is scarier! I don't like this suggestion. Pairing an experienced pilot with a young pilot is the one good way to maintain a steady supply of experienced pilots in the future and also keeps more perspectives in the cabin of different mindset not quite sharing the wavelength which makes it less likely that things get fatally overlooked. Instead, special attention should be paid that experienced pilots respect their fresh colleagues more.
I am really looking forward to an Aircrash Investigation episode dedicated to this! It's a really interesting case. Edit: How did you nail that final resting position? It's pretty impressive.
You were very critical in this video - and I am fully with you on that. He should have turned around or landed straight away. Thanks for another fantastic video.
This channel has the most interesting and engaging content. The ballance between simplicity and attention to details is what set you apart from others. Pure quality. Keep up the good work.
Two-crew airliners had been in use for some time, including the Douglas DC-9 (1965), and the Boeing 737-100 (1967), so the Airbus A310 was not one of the first.
i found your channel few days ago. watching these videos makes u realise how much it takes to fly a plain and problem solve when things go wrong brilliant channel
7:51 I think the commercial pressure is a point that should be included in all videos where time pressure on pilots is mentioned (which are a lot from the ones I have already seen). In capitalism corporations always put profits over safety. They actually only increase safety if that is required by law or reduces their costs (for liabilities and/or insurance) enough.
@@citizensnips3850 China is capitalist since about 30 years and you can't compare aviation of 1917-1991 with today. There where generally more accidents back then.
@rfvtgbzhn Lmao China the country that recently (as in 2015 recently) had laws on how many children you can have and a nation with a social credit score where being disliked by the government costs you your rights is DEFINITELY a capitalist Nation. Totally no cap there at all lmao
@rfvtgbzhn There was countles Soviet Union crashes that were never documented and were swept under the rug. Considering their checkered past with covering things and how many soviet plane crashes that they tried to cover up but couldn't.
Train for every possible situation and then just calmly fly. 😄 Like the one who put it down in the Hudson, Sully. (I'm not a pilot, so there's that 🤣🤣)
The cause of this crash is pilot error, not the gear down, not anything else. Nothing that failed on that aircraft was a risk to flight. When the un-retractible gear issue first emerged, landing soon became priority one. Not corporate convenience, not get-there-itis,
The pilot's top priority should always be the safety. Also, I thought that since Tenerife the PICs have been required to hear out their crewmates' suggestions?
A couple things. A 310 was not one of the first 2-man cockpits. B 737, DC-9 and others were there. A310 wasn't a marvel just an average plane. It wasn't replaced by the A330. Rather by modern A320 versions etc. A330 is bigger.
I think the captain has to be demoted, the FO kept pushing the captain to save the plane yet the captain rejected them all. He still thinks he is the hero, thats a hidden time bomb for any planes.
In other words, more than 20 thousand hours of flight were not enough to listen to the Co-Pilot's suggestions that, in fact, were correct and would have avoided this accident. Typical case of "Power Distance" ! No wonder, CRM (Crew/Corporate Research Management) remains the key to minimizing the possibility of idiocy like this pilot in command.
I’m sure most of you did this same thing: as soon as I knew the landing gear was down, my first thought was welp the LG is down so drag will cause the plane to use fuel faster as the plane had drag. Very interesting segment. 👍🏻😺
It happens regularly and planes just continue their flight. It is much worse when the landing gear cannot be extended - that makes for a crash landing. This is what my friend, who works at the airport, told me.
I don't know about strange... The gear DOES reduce the speed they can go, and by rote, also the altitude they can fly to some degree. It's definitely NOT 'just like normal" to fly like that... BUT frequently on take-off, there's so much fuel on board that the plane is legitimately too heavy to land safely... SO turning right around to land may not have been an option... If there's no emergency (and gear-stuck down is NOT an emergency) then there's no good to come from creating an emergency by being too anxious to get back to the ground too early. The options then are to take a holding pattern long enough to dump fuel sufficient for a safe landing and go back... OR divert to some mid-way point where the fuel can be burned in progress for airline and passengers and then face the details of trying to fix the issue or getting refueled with intent to get to a place where it CAN be fixed... The truly weird part is how reluctant the Captain was to try ANY alternative at all... AND even once he chose an alternative (Vienna) he set himself up for failure by continuing the narrow minded demands of his craft... instead of simply diverting to THE nearest suitable airport as soon as he figured out they couldn't reach Munich. He gambled on reaching Vienna (as far as he could possibly fly) with the lives of his passengers and crew. ;o)
This is classic poor airmanship. Despite what the computer said, all they needed to do was estimate how long it would take to fly the required distance at present speed, and compare fuel on board to fuel flow. That's easy mental math that pilots know how to do.
Exactly. All they had needed to do inflight was to use their raw data to roughly calculate or even estimate how long they could make it with their current fuel burn which is well being displayed as fuel flow on the instruments. Should be done during any flight on a regular basis anyway, to double check the computers. That is what these indications are there for... Shockingly poor performance.😳 Honestly it would have been my very first idea to check the actual fuel burn when flying with gear extended and estimate how long it will take to burn the tanks empty instead of fiddling around with the FMC on an unclear basis. And then decide on basis of the rule safety first instead of economics first with a good plus of extra for saftey...
@@steffengerlach8395 There are some gotchas in using rate of fuel burn... It all depends upon the stage of flight that you take the measurements... During the climb, the rate is very high, and during the descent, it can be almost zero. Even when cruising, the cruise speed can alter the fuel burn. Headwinds will also corrupt your calculations of how much range you have left. There are two well known airspeeds for maximum performance, one gives the maximum range, and the other slightly slower speed , give the maximum duration time.
It said in the beginning that the FMS indicated there would not be enough fuel to reach the destination, so I don't think it was a bad assumption by the captain that it was based on gear down. The suggestion to have stayed a cruise altitude as long as possible and glided down was a good one. They would have made it to the airport.
Gear locked down, you go to the graphs ... not the FMS. easy to say in hindsight, but thats the way on my aircraft, and it is extremely limiting, this is a ferry flight only procedure. with no pax. A landing back at the airport of origin is absolutely required in my FCOM.
How does a 20k+ hour pilot not realize that having the wheels hanging out in the breeze is going to hugely increase drag and as a result, his fuel consumption? And then once he'd decided to proceed with the flight, to not be EXTRA vigilant with the fuel consumption and have alarm bells going off in his head when the amount was dropping much faster than anticipated. Yeah, we've used more than 60% less than halfway through the flight. It was the climb - yeah, that's it - the climb! The only time you should really trust the fuel gauge is if it says you have less than you think you should. Mind blowing, and miraculous that no one was seriously injured or killed.
10:48 I'm gonna be real, I was expecting an advertisement for a car insurance company after being around RUclips this long. I'm glad this channel isn't about that.
Just a few moths ago in 2023 A320 crew in Russia made seemingly the exact same mistake during their diversion to the alternate and made a forced landing in a random field halfway. This was Ural Airlines Flight 1383
Our poor German captain thought the airplane would have at least as much engineering as a German car. 😂 Honestly I can’t say I blame him too badly. Pretty wack German cars have better fuel calculations than a god damn airliner. Still should have recognised what a piece of crap it actually was.
Tbh, the computer not using the current rate of fuel consumption for its calculations in any way seems like a tremendous oversight to me, at least from the modern day perspective... Nowadays, I would assume that any FMC would automatically register that the gear is down and have the corresponding look-up-charts available to recalculate everything on the fly..
here calculations extra for Germans: measure fuel consumption for 1 km/mile. Multiply this number with remaining distance, and compare with remaining fuel in the tank. I am really starting getting pissed with Germans overcomplicating everything.
Fabulous isn't it, when a Capt of great experience puts loyalty towards his employer ahead of passenger safety. Bad enough to run out of fuel on the road, to risk doing it in the air akin to a legal declaration of insanity.
Pilots are gamblers, risk takers......the "it won't happen to me" attitude is not one to be used on a life and death situation, and having a chance to set the plane down should have been taken advantage of!! I can only LMAO 🤣😂.
I’m just wondering how the plane didn’t crash in the huge rafinnery or one of the towns in front of the runway. It lies almost on the approach and you always feel a slight sense of threat going through minimums, because you know if you make an error you will cause the worst post-crash fire in the history of aviation.
If you found this video interesting, consider supporting my work on Patreon, which gets you early access to new videos! 🟢www.patreon.com/GreenDotAviation
Good vid, but if your landing gear won't retract then you rtb asap. There's all sorts of problems with flying gear down. I'd like Mentour Pilot to cover this one. (if he hasn't already).
Especially if you don't know WHY the gear won't retract. (Hydraulics etc.) If the hydraulics have failed to retract the gear then what other flight controls might soon fail. I don't like this one.
Far too much commenatary. Unnecessary.
Props for the first officer to raising various concerns and plans, he seems to have done excellently, especially for such a green pilot! Props to him.
But when the captain did nothing, he should've declared a fuel emergency or even mayday himself. This may require a lot of courage and probably doesn't improve collegiality, but it's better than letting yourself and hundreds of people getting killed by an arrogant moron.
Beg to disagree. The incompetency of this crew is off the charts.
Because he is secretly the real captain
First officer: We're burning fuel way faster than the FMS says, the FMS is obviously, visibly incapable of providing accurate information about fuel consumption with gear-down flight, we're going to run out of fuel, we need to divert to the nearest airport NOW!
Captain: This is fine.
FO: Sure whatever idc it's not like if we run out of fuel I'm going to die or anything
I appreciate the displays being so in sync with the narrative, especially the engine 1 failure checklist appearing then seeing all the displays wink out after losing engine 2.
I’m glad!
Im a system specialist on A330/A350/A380 and i can vouch. The details in all the videos for Airbus Aircraft are ON POINT.
An FMS FUEL PRED UNRELIABLE message can be seen on the aircraft i mentionned, im assuming due this incident!
@@GreenDotAviationNarration and displays moving in synchrony helps laypeople quite a bit, too. We can pause and zoom in on what's changed, getting some idea what the pilot's field of view would have been and the visual priority each indicator has.
What software is used for these sims?
@@jakeofspurs-pj7itthis is xplane and inibulids a310, but aviation related channels usually use MSFS because it has better visuals
The captain should've stuck to his story and do a PA welcoming the passengers into Vienna
Lol
In his mind he made an almost textbook landing. Just a couple of small scratches to the wing 😅
@@andykeith1 Ryanair is hiring a pilot that does solid landings.
"We won't have to worry about a fire if we crash. You need fuel for that."
My thoughts exactly as I watched. Pilot was right, they did make it to the runway in Vienna
I just began to follow this channel in the last 10 days and I can't applaud the narrative and graphic presentations enough. Among the countless other aviation channel subscriptions, there isn't one I know of that lays out the story more cogently. Brilliant work Green Dot Aviation. Thanks so much!
Thank you very much for the kind words! :)
@@GreenDotAviation Their radio wasn't working, yet radio communications were 100% for the moon landings. NASA must have top secret technology.
@@derp8575 🤦♂️
Fitting name
@@MarkPentler You don't find it odd?
@@derp8575 You literally know absolutely nothing about how radio works, right?
I love how the hubris of the captain in trying to avoid looking bad by doing the right thing and declaring a fuel emergency ended up making him look even worse when he crashed and then got exposed on the cockpit recorder as ignoring safety and being arrogant
It is like KL4805 all over again.
Crashing the plane also looks bad and has the added disincentive that you might not survive to defend your actions.
@@troodon1096Yes, but crashing has the added incentive of meaning you probably won’t have to have any repercussions
If you crash the plane, who’ll be there to complain?
He's just the best example of the classic german boomer at work. they're all like that, just usually human lives arent at stake
I got 3 things from this video. 1. It's "ok" to fly with the gear down but actually it's not. 2. Confirmation bias, complacency and laziness will always lead you to something bad and 3. Green Dot Aviation as usual puts out fantastic, well narrated videos with outstanding Sims and graphics.
Well it's "OK" in the sense that the plane is capable of flight; however the increased drag means it will consume fuel much more quickly; this means the fuel you planned to use is now not enough to reach your originally intended destination.
@@troodon1096 It's "ok" in the sense that the plane won't immediately fall out of the sky, but it's not in the sense of wtf are you doing trying to fly all the way to your destination with the gear down, are you on drugs? Turn around and get the broken plane fixed.
@@Person01234 Why don't they teach to turn back then?
Airline motto: “Safety is our main concern”
Pilot: “hold my beer”
Yea, with how much we were told that flying is super safe there sure as shit are alot of aviation disaster videos out there
@@sleazymeezy algorithms' you watch one crash video and get bombarded with loads lol, and I used to love flying !
More like hold my gear
@@sleazymeezytechnically it still is the safest way to travel, seconds only to train perhaps. Ships accident are more common, and even higher number for road crash. If you asked me, I would rather travel in a train or an airplane rather than riding a bus, thank you.
He should have turned back right after take off. That is what 99 out of 100 pilots had done. The decision to keep going was simply dumb.
@@justinepaula-robilliard Can't find details on that Qantas Sydney to Singapore flight, but Qantas VH-ZNH had an incident last year flying from Sydney to Perth with a stuck gear and they turned around back to Sydney.
It is obvious that with the gear sticking out, any aircraft meant to retract the gear will consume significantly more fuel. It also seems obvious that any airport you landed the aircraft in prior to taking off again is required to have safety and rescue equipment ready so that's not an issue either in a stuck gear situation.
The reason there was no pan pan pan call was because of the captain making bad decisions so that in fact was exactly why they should've turned back. He was legally required to declare the fuel issue and later even declare a mayday.
These are all reasons as to exactly why they should have turned back to their departure airport or at least a nearby airport. This captain was so determined to save the company some money as the airline had their technical staff at other airports than any he could divert to that he risked the entire aircraft and all the lives of those onboard... Ended up writing the aircraft off so very obviously very poor decision making from a captain...
Do you have a flight number or other information to find that Qantas flight from Sydney to Singapore?
@@justinepaula-robilliard You are assuming this video is the first and only information I read/watched about this incident...
Reasoning that an accident has multiple facets doesn't excuse the fact that the captain performed very poor here, as is also stated by the incident report.
The captain made a decision and from then on refused to evaluate his own decision, something that is the main task a captain has.
Even if the aircraft would've made it to the landing safely and with the legal minimum amount of fuel left over the performance of the captain was poor.
CRM training as a result of this and similar incidents has luckily largely resolved this, though we still have occasional incidents.
Here it is just shocking that it wasn't a captain arrogantly screaming that he/she was the big boss and the FO should stay quiet but it was a captain who refused clear signs that his decision was bad.
You make a decision, days later you realize it was the wrong one. This can happen to anyone and is mostly fine, depending on how smart the decision was back then.
Deciding that the gear out wouldn't consume significantly more fuel was already a bad decision but this is not the main concern.
Deciding to not evaluate his own decision because the conclusion might be unfavorable is very bad.
Deciding to not declare the fuel situation, as he was legally required to do, is becoming malicious, purposely hiding evidence...
Deciding to at this point still not fly to a nearby military base by calling a mayday was terrible decision-making.
Deciding after crashing to lie about 'sudden fuel loss before landing' to try and subvert the incident investigation and reduce bad press by playing the hero was malicious.
This captain had bad luck: some incorrect bolt preventing his gear from retracting. He then chose to lie about, deceive and ignore the situation until he crashed.
Nothing speaks positively for the captain in this incident, that doesn't mean the bolt started the entire incident, just that the captain caused it to become so severe.
@@justinepaula-robilliard Tenerife also was a collection of exceptions (terrorist attack, bomb threat at destination airport, diversion to Tenerife airport, small sized airport so taxiing over the runway, severe fog on runway, van Zanten (captain KLM 747) cutting in line, PA and ATC stepping on each other on the radio, ATC using non-standard and ambiguous calls on the radio which eventually lead to van Zanten ignoring his FO and ramming his aircraft into another... A tragic example of the same issue here: a captain deciding that his perfect scenario MUST be true and anything proving otherwise must be fake...
It is not best practice to get as close to the destination as possible, it is best practice to be as safe as reasonably possible, where you got the idea that destination and convenience go over safety I don't know.
Had the captain followed the procedure for gear out flight he would've known. Had he followed protocol instead of choosing to ignore the protocol and just use a computer which wasn't designed for it he would've realized his full situation and landed asap.
The sole reason we have pilots flying an aircraft is because things sometimes change. We can make aircraft that would taxi, take-off, cruise, land and taxi all autonomously, but we'd still want two people sitting in the front in case anything unexpected happens. A captain is deemed a captain instead of an FO due to experience and leadership. This captain locked up in a wrong decision made based upon incorrect (though individually perhaps logical) assumptions.
No matter how you twist it, this captain should not have been a captain on such a flight with the way he ignored all signs that he had a serious issue.
It is true that some flights do fly with down gear, but never to their destination airport unless they have massive fuel reserves, which this HL flight didn't have.
In any case I'm sure landing at an alternate airport and dealing with passengers having to stay at a hotel and possible visa issues is a lot of work but you know what is more work? Crashing an aircraft, or at least the aftermath... ;)
No I do not solely blame the captain here, I am just amazed by his performance during this incident.
@@justinepaula-robilliard The manual does actually state that the FMS fuel prediction should not be used in non-normal flight conditions. aka gear down. This was in the manual at the time which is available but I can't post the link here becasue itll flag this comment as spam. While its good that they landed safely, if this was over an ocean for example this couldve turned the poor decisions by the PIC into fatal consequences.
True, that's what most people with normal logical thinking would do. I would instantly turn around and land if my gear wouldn't retract, even if only to save myself the trouble of dealing with checklists, fuel calculations, diverting, etc, etc. It would also not put me in the position to land at an airport not covered by my maintenance company, in which case I'd be creating huge extra costs to my airline.
How many tries did it take you on the FS to get such a realistic crash landing across the taxi way? Well done
Jokes on us, that was a legit captain trying to land.
So safety first was not the captains priority, a miracle no lives lost.
Vienna must be a heck of a place lol
It's a miracle he got that close to that airport and had a wide open flat space to land the air plane
There are some great aircraft content makers on RUclips this channel is particularly exceptional - I wish you the greatest success!
Thanks so much! ❤️
The Pilot weighted company's loyalty over passengers safety
I really enjoy Green Dot videos. You do a fantastic job. I especially like that you cover crashes that I've never seen on any of the other aviation channels. Keep the great content coming, thanks
I live near Graz and every time I heard about that flight I always wondered why they didn't land here in Graz. Now I have an idea!
Thanks for your videos!
Computer says no! Fantastic video. Very well put together as always. Another aircrash that I was not previously familiar with! Well done!!
Thanks again Gary! Glad you enjoyed it
Same. I’m enjoying this newly found channel particularly because almost all the videos I’ve watched are new material to me, which is hard to find after a while. I think it’s amazing how anyone can put graphics together because I wouldn’t have a clue, particularly when it switches to a real photo of the plane.
What a motivating story. If you are determined to reach your destination, you will evetually get there, even though in pieces.
In July, 2017 an Air india flight (probably an A320) from Kolkata to Mumbai had to land at Nagpur when the crew discovered they had forgotten to retract the landing gear and were running out of fuel.
What is it with idiot pilots..?
To be fair though, he did make it to Vienna ;-) Great videos, keep up the good work.
He was an idiot but also a brilliant pilot.
😂😂😂
I just feel irritated that he didn't kept the altitude. Like sure maybe something is not right, but just aviate the god damn plane brother, keep the altitude so if there really is a problem you can just glide there. Also he could've just kept the engines at idle up there, and power up on final. This is such a dumb crash idk
Literally like in a videogame where you crash but your wreckage passing the finish line still counts lol
Maxwell Smart voice *Missed it by that much*
Don't let that Captain off the hook ...
He blew it with his inflexibility and arrogance ...
The FO would make a great Captain ...
Great videos !
Agreed.
To be fair, he wasn't let off the hook. He spent 6 months in jail and lost his flight license.
Agreed, to show you how bad it was, all he had to do was maintain cruising altitude a bit longer than normal at a reduced speed, even if only once the low fuel warning sounded, and he would have made it. But he didn't do even that, he just acted like this was a normal landing, because he didn't want to do anything that was out of the ordinary to avoid some perceived professional embarrassment.
Again, so interesting to see how one single thing - a bolt - starts a series of small mistakes that compound into a disaster (albeit one that thankfully was not deadly). I think it also illustrates the issue of computer-reliance. All too often it is "assumed" the computer knows everything, but in this case, it can only know what it was programmed to know about fuel consumption calculations. My wife's grandmother was one of the first female pilots in Canada, and in those days, you had to fly by what few analogue systems you had, and one heck of a lot of knowledge and understanding of flight. The one thing it seems we are slowly losing is as things becoming increasingly automated and computerized, that hands-on knowledge of how to fly manually is diminishing.
Yeah it should accommodate us, but not replace being able to actually calculate and have knowledge now lost due to heavy reliance on computers.
I think if I would ever become a pilot (I would love to but hey, the money just for the license and then have access to a place is not within my reach whatsoever. So I’ll reinstall msfs2020 and try there with my joystick and just one throttle lol. Or crash myself on the mobile ones. However, if I could, I’d like the less computerized ones so I can actually fly manually and keep sharp about fuel, oillevels, take off speed and landing speed (and weight in case I would be flying to small villages in nowhereland and drop food and medical things) and all the things now generally calculated by a computer and only landing and take off are still manually done though many planes could even land themselves. I know that’s a time of high workload but imagine you basically have 15minutes or less on a 10h flight.
@@fluffy-fluffy5996 Yeah - to a similar degree, it's like all these new automated driving assistance things in cars. I would MUCH rather see money put towards creating (and enforcing) good drivers instead of relying on the car to do more and more _for_ the driver.
The addition of training on WHAT TO DO IF THE GEAR WON'T GO UP would have done all they needed
There are some who watch flight channels who are convinced planes should be totally computerized 🙀🙀🙀
@@fairyprincess911 I think they have too many computers now
I dont know why but your videos kind of give me that winter day-cuddle up in bed- feeling. Also always watch them when im sick and can only lay on bed. Thanks for your content
It's that intro and outro.
Very illuminating. I wasn't familiar with this incident. It's great that there was no loss of life.
I know it's weird but these videos are so relaxing for me. I assume because of his voice and the way he present it, however I learned so much from these videos that I could potentially try to land a plane if both pilots die. I know I would most likely fail but I know a lot about how planes work since i start watching this channel :)
Beautiful graphics. Also excellent narration. 💛🙏🏼
Thank you 😀
These are great videos. Well done. 👍
@Andrew_koala - Thank you Andrew. I have been reluctant to make any comment about the speed of the commentary because all those making comments on this channel exclusively praise the presentation, for many good reasons.
One small example here was my inability to clearly identify the name of the alternative airport to Vienna and Zagreb. Through a bit of research, I have concluded that it was *Graz* in Austria.
Did anyone hear that clearly first time around, even though the name was repeated two or three times in the commentary?!
I know it's perhaps an insignificant point, but a place name in these circumstances still matters!
If I was the FO and know the computer was not giving my the right info I would take a stopwatch ( I have one on my watch) and record the fuel loss over time. Then tell the capt we have N hours, min left in the tank. Simple to do.
And that is being done by routine on every flight, and as mentioned in the video they discovered they had consumed 60& more fuel than the flight plan estimate, however they made up an excuse that the climb to cruise uses more fuel.
@@se-kmg355 If they were so convinced that was true, the above suggestion would have proven or disproven this theory in minutes. They didnt seem to think any of this through very logically.
Brilliant video, quickly becoming my favourite aviation accident channel
The quality of your videos is phenomenal!
Thank you! 🙏🏼
I think the most logical thing to do was to return to Crete (Hiraklion?) when they encountered the problem with the gear after take off. We do not know for sure but it seems as if they were urged by the airlines ops to proceed to an airport with the airlines maintenance facility. But even then, there were so many chances to land safely and avoid this crash...
Turning around would have prevented the issue, but I don't think it would've been appriopriate. They had a reasonable and well-founded belief that they could land safely, if perhaps a little short of their destination. It wasn't even incorrect in the broad strokes. The issue was that they failed to take appropriate action when it became undeniable that they were in an emergency, partly because they didn't have sufficient training and available information to identify the emergency earlier. I understand how the captain felt (I've fallen victim to plan continuation bias and expected utility bias myself, not to mention the likely financial pressure), but we can't excuse his poor decision making near the end of the flight. But when it was just getting started? Not every unusual situation is an emergency, and, even if it were, not every emergency requires you to turn around.
Deciding to divert to a base where maintenance is available and passengers' ongoing flights can be arranged is a very reasonable choice. It may also avoid having to make an 'over-weight' landing (airliners are certified to take off at heavier weights than they are certified to land at). In this case, however, the captain seemed to be very under-trained and unaware of the drag vs. fuel consumption realities!
@@gcorriveau6864 But safety should always be first, and than company and or passenger conveniences. And in case of overweight you can always either release fuel, or fly some time in a holding pattern to loose fuel to get under the max landing weight.
@@Ztbmrc1 That's true, but it makes no sense to do that. It's perfectly alright to get the airplane closer towards the destination, as long as you make sure not to run out of fuel! It's a far better option than flying a perfectly controllable airplane in a holding pattern for hours or dumping the fuel into the environment for no reason. A stuck landing gear is simply not that much of a deal!
@@gcorriveau6864 bro, he had 24000 hours flight time iirc
as always awesome quality
Thank you! Glad you're enjoying it.
I remember that aircraft remained on site at VIE for many years until the legal case was finally settled. I know the guy who drove the pushback tractor used to tow away the wreck. Interesting story, luckily noone was hurt.
26 people were injured but thankfully none fatally or seriously.
I have difficulty believing it is permissible to fly an airliner with passengers on board with the gear down. The strain and stress on the gear and much higher fuel burn makes it imperative to land immediately.
I guess I am always learning
Good upload.
In my opinion this captain lacked CRM knowledge, he overruled or simply ignored/dismissed his first officer's inputs and suggestions. Moreover, as far as I know, no one in their right mind would decide to fly to the destination airport, with the landing gear down due to a landing gear malfunction. The normal action of any profesional crew, is to troubleshoot the malfunction with the use of the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook), and then decide if they are above the maximum landing weight or below the maximum landing weight (depending on aircraft type), in order for them to return to do a landing at the departure airport. If they are to heavy for landing, then they must tell the air traffic controller about their situation and ask permission to go over some specific airspace, in order for them to dump fuel thus bringing the current aircraft weight down to the maximum landing weight, and then land the aircraft safely.
This captain ended up getting a severe case of what is commonly referred to in aviation as "Getthereitis Syndrome," and the outcome, sadly was predictable.
found your channel at 7k subscribers and been subscribed since! Your vids never cease to amaze me, keep it up☺
It makes you wonder if young pilots should not be teamed with old pilots ... that way at least you get a balance of respect in the communication twixt the pair.
Should be based on flying hours/experience. Never team up two newbies, that is at least a recommended outcome from a crash but if it is actually being executed? Dunno. 🤷♀️
He made poor choices on this plane he shoud have turned back sad the tragic happend
@@cynthiadavid5282 he couldn't turn back to Heraklion. The fuel load was too heavy for landing. He should have landed at an airport about halfway
Thus, pilots are like oxen.
Then you have two types of crews, the senile crew and the rookie crew, and i don't know which one is scarier! I don't like this suggestion. Pairing an experienced pilot with a young pilot is the one good way to maintain a steady supply of experienced pilots in the future and also keeps more perspectives in the cabin of different mindset not quite sharing the wavelength which makes it less likely that things get fatally overlooked. Instead, special attention should be paid that experienced pilots respect their fresh colleagues more.
Your graphics and simulation are by far the best I've seen on any aviation channel
Very nice underrated channel, keep on.
I find this crash very interesting because my Teacher and his family was part of the passengers and he told us so many things about it
And then?
Such as?
Say what?
@@Big_Tex Right?
Fascinating
I am really looking forward to an Aircrash Investigation episode dedicated to this! It's a really interesting case.
Edit: How did you nail that final resting position? It's pretty impressive.
You were very critical in this video - and I am fully with you on that. He should have turned around or landed straight away. Thanks for another fantastic video.
This channel has the most interesting and engaging content. The ballance between simplicity and attention to details is what set you apart from others. Pure quality. Keep up the good work.
Two-crew airliners had been in use for some time, including the Douglas DC-9 (1965), and the Boeing 737-100 (1967), so the Airbus A310 was not one of the first.
Great video, Mr. Green Dot! Hope you have a nice day! I enjoyed watching.
This is my fav flight channel now, no BS.
i found your channel few days ago. watching these videos makes u realise how much it takes to fly a plain and problem solve when things go wrong brilliant channel
Thank you
7:51 I think the commercial pressure is a point that should be included in all videos where time pressure on pilots is mentioned (which are a lot from the ones I have already seen). In capitalism corporations always put profits over safety. They actually only increase safety if that is required by law or reduces their costs (for liabilities and/or insurance) enough.
Don't say "capitalism" as if places like China and Soviet Russia haven't had dozens and dozens of horrendous accidents
@@citizensnips3850 China is capitalist since about 30 years and you can't compare aviation of 1917-1991 with today. There where generally more accidents back then.
@@citizensnips3850 also from what I know there was an increase of aviation accidents in Russia in the 90s, after the transistion to capitalism.
@rfvtgbzhn Lmao China the country that recently (as in 2015 recently) had laws on how many children you can have and a nation with a social credit score where being disliked by the government costs you your rights is DEFINITELY a capitalist Nation. Totally no cap there at all lmao
@rfvtgbzhn There was countles Soviet Union crashes that were never documented and were swept under the rug. Considering their checkered past with covering things and how many soviet plane crashes that they tried to cover up but couldn't.
This is why I never completed my efforts to being a commercial pilot. I could very well have been like this Captain.. Better to know your limits.. Lol
Lol same.I could never be a pilot
Train for every possible situation and then just calmly fly. 😄 Like the one who put it down in the Hudson, Sully. (I'm not a pilot, so there's that 🤣🤣)
@@jack002tuber and even him lost topics on the checklist. we all just are humans.
I’ve watched several of these, and am now terrified I will be on one of the flights where things go wrong.
or get a foolish captain
Thanks!
Very interesting, the A310 was a nice looking plane. The Captain had a case of get there itis.
Yes. A very serious chronic case of Get-There-Itis.
Another one I never heard of. Thank you!
My pleasure!
The cause of this crash is pilot error, not the gear down, not anything else. Nothing that failed on that aircraft was a risk to flight. When the un-retractible gear issue first emerged, landing soon became priority one. Not corporate convenience, not get-there-itis,
It must just be me, but this airlines name sounds a lot like 'Happy Glide'! Quite ironic!
in an attempt to prevent bad media he literally destroyed a plane and tried to make an excuse ppl do alot of stupid shit under stress
The root cause was not knowing how far he could go on his fuel. It was so preventable. Ego did seem to play a factor.
People do a lot of s**t when they are so arrogant that they do not know what their priorities SHOULD BE!
The pilot's top priority should always be the safety. Also, I thought that since Tenerife the PICs have been required to hear out their crewmates' suggestions?
Oh they can hear them out, but it's still de decision of the captain what to do
Kudos also to the team who perform the RCA of the failure. So detailed and minutely captured (big thumbs up)
A couple things. A 310 was not one of the first 2-man cockpits. B 737, DC-9 and others were there. A310 wasn't a marvel just an average plane. It wasn't replaced by the A330. Rather by modern A320 versions etc. A330 is bigger.
This feels like an episode of The Simpsons where Homer was the pilot.
Lol he tried so hard to not bring any bad press ended up destroying a plane
Talk about get-there-itis...
12:00 power slide.
"The aircraft has just about made it to Vienna"
Again, fantastic storytelling, love it 😊
Keep up the good work 😎
I remember this accident. Only a few months earlier, I had been on a Hapag-Lloyd flight from Nuremberg to Faro for vacation.
There is just enough room for a Captain, 1st officer and 2nd officer within a cockpit. There is no room however for egos or errors.
Low time FO seemed much more switched on than Hapag-Lloyd’s highest time captain
I think the captain has to be demoted, the FO kept pushing the captain to save the plane yet the captain rejected them all. He still thinks he is the hero, thats a hidden time bomb for any planes.
In other words, more than 20 thousand hours of flight were not enough to listen to the Co-Pilot's suggestions that, in fact, were correct and would have avoided this accident.
Typical case of "Power Distance" !
No wonder, CRM (Crew/Corporate Research Management) remains the key to minimizing the possibility of idiocy like this pilot in command.
I’m sure most of you did this same thing: as soon as I knew the landing gear was down, my first thought was welp the LG is down so drag will cause the plane to use fuel faster as the plane had drag. Very interesting segment. 👍🏻😺
I find it strange that they are allowed to continue the flight as normal with the gear extended.
It happens regularly and planes just continue their flight. It is much worse when the landing gear cannot be extended - that makes for a crash landing. This is what my friend, who works at the airport, told me.
I don't know about strange... The gear DOES reduce the speed they can go, and by rote, also the altitude they can fly to some degree. It's definitely NOT 'just like normal" to fly like that... BUT frequently on take-off, there's so much fuel on board that the plane is legitimately too heavy to land safely... SO turning right around to land may not have been an option... If there's no emergency (and gear-stuck down is NOT an emergency) then there's no good to come from creating an emergency by being too anxious to get back to the ground too early. The options then are to take a holding pattern long enough to dump fuel sufficient for a safe landing and go back... OR divert to some mid-way point where the fuel can be burned in progress for airline and passengers and then face the details of trying to fix the issue or getting refueled with intent to get to a place where it CAN be fixed...
The truly weird part is how reluctant the Captain was to try ANY alternative at all... AND even once he chose an alternative (Vienna) he set himself up for failure by continuing the narrow minded demands of his craft... instead of simply diverting to THE nearest suitable airport as soon as he figured out they couldn't reach Munich. He gambled on reaching Vienna (as far as he could possibly fly) with the lives of his passengers and crew. ;o)
This is classic poor airmanship. Despite what the computer said, all they needed to do was estimate how long it would take to fly the required distance at present speed, and compare fuel on board to fuel flow. That's easy mental math that pilots know how to do.
Just land at the closest airport. My goodness! Don’t wait.
Exactly. All they had needed to do inflight was to use their raw data to roughly calculate or even estimate how long they could make it with their current fuel burn which is well being displayed as fuel flow on the instruments. Should be done during any flight on a regular basis anyway, to double check the computers. That is what these indications are there for... Shockingly poor performance.😳 Honestly it would have been my very first idea to check the actual fuel burn when flying with gear extended and estimate how long it will take to burn the tanks empty instead of fiddling around with the FMC on an unclear basis. And then decide on basis of the rule safety first instead of economics first with a good plus of extra for saftey...
You are absolutely right. And exactly that was written in the final report of the investigators.
The computer is always right!
@@steffengerlach8395 There are some gotchas in using rate of fuel burn... It all depends upon the stage of flight that you take the measurements... During the climb, the rate is very high, and during the descent, it can be almost zero. Even when cruising, the cruise speed can alter the fuel burn. Headwinds will also corrupt your calculations of how much range you have left. There are two well known airspeeds for maximum performance, one gives the maximum range, and the other slightly slower speed , give the maximum duration time.
It said in the beginning that the FMS indicated there would not be enough fuel to reach the destination, so I don't think it was a bad assumption by the captain that it was based on gear down. The suggestion to have stayed a cruise altitude as long as possible and glided down was a good one. They would have made it to the airport.
Great mini investigation. Thanks for sharing @GreenDotAviation
The captain exhibited terrible CRM here, he ignored his first officer on multiple occasions.
This captain was a real company man lol
640 meters. If they had a few more seconds of fuel we would likely have never heard of this incident.
Gear locked down, you go to the graphs ... not the FMS. easy to say in hindsight, but thats the way on my aircraft, and it is extremely limiting, this is a ferry flight only procedure. with no pax.
A landing back at the airport of origin is absolutely required in my FCOM.
Verry good and unbiased evaliation !
How does a 20k+ hour pilot not realize that having the wheels hanging out in the breeze is going to hugely increase drag and as a result, his fuel consumption? And then once he'd decided to proceed with the flight, to not be EXTRA vigilant with the fuel consumption and have alarm bells going off in his head when the amount was dropping much faster than anticipated. Yeah, we've used more than 60% less than halfway through the flight. It was the climb - yeah, that's it - the climb! The only time you should really trust the fuel gauge is if it says you have less than you think you should. Mind blowing, and miraculous that no one was seriously injured or killed.
10:48 I'm gonna be real, I was expecting an advertisement for a car insurance company after being around RUclips this long. I'm glad this channel isn't about that.
Just a few moths ago in 2023 A320 crew in Russia made seemingly the exact same mistake during their diversion to the alternate and made a forced landing in a random field halfway. This was Ural Airlines Flight 1383
"Luckily, there was no fuel left to start a fire" 😮
Thank you for pronouncing Graz correctly
Our poor German captain thought the airplane would have at least as much engineering as a German car. 😂
Honestly I can’t say I blame him too badly. Pretty wack German cars have better fuel calculations than a god damn airliner. Still should have recognised what a piece of crap it actually was.
Tbh, the computer not using the current rate of fuel consumption for its calculations in any way seems like a tremendous oversight to me, at least from the modern day perspective...
Nowadays, I would assume that any FMC would automatically register that the gear is down and have the corresponding look-up-charts available to recalculate everything on the fly..
I hope that captain is not flying anymore just wow how did he even get to be a captain.
This captain alarmingly behaved shockingly and with that kind of attitude shouldnt be allowed near a plane ever again.
Exemplary production again. These videos explain so much without overloading the brain.
Glad you appreciate it! ❤️
here calculations extra for Germans:
measure fuel consumption for 1 km/mile. Multiply this number with remaining distance, and compare with remaining fuel in the tank. I am really starting getting pissed with Germans overcomplicating everything.
lolz. true
Fabulous isn't it, when a Capt of great experience puts loyalty towards his employer ahead of passenger safety. Bad enough to run out of fuel on the road, to risk doing it in the air akin to a legal declaration of insanity.
Another happy landing!
Pilots are gamblers, risk takers......the "it won't happen to me" attitude is not one to be used on a life and death situation, and having a chance to set the plane down should have been taken advantage of!! I can only LMAO 🤣😂.
I’m just wondering how the plane didn’t crash in the huge rafinnery or one of the towns in front of the runway. It lies almost on the approach and you always feel a slight sense of threat going through minimums, because you know if you make an error you will cause the worst post-crash fire in the history of aviation.
Great video. Thank you.
Very good! Thank you for the upload!
Glad you enjoyed it!
@@GreenDotAviation Thanks, I really did enjoy it! Looking forward to more videos from you!
There was an Indo 737 that ditched in a river before this and Scully.
The seniority gradient in the cockpit was to steep also.
How stupid situation was this.
Zagreb HAVE also aeroport!
They put themselves in so much stress because of stupidity
Never ever for this pilots to fligt any jet again! Never ever!
10:51 Honestly, this is excellent life advice
love this channel