The Scared Pilot That Flew His Plane Into A Gas Station | American Airlines Flight 625
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- Help Support The Channel!: / miniaci
Join My Discord: / discord
This is the story of american airlines flight 625. On the 27th of april 1976 an american airlines 727 was making the flight from providence rhode island to st thomas in the US virgin islands in with a stopver at JFK international in new york. Flight 625 departed JFK at noon right on the dot with 88 passengers and 7 crew members on board. As flight 625 left newyork behind the crew took the 727 up to her cruising altitude of 33,000 feet. Within a while the plane was nearing the US virgin islands the crew started to go thought the pre descent checklist. After that they started to take the plane down. On their way down the flight engineer was busy preparing a landing card for the captain. This nice little card had all the information that the captain would need to get the plane on the ground safely, like the planes weight which was 125,000 pounds or about 60 tons and the speed that the captain had to hit on the approach. He also had things like flap settings and engine settings on that card. All important information when landing a plane. At 3:04 pm the captain of the plane decided to cancel the IFR plan that was filed and decided to go VFR. If you dont know IFR stands for instrument flight rules and its basically when you fly your plane by your instruments, VFR on the other hand stands for visual flight rules. You look out and you fly the plane visually. You cant do VFR if the weather is too bad. But in this case even though the plane was now under VFR rules the captain still opted to use the ILS to get the plane on the runway safely. The ILS is this radio beacon that guides the plane all the way down to the runway. In this case the plane had horizontal guidance but not vertical guidance. With all the information and logistics taken care of the pilots intercepted the glideslope at 1500 feet. As the plane slowed down the pilots brought out the flaps and gear. With the approach well under way the tower got in contact with flight 625 and informed them of the winds at the airport the winds were coming in from 120 degrees at 12 knots. That weather is not bad at all. The pilots were almost at the airport the first officer said A 1000 feet plus 20 sink 6. The first officer kept calling out the altitude of the plane as they droped. The plane was almost at the speed that they were supposed to be at and they were on the glidelsope. This landing looked solid. They now just had to get this plane on the ground. The captain pulled back power on the engines and the plane floated down to the runway, he then flared the nose of the plane to touch down smoothly and then started the turbulence. The pilots were not expecting turbulence this far down the runway and this close to the ground. The turbulence was so bad that the right wing dropped, the wing dropped so low that they thought that the wing might hit the ground. The first officer noted that the plane was a bit too high but with some effort the captain got the plane on the ground. But as soon as the plane landed the captain realized something scary they did not have enoug runway for them to stop. So right as the plane touched down the captain called for a go around and the throttles were advanced to max power. But for some reason the engines were not responding the plane was not picking up speed,the captain looked at the EPR gauges and they were not moving. At this point the pilots were starting to freak out a bit. In the words of the captain they werent going anywhere. So thinking that the plane was not responding to his inputs he pulled back power on the engines and slammed on the brakes. But they had too much speed this plane was not slowing down, they now just had 600 feet of runway left and they were eating up that runway very very quikcly. Then their luck ran out. Plane ran into the ILS antennas and then The plane burst through a chain link fence. With that the plane crossed a road, heres the problem they now had a gas station right in their path. But unfortunately they were carrying way too much speed for the 727 to stop in time. The plane went right into the gas station after striking an embankment and into a car that was filling up at the time. Of the 88 people on board 37 people did not 
Наука
Watch More Mini ACI: ruclips.net/video/QfCl7zFh51o/видео.html
Your work continues to improve, and it was already very good. Thank you for all the work you put into making your videos. They are both entertaining and informative, and I appreciate this.
Very thorough analysis.
As it turns out, there was one additional contributory factor, thought not considered at the time. There was a serious pressurization malfunction during the initial descent causing everyone to experience pressure and pain in their ears. The pilots also suffered hearing impairment as a result. Later research suggested that the same system that regulates hearing can affect sight as well, in particular judging distances to be shorter than they are. The captain later stated he was sure the houses beyond the runway were much closer than they turned out to be. This is discussed in MacArthur Job's chapter on this incident. The pilot was reported saying "I'm goddam deaf."
Hitting the ILS antenna sounds like a perfect ILS landing imo
Who is imo?
@@K1OIK imo = "in my opinion"
@@K1OIK Isn't he that finnish soldier in World War 2 who got lost in the winter for a couple weeks and survived while trippin' balls on meth?
@@K1OIK hes a good guy
@@ElakitheLion I wonder what he did with the time he saved not typing n y pinion?
Sounds to me like a case of "startle reaction", everything is routine until something unexpected and very threatening happens and humans often don't react well or logically to that. Good video.
I know I don't react well to startle situations, but then I don't try to fly airplanes.
But yeah, I feel bad for the captain; it was a very human failing, with horrible consequences.
Has to be panic if you don't deploy the reverse thrusters. But both panicking and not thinking of it when all you are trying to do is stop? Unfortunate.
B727s were a "by the numbers" airplane in an age of "seat of the pants" pilots. Lots of accidents happened because pilots tried to get it to fly their way, not the way it was designed.
A 727 pilot once told me that it was a very humbling aircraft to fly.
@@commerce-usa The changeover from big radial piston airliners to these early generations of jets was truly challenging. My hat's off to the pioneers who built the foundation for today's amazingly safe and affordable airline system.
How so? I’d love to hear an example of this. Can’t really wrap my head around pilots not flying a plane the way it was designed, as I have no clue what that would entail.
@@TheaSvendsen Significa que hoy los aviones SON para volar según Tablas y Curvas (del fabricante) que dan TODOS los números necesarios sobre lo que se DEBE hacer, a diferencia de aviones "de antes" que también se volaban bastante así... pero "sintiendo" el avión en el culo (asentaderas) cosa que llevaba tiempo aprender y aprehender. Hoy día los aviones, como los automóviles también, NO transmiten muchas "sensaciones" las que no se pueden "tabular" (obtener en las Tablas y Curvas de Performances) ni del viejo "Volumen IV"
@@TheaSvendsen also in the video itself - the pilot used flaps 30 despite the airline saying to use flaps 40. I imagine back then pilots took their airline notes as advice or suggestions rather than hard rules to follow
At least they took steps to prevent something like this from happening again. Panic has to be the number 1 enemy of self-preservation when it comes to aviation.
If I'm not mistaken, I think one of the things that has changed is that they don't put the throttles to idle as they're coming in anymore, to avoid the situation where the engines take too long to respond in case a go-around is required. Not sure if it was this accident specifically or an accumulation of similar accidents that led to the change though.
putting a gas station near a runway is a very stupid idea overruns aren't that rare
I see a lot of gas stations around airports. I imagine it's to service all the rental cars. Having one at the end of a runway is tempting fate.
I feel roughly the same way about runways that have water on one or both ends. I was at LGA when a flight went into the water, must have been late 80's early 90's.
I fly into TIST regularly. The gas station is still there in same spot. Although the runway has been lengthened significantly, there is still no EMAS and very little buffer for an overrun situation.
It seems like a bad idea. I wonder if there are space limitations and zoning rules on an island like St. Thomas that would make it necessary to put a gas station there.
@@nonamesplease6288 yes, it is a small mountainous island. There is no where else to relocate it to that allows access from the main road without displacing many homes. The runway had to be expanded on a jetty into the water because there was no room to do it on land. Also, the station is not directly off the end of the runway. It is off to one side and probably a quarter mile away from the end of the runway.
Agh, American. (I just had so many bad-training experiences with them.) But also, because it's a transportation hub, it's amazing how often there's a gas station off the end of a runway.
I remember hair-raising images of a Southwest plane off the end of Burbank runway resting among and over the gas pumps of a Chevron station after hearing on the live traffic report, "Hollywwood Ave in Burbank has been closed due to a 2-vehicle collision between a Ford Taurus and a Boeing 737, no major injuries reported at this time."
Training? In what capacity? Please tell us more!
Wait, Is this a crash that happened? (Obviously I'm going to Google it but i'm replying so I can find the comment again.) ✌️🍍
It shouldn't be a surprise that I found 2 incidents of a runway overrun by a Southwest 737 at Burbank (no injuries).
So it's either 1455 in March of 2000, or 278 in December 2018.
Either way I thank you for introducing me to both of these, and definitely am curious - where were you positioned that you saw and heard what you've described?
👍🍍
That's hilarious! I can picture it now. "Your traffic is 12 o'clock, crossing left to right, at your level, Ford Taurus." "Negative contact _crunch_ correction we got 'em."
@Pineapples Foster Media Services Ellen is talking about working as a training captain.
@@PJay-wy5fxhow do you know?😏 Anyway, if you had asked me to guess, that is what I would have said❤
For a few years, I used to fly a cargo B727-200 and have been at the St. Thomas Airport many times, day and night. As you mentioned the runway is short, but as a pilot you have to stick to the planned and briefed approach and landing.
A crewmember cannot make decisions on the fly, you have to plan ahead and make sure that if anything is not going your way, you can always go around and try again.
The B727 is a very capable aircraft and a beauty to fly. The Boeing 727-200 is one of the best flying Boeings that I have ever flown.
Good video, as always, two thumbs way up👍🏻 👍🏻
Yes sir - Totally agree . 727 was my favorite ride ! They always landed with some power on .
@@bobwilson758 and you could always do a "greaser" anytime you really wanted to do one. However, on a short runway such as in this story, a firm landing could have been the preferred method.
I feel bad for all involved, for the crew, and for the passengers, particularly those who did not make it home anymore.
RIP to all who perished on that faithful day.
So in summary, you'd say it's very inappropriate for the pilot to decide "the plane is more controllable with 30° of flaps" on a whim like that?
@@bobwilson758 727-200 is my favorite airliner of all time. Just gorgeous. First plane I ever flew on too.
"The only bad decision is no decision."
Mind you, I am in awe of all pilots. All the stuff they have to process in such short timescales. Talk about multi tasking.
Flaps 40 doesn't handle winds better - actually worse. The plane responds better at lower flaps. But flaps 40 would result in a lower approach speed which is good - but usually the speed difference is about 4-5 knots.
True, that was my experience on the B767
0
Always so well done. Thank you for posting.
We used to fly the 727 into similar airports in the Australasia/Pacific.
At shorter runways we required flaps 40 only and because of the small margin of error all landings were to be carried out by the Captain.
These were company requirements which served us well and ultimately we never had any problems.
Flaps should have been at 40 and the captain should have initiated a go around the moment they felt the turbulence. His indecisiveness just overwhelmed his ability to perform the necessary actions to bring the plane to a stop.
Could the startle effect from the wing drop have caused the pilot to forget the additional stopping resources?
I've seen other videos on this accident, but you made the events and the numbers problem perfectly clear.
Flap settings do depend on the wind. If there's a lot of crosswind you need to reduce flap settings to keep rudder authority. With a lower flap settings your speed is higher, more wind crosses the rudder, hence that control surface is more effective. Crosswind pushes against the tail causing a wind-vane effect pushing the nose of the plane into the wind. The higher rudder authority is needed in this situation to counteract the wind-vane effect and keep the plane following the center-line. With 120/12 for the winds on runway 10, you have a 4 knot crosswind. With 4 knots crosswind you can land a Cessna 172 with full flaps, the rudder will have enough authority to keep the plane going straight. A 727 is much less susceptible to crosswind than a Cessna 172, so reducing flaps in this situation does not seem prudent to me.
That's some pretty good insight. It seems to me that once the wheels are on the runway, the pilot should do everything they can to stop the plane: reverse thrusters, spoilers, full flaps and then brakes. this applies even more when the runway is short.
@@surferdude4487 If you have enough stopping distance then yes, but if you don't and you do have enough distance to become airborne again you hit the throttle and go around. You do need to respond very quickly for this though. Braking heavily first and then hitting the throttle is a very bad idea. In general it's always better to go around than to try and fix a bad approach.
I want to thank you again for the effort you put forth. Your videos are outstanding and provide content that allows the viewer to add in the factors in a concise and understandable way to non-pilots. Thanks Again. Keep them coming!
You mentioned that the airline had set a runway marker for which the pilots would have to do a go around if they exceeded. Did the pilots cross that point on the runway too? That would definitely add to the mistakes but I also find it troubling that their training was done in ideal settings. Hopefully, that’s been corrected in the training procedures today. Great video, as always!
I would bet that the simulator training includes things you would never do intentionally.
Landed there many times flying DC-3s, Convairs, TrisLanders, C-402s. It is true about wind changes there.
Great video as always! Get yourself a well deserved coffee or tea!
Well, that was a genuine fustercluck, thanks for the upload Lt. - Surry Virginia
Fustercluck 😂🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂
You omitted to mention that this is one of the most dangerous airports in the world. AA stopped flying jets into St. Thomas after this accident. Better late than never.
4600 feet is not a lot of runway (especially with a gas station at the end of it). Wonder if other incidents of this nature occurred there, and if it was ever lengthened?
A pilot just replied that it’s been lengthened to over 7,000 feet now but they apparently had to extend it over the water since it wasn’t possible on land. And the gas station is apparently also still in the same place.
@@TheaSvendsen thanks for the info👍
4600 feet is a short runway for a light plane. It's terrifyingly short for a heavy jet. Even Funchal's runway is over 9000 feet long, and it famously requires special training to land there.
@@AdrianColley Funchal's got extended due to an overrun too
The runway is 7000 feet long now, but it is still a challenging airport
I was in junior high(Wayne Aspinall) at the time of this accident. We had just been let out of the days classes when we heard the crash. The school is located less than a mile east of the then Harry S.Truman airport . There was no St. Thomas international airport as you stated. … Looking to the west we could see the billowing black smoke from the crash site and the fire trucks racing from the fire station at Fort Christian. Back then there were only two fire stations on the island. The small airport one , probably two crash trucks and the island fire station with another two or three engines. Locals at the airport and the vicinity that witnessed the landing, which was somewhat of a pastime , said the fire engine actually chased the plane after they realized it had landed long. I do recall that every time one of the 727’s came in the fire trucks were moved out of the fire station and on alert. Unfortunately, there was no way for the fire engine to get past the perimeter fence , as the route was now obstructed. One important thing I want to mention.. Your caption “passenger Jet Vs Gas’s Station”. Though the plane veered into the station , it being a gas station had nothing to do with the fire . The gas tanks did not explode . It could have been a regular structure and the results would have been the same. The ruptured tanks on the aircraft fueled the fire. Sadly I found out later that a family friend and her child was returning home on that flight and did not make it . May they and the others that perished rest in peace. What a preventable accident!
Better pilot training required? Great video!
Really good !!!
Loved the video....i often think about the principle of some urgent sequence of events unfurling around me and thinking about the temptation to do A, then B, then A again. You can so easily see how as events ramp up especially if things dont respond how you expect them to (in this case the engine spooling up so slowly) - those seconds seem agonising and like forever - Kelsey from 74 seems to think that if you are a pilot, and something isnt working, you have to try something else. At want point does the Captain of an airplane loaded with people grimly stick with the go around decision, not braking and with the thrust at TOGA but nothing happening - and with the end of the runway in sight?
Yes, landing so far down was a screw up - there is an argument that, having floated so far (and after the wing nearly hit the ground) they should have gone around right away. But they didnt and we are told that the touch and go training was inadequate therefore we cant blame the captain for thinking something was wrong with the engines taking forever to spool up.I would argue therefore, that at that point, the only option left open to him was to do his best to stop.
The main "what if?" then becomes how much he is to blame for not operating the reverse thrusters??🤔
It's always horrible when people die, i feel like i am there, re living it!😒
Best part of today: seeing the notification for this video.
That's why I'm not a pilot. I would probably panic like the capitan. Poor man...
American also started flying props form San Juan after this. The service was called American Inter-Island Airlines.
6:25 At this time the pilot believed his engines had failed. There would have been no point in using the reversers.
Who the hell thinks it's a good idea to put a gas station on the centerline of a busy runway?
I agree , that gas station is the cuprit.
I hope they didn't rebuild the gas station in the same place
Happened at Burbank a few years back. There’s no gas station there any more !
@@kevmontgomery4849 Another commenter said they did, so I looked it up on Google Maps and sure enough, there's a gas station there. It's Puma now, not Shell, but still a gas station.
They're going to get rid of the gas station, and build a fireworks factory in its place.
Great video. A bit confused by the final sentence though - i thought the investigators said he didn't have enough speed/runway for a successful go around? So if he had continued with the go around they would have crashed anyway?
1:39 casually mentions that the glideslope indications were not available. A not insignificant factor.
Big fan bro
Just like a GE9X
@@LuLeBe fax mate. As big as a 737 fuselage ffs
Not a pilot, an aeronautical science student. Using flaps 30 instead of flaps 40 would require the plane to fly faster on landing.
If by margin the captain means, the control surfaces on the plane is more responsive due to the higher speed then I understand where he’s coming from. Basically, the slower you go, the slower and sloppier the controls are which will affect your ability to control the aircraft in gusty and turbulent winds.
If by margin the captain meant, keeping the speed higher than normal to not stall when the wind suddenly dies, that doesn’t really make sense to use flaps 30 instead of flaps 40.
I’m not sure if the Boeing 727 has flaperons or spoilers that deploy when the control column turns more than a certain angle.
Generally, a higher flap setting (flaps 40) will provide more lift enabling you to fly more slowly. Higher flap settings means you will need more thrust to overcome the drag, but you are still flying more slowly. Lower airspeed means lower groundspeed..... the critical factor for rollout. Pilots are required to increase approach speed to accommodate gusts whatever flap settings they use for landing.
More responsive in this case may mean that the aircraft has better directional control, speed control, etc).
Speaking as a pilot I would say that this accident sequence began a long way out from the airport. The airport was known to be subject to conditions that require a particular mindset, that's to say.. On Speed, On Glideslope, configuration for short field landing (Full Flap).. ensure undercarriage (wheels) firmly on ground at the earliest safe touchdown point to allow spoilers to activate, any deviation from this configuration should result in an early 'Go-Around' call from either pilot. All of this should have been covered in the approach briefing with the correct mindset firmly established in both pilots well before commencing the approach. The comment from the captain that a 30% flap setting allowed more aileron authority is correct, but only due to the higher resulting speed, acceptable with sufficient runway available, not acceptable for short field ops.
I always enjoy you videos - so well researched - but can you increase the volume? That's the only constructive criticism I have.
From my experience landing there turbulence happens alot due to the hills of the island and you usually feel it 3 miles out from the threshold but to get it at 10 feet before touchdown is rare.
4:00 31 years later (2007) in Brazil TAM Airlines Flight 3054 would also crash into a Shell gas station.
187 people died plus another 12 on the ground.
Most crashes are still caused by pilot error unfortunately.
The TAM flight ur reffering to was an airport maintanance failute rather than something the pilot could avoid, although i thought it did only deployed one trust reverser on that flight
@miniaircrashinvestigation Do pilots surviving crashes like this ever fly commercial flights again?
This wasn't a stabilized approach
What are the stabilised approach criteria for this particular airline's 727s?
Flip-flopping decisions only serves to delay the final decision. Even while driving, once I've made a decision, I stick with it. Turning across several lanes of traffic and then realizing you cut it too close for comfort? Don't abort, press that pedal to the FLOOR and get across. Make a decision and see it through!
Why the co-pilot did not engage the thrust reversers certainly puzzles me. It somewhat defeats the object of having a two man crew.
Hello, I just wanted to know what application you use to show us the route of the flight at 0:06. Thanks!
With the short runway, there should be no question. If you're over your target speed and past your target on the runway, it should be an automatic go-around.
Oh, wait. Those were the actual airport rules, weren't they?
You should add more graphics and visuals to your video. Your recitation is very good.
Those would be fine. And, yes, his narration works as well. What we don't want is any music. The absence of music is another point in his favor. Why do YT hosts think having music play while they are speaking is such a good idea? It stinks and makes it difficult to hear them. Music only belongs in dance and music videos.
@@bikeny yes, good visuals and no music
MINI!!!!
MEGA!!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation 😂
I enjoy these videos. However I also remember this old saying "hindsight is always 20/20".
when you say "if he stuck to his decision he would have not crashed" I think it is important to note this only will apply if he "stuck" to the correct decision... if he had done a go-around despite the engine indications, it would have certainly ended equally or marginally more tragically...
at least, that is my understanding here.
The human brain is an amazing thing and even the best of us get locked up especially when we are trying to mentally calculate procedures and rules we are told to comply with. He was probably never fully dedicated to the landing so he didn't use all the tools available to him.
Funny I wrote that right before the end of your video where you said the same thing basically by saying the pilot flip flopped on his decision. What a shame
If configured and on speed and profile the turbojets on this aircraft are spun up, 65-70 % N1. Carrying out a missed approach go around thrust should be immediately available.
just a guess at 3:00 in. they did not wait for the engine to spool up, these older Jet motor take a little while to spool up like 7 sec, and that feels like 1 min in this situation.
I'm confused by the text at 1:40, "the pilots had horizontal guidance but not vertical guidance... they intercepted the glideslope". The ILS glideslope provides vertical guidance by definition. This doesn't make sense. Were they making a localizer-only approach or something?
I was wondering the same.
Full flaps leave less margin to go around, as you descend steeper, slower and due to increase drag engines are much less effective. I kinda understand the captain on that point.
Even if he hit thrust reversers, wouldn't it still take 6 seconds to spool up those same engines to provide thrust? What am I missing
Just deploying the reversers provides significant drag at higher groundspeeds. Didn't he say the reversers weren't deployed at all?
I don't know if this is applicable to the 727, but modern jet engines usually have a higher idle speed for approach. i.e. higher than that when idling the engines on the ground. This higher idle speed is maintained for a few seconds after touchdown. This allows the engines to spool up faster (when using reverse).
Seems like there was a lot of "information" coming into the flight deck and not enough time to react.
also, what was the reason for the turbulence... mountain vortices? weather? structure induced cyclo's? someone's wake?
From what source can you determine that the pilot was SCARED? Landing performance is based upon touchdown achieved within 7 seconds of crossing the runway threshold at 50 feet aglow (ICAO)
Love the channel, just want to say, alarmedly, that this video's thumbnail was hideous. I scrolled past it filtering it out as an ad before I realized it was you.
Also nevermind the problems with the landing itself - who puts a gas station at the end of a runway? O.o Crazy liability.
I hope the gas station has been renamed "Stop 'N' Go Around".
You're up there with allec Joshua ibay imo keep up the great work!
He is miles ahead of Allec Ebay.
@burt2481 he's the OG and no. He doesn't fly Sims nearly as well if at all
Short runway with a gas station at the end, it was not if but when a plane hit it.
Never double guess the decision to go around. (unfortunately, not the only error made in this case)
As I understand it, if the pilot had persisted with the go-around decision, everyone on board would have been killed.
Can you please do a video on bear skin Airlines plane crash in red lake Canada? It would mean a lot thanks.
well done, audio could be a bit louder
Landings on short runways are noo place for hesitation and floating to midppoint
its either land or go around .. no halfway scare flicker allowed ..
I am a private pilot, in my experience what the captain said makes sense actualy. I find it weird that the recomended flap setting for gusty winds would be higher. Usualy I think less flaps and more speed helps with controlling, that much is true. But it obviously sacrifices runway distance. I've always liked to land with no flaps at all in airports I can because it drasticaly reduces floating. Obviously this works for general aviation, I dont know how it would feel on a a large jet.
Heavens to Mergatroid!
With the known turbulence risks on landing they should have gone around as soon as they saw they were too high and late for the runway.
Check the oil and clean the windscreen.
Airports need a zone at the end of the runway which will stop an airplane, like a runaway truck ramp.
Now many airports have an EMAS bed at the end of runways that help stop overruns. Not all, though.
600 feet is 40% of 1,500 feet; so if the plane's speed was such that it took 5-8 seconds to float 1,500 feet, then they only had 2.5-4 seconds to decelerate when they gave up on going around. I have to question whether using the thrust reversers really would have helped, since they'd have to wait for the engines to power up.
I am not a pilot but I have been driving motorcycles in busy traffic all my life. I guess I have saved my life multiple times because I have often done mental traing exercises, imagining certain events to happen and follow them through. What if scenarios if you will. Simple example; if a duck crosses the road, will I brake, try to steer around it of just continuo to drive? This in various trafic situations. By doing this I have unfortunatelly killed a few anymals during my 50 year on the road but probably saved mine or others lives.
Would pilots do similar things or do they 100% rely on simulations?
At the end of runway gov need to leave a wide area free if plane over shoots the runway it should stop or crash under the airport boundry so how they suppose to put gas station there ?
I have 10 years on the 3 holder. It was clear that you missed the fixed distance marker by factor of 3. The fixed distance is at 1000' after the end of the runway. That's where you should touch down. On this runway no touchdown further than that should be tolerated. A go around would be necessary. Forget the turbulence. spoiler's brakes and reverse should be enough to stop the airplane if you land on the fixed distance.
i get so confused when these landing accidents happen because it always starts with an unstable approach and they could always go around 🤔 like here as soon as they noticed the turbulence on approach shouldn't they go around?
"Get-there-itis" was possibly at play here.
He didn't deploy speed brakes?
How about they equip planes with emergency parachutes to deploy in such cases? Certainly I'm not the first one to have this idea, but I'd love to know why this is not possible.
That would be a lot of extra weight for an airliner to carry over its lifetime with the probability of ever having to use it being so low. That's my guess.
@@renejean2523 It would also add cost and complexity, and then be another thing to train on, inspect and maintain. There are a lot of safety gadget ideas that I see in crash video comments and it always comes down to cost vs benefits.
Parachutes take time to unfold. And they tend not to like hot jet engine exhausts. Where would you put it?
Their weight is probably better used for other safety equipment.
Nobody on the ground was killed. One person sustained serious injuries.
Hi mACI, another interesting story! I would like to point out that your use of the expression "but then, their luck ran out" is poorly chosen. There was no luck involved in hitting or not hitting the gas station. Nor did they get away with luck before that moment.. "Their fate was sealed" would have been a better choice. Anyway, thanks for the video. Cheers!
Fair point. But fate is another way of ascribing blame to luck. This was just some very bad flying, leading to an inevitable outcome.
@guinnog2 fate is a determined future state that can not be changed. Which is exactly the situation they were in when he flipped his decision. Before that moment, what was gonna happen was not yet determined. After that, the accident was unavoidable.
@@crazymonkeyVII Yes, it's more fate than luck. I think both terms are best avoided when dealing with simple cause and effect, as in this case. No amount of luck, fate, faith, or prayer would have spared them after the poor choices they made.
@guinnog2 I agree with you. The only thing I was trying to point out is that sealing fate is an expression, meaning after that point the result was inevitable. Running out of luck is also an expression but it implies that they got away with other mistakes first. If this was their 2nd or third attempt and they got away lucky with the first two, it would've been appropriate to use that one. Anyway, have a nice day!
Surprised more didn't die from that crash, I mean crashing into a gas station would be a fiery end to your life.
Ok who thought that having a gas station at the end of a runway was a good idea. It's not unheard of for planes to run out of room when landing. Or taking off even.
A solid rock face cliff & Gasoline tank or station & you can't climb or stop got to be in the top 2 of Pilots worst nightmares. Any question at all go around. Solve the problem then come back in.
This isn't the only case of a runway overrun happening at a gas station. A southwest airlines plane some years later overran a runway and stopped near a gas station (albiet with no fatalities).
That pilot should have opened his window and shouted down to the gas attendant to, "Fill her up, buddy!" But he probably wasn't in the mood for joking around at that point.
There was a fatality. A 6 year old boy in the car they hit
@@flyguyry1 that was a different accident. I was talking about the one in burbank
Tam airlines in brazil, 2007 is the youngest case
@ 5:44 can’t even tell the difference 😂
Please look up what "begging the question" is.
It doesn't mean what you think it does!
To me this feels like East Coast Jet Flight 81. And why didn't the co-pilot do anything to intervene? In neither of the cases did the co-pilot seemed to do anything at all to improve the situation.
Well to be fair since this was 1976 I believe it predates CRM. Probably contributed to the knowledge that created it... Not to mention all the other improvements in training and safety that have improved aviation safety in the last 40 years. 👍🍍
Toga should have been done once they started floating.
A confused pilot methinks. Go Around.
Why are you still using fsx
Love this channel. I get to visit aircraft service facilities and the dedication of engineers is amazing. From my own knowledge of the way companies behave, I do prefer Airbus over Boeing.
At 0:32 was that a tail strike on take off? 😂😂
I don't get the flaps thing, in what scenario is it more safe to select a lower flaps setting? Don't planes always land on the maximum fap setting?
There are a number of reasons. e.g. More flap requires more thrust to overcome the "induced" drag. That means more noise (for people on the ground) and more fuel used on approach.
Any environmental/budget benefits are quickly negated when aircraft run off the runway and burst into flames.
In windy gusty conditions, reduced flap with it's slightly higher speed, allows better control. More important issues are profile, speed control, speed brakes up, max braking and max reverse thrust. Don't allow the engines to spool down floating above the runway.
He should have commenced the go around way before he did.
One complaint, we all know what IFR and VFR means, other that always explaining simple things…great content 👍
new viewers might not know tho
Panic in the cockpit -
Great episode, but I feel like not enough emphasis was put on the stupidity of building a *petrol/gas station* at the end of a runway.
I'm wondering about the government officials who approved locating a gas station at the end of a runway 🤔.....
The captain did this, the captain did this but what did Co-pilot say.
0:05 This map looks bad because it's from 1976 ;)