I just want to say thank you. There are a lot of us disabled veterans and others that live on less than a thousand dollars a month. I cannot afford to donate, but I can say thank you. I enjoy these videos. I was one of the first avionics techs on the F-15 back in the 70s and as a civilian in 1983 I was working for Mc Donnell Aircraft at Edwards AFB on the F-15 ASAT program.
@@cancelanime1507 $250 a week $1k a month im australian and our govt pays more than that to vets im sure disability support pensioners here get aus$ 2k a month in 2024 and endless concessions and rent subsidies ok
One thing about Qantas is that their pilots are first class their pilots are constantly assessed and do lots of SIM training there is a reason they haven't had a crash its because of this attitude they have to keeping their pilots up to date, I know this because my daughter is a Qantas Captain.
Robert Bartley Lucky daughter flying for QANTAS. I need to correct you on something. QANTAS has stellar training and quality of pilots but it is not true that they have never crashed. It is a common myth, but there was a time when QANTAS was relatively dangerous and after 5 bad accidents in 1953 government funds were invested into developing safety systems including the modern black box, pilot training, maintenance etc. They have not killed anyone in an accident since then but before that there were many deaths (over 60 deaths) and even an aircraft shot down with loss of all aboard during World War II. The early days of aviation were extremely dangerous and as a very old airline QANTAS could not avoid fatal crashes along with all other airlines at that time. What sets QANTAS apart is the extraordinary efforts they and the Australian aviation industry put into aviation safety since 1953.
Had a few proposals for future episodes: - United Airlines Flight 173 - Aeroperú Flight 603 - British European Airways Flight 548 - Southern Airways Flight 242 Thanks for all the hard work you do to make these vids.
@@WASIURPA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173 United Flight 173 was a flight from NYC to Portland, Oregon with a stopover in Denver on December 28, 1978. The aircraft involved was a DC-8-61. During the preparations for landing in Portland, the landing gear malfunctioned after one of the retracting assemblies failed due to corrosion. The landing gear was completely lowered, but the malfunction damaged a circuit to the cockpit which prevented the green light indicating the landing gear was down from lighting up. Because the plane was landing at night and the pilots couldn't visually check to see if the landing gear was down, they entered a holding pattern and for the next hour attempted to troubleshoot the issue and make sure the landing gear was down. During this time, the crew failed to properly monitor the fuel levels. After an hour passed, one by one, the 4 engines on the DC-8 flamed out from fuel exhaustion. The plane subsequently crash landed in a residential area of Portland 6 miles southeast of the airport. 10 of the 189 people on board were killed, and 24 were injured. The subsequent investigation by the NTSB placed a great deal of blame for the disaster on the cockpit crew and their breakdown of resource management and loss of situational awareness, somewhat similar circumstances to what caused the crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 401. This crash, along with the crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 401 and the Tenerife disaster, had a significant influence on the airline industry, particularly the training of airline crewmembers, and played a major role in influencing the subsequent development of Cockpit Resource Management.
Thank God this occurred at crusing altitude 37K Feet; this flight did not run out of verticle space to recover. Keep seatbelt reasonably feasted snugged at all stages of flight for this very reason. Enjoy flying everyone. Thank you Kuya Allec
Maybe I'll go to Australia some day and know for sure the plane won't crash. Well, it might. There might be that one fluke... but I have great respect for pilots AND Qantas.
Stupid computer! Flawed software that cannot compensate for multiple failures and sometimes no override systems for the aircraft. At the mercy of a non living computer that won't save itself .
I've always maintained eliminating the flight engineer was a bad move. The pilots should be concentrating on flying the airplane. The FE can be analyzing the systems failure(s).
@@billgund4532 what is frightening Bill is how the aircraft "decided" to ignore the pilots flight control inputs to "nose up" by continuing to lower the nose. Scary a computer can override the master at the controls.
@@byronharano2391 There has to lbe some kind of pilot over ride. Unfortunately all the glass panels, computers, fly by wire crap is intertwined. Bring back analog gauges and real piloting skills. And the flight engineer too!
This is actually same type of problem as 737 MAX - just different aircraft/manufacturer. The AoA sensor is spewing corrupt data and the automated anti-stall system is reacting by trimming the stabilizer to a nose-down pitch. The BIG difference is that this happened at 37K feet - not shortly after takeoff at low altitude like both the 737 MAX disasters. The good news is that apparently the "software fix" worked with the Airbus - hopefully Boeing's proposed software fix will work with the MAX. My commentary: Let the pilot's pilot - too much automation!
Is the 737 Max 8 design inherently flawed? As they had to place the new engines further forward - hence the plane exhibits strange behaviour? I thought the MCAS system was placed to correct this.
John Kurian Sure MCAS is supposed to prevent the MAX’s Tendency to slightly pitch nose-up due to the engine forward orientation, but it’s only as good as the AoA sensor data - if the data is bad, MCAS is bad. The new proposed fix will take in data from BOTH AoA sensors (instead of just one) and compare the data - if the data doesn’t jive, MCAS shuts off. Sounds like a good fix but they also need to add the dashboard MCAS indicator light, and have much more thorough training which of course will be obvious with all the global attention to this issue. I joke that MCAS is a really stupid Hal 9000 That thinks it’s saving the airplane but is too dumb to realize it’s doing just the opposite. I predict once they implement the fixes the problems will go away.
Not flawed but different from earlier 737s. Boeing hid new characteristic, tendency to pitch up at full power, due to higher thrust and forward mounting of new engines. To aid sales, Boeing said no new pilot training needed, but sadly that was false. Boeing fix was software forcing pitch down. Worked Ok - unless faulty AOA sensor fooled software to force pitch down mistakenly. Caused vertical dive. Pilots untrained about new software, so unable to recover. Lives lost due to greed. Shame on Boeing. Fix is easy - more pilot training, and software patch and warning lights.
Wrong. The AOA sensor was fine on this aircraft. It was the ADIRU that was faulty but a faulty ADIRU alien was not the cause of the dive. It was just the reason for all the warnings and stall/overspeed
Many years ago, when cockpit automation first came on the scene, a lot of us pilots were afraid that stuff like this would happen. A lot of us old-timers still believe that a human pilot should always be able to override the computer, never the other way around.
@@bobgetsy3135 they could get rid of all the over--- automated controls and let humans fly the plane unless they think humans can't fly, if thats the case then taking a boat or a train may be the way to go.
@@robvoyles That's ridiculous. This is where we're heading. Far more planes have been saved by automation than not. You don't think car crashes and highway deaths have and will decrease with more and more safety and redundancy? Computer glitches unfortunately will always happen and so won't accidents just not as much.
@@BillClay88 dude, computers are never Gonna be as flexible and aware of the actual situation as mk. 1 humans. Sure computers can be and are thousand times More accurate than humans but they are never to be trusted. Im all For trusting a Pilot in emergency rather than computer
I wonder if any commentator made the connection between the 737 max and this incident. And now I see why Airbus it's not really gloating on the 737 thing.
@@saa82vik Airbus has planted many airplanes in the ground through the years because of crazy automation errors. You're right they should not make a peep!
@@saa82vik You mean like "Mr Badowski",He probably works for Airbus and wants to give Boeing a black eye,@Least the pilot still controls Boeings and not a computer!.
This is a good example of why passengers that are not up and going to the lavatory need to stay buckled. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." -Ben Franklin-
My dad was a Captain for American (out of BWI) and taught me that any time you're in your seat, wear your seat belt. The number one injury from turbulence is a broken neck when you skyrocket into the ceiling headfirst. Flight attendants get it badly if they're up and serving people :(
Had a proposals to your future episodes: - Japan Airlines Flight 471 - VARIG Flight 254 - TAM Flight 402 - Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 322 - 1976 Zagreb mid-air collision Your air crashes videos are AMAZING
Maybe planes are getting too smart for our own good. When the computer tells the controls of the plane what to do it must be spot on. If not even the pilots cannot override some of these more advanced systems. There should be a computer override to manual. I believe most pilots can fly a plane without the aid of a computer. The computers are supposed to make up for human error not be the cause of it.
A late friend of mine, a veteran DC-10 pilot, said that computers are leading pilots not to be able to fly the planes they're responsible for. He died of natural causes at 96.
@@colinsacks8200I truly believe that. I have been working with computers since the late 60's when they took up an entire floor. Now I can do most all of that 20 times faster on a laptop. Which is fine but even in cars people should know how to look and not depend on their onboard computers to think for them.
No Airbus can be flown manually. The pilots no longer have direct input into the hydraulics that operate the control surfaces. All the pilots can do is give commands to the computer through their joysticks and other devices. The computer INTERPRETS the pilots' input along with many other sources of information, including the faulty sensor that almost brought down this plane.
@@johntechwriter You make my point perfectly. Why have pilots then, just to make the passengers feel better? I am sure with current tech the voice of a real pilot with inflection and emotion could be used to tell them that everything will be ok. JUST before they crash.
and Qantas still held the record for quite a while as the worlds safest airline due to having no fatalities or aircraft hull losses since the start of the jet age
@@amalayperson7208 at least christians dont go around bombing random buildings or crashing cars into crowds of people also FYI im atheist not christian dont assume things snowflake
@@amalayperson7208 im not changing my profile picture just because someone is triggered by it i dont care if you are muslim, christian, atheist or the king of england im keeping my profile picture suck it up snowflake
Whenever I have to move around in the cabin, I always think of the nautical rule of "one hand for the ship and one hand for yourself", being aware that turbulence could pitch me right up to the ceiling at any time.
tracy tisoy exactly what I was thinking... Boeing has only been bashed because of the timing of the faults in its TCAS system. Had a similar fault occurred during takeoff for an airbus A330 or Boeing’s TCAS failure occurring at 37,000 feet, each airplane manufacturer would be viewed quite differently by the public. People that chalk up Boeing’s 2 crashes involving the 737 MAX 8 as “corporate greed” don’t realize that neither computers nor the people that program them are perfect!
@@cooperedwards9055 MCAS, not TCAS. As for corporate greed, the problem is that in order to increase sales, Boeing didn't tell anyone about the new system, in order to convince airlines that no additional pilot training was necessary. Also a major corner was cut by only using data from _one_ Angle of Attack sensor instead of both to inform the onboard computer of the plane's attitude.
To me, it’s really scary when the problem can’t be identified, even by the expert problem identifiers. This is one reason why the Boeing camp says Airbus is inherently more dangerous because of their computer systems.
@@timmi2198 That's what I was referring to... Boeing and Airbus both make wonderful aircraft. But sometimes the technology gets ahead of the humans and causes trouble. This also happened on Scandinavian 751. MD-81 was a new plane in the DC-9 series. The pilots mishandled an ice ingestion incident as they had no idea the new planes had automatic throttle restoration. The best pilots in the world can't handle a technology issue if they don't know the technology exists. Thank goodness these guys got everyone down safely.
@@Dana_Danarosana yeah, its sort of like taking a car off of cruise control and the car thinks the cruise control must be broken so it speeds up.. too many layers of protection strips the pilots of their control. scary
Makes you realise why they recommend leaving your seatbelt on. But, no, people think it is safe to unlatch them - idiots. Stop and think - why is it a requirement that if someone is in a control seat they must have the seatbelt latched - there is a reason for it.
Tabletop Gear "tho"? Why add the word 'tho' to a sentence? Not trying to be grammer police, it just seems lazy, and sounds ghetto. The point is well made without the word 'tho'. Peace
This video shows why they recommend you always keep your seatbelt fastened. Apparently those holes in the ceiling were made with passengers' heads. Ouch.
The official report isn't out on that accident yet, but Juan Browne covers the details extremely well here, as only an airline pilot can: ruclips.net/video/OVmoo2dw4oU/видео.html
To answer Allec's question about the faulty data cause, it turns out the mechanics of ADIRU 1 had a previously unknown and undetected flaw considering its usage range. The malfunction of QF72 was a unique and whole new problem to not just Airbus but the aviation world itself.
I like these videos much more than the ones on TV called "crash site investigation" on National Geographic . Because these ones a plane can have problems and still land with everyone surviving.
Yes, the WCK should be invoked prior to the ODD. Ball, the pilot should have activated his RUB and BBISH b4 his BS indicator came on. That would avoid the necessity for KMA and allow the plane’s WRCUX t? self correct. Instead his CWC screen was telling him to OIDD first. That meant Captain Ball had to get his First Officer to handle the RYVZ while he pulled the side bar to get the plane back to 37,000 ft. The only problem was the the VVD was not responding and so the Second Officer had to manually operate the TSTK. I tell you, this was a real emergency. This notations here spell it out extremely clearly. Just as well we viewers have CTM4 to guide us. Otherwise we wouldn’t make any sense of what was going on. Thanks a lot to the System ASS which was a built-in devise for understanding the description of a plane’s emergency situation. Great video, esp with the YYKT. TqFU for the explanation.
This is one example of the setbacks of computer technology. Thankfully, this situation did not end up in a crash--due to the pilots' quick thinking and skills. Machines can NEVER replace the human mind.
the pilots were cool and reacted good on the problem ...but some pilots couldn't avert disaster from faulty sensors...there are a lot of primers for that ....the last one 2 months ago with JTa610...
In Australia, since this incident in 2008, passengers are now advised to keep their seat belts fastened throughout the entire flight where practicable, which they do. Do other countries still put on the "free to unbuckle and walk around" light on? Just wondering.
Freefall would be 0 g (zero times the gravitational pull of earth), and the passengers would simply be weightless. To strike the ceiling that hard would require negative g force, probably between -0.5 and -1.0 g (because the Airbus A330, like most commercial aircraft, cannot handle more than -1 g). In this case, flight recorders showed -0.8g during the pitch-down event, which is very near the structural limitation of the aircraft. A few more degrees pitch down and the wings could have folded.
MrTassadarzo very informative and frightening. Should have been included in the video to explain that cabin damage and how close they were to disaster. Without seeing your comment I just imagined an event similar to severe turbulence.
MrTassadarzo no guy, wasent on the plane, I cant find anything humorous about an event taking place like that where people, lives hung in the balance,,, between life and death.
@CommodoreCrusher9000TM Pictures 1000% I remember seeing news interview with a few former and current professional commercial pilots, including Sullenberger and ALL of them favor passengers remaining belted the entire flight except for bathroom trips and medical reasons like poor circulation in some people. I will never unbelt unless it is absolutely necessary, neither should any other passengers.
I took Aeroflot flights in the 90s where half the people put their seatbelts loosely on their lap, disconnected, during takeoff. I was amazed, to put it gently. Most of us have come a long way since then :)
Cada vez hay más accidentes por fallo en el software y los pilotos no pueden pasar a manual. Y cuando pasan a manual siguen sin poder controlar la aeronave. Gracias a estos pilotos y la profesionalidad y servicio de esta compañía, no pasó nada más grave. Saludos desde Barcelona, España
Capt Sullivan is a former US Navy Fighter pilot....what was omitted in this video was him nosing down the plane to get out of the "fake" stall ...as the copilot kept pulling nosee up...and recovering the plane in the end
To be fair, it’s not like they knew the plane would pitch down so quickly and have passengers be thrown upward so violently. Though I can see your point.
I get what you're saying. Try being at the controls of a plane that decides to not respond to pitch commands. Then see how fast you even remember that there are pax back there. IJS.
Ahh, but those planes are so senselessly reliant on automation. I just think as soon as that sort of cascade malfunction happened, he should have flipped seat belts on as a precaution, is all. He responded fine otherwise.
Lies!!!! the.root of problem was a computer glitch with either, the speed indicator or wrong data from the CPU making the autopilot nose down...im sure these were corrected "discretely"...to avoid legal proceedings from injured passengers...This is where Govt. ie FAA and NTSB MUST step in and drop the hammer on Quantas and ScareBus..
It was passengers hitting the cabin ceiling hard enough with their heads to punch through... NOT good for your cervical vertebrae. Keeping your seat belt on at all times is cheap insurance.
Good on the pilots. Too many times the pilots feel like they are in control and end up crashing. These pilots had the wisdom to know that lives were at risk and acted quickly to bring the plane down before something worse happened.
I remember this happening and knew that some people received serious injuries but thanks to the crew the lane was landed safely. I travel quite a bit and will never understand why some people ignore the advice of the crew. In this case keep your seat belt fastened if not moving about the cabin. I'd say many of the injuries may not have occurred, particularly being thrown up against the ceiling of the aircraft.
The further removed pilots become from actual flying of the aircraft the more dangerous this becomes. The Captain could not get direct control of the aircraft without the control systems approving the inputs. That folks... is pretty scary.
Brother, I was just thinking the same thing. Airbus can sell their computerized aircraft to the Asian countries - they expect aircraft to fly themselves.
I never take my belt off while flying, watched some people learn the hard way years back while we were dodging thunderheads over the midwest. Between the levitating food and drinks it must have taken quite a while to clean that 737 up.
This is the same error as in the Indonesian Air crash. Due to a malfunction, the software commanded a flight control action the pilots were not aware and caused the plane to crash. When autonomous driving hits cars, we will see the same types of errors.
Ugh, I’m guessing those holes in the overheads were caused by passengers’ craniums slamming into them. A good reminder of why aircrews ask us to stay buckled up while seated. Glad all souls survived, and yes a good example of why we still need human pilots in the cockpit to override computer malfunctions.
CAPTAIN KEVIN SULLIVAN IS A HERO Sullivan is a former US Navy F-14 fighter pilot and has the "Right Stuff" that saved the lives of the his passengers and crew aboard the Quantas flight QF72. Kevin has a timely message about the dangers of autonomous flight controls, as the Airbus A330 has a fly-by-wire Flight Control Primary Computer that went rouge and tried to kill the passengers and crew of flight QF72. It was Kevin's military experience and training that saved their lives. The Captain and First Officer are the ultimate safety backup system for commercial airplanes, seasoned pilots with military experience are preferable.
i find it very hard to believe they didn't find the root of the problem. especially when the plane doesnt crash and its a computer software or hardware problem. the code doesnt mysteriously change back. someone should've been found and held guilty. the code will not change and the cause should have been easily traced
I believe the issue was also in previous versions of the software as another commercial aircraft suffered the same event some 5 years before over the Mediterranean sea - no injuries. At the time the aircraft was tested with company engineers but could not duplicate the fault. Due to serious injuries this time with Qantas, Airbus requested an immediate fix from the US based manufacturer (Northrop Grumman) based in California. A quick fix was written which basically disabled some functions so as to not allow this type of failure to occur again. But going back to your question, the error in the code was never found. Investigations were wound up after the software update was released and expedited to associated customers.
Roy Lavecchia SOFTWARE !!!! Do you remember the large Airbus 4 engined turboprop larger than the C130,,well I believe it was in SPAIN, but it got up a few hundred,,they throttled up ALL 4 quit, fell out of the sky killing all,,,,,,, OPSSSSSSS , the loaded the FIn......g WRONG SOFTWARE ! Great going AIRBUS , how the hell ?
This is a little wrong. As the plane dropped the nose, the plane didn't respond. Sullivan neutralized the controls by letting go of the stick, then it recovered.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
I just want to say thank you. There are a lot of us disabled veterans and others that live on less than a thousand dollars a month. I cannot afford to donate, but I can say thank you. I enjoy these videos. I was one of the first avionics techs on the F-15 back in the 70s and as a civilian in 1983 I was working for Mc Donnell Aircraft at Edwards AFB on the F-15 ASAT program.
Michael Davis 👍🏻
Thanks for serving!
@@cancelanime1507 $250 a week $1k a month im australian and our govt pays more than that to vets im sure disability support pensioners here get aus$ 2k a month in 2024 and endless concessions and rent subsidies ok
One thing about Qantas is that their pilots are first class their pilots are constantly assessed and do lots of SIM training there is a reason they haven't had a crash its because of this attitude they have to keeping their pilots up to date, I know this because my daughter is a Qantas Captain.
I am pretty sure i dated her
But do the same rules apply to John Travolta?
So awesome your daughter is a
QANTAS Capt.
My dad's a Qantas executive manager.
Robert Bartley Lucky daughter flying for QANTAS. I need to correct you on something. QANTAS has stellar training and quality of pilots but it is not true that they have never crashed. It is a common myth, but there was a time when QANTAS was relatively dangerous and after 5 bad accidents in 1953 government funds were invested into developing safety systems including the modern black box, pilot training, maintenance etc. They have not killed anyone in an accident since then but before that there were many deaths (over 60 deaths) and even an aircraft shot down with loss of all aboard during World War II. The early days of aviation were extremely dangerous and as a very old airline QANTAS could not avoid fatal crashes along with all other airlines at that time. What sets QANTAS apart is the extraordinary efforts they and the Australian aviation industry put into aviation safety since 1953.
Had a few proposals for future episodes:
- United Airlines Flight 173
- Aeroperú Flight 603
- British European Airways Flight 548
- Southern Airways Flight 242
Thanks for all the hard work you do to make these vids.
That's great
173 is???
@@WASIURPA en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_173
United Flight 173 was a flight from NYC to Portland, Oregon with a stopover in Denver on December 28, 1978. The aircraft involved was a DC-8-61.
During the preparations for landing in Portland, the landing gear malfunctioned after one of the retracting assemblies failed due to corrosion. The landing gear was completely lowered, but the malfunction damaged a circuit to the cockpit which prevented the green light indicating the landing gear was down from lighting up.
Because the plane was landing at night and the pilots couldn't visually check to see if the landing gear was down, they entered a holding pattern and for the next hour attempted to troubleshoot the issue and make sure the landing gear was down.
During this time, the crew failed to properly monitor the fuel levels. After an hour passed, one by one, the 4 engines on the DC-8 flamed out from fuel exhaustion. The plane subsequently crash landed in a residential area of Portland 6 miles southeast of the airport. 10 of the 189 people on board were killed, and 24 were injured.
The subsequent investigation by the NTSB placed a great deal of blame for the disaster on the cockpit crew and their breakdown of resource management and loss of situational awareness, somewhat similar circumstances to what caused the crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 401.
This crash, along with the crash of Eastern Airlines Flight 401 and the Tenerife disaster, had a significant influence on the airline industry, particularly the training of airline crewmembers, and played a major role in influencing the subsequent development of Cockpit Resource Management.
I would also add Taca 110 and the Seattle Sky King
my uncles wife was on aero peru flight 603
an alec video with a happy ending... today is a happy day!
⚡️SPOILER⚡️
I thought for sure it would crash, but I am so happy it didn't. I have so much respect for pilots.
Knowing it's a Qantas flight acts as kind of a spoiler. Qantas has never had a fatal accident in the jet age; their last fatal crash was in 1951.
@@Tuneman1984 I was about to say the same thing, I NEVER heard of a Qantas crash!
in Australia we have a saying
Qantas never crashes mate
Thank God this occurred at crusing altitude 37K Feet; this flight did not run out of verticle space to recover. Keep seatbelt reasonably feasted snugged at all stages of flight for this very reason. Enjoy flying everyone. Thank you Kuya Allec
Maybe I'll go to Australia some day and know for sure the plane won't crash. Well, it might. There might be that one fluke... but I have great respect for pilots AND Qantas.
This shows why removing humans from the cockpit will never be a good idea.
Stupid computer! Flawed software that cannot compensate for multiple failures and sometimes no override systems for the aircraft. At the mercy of a non living computer that won't save itself .
I've always maintained eliminating the flight engineer was a bad move. The pilots should be concentrating on flying the airplane. The FE can be analyzing the systems failure(s).
Amen OCB! Amen...
@@billgund4532 what is frightening Bill is how the aircraft "decided" to ignore the pilots flight control inputs to "nose up" by continuing to lower the nose. Scary a computer can override the master at the controls.
@@byronharano2391 There has to lbe some kind of pilot over ride. Unfortunately all the glass panels, computers, fly by wire crap is intertwined. Bring back analog gauges and real piloting skills. And the flight engineer too!
Glad the pilots made the right decision to land and the nearest airports and didn't trust the autopilot completely like some pilots.
Kevin Cole Can allec make a video of mh 17
YESSSSSSS
It landed safely! Finally some good news on this channel..
These videos put my heart jumping
This is actually same type of problem as 737 MAX - just different aircraft/manufacturer. The AoA sensor is spewing corrupt data and the automated anti-stall system is reacting by trimming the stabilizer to a nose-down pitch. The BIG difference is that this happened at 37K feet - not shortly after takeoff at low altitude like both the 737 MAX disasters. The good news is that apparently the "software fix" worked with the Airbus - hopefully Boeing's proposed software fix will work with the MAX.
My commentary: Let the pilot's pilot - too much automation!
Is the 737 Max 8 design inherently flawed? As they had to place the new engines further forward - hence the plane exhibits strange behaviour? I thought the MCAS system was placed to correct this.
John Kurian Sure MCAS is supposed to prevent the MAX’s Tendency to slightly pitch nose-up due to the engine forward orientation, but it’s only as good as the AoA sensor data - if the data is bad, MCAS is bad. The new proposed fix will take in data from BOTH AoA sensors (instead of just one) and compare the data - if the data doesn’t jive, MCAS shuts off. Sounds like a good fix but they also need to add the dashboard MCAS indicator light, and have much more thorough training which of course will be obvious with all the global attention to this issue.
I joke that MCAS is a really stupid Hal 9000 That thinks it’s saving the airplane but is too dumb to realize it’s doing just the opposite. I predict once they implement the fixes the problems will go away.
Kevin Medeiros It actually considers both sensors, but it takes the worst of the two making the redundancy effectively useless.
Not flawed but different from earlier 737s. Boeing hid new characteristic, tendency to pitch up at full power, due to higher thrust and forward mounting of new engines. To aid sales, Boeing said no new pilot training needed, but sadly that was false. Boeing fix was software forcing pitch down. Worked Ok - unless faulty AOA sensor fooled software to force pitch down mistakenly. Caused vertical dive. Pilots untrained about new software, so unable to recover. Lives lost due to greed. Shame on Boeing. Fix is easy - more pilot training, and software patch and warning lights.
Wrong. The AOA sensor was fine on this aircraft. It was the ADIRU that was faulty but a faulty ADIRU alien was not the cause of the dive. It was just the reason for all the warnings and stall/overspeed
Thanks for a fine vid, Allec. I like the ones with drama where everyone survives...
Many years ago, when cockpit automation first came on the scene, a lot of us pilots were afraid that stuff like this would happen.
A lot of us old-timers still believe that a human pilot should always be able to override the computer, never the other way around.
rr they could have shut of adiru 1. that is how the other flights handled it.
@@bobgetsy3135 they could get rid of all the over--- automated controls and let humans fly the plane unless they think humans can't fly, if thats the case then taking a boat or a train may be the way to go.
@@robvoyles That's ridiculous. This is where we're heading. Far more planes have been saved by automation than not. You don't think car crashes and highway deaths have and will decrease with more and more safety and redundancy? Computer glitches unfortunately will always happen and so won't accidents just not as much.
@@BillClay88 like 737 MAX
@@BillClay88 dude, computers are never Gonna be as flexible and aware of the actual situation as mk. 1 humans. Sure computers can be and are thousand times More accurate than humans but they are never to be trusted. Im all For trusting a Pilot in emergency rather than computer
With the recent news about the 737 Max 8, this sounds scary familiar.
Yes...sounds very similar to me, too.
I wonder if any commentator made the connection between the 737 max and this incident. And now I see why Airbus it's not really gloating on the 737 thing.
@@saa82vik Airbus has planted many airplanes in the ground through the years because of crazy automation errors. You're right they should not make a peep!
@@saa82vik You mean like "Mr Badowski",He probably works for Airbus and wants to give Boeing a black eye,@Least the pilot still controls Boeings and not a computer!.
@@packingten No. He is just observing the blatantly obvious.
Lesson learned - always keep buckled in. Loosen a bit after take off for comfort, just keep it on...
Damn!... I really like these videos! Good job Allec!
Thank you so much Allec... Finally you have uploaded it
You have seen why 2 times it got pitched down
This is a good example of why passengers that are not up and going to the lavatory need to stay buckled. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." -Ben Franklin-
"Ladies and Gentleman, I am Hal 9000 and I am in control of this aircraft now. Daisy Daisy give me your answer do..."
"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal..."
Epic reference!!!
"Calling me wrong is obviously due to human error"
My dad was a Captain for American (out of BWI) and taught me that any time you're in your seat, wear your seat belt. The number one injury from turbulence is a broken neck when you skyrocket into the ceiling headfirst. Flight attendants get it badly if they're up and serving people :(
Had a proposals to your future episodes:
- Japan Airlines Flight 471
- VARIG Flight 254
- TAM Flight 402
- Aerolíneas Argentinas Flight 322
- 1976 Zagreb mid-air collision
Your air crashes videos are AMAZING
Maybe planes are getting too smart for our own good. When the computer tells the controls of the plane what to do it must be spot on. If not even the pilots cannot override some of these more advanced systems. There should be a computer override to manual. I believe most pilots can fly a plane without the aid of a computer. The computers are supposed to make up for human error not be the cause of it.
Well said, that is so right.
Every single computer I have ever owned has crashed or died at some point.
A late friend of mine, a veteran DC-10 pilot, said that computers are leading pilots not to be able to fly the planes they're responsible for. He died of natural causes at 96.
@@colinsacks8200I truly believe that. I have been working with computers since the late 60's when they took up an entire floor. Now I can do most all of that 20 times faster on a laptop. Which is fine but even in cars people should know how to look and not depend on their onboard computers to think for them.
No Airbus can be flown manually. The pilots no longer have direct input into the hydraulics that operate the control surfaces. All the pilots can do is give commands to the computer through their joysticks and other devices. The computer INTERPRETS the pilots' input along with many other sources of information, including the faulty sensor that almost brought down this plane.
@@johntechwriter You make my point perfectly. Why have pilots then, just to make the passengers feel better? I am sure with current tech the voice of a real pilot with inflection and emotion could be used to tell them that everything will be ok. JUST before they crash.
This is why you ALWAYS keep your seat belt on unless you're going to the lavatory. You never know when crap like this is going to happen.
and Qantas still held the record for quite a while as the worlds safest airline due to having no fatalities or aircraft hull losses since the start of the jet age
@@amalayperson7208 at least christians dont go around bombing random buildings or crashing cars into crowds of people
also FYI im atheist not christian
dont assume things snowflake
@@amalayperson7208 im not changing my profile picture just because someone is triggered by it
i dont care if you are muslim, christian, atheist or the king of england
im keeping my profile picture
suck it up snowflake
yeah exactly, didnt think you had an answer to that
move along bitch
Ouch
@@mwbgaming28 OHHH
Whenever I have to move around in the cabin, I always think of the nautical rule of "one hand for the ship and one hand for yourself", being aware that turbulence could pitch me right up to the ceiling at any time.
Sullenburger and Sullivan: Damn we need more Sullys!
I like watching these Qantas videos because I know they'll make it in the end.
Every time I watch one of these things, and imagine myself in the captain's seat, I think "yep, I would have shit myself."
Somewhat related to 737max issues recently..incorrect AOA reading, computer takes corrective action by pitching the nose down..
tracy tisoy exactly what I was thinking... Boeing has only been bashed because of the timing of the faults in its TCAS system. Had a similar fault occurred during takeoff for an airbus A330 or Boeing’s TCAS failure occurring at 37,000 feet, each airplane manufacturer would be viewed quite differently by the public. People that chalk up Boeing’s 2 crashes involving the 737 MAX 8 as “corporate greed” don’t realize that neither computers nor the people that program them are perfect!
@@cooperedwards9055 MCAS, not TCAS.
As for corporate greed, the problem is that in order to increase sales, Boeing didn't tell anyone about the new system, in order to convince airlines that no additional pilot training was necessary. Also a major corner was cut by only using data from _one_ Angle of Attack sensor instead of both to inform the onboard computer of the plane's attitude.
I've got to stop watching these videos, or I'll never step on another plane again.
To me, it’s really scary when the problem can’t be identified, even by the expert problem identifiers.
This is one reason why the Boeing camp says Airbus is inherently more dangerous because of their computer systems.
...and then Boeing added MCAS to the 737 Max...
@@Dana_Danarosana Boeing: Airbus isn't safe don't purchase it
Me: Thats where you're wrong Kiddo
Boeings most latest release crashed just a couple of months earlier due to the same reason
@@timmi2198 That's what I was referring to... Boeing and Airbus both make wonderful aircraft. But sometimes the technology gets ahead of the humans and causes trouble. This also happened on Scandinavian 751. MD-81 was a new plane in the DC-9 series. The pilots mishandled an ice ingestion incident as they had no idea the new planes had automatic throttle restoration. The best pilots in the world can't handle a technology issue if they don't know the technology exists. Thank goodness these guys got everyone down safely.
@@Dana_Danarosana yeah, its sort of like taking a car off of cruise control and the car thinks the cruise control must be broken so it speeds up.. too many layers of protection strips the pilots of their control. scary
Those holes in the ceiling tho 😳🤕
Tabletop Gear I thought same , must have been like hitting a car head on with your face 😳
Makes you realise why they recommend leaving your seatbelt on. But, no, people think it is safe to unlatch them - idiots. Stop and think - why is it a requirement that if someone is in a control seat they must have the seatbelt latched - there is a reason for it.
Tabletop Gear "tho"? Why add the word 'tho' to a sentence? Not trying to be grammer police, it just seems lazy, and sounds ghetto. The point is well made without the word 'tho'. Peace
Tabletop Gear "tho" ?
@@treylem3 Why critique an abbreviation commonly used when commenting on RUclips to save time "tho" ?
I take approx 90 flights a year. GOTTA stop watching these....😱
Craig Willoughby I know! I have to fly into LaGuardia from Houston next month and I have to stop watching these or ask my dr for Xanax!
you take 90 flights a year. wow !!... have you ever asked the pilots if the Earth is flat or to show you flat earth flight paths ?
@@psychicbulletproof not really
Let the pilots concentrate on flying to avoid crashing into the glass dome! Or something.
@@14stOfDynamite u think u r funny. u dont know fuckall
@@14stOfDynamite ruclips.net/video/j4erPsVDX3Y/видео.html
The initial pitch-down was more violent than shown in the re-enactment, as shown by the photos of head-sized holes punched in the overhead.
0:15 "In command is Captain Kevin Sullivan."
Is it just me, or are a lot of badass hero pilots who save the day named "Sully"?
so glad it didnt crash and well done the pilots for not panicking!
This video shows why they recommend you always keep your seatbelt fastened. Apparently those holes in the ceiling were made with passengers' heads. Ouch.
Didn't this same kind of nose pitching down problem happen on the recent Lionair 610 crash
Karan Thakur too bad lion air did not survive, their attitude was too low.
The official report isn't out on that accident yet, but Juan Browne covers the details extremely well here, as only an airline pilot can: ruclips.net/video/OVmoo2dw4oU/видео.html
It was because of the trim setting not the autopilot
@@inezg1867 😥 yes, if only that flight was also at 37K feet the outcome been different.
@@danieldu1026 the autopilot didn't have any factor in either aircraft. Different function and system.
qantas has STILL not lost a passenger in a crash - in the modern jet age from circa 1958 onwards that is deeply impressive
To answer Allec's question about the faulty data cause, it turns out the mechanics of ADIRU 1 had a previously unknown and undetected flaw considering its usage range. The malfunction of QF72 was a unique and whole new problem to not just Airbus but the aviation world itself.
Geez that things still flying the skies every day
I like these videos much more than the ones on TV called "crash site investigation" on National Geographic . Because these ones a plane can have problems and still land with everyone surviving.
Never clicked faster in my life
Interesting watching this again now with the 737 MAX catastrophes...
thats what brought me here
As i watch, this very aircraft is on a flight from hong kong to melbourne
Yes, the WCK should be invoked prior to the ODD. Ball, the pilot should have activated his RUB and BBISH b4 his BS indicator came on. That would avoid the necessity for KMA and allow the plane’s WRCUX t? self correct. Instead his CWC screen was telling him to OIDD first. That meant Captain Ball had to get his First Officer to handle the RYVZ while he pulled the side bar to get the plane back to 37,000 ft. The only problem was the the VVD was not responding and so the Second Officer had to manually operate the TSTK. I tell you, this was a real emergency. This notations here spell it out extremely clearly. Just as well we viewers have CTM4 to guide us. Otherwise we wouldn’t make any sense of what was going on. Thanks a lot to the System ASS which was a built-in devise for understanding the description of a plane’s emergency situation. Great video, esp with the YYKT. TqFU for the explanation.
This is one example of the setbacks of computer technology. Thankfully, this situation did not end up in a crash--due to the pilots' quick thinking and skills. Machines can NEVER replace the human mind.
It was a human mind who designed the algorithm that had a flaw in it that allowed the dive to happen
the pilots were cool and reacted good on the problem ...but some pilots couldn't avert disaster from faulty sensors...there are a lot of primers for that ....the last one 2 months ago with JTa610...
In Australia, since this incident in 2008, passengers are now advised to keep their seat belts fastened throughout the entire flight where practicable, which they do.
Do other countries still put on the "free to unbuckle and walk around" light on? Just wondering.
That light going out just means you can get up if you need to. If it’s on then nobody can get up
Everyone survived! And the kangaroo on the tail is super cool.
So it descended so rapidly people went into freefall and hit the ceiling?
Freefall would be 0 g (zero times the gravitational pull of earth), and the passengers would simply be weightless. To strike the ceiling that hard would require negative g force, probably between -0.5 and -1.0 g (because the Airbus A330, like most commercial aircraft, cannot handle more than -1 g). In this case, flight recorders showed -0.8g during the pitch-down event, which is very near the structural limitation of the aircraft. A few more degrees pitch down and the wings could have folded.
MrTassadarzo Sir can you imagine the impact that I took to break those panels like that,
MrTassadarzo very informative and frightening. Should have been included in the video to explain that cabin damage and how close they were to disaster. Without seeing your comment I just imagined an event similar to severe turbulence.
@@daleslover2771 Holy mackerel! You were on that plane?! It must have been so terrifying, especially when it started to pitch down the second time.
MrTassadarzo no guy, wasent on the plane, I cant find anything humorous about an event taking place like that where people, lives hung in the balance,,, between life and death.
Just a reminder to always wear your seatbelt unless there's a very good reason not to.
These pictures at the end make me cry
So Much 4 The Spirit of Australia!
Remember kids. Buckle Up.
Remember adults. Click it or ticket.
@CommodoreCrusher9000TM Pictures
1000% I remember seeing news interview with a few former and current professional commercial pilots, including Sullenberger and ALL of them favor passengers remaining belted the entire flight except for bathroom trips and medical reasons like poor circulation in some people. I will never unbelt unless it is absolutely necessary, neither should any other passengers.
I took Aeroflot flights in the 90s where half the people put their seatbelts loosely on their lap, disconnected, during takeoff. I was amazed, to put it gently. Most of us have come a long way since then :)
Cada vez hay más accidentes por fallo en el software y los pilotos no pueden pasar a manual. Y cuando pasan a manual siguen sin poder controlar la aeronave. Gracias a estos pilotos y la profesionalidad y servicio de esta compañía, no pasó nada más grave. Saludos desde Barcelona, España
That was a miracle
Capt Sullivan is a former US Navy Fighter pilot....what was omitted in this video was him nosing down the plane to get out of the "fake" stall ...as the copilot kept pulling nosee up...and recovering the plane in the end
Holy ****. THAT'S why we have this new OEB! Turn 2 of the ADR off to revert to alternate law. Then pray the one remaining ADR isn't the faulty ADR.
STAUHHHLL STAUUHHHLLL....DIDIDDIDIDIDIDIDIDIDD I love the Airbus stall warning its so loud and British accented.
Hey Allec The root cause was I guess 2 binary codes interchanged themselves when angle of attack sensors was inspected....
reuploaded from patreon? YAY! :D
Excellent crew!
Looks as though passengers literally went through the ceiling.
I think I might fly with seat belt permanently fastened from now on.
you should have been doing that anyways wtf.
The only video of these plane accidents I've seen where people didn't die in a horrible crash
I'm Request Episode:
1.Lion Air JT610
2.Adam Air KI574
3.Mandala Airlines RI091
4.Sukhoi Superjet 100 In Salak Mount 9-5-2012
5.Merpati Xian MA60 Accident 2011
& 6.China Airlines 120.
This is why I never mind paying extra to fly Qantas.
A really good crew with much talent.
There were a lot of "head holes" in the ceiling. Probably should have switched seatbelts on when things started malfunctioning..
To be fair, it’s not like they knew the plane would pitch down so quickly and have passengers be thrown upward so violently. Though I can see your point.
I get what you're saying. Try being at the controls of a plane that decides to not respond to pitch commands. Then see how fast you even remember that there are pax back there. IJS.
Ahh, but those planes are so senselessly reliant on automation. I just think as soon as that sort of cascade malfunction happened, he should have flipped seat belts on as a precaution, is all. He responded fine otherwise.
This seems similar to what occurred on the Boeing T-max 737s recently.
Allec, a coworker and i had to autorotate on to a busy highway in san antonio a few years back...fyi.
I was on this flight ……… certainly solved my constipation problem !!!!!
"The root of the problem was never determined", and the plane continued in service?
Lies!!!! the.root of problem was a computer glitch with either, the speed indicator or wrong data from the CPU making the autopilot nose down...im sure these were corrected "discretely"...to avoid legal proceedings from injured passengers...This is where Govt. ie FAA and NTSB MUST step in and drop the hammer on Quantas and ScareBus..
What a blessing that everyone survived! Did the interior structural damage come from the luggage or persons tossed about?
It was passengers hitting the cabin ceiling hard enough with their heads to punch through... NOT good for your cervical vertebrae. Keeping your seat belt on at all times is cheap insurance.
@@hshs5756 Wow! Thank you!
I saw this in Air Crash Investigation and the cabin scene was really horrifying!!
Is your birthday on 3rd Jan?? Cause mine is also the same
My Birthday is 3rd January
My birthday is 3rd January 2003
Good on the pilots. Too many times the pilots feel like they are in control and end up crashing. These pilots had the wisdom to know that lives were at risk and acted quickly to bring the plane down before something worse happened.
I remember this happening and knew that some people received serious injuries but thanks to the crew the lane was landed safely. I travel quite a bit and will never understand why some people ignore the advice of the crew. In this case keep your seat belt fastened if not moving about the cabin. I'd say many of the injuries may not have occurred, particularly being thrown up against the ceiling of the aircraft.
The further removed pilots become from actual flying of the aircraft the more dangerous this becomes. The Captain could not get direct control of the aircraft without the control systems approving the inputs. That folks... is pretty scary.
This is the problem with the airbuses. They have computer control priority that even overrides manual input. That is inherently dangerous.
No description of pitch down during incident. At 2:50. Confusingly
i strongly believe that qantas still is one of the safest airlines in the world.
I always wear my seatbelts, but it takes me a little longer to go to the bathroom that when I am about to get up, turbulence.....
Haven't realised yet but apparently the two Qantas airlines featured on this channel all came from Singapore Changi Airport
If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going...
One of the silliest comments around
Martin....Yours is indeed.
Something about Air and Bus just doesn't feel right.
Right because Boeing knows how to create a stall protection system and then forget to tell anyone about it......... 🙄
Brother, I was just thinking the same thing. Airbus can sell their computerized aircraft to the Asian countries - they expect aircraft to fly themselves.
I never take my belt off while flying, watched some people learn the hard way years back while we were dodging thunderheads over the midwest. Between the levitating food and drinks it must have taken quite a while to clean that 737 up.
mid-ocean : please fasten seatbelts, we are trying to iron out a “small problem”
THAT Airbus computer, again.
@Htos 1
Boeing MCAS caused a fatal crash in the 737 just recently.
@@watershed44 Wrong it was an angle of attack sensor, at least according to the preliminary report
@@aidenmaccracken2124 See B777 pilot Juan Browne's early report on the Lion Air crash here: ruclips.net/video/OVmoo2dw4oU/видео.html
@@aidenmaccracken2124 right the MCAS detected a high AOA and activated. Same freaking thing as this. Same concept. Faulty stall detection.
Dang what is it with the Java sea and plane stalls first you got Adam Air 574 in 2007, Indonesia AirAsia 8501 in 2014 and now Lion air 610 in 2018
This is the same error as in the Indonesian Air crash. Due to a malfunction, the software commanded a flight control action the pilots were not aware and caused the plane to crash.
When autonomous driving hits cars, we will see the same types of errors.
Ugh, I’m guessing those holes in the overheads were caused by passengers’ craniums slamming into them. A good reminder of why aircrews ask us to stay buckled up while seated. Glad all souls survived, and yes a good example of why we still need human pilots in the cockpit to override computer malfunctions.
This is why Australia is a great country
also I got ideas for new videos
Air Canada 143 and Cubana De Aviacion 972
your videos are the best
CAPTAIN KEVIN SULLIVAN IS A HERO Sullivan is a former US Navy F-14 fighter pilot and has the "Right Stuff" that saved the lives of the his passengers and crew aboard the Quantas flight QF72. Kevin has a timely message about the dangers of autonomous flight controls, as the Airbus A330 has a fly-by-wire Flight Control Primary Computer that went rouge and tried to kill the passengers and crew of flight QF72.
It was Kevin's military experience and training that saved their lives. The Captain and First Officer are the ultimate safety backup system for commercial airplanes, seasoned pilots with military experience are preferable.
It didn’t “go rogue”. It followed its algorithm logic but there was a flaw with it that had not been known to anyone
Wow man! Sub'd!
i find it very hard to believe they didn't find the root of the problem. especially when the plane doesnt crash and its a computer software or hardware problem. the code doesnt mysteriously change back. someone should've been found and held guilty. the code will not change and the cause should have been easily traced
I believe the issue was also in previous versions of the software as another commercial aircraft suffered the same event some 5 years before over the Mediterranean sea - no injuries. At the time the aircraft was tested with company engineers but could not duplicate the fault. Due to serious injuries this time with Qantas, Airbus requested an immediate fix from the US based manufacturer (Northrop Grumman) based in California. A quick fix was written which basically disabled some functions so as to not allow this type of failure to occur again. But going back to your question, the error in the code was never found. Investigations were wound up after the software update was released and expedited to associated customers.
I totally agree. I am a software developer myself and I find it very hard to believe that they were unable to find the exact cause of the error.
Roy Lavecchia SOFTWARE !!!! Do you remember the large Airbus 4 engined turboprop larger than the C130,,well I believe it was in SPAIN, but it got up a few hundred,,they throttled up ALL 4 quit, fell out of the sky killing all,,,,,,, OPSSSSSSS , the loaded the FIn......g WRONG SOFTWARE ! Great going AIRBUS , how the hell ?
Surely the GUILTY 'party is AIRBUS INDUSTRIES!
Respect Infinity to the pilots
I Just bought the book made by the pilot. It arrives tomorrow.
Allowing computers that much control in the cockpit and being able to over rule the pilots in certain situations is damn scary
If everything works ok it’s not a problem
About the last thing you want your pilot is to say is, "Buckle up we're having control problems". I would have shat myself
The planes take on lifelike qualities....as if they are pets or Bob The Builder crew members.
I'm glad when they make it back to the ground safety
No Man's Land is the story of QF72 by @KevinSullivan
Hop on, its “ repaired “
Thnx for your work
This is a little wrong. As the plane dropped the nose, the plane didn't respond. Sullivan neutralized the controls by letting go of the stick, then it recovered.
No he let go then pulled back again. It’s in the FDR data