Imperfect Pitch - XL Airways Germany Flight 888T
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 июн 2018
- Thanks for watching.
If you like my content, consider sponsoring me on Patreon: / xpilot
XL Airways Germany Flight 888T (GXL888T) was an Airbus A320 which crashed into the Mediterranean Sea, 7 km off Canet-en-Roussillon on the French coast, close to the Spanish border, on 27 November 2008. The aircraft was on a flight test. 
Игры
I loved that there was no "sad" music at the end, just information. Keep that up!
Hey man I like when the music punches people in the feelz
@AsSeenOnTV Grow up, asshole.
That's Allec Joshua Ibay's thing. And yes I don't like it either.
Yes much better without music.
As Seen On TV language, please!!
Never stop doing the big, easy to read font X Pilot!. Makes it so much easier to read on my crappy old tv.
Love your videos, been a sub since the first one was on reddit
It's 2020 man, get a decent tv
In several vids like this one that claim the pilot "violently overcorrects", I don't think that's necessarily true, because when a plane is on the verge of stalling and balanced on a knife edge, even a normal control input can cause it to suddenly flip as the airflow breaks down.
I think "violent" is meant to describe the effect of the overcorrection, not the input to the controls.
@@christosvoskresye well then phrase the sentence different.
The way it's worded sounds like pilot error I agree. It should say (if correct) "The pilot corrects left and the plane violently moves/flips/turns/rotates "whatever
Look, it is basic piloting skill, close to or at the stall, if you have a wing drop you never,ever try to pick it up with aileron, that just causes a full spin. Wing drop? Opposite rudder stick forward of neitral to get the wing flying again and I am so sad that old piloting skills are being lost because todays crop are just systems operators.
Unreal. We never did stall testing in the jet below 15,000 feet. Obviously, for good reason.
6milesup They didn’t do stall testing. It was a low speed test
@@OortCloud a low speed test *is* a stall test. A stall happens at low speed. They're synonyms. Sick of armchair pilots.
I'm an old RC pilot.
I was taught to fly two mistakes high when testing a new plane or a modified old plane.
@@falconeaterf15 Hey there. I am also an avid RC flyer. IF (ok, when) I crash and the guys ask what happened, I always tell them that I ran out of airspeed, altitude and ideas all at the same time. ;)
6milesup
Hehe.
You definitely need all three at the same time. Two out of three IS bad in this case.
Thank you so much for the professional quality explanatory videos. As a layman, I've not heard of many of these situations, and am pleased to see they are presented with great accuracy and respect. Congratulations on a great channel.
One great thing I love about your videos, is that you don't use the sad music that some other users do. Thank you!
I like the emotion of the music, but those other channels don't always use it either. It sucks you in. Also, sometimes it's a happy ending
There's a special place in hell for ppl who unnecessarily use backround music..
I absolutely love your videos. There are several people doing videos similar to yours, but yours are by far the best. Straight to the point, and no corny music to try and make things sound dramatic.
What a tragedy. Glad you went in to such detail...keep it up! Thank you for sharing!!
Great videos and great channel! I stumbled across your channel a few weeks ago and ended up watching all the videos in one night, mouth hanging open at most of them! Excellent work and I look forward to more videos/content from you!
This highlights the difference between a sensor being inoperative versus providing erroneous readings.
Great video,i was hoping that pilots will get out of stall and regain power and land safe,so sad ending
Gianna Kristof
Indeed my question is why didn't the pilots use thrusters to increase speed at the first sign of the stall warning??? It seems like this should have happened.
X Pilot
My question is why didn't the pilots increase speed at the first sign of the stall warning??? It seems like this should have happened. Seems like they were slow to get the speed up.
watershed44. They did, they immediately increased to maximum thrust when the stall warning alarm sounded. But because of the incorrect readings from the angle of attack sensors, the plane didn't alert them early enough that were in such danger of stalling. Then when they tried to level the plane out they were doomed, the artificial horizon works off the same sensors that allowed the stall in the first place, meaning they didn't even know how to accurately level the plane out when it began to roll over. They also had the landing gear out causing excess drag. Maybe if they hadn't retracted the landing gear they would have been able to recover the aircraft, but at that low altitude it was most likely too late whatever they did.
the crash was caused by when it was paintin the plane the sensors didnt be covered the sensors freeze because the paint r.i.p all of the engineers on board
Re the pilots overcorrecting: I’ve been in a situation like that but in a sailboat. I was 16, sailing a 17’ Flying Dutchman (centerboard, no keel) with my Dad and the boat builder, in SF Bay in the shipping channel. A gust of wind sent the boat heeling quickly over to starboard, and by instinct all 3 of us moved to port. That weight on such a small boat caused it to tilt too much to port, so on instinct we all moved starboard. By then the mechanics were such that the sail hit the water on the starboard side, and the boat turned turtle. Everything sank and we ended up getting rescued by a Coast Guard Cutter. I was hypothermic and don’t remember getting on the Cutter. Anyway, just wanted to mention the overcorrection part by the pilots - I think it’s instinctual. Isn’t there a way to build something into the system to not allow human overcorrection?
I watched this episode of Air Crash investigation, and in that reenactment, air traffic control actually did not approve their request for that final testing maneuver. The crew decided to squeeze it in during their return to the airport, but it didn’t turn out as well as they had hoped.
Mrs Libertas. Then they are hero’s. If they hadn’t tested it the plane possibly would have passed.
Great video, X Pilot.
Fantastic as always!
As an avionics technician who also has a deep interest in risk management, human factors, and industrial design, the fact that a philosophical principle to eliminate erroneous data ended up becoming the driving cause behind the very thing it was supposed to prevent fascinates me.
To me as a non expert what seems more fascinating is how a plane that has very little wrong with it and good pilots can be destroyed by virtually nothing. That plane was easily able to fly and shouldn’t just fall out of the sky. It just looks like the philosophical principle at play here is “complexity is better than simplicity “ ?
Haven't there been a number of crashes where these Airbus systems malfunctioned? There was that airshow one and then I think another one where an airbus stalled and crashed over the ocean. I'm sure they prevent some crashes, so it is hard to say if they kill more than they save because I don't think Airbus has a worse safety record than Boeing. Not sure how they compare actually.
Killer Wittgenstein
Ironic logic that two wrong readings were automatically right. Maybe the crew should have been given the choice to accept or override it.
My thoughts exactly.
There is no way that aircraft should have crashed.
It used to be the case that something major had to go wrong to cause a crash, now it's the most minor malfunction.
The seductive illusion of complexity.
nice vid dude, i love ur videos
Useful test.
excellent video!
This is nice, X Pilot! Keep up the great work! By the way, can you do a video on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302? Or Lion Air Flight 610?
Awesome video. Great work!
Alright just so we're clear - it failed the test?
with flying colors
I think sinking colors is more appropriate
Not as a submarine!
I’d imagine there was a fight over whose fault it was.
RandomDude the plane had its angle of attack sensor frozen...
Always very nice
It's so sad, it looked liked you worked hard on this one
Love the video andvery sorry forthe crew
This shows perfectly why the planes have such massive automated flying systems including landings. Only during manual control were their lives in danger. With stalling a real possibility during the final test all instruments ought to be checked first. Explanation for the violent overcorrection of pitch? Explanation for the doomed flight's nosedive instead of falling out of the sky in a stall?
Additionally, as these passenger buses become more instrument intensive, these kinds of incidents will become more prevalent. We are removing the pilot from the equation in favor of increased automation, which is turning helm crews more into computer managers as opposed to fliers. Statically it might be safer/more efficient, but its terrifying when a single telemetric component can cause aircrews to lose the plane. We're creating new hazards out of our attempts to eliminate others.
Perfect video. :)
Tragic .. RIP guys x
If I am not wrong, I saw this story in crash investigation thing tv series... and Angle of attack sensors froze because of the painting/labeling asked quick. and after painting they washed the plane like they wash a regular car, w/o required protection. and some water in "Angle of attack sensors" froze. but in lower altitude water defrost and sensors worked again. this was the main reason (I hope I explained enough) :)
Like always very well done sir
"angle of attack sensors frozen"..- scary similiarities with air france 447 (iced pitot meters) where pilots & air-bus flight systems try to correct the airplane on wrong data.
not quite right
The airplane does not correct anything the pilot does once it has established that it receives wrong data from the sensors. The Airbus switches to alternate law which makes the controls more sensitive (that was most likely the reason why the captain overcorrected) and it deactivates the protections Airbus has. Protections are the systems that correct the pilots inputs if they are deemed dangerouse.
However no correction can occur in alternate law. The pilot is in full control.
In the Air France crash the pilots were confused, flying the airplane into the stall and keeping it there. That is pilot error and wrong understanding of the airplane through lack of training
In this crash the pilots decided to do the stall test at 6000ft relying on the stall protection. If the stall protection doesn't kick in and they stall at 6000ft they are dead. They knew that and still tested. That is wrong risk management. If they do it at 12000ft they can easily recover but not at 6000ft
@@FluppiLP Great stuff man, i especially agree about that Air France crash, it was mainly a pilot error, that first officer make some wrong flight maneuvers and the other pilot because of the Airbus configuration wasn't aware of it.
Thanks for explaining the alternate law. How ever, You mention "In the Air France crash the pilots were confused" Of course , because they had all(?) altitude meeters in front of them telling the plane was loosing altitude. According to a french tv pgm*, facts can be explained this way*: Due to the iced pitot meters the pilots where trying to correct the airplane on wrong data = decreasing altitude. By doing so / over reacting they entered stall mode. ( pilot over react & alternate law) The stall warning sounded for a long time. One of the co-pilots continued to pull the the plane uppwards instead of doing the normal procedure: Plane nose down to recover speed & flying ability, and then level the plane. A procedure which every pilot is trained to handle according to air trainers & pilots in the program . *" Mayday AF447 les vrais raisons du crash Rio Paris ". The captain (who has been called in from resting) finally realises whats going on & starts to correct the stall but then it´s to late. The plane hits the sea.
As far as I know it's a little different:
The altitude was never false and the sensors worked just fine.
The Airbus will say on the main panel:
Air speed unreliable and ALTN LAW amongst other things so they knew exactly that the airspeed was unreliable and not the altitude. They were flying the plane and the idea is: The plane is flying well for hundreds of miles in this configuration so just keep it.
The pilot flying at this time just wanted to slightly correct the attitude but due to the ALTN Law being more sensitive he overcorrected multiple times and ended up in a position where he didn't know if he was slow or fast. That was the initial problem they faced and how they ended up stalling an aircraft that was perfectly flyable.
But as you say they are trained to handle a stall without blinking, calm and collected pushing the nose down.
That means that the pilot pulling up must have been confused and must have believed in something other than a stall. He always assumed the airplane was fast enough and completely disoriented decided to pull up. Of course the plane usually climbs when you pull up but not when it is stalling.
So the only possibility is that the highly stressed first officer in the right seat just couldn't think. He was so shocked that his mind reverted to the very very basic principle of pulling up to gain altitude. He probably never realized that he was hearing the stall warning.
This can happen when you're body is under enormous stress and it always makes me sad to read/hear about the AirFrance crash.
We all know that the whole crew were good pilots, all of them trained and prepared and everytime I hear parts of the voice recording I wish for a different outcome. I'm always hoping they realize that the FO in the right seat is pulling up early enough to safe the plane but they never do. It's one of the really really sad things to listen to
The failure of the AF447 crew was that they failed to fly a flyable airplane using basic airmanship a "known pitch and power setting" was all that was required to maintain safe flight nothing they encountered prevented this from occurring
Dont sink = dont die. Yes thank you it was nice to meet you.
I am new to your channel, and I really like our content. I was wondering if you could do Pan Am Flight 103
The pilots were also heavily criticized for conducting a stall test at such low altitude.
So how often does the ground crew/mechanics say, "Oh, that's good enough?"
As a New Zealander. This was shocking to see, especially seeing the tail bobbing in the water, and by sheer coincidence, it happened on the same day (nzst) as the erebus disaster.
Another case of over dependence on fly by wire systems compounded by poor stall procedure. I'm just glad they didn't have a full cabin. I often wonder how many airline pilots have little or no experience actually flying a plane instead of just monitoring systems.
pete sampson All of them have flown many hours in planes that are not just monitoring systems.
Well? I've never been a commercial pilot but I do have several thousand hours in light planes and ultralights and I have been around commercial pilots my whole life; especially flying ultralights and RC models. And, on the whole, commercial pilots have not impressed me with their knowledge and abilities. It seems like a great many of them are lacking in instinct and basic stick and rudder skills. A couple examples:
One gentleman did some work on his ultralight and forgot to turn the fuel back on. He charged down the runway, got about 30 feet up, and his engine quit. Then he kept trying to pull up until impact. He was unhurt but his girlfriend broke her ankle. After he calmed down a bit he proclaimed... "I don't know what happened, I kept pulling up and up and the plane kept going down and down!" He was also the same guy who installed a new prop backwards and couldn't figure out why he wasn't getting usable thrust until I pointed it out to him.
Another gentleman used to hang out with the old farts at the RC field. I was training a new flier and was so impressed with his trainer that I did a nice, impromptu, aerobatics display. It was especially fun doing tail slides because the plane was so stable it did all the work. Well? This particular pilot kept whining about me being "unsafe" because "trainers are not supposed to do that". He was also infamous for commissioning big scale warbirds, taking off for the first flight, and yelling "I ain't got it!" until impact.
I would definitely would not want either of them in command if something screwed up on an airliner. I just think that airline pilots, in general, spend too much time monitoring systems instead of actually flying the plane. Another airline pilot I know also flies aerobatic planes and his opinion of those who fly only airliners isn't fit to print. We agree that they would be a lot better prepared if they had to do frequent check rides in planes lacking computers and fly by wire systems. If the pilots in this case had been practicing stalls in a Cessna every month or so? They might have been more prepared for this emergency and followed the basic stall recovery procedure of "stick and throttle, forward together".
Cheers!
Good explanation, however they DID put both stick and throttle forward together. In fact right after they recovered from the first stall with the stick forward, they planted the sidestick fully forward and held it there for the 20 sec while the aircraft pitched to nearly 60 deg nose up and climbed at a rate of up to 5500ft/min before stalling a second time. They even banked left up to 45 deg, possibly in an attempt to get the nose to fall. You have to remember that an A320 is not a Cessna.
That's incredibly ignorant. Every commercial pilot I know has built hours flying small planes in remote places. Here in Canada, most commercial pilots start flying bush planes. And suggesting that the crew could have pulled a malfunctioning plane out of a stall if only they had flown a Cessna shows a total ignorance of what it is like to fly a commercial airliner.
We used to do simulator sequences involving recovery from unusual attitudes all the time.
It seems that a pilot must be very alert to monitor all of the systems, to be aware of which ones are operating and which ones are not, to recognize when there is a malfunction or faulty sensor reading, and to be able to fly the plane without any of them or with some on and some off. Too much for my old brain!
Why??? That seemed so avoidable.
Flight Levels begin at FL 180, where Class A (US) airspace begins; not FL60 or FL80. The way to say that would just be 6000' or 8000'.
I see. I thought it was standardized, like most things are
Transition levels are different in different countries.
Peter Nelson The video is correct.
I love class A airspace. Careless VFR pilots arent allowed there
omg, that ending
I believe the Captain will save the stall... But no.
they were doomed at that altitude, stalling at low speed. rip
Angle of attack sensors froze and failed as soon as high altitude reached, yet only until the "low speed test" was the problem noticed according to this. You would think the pilots would both declare plane UNFIT and END ALL TESTING IMMEDIATELY.
DIPSHIT. They didn't know that system was malfunctioning. Actually WATCH the video Mr armchair expert....
Guy Guyguy seriously. When one safety mechanism fails at 30,000 feet, it’s best to cut your losses and send it back to the hanger.
David Horgan Are you unaware that “dipshit” doesn’t mean “bullshit” and that you gratuitously insulted the poster of this video?
David Horgan Also, loftily telling the person who MADE the video to “actually watch the video” does not make you seem knowledgeable.
X Pilot they are paid to notice.
Who makes the visuals on these vids, where are the visuals acquired? Thanks
Do the angle of attack sensors have anything to do with the airplanes pitch relative to the artificial horizon as stated? I thought that was the AHRS' job.....angle of attack can change even when pitch relative to the horizon doesn't (consider flying through thermals and turbulence).
icepoop20 Your observation isn’t both keen and correct. The AOA is totally independent of the aircraft’s pitch. In the A320 the relevant pitch is generated by the ADIRUs while AOA data is not directly visible. I noted this as well, but it was probably beyond the scope of the discussion to correct it. Good spot!
Once the plane was in alt mode they really should of not been messing around, but these tests that they do should never be done at low altitude (testing stall feature at 2000-5000 feet is just bonkers if it fails and stalls you can't recover)
They really should install test motors in the angle of attack sensors so that it can do a movement test if they are frozen they won't move
and why is there 3 of them 4 would of possibly detected the discrepancy as the 2 faulty ones fooled the computer to thinking the working one was faulty if you have 4 and 2 are not matching up with other 2 then there must be an issue with them
Great idea, but why can't the autopilot put the aoa readings into context - if it's receiving data showing low airspeed and falling altitude then surely the high pitch angle data from the one working sensor would seem more accurate/realistic than the other two sensors?
But what if 3 were in a similar spot to get frozen just like the 2 that were frozen in real life?
@@Jaker788 it has happened on Airbus where 2 of the 3 AOA sensors was reporting same error angle but the 3rd one was correct so it computer decided that the third sensor was incorrect witch told the plane to go 15 degrees down Angle but because the way the Airbus computer was programmed at the time it didn't smooth out that 15 degree downwards force which resulted in about 2-3 sudden full control down commands from the trim witch resulted in negative G's and people bouncing off the top of the cabin until the pilots disabled the autotrim or changing the plane to direct law (they fixed it afterwards so it throws an AOA error when AOA is suddenly changing to impossible large amounts and won't send people flying)
Please do the Tenerife disaster. Thank you!
Damn I feel for them.
Sad story but a good story,
Well done, founded this in my recommend list
6:37 to 6:40 man that engine sound is very good
Got my notifications on for your channel! And by the way, can you please do Afriqiyah Airways 771? Thanks man!
what is your game graphics settings?
The more complex the aircraft it seems the more that does go wrong. Were "simple" craft prone to such problems?
I am 40 hour private pilot in training and very ready to be corrected if I am wrong. But it has been really hammered into me that recovery from stall or approaching stall in an unusual attitude is to move the control column CENTRALLY forward with the application of thrust if available, the wings can be rolled level and normal attitude returned to only once airspeed has recovered. Correcting roll with aileron input is in every sense the wrong thing to do. The wing you are attempting to lift will have a higher angle of attack due to aileron being in a downward position, increasing the degree to which the outboard portion of the wing is stalled and causing it to drop further. In the video at least the aircraft is flying in VMC and did not need a flight sensor to know if the attitude was pitching nose up. How are there computers that take control from a pilot who could easily have fixed this? Or how is this pilot not being questioned for not taking the action in the most basic of flight manuals? Also item one of the HASSELL check is height.
Will Tucker You get that the entire purpose of the test was to check the aircraft’s high AOA protections, right? You also get that pitch and AOA are independent, right?
What you may not know is that stall recoveries on airliners are not the same as general aviation aircraft. Given your experience, that’s understandable, but while I certainly have some critiques of this crew and would be interested to know the parameters specified on their test card for maneuver entry, the bulk of your analysis is very colored by a GA/light aircraft background that’s not necessarily germane to the accident flight.
Also in close to 20,000 hours of flying, much of it in the A320, I’ve never heard of the HASSELL check. What is it? (And don’t expect it to be general knowledge.)
[Edited for grammar.]
When you go full power is that not enough to get airspeed back to alleviate the stall? It always seems like it isn’t in these kinds of crashes
Power doesn’t matter when the AOA is high enough, because you get flow seperation and stall, not a reduction in lift because of low speed, near total loss of lift.
How do u make these videos?
Nice vid. Please make some Argetinian plane crash videos like LAPA 3142, Austral 2553 and the really strange British South American Airways 59.
Those Airbus side sticks should be renamed death sticks...the pilots that have to use them seem to have trouble correcting simple bank deviations.
"Over control" is misleading. Most airline pilots will be unable to hold the wings level in a stall, regardless of the design of the controls. The reason they had trouble is because it was stalled at the time. Accurate roll control in a stall is difficult if not impossible. The reason is that when in a stall the roll damping reduces and may become negative, meaning it will try to roll by itself, and the ailerons become less effective and may even have an opposite effect because the airflow over them is separated and turbulent. In short the aircraft becomes less stable and wants to roll aggressively by itself, and when you try to fight the roll the controls are much less effective, taking (in some cases) several seconds of full opposite input before the aircraft stops rolling.
Jamenator1
Great synopsis! Thanks. QUALITY POST!
You wanna buy some death sticks?
Scarebus... giving new life to ocean cruising
Keith Waites
Work for Boeing do you?
Boing, now enter new ocean depths and the African countryside
So did Air New Zealand buy the plane?
I'm confused. Even if the pilots were getting confusing readings, why didn't they put the nose down when they got the repeated stall warning? The report didn't mention pilot error, but wouldn't that be the case?
they had tried to put the nose down, but a warning came up saying 'use man pitch trim' for like a more dramatic effect of pitch
They were unable to get the nose down even with full down elevator because of the high engine thrust and nose up stabiliser trim setting. To get the nose down and recover they could have either reduced thrust or re-trimmed the stabiliser, unfortunately neither was done in time.
Jamenator1 thank you both for explaining.
Jamenator1
Great explanation. Are you are a pilot commercial or private?
I wish X Pilot would sticky your posts and other professional pilots to the top comments section!
Dee Anna they didn’t have enough altitude to recover from a stall by putting the nose down and pulling the throttle. Stalling at 3000 feet is death sentence.
Btw it's Perpignan and not Perpignon. :p Great videos anyway !
"Thoughts and prayers."
See! It works goooooooooooooooo
...**huge explosion**
I wonder if this was similar to the Air France accident where the one 1st officer had his stick all the way back causing the plane to be nose up and then causing a stall. This one was nose up, but didn't the pilots in this flight have time for a recover from preparing to land? They retracted landing gear and powered up engines to do a go around, then the airplane veered in directions pilots didn't want the plane to go?
Jason Lurf
In this case, the plane was in full manual mode. This means to pitch down from an extreme nose up attitude, the elevator trim needs to be adjusted, which the pilots didn’t do. That’s why the plane stayed nose up and stalled.
Jason Lurf was
So sad . With planes that size , the slightest defect will eventually be revealed . Pilots are hero’s 👩✈️
You do know this was an acceptance flight? The stall test was a part of it.
If only my mom would let me pay for the wi-fi on AA I would stream this on my upcoming flight in 2 days
Is there any other reason for an unrecoverable dive to be unrecoverable apart from insufficient height?
Yes, look up mach tuck, but in this case there just wasn’t enough altitude.
It said they could've used the trim to recover, but they did not use it.
This is very similar to the lion air crash due to incorrect sensor data regarding angle of attack and finally resulting in a nose dive in order to prevent aerodynamic stall.
RandomDude, no, they were performing a test to hand it back to Air New Zealand.
A real-life Minority Report, just with a bit more unfortunate ending than the movie counterpart.
poor maintenance, surprise surprise
It's a mystery to me why the crew retracted the landing gear when the 2nd stall warning began. This exacerbated the problem, and further complicated resolution of the problem.
Jonathan Fischbach Explain how you thought it would be unwise to retract the gear except in retrospect by watching the video.
The landing gear slows the plane and pitches it up, so I think that it makes sense that they retracted it during a stall.
@@Owen_loves_Butters but how long does that procedure take, and how much spare time at that moment did they have to think about the situation.
yeah, quite clearly they provoked the stall at lowest speed and no altitude to recover, and after getting a warning already the aoa sensors were malfunctioning..bad mistake
I love these videos but I’m dismayed at how many there are and how easily shit goes wrong and it’s certain death. I don’t want to fly ever again now
Could it be saved if pilot used man pitch trim in time ..or it would go in a stall anyway ?...
Good question anyone got any answers?
But wouldn't the two frozen angle of attack sensors have presented largely unchanging data? Seems like a better reason to reject it over agreement with other faulty sensor.
Bard AOA data is generally transparent to the pilot until the point a protection should occur. In this case, they had no reason to suspect bad AOA data due to poor maintenance.
I'm aviaton fan D:
Lolbity Love fox990 Same here :)
Lolbity Love fox990 me too
This is not the Jacob Collier video I was looking for
Not surprising that this happened! Airbus has a huge problem with their flight management system, the system is designed to prevent mistakes by pilots by giving them very minimal control of the plane at all times, the pilots can only do so much, they are entirely at the mercy of the flight control modules, there is no way to override the system. Airlines cover up incidences where there is no crash, but a lot of people have posted videos of Airbus planes doing crazy manuevers during clear flight, the Airlines try to write it off as turbulence, but a lot of people never experienced turbulence causing wild variations and as such they dont believe it, one recent incident was on a flight from Dallas, that injured some people, the flight was never mentioned in the media.
you would think after the first warning on the AOA sensors they would abandon the mission and return home, not start pushing it to the limits and pulling off unauthorized extreme flight maneuvers
teddy pendergrass There was no warning.
me when try fly in simulators
It's moments like these that I wish I were still alive. (said many dead people)
"Incorrect maintenance practices allowed water to enter the air attack sensors". To me? Not enough checks and balances. But, three engineers onboard, and no one noticed or checked before lift off when this can be the result?
The water only froze after liftoff
Great video, but I recommend some music at the start and at the investigation part
Does anyone know if the plane passed all its tests?
the reason why the plane suddely pitches down is cause by the planes anti stall system if the plane is stalling the system is pushing the nose down to gain more speed but in this case the pilots were to low to recover
This accident was caused by the stall protection NOT working. The nose dropped because the aircraft rolled inverted as one wing stalled more than the other
Jamenator1 the nose down movement was caused by the airplanes anti stall system and also when the landing gear was extended weight of the plane failed
section 3.2, page 98 of the official report specifically states the cause of the crash as :
"The accident was caused by the loss of control of the aeroplane by the crew following the improvised demonstration of the functioning of the angle of attack protections (anti stall system), while the blockage of the angle of attack sensors made it impossible for these protections to trigger."
The crew were testing the anti-stall system, also called the angle of attack protection system, expecting it to activate. As per the final report, the aircraft crashed specifically because these anti-stall system did NOT activate at any stage because it was impossible for it to do so with the sensors frozen.
When most aircraft stall, they usually will have the nose fall and sometimes drop a wing as a side effect of the stall. In the stall the aircraft starts descending, natural aerodynamic stability will want to point the nose in the general direction of travel (just like a dart or arrow) and in the case of a stall, down. In conclusion, dropping of the nose was aerodynamic, computers had nothing to do with it
Watch this:
ruclips.net/video/lL6L3MiTWzo/видео.html
Top production as always, maybe would be nice to see less repetition of video clips
Are you talking about the ones at the end? I agree but i think it's also hard to get a lot of footage from crash sites. Probably gets these ones off of news sites.
Hey man at 7:26 don't do crash like that
just make screen go black with crash sound
you can learn from TheFlightChannel and while conclusion put some music
they destroyed the aircraft along wih their lives while testing it for safety wow
nice
Any pilots know what could of been done? Was it recoverable? He leaves out what happened in flight sim, which is usually standard procedure for an accident. What a nightmare scenario. There have been quite a few planes with clogged sensors, doesn't seem to end well. At night it's obviously worse. They too low to recover? Conditions seemed perfect to not get disoriented.
Russell Scott I didn’t see the test card they were using, but I’ve done a lot of FCF flights, and my one overriding concern was low initial entry altitude. I’ve never personally done low speed/high AOA tests that low in an airliner.
When is the Tenerife disaster coming?
Dang.
I'd suggest TWA flight 843, an interesting accident.
Wh is it called XXL Airways Germany if the livery sayd its Air New Zeland
Because the aircraft has been leased from Air New Zealand and was being returned to them
Did Wilson Survive .
Could it be stated that the pilots failed to fly the airplane?
Yes and no. They could’ve trimmed the nose down, but they had no idea what was going on and thought that the plane’s stall protection had failed, so they pushed the stick forward not realizing the plane was in direct law and stick forward is just not enough in direct law.
You know it scares me, I don’t think people in general care as much about their jobs these days. I’m not saying everyone, but a lot of people are just lazy and just want to do their job and go home. Years ago people really took their job seriously and were proud. I think there is so much human error today and when you are getting on the plane or anything like that, you are putting your life in someone else’s hands
Oh, dear, what a crash!
So... was Air New Zealand satisfied with the plane?