Deadly Escape | Crashing Immediately After Takeoff (With Real Video)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 авг 2023
- Find out why this aircraft suffered an engine fire just moments after takeoff and crashed shortly thereafter.
Get early access to future videos and support the channel here:
• / theflightchannel
Check out the Official Shop with merchandise here:
• teespring.com/stores/thefligh...
Follow TheFlightChannel
• Facebook: / theflightchannel
• Instagram: / tfc_aviation
Business Enquiries
• Email: contact.theflightchannel@gmail.com
This video has been recorded and edited in 4K resolution and 60FPS. 
Игры
So, in short, we had two pilots who never should have been in the cockpit, and an aircraft that should never have been in the air. What a marvelous combination.
Not to mention...a maintenance crew that never should have cleared the plane....and an ATC that should never have approved the flight plan considering the destination airport runways were closed for maintenance
but why 4 engines instead of the actual two used in the animation
@@yevercase3339 read all the captions in the video, like the one @0:25 and you wouldn't be asking this question...
the pilots were not short.
Business, money.🏦
So, the maintenance crew gave a damaged aircraft to pilots who weren't authorized to fly the plane. It seems the only fairly responsible person in this incident was the passenger who told them the engine was on fire..
I read that waaaaaayyyy differently.
"So, repairman and pilot fuck up, we know. But you told pilot and then made video, yes?
That means you now responsible! You get 10 years gulag for that blyat!"
The lack of qualification of the pilots was largely a paperwork issue...they'd obviously flown the Convair previously and successfully. And it's entirely possible that they left the engine running intentionally, reasoning that it was still producing some power. That may not have been true, but it's not an absurd idea. Now, how the thing passed a C check with serious engine problems is a lot less understandable.
@@matthewcoleman1919 The pilots were incompetent just because you can fly a state-of-the-art aircraft with all the bell and whistles doesn't mean you can fly a plane built in the 50s.. They are 2 totally different aircraft; the one surviving pilot should never be anywhere near an aircraft again.
@@murrayf9005 Not entirely clear. That's possible, but not certain. I do both (one for work, one for fun), and a lot (but not all) of the skills transfer. One thing that's definitely true is that those big old pistons are a lot more complex and difficult to deal with than a modern jet engine. So maybe the pilots were at fault, again, not clear. I was more interested in discussing how the C check failed to notice the significant damage to the engines. A C check is a pretty serious thing, there should be boreascopes, etc. They should have caught that, easily, like it's not even a question. Was it just a pencil-whipping?
Running a engine on fire is not a good thing, I'm assuming that even the 1950's Convair could comply with single engine performance requirements. I agree with you about the maintenance. @@matthewcoleman1919
The passenger did well to tell the pilots that one of the engines caught fire contributing to their situational awareness.
It didn't make any difference though, because the flight crew were completely incompetent. Just because you can sit for many hours on autopilot in an A380 drinking coffee, doesn't mean that you can handle an ETATO in an ancient prop aircraft. This crew were an accident waiting to happen.
@@arturo468 The plane was an accident waiting to happen too. Bad combination.
Yea .That would be pure logic. Don't know why they ignored it, but I wonder if they were scared about stalling at such a low altitude. Trying to get higher up first.
Yes it more than likely did help the situation. They were at a higher altitude and it gave them more time to likely get wings straight and level and prepare for a potential crash landing. Remarkable that they had so few casualties.
@@arturo468 they'd never been near an a380. the captain was qualified on single engine fun planes -- c150 c172 c182 etc
I'm impressed that that many people survived, fully expected almost everyone to pass away as characterized by how the impact looked and sounded on the video
Can't we use the words die or died? Pass away to where.
@@sandraadams4940 Why don't you just accept other's people's world views? Don't we have more important things to worry about than your atheism?
@johnkla7866 the one is based on reason and logic, the other is based on fantasy.
@@SimonPageSA Says the person with a Picard profile image. You got to be joking...
@@johnkla7866 I am not an atheist. Sorry you got that impression.
I'm surprised that there was no acceptance flight test without passengers after such a heavy maintenence.
But what's really shocking is seeing two super experienced pilots breaking the norms and checklists
No kidding!
Checklist wouldn't have changed the outcome
@@Morpheen999 Could've put out the fire. Usual checklist for engine fire is to turn it off. I was surprised they didn't do that.
@@randycraft3166 Always the usual suspect.
@@randycraft3166 South Africa has poor work culture nowadays.
Also they loaded a bunch of people on a plane that hadn't flown in 17 months and just had maintenance performed. That plane should have been flown prior to that flight to check air worthiness. It's amazing how many crashes are easily preventable by using common sense and following guidelines.
Crashes or deaths? The crash would have happened no matter the number of souls on board.
Test flight, no PAX, light fuel, certified pilots, maint crew chief. Even if post V1, likely able to successfully make the right turn 180 to runway.@@floridaman5125
@@floridaman5125 well. it would have been lighter xD maybe enough to maintain altitude with 1 engine
Agreed. That was completely crazy and irresponsible.
Also I expected an undetectable problem arising that was professionally handled by two of the highest level pilots in the business, who would have been extra meticulous with a 54 year old plane that had not flown in 17 months.
Blow me down with a feather, no.
The human condition is perplexing.
@@Nebbia_affaraccimiei : Maybe, but if the crew still hadn't activated the fire extinguisher in the left engine, being able to maintain altitude could have resulted in a much worse crash from flying for a long time with a burning engine.
Knowing that the aircraft can go down anytime, hats off to the daring of that person who filmed the scary situation
no film involved. no one wore hats.
Recorded video, we don't use film haven't for over 20 years. We don't tape, and there are no cell phones.
That's because he was aware of the "cameraman never dies" rule.
I think it's a way of distancing one self from a stressful situation.
@@JSFGuyok. Got it.
I remember following this accident. On top of ALL the issues mentioned, there was mass confusion in the cockpit, and the crew almost shut down the wrong engine. The true sad part is, that had only ONE of the missed items been done, the plane would've made it back. 1. Reject, 2. Close the cowl flap, 3. Feather the engine, 4. Recognised the failed engine earlier. Any one of them, and 2 lives would have been spared. I was always interested in this, because it goes to show that the bigger and more modern the plane, the more basic flying skills and airmanship go out the window.
They are actively trying to eliminate the co-pilot. The flight attendant's union is livid.
Complete BS. There was not mass confusion, the reason the prop wasn't feathered and the cowl flaps weren't closed as per the engine fire shutdown/secure checklist. was because it was still developing some power, more than zero thrust, and if it had been shut down, the flight would have ended even sooner, and likely even more tragically. All the points you raise are way off the mark, typical kind of thing from a keyboard warrior.
How would I know? I knew the captain very well, he wasn't only a retired A380 pilot, he had his own small single aircraft, and a twin, both of which he flew very regularly, he was also an experienced and current glider pilot, he also often flew the glider tug, he also was a very experienced Connie pilot, and had, not too long before this flight, ferried a restored Catalina halfway around the world, he also flew medivac aircraft regularly. In short, he lived for aviation, had immense experience and skill, on many types and was much more current than this bogus 'report' suggests. Few had as much experience and knowledge on big old old piston engined aircraft like the Convair, which is why he was asked to carry out the flight, and he was contracted to take it to Europe after this flight. He was rated on the aircraft type, and had flown other large, piston engine aircraft, including the Connie, well within the currency period. This 'report' is inaccurate, it puts the blame on those who can't reply, and has massively downplayed the true cause of the crash...manifestly inadequate maintenance and false record keeping which covered up the failure to correct major engine issues, about which the pilots were not aware. Not only was the left engine not fit for flight, the right engine was nowhere near as good as it should have been. If you check the footage you will see it was pushing out a lot of exhaust smoke, the mixture was clearly too rich, and it was burning oil. The low manifold pressure indication has been overstated here, it was not related to the engine problem, it was just a faulty indication, was recognised as such by the crew, hence their decision to continue with the take off. That kind of thing happens a lot in flying, but then a truly experienced pilot would know that.
The crew were busy trying to make it back, but the 'good' engine wasn't exactly giving them 100%...at the density height of that area, the aircraft was doomed from the moment it left the runway, no feathering or cowl flap closure would have helped. I have no doubt that the reason all the passengers survived was due to the pilots' skill and airmanship in putting the doomed aircraft down as well as could be hoped for under the circumstances. Vale Captain Kelly.
@@woofblitz3694 I was going only by the official report. As I assume they reported the facts correctly. Especially given that they had extensive audio/video footage of the event. Just to name a few, the crew were not sure if they raised the gear or not, asking each other which engine was on fire and not discussing whether or not to extinguish the fire. Furthermore, the flight should not have been doomed before it left the ground. I agree maintenance was proven to be shoddy. However, performance and weight and balance are the responsibility of the commander. And continuing the takeoff with no clear way of establishing performance of an engine in such a critical takeoff is not right.
I am an aviator with more than 13000 flight hours and have seen my share of close calls and have personally been involved in a ditching. No one is immune. My most deepfelt respect and solemn to ALL affected.
@@woofblitz3694 A superb reply. Thank You for taking the time to write it. It provided much clarity.
@@woofblitz3694 "All the points you raise are way off the mark, typical kind of thing from a keyboard warrior"
First off, I'm not sure you know what the term "keyboard warrior" means as nothing in @xkoote comment rises to the level of keyboard warrior.
Now, the SACAA report supports much of what xkoote said so if you have a problem with that then take it up with the official report findings. Sorry about your friend but that's no reason for the prickish behavior mate.
This is the sort of stories that I watch The Flight Channel for. Never before incidents
Very sad. Sounds like two very experienced pilots deciding to wing it (no pun intended) and hope for the best.
..and knowing this is Not glass this is old school flying so your skills needs to be on sharp!
That was part of the problem . . . they weren't that experience with that plane.
Of the many shocking failures in this incidents, that was the most shocking of all to me, that 2 such experienced pilots would make so many mistakes and completely disregard all procedures and checklists.
my dad was a ww 2 pilot that flew many types of aircraft---the usual check out was,"can you fly it?"--he told me many harrowing stories that happened daily--what cracked me up the most is the stories of drinking while flying! i got my own stories of pure luck over the years that would not even attempt today(no drinkin,not at war!)--the
Kudos to the proactive passenger informing the flight crew about the engine and recording it (even if it may not have helped). In their place coming in like that, my thoughts would be "This video might be the only thing that survives of me." I'm amazed that there were only 2 fatalities.
Hi Captain. Agreed. This particular accident needs more coverage. So many questions. The passenger does deserve kudos. And then continues to film. Different sort of individual.
Wouldn't the systems alert the pilots to an engine fire anyways? I get its an older aircraft, but surely maintenance standards would've required some sort of system to be in place. It doesn't seem like a great idea as a passenger to disturb the pilots during such a critical phase of flight, especially when seatbelts are required during takeoff.
He was actually one of the engineers, he travelled to SA with the pilots for the flight.
-@@dehavillandcanadatwinotter9621 - I wouldn't bet my life on a gauge when there is a known fire. Why bother? Telling a pilot is free - it costs nothing. Remember, some pilots have engaged in controlled flight into terrain! Don't assume your pilot sees a fire that is located behind him just because you see it. If his or her feelings are hurt because you didn't fully trust that the pilot knew everything, that pilot has mixed up priorities.
But it attests to the skill of the pilot.
I like how the aircraft changes between 2 and 4 engines xD
Yeah, that was weird. Looks like the actual aircraft had 2.
He states in the beginning of the video that the actual model differs. You don't have all plane models in a simulator.
You are really a channel that deserves 10 million subscribers. Thanks for the efforts
They spent far more on the new paint job than they did on basic engine inspection and maintenance 😮
One of the more crazier crashes I've seen
forgot twa 800?
More crazier?
@@tominmtnvwlol
So many errors of judgment, starting with faulty maintenance. During the run-up of the engines before takeoff, the bad cylinder head and valve surely would have been obvious. They knew they shouldn't fly. Why they wouldn't abort before V1 is nuts. Why they wouldn't deploy the fire extinguisher on the burning engine seems suicidal. Great footage of the crash.
I thought the same thing. They noticed the carbon deposits, and only cleaned the parts with the carbon deposits on them, never once questioning, why there were carbon deposits on them in the first place. The first thing I would have thought of for the carbon deposits would have been either a faulty ring on the piston or a head gasket leak, as the cause of the carbon deposits!🤦♂
No, the failure occurred as the aircraft lifted off, the run ups were extensive and produced no indication of concern. This captain was a very careful operator, I knew him personally, and flew with him in the cockpit several times. He was not a cowboy.
Sadly, there was also one ground casualty, so three people were killed in total. Completely avoidable crash, rest in peace to those lost.
Hard to believe a 4-engine Douglas is the closest you could get to a Convair 340 . . .
Yes, a DC 3 or C-47 would have worked, although they both are tail draggers.
It’s hard to believe with your computer skills that you couldn’t make a Convair. One engine out on a DC-4 won’t make it crash. Thumbs down on this one
@@donalexander4113 Do you realise how long it would take to make a model from scratch??? These models will exist in a database already. Clearly there is not a Convair 340 of high enough quality to use in the video. And it is not like the channel is going to use this model very often, if ever again.
Don't forget that if they had made it to
their destination, that airfield was not
operational for fixed-wing aircraft due
to runway closure for maintenance.
If the pilots hadn't checked NOTAMS
(or South Africa equiv), they likely didn't
have the Charts/Plates for the area and
would have been in a bind for finding an
alternate.
Thanks to the unknown passenger who alerted the pilots and filmed the engine on 🔥!
They basically did a test flight, after a huge maintenance service, with 17 passengers onboard.
There's laws and rules in place that need to be followed, these are not advisory. To hear that they went over 12 months without flying the same aircraft scares me to the bone. I haven't flown a C172 in nearly 6 months and I would still request a check ride to ensure that I still remember flying it even though I have over 400 hours PIC and currently flying a Pilatus PC12. This is the perfect example of the dangerous mentality some pilots have. Just because you're a Training Captain for the A380 and over 30 years of flying, doesn't mean that you know how to operate a CV-340. Excellent video!! This should be used as a case study for all accident investigations.
Thanks for another fantastic video, TFC! Really amazing that these experienced pilots ignored major rules and regulations while being responsible for that many lives. Good that most survived.
my dad was a ww 2 pilot that flew many types of aircraft---the usual check out was,"can you fly it?"--he told me many harrowing stories that happened daily--what cracked me up the most is the stories of drinking while flying! i got my own stories of pure luck over the years that would not even attempt today(no drinkin,not at war!)--the coming nuke war is going to put all that safety stuff out the window....
Engine: Is on fire
Pilot: Burn baby burn
The people complaining about the number of engines, font you read everything on the screen? He stated that the airplane was not the same as the plane in the incident.
Would have been better to use a Douglas DC-3 for this video. It's older and a bit smaller than the Convair 340, but at least it has 2 engines and not 4.
Yeah we saw that, and still thought he could have at least shown a twin engine plane.
attention to details is important whether you are flying a commerical airplane or prodcing a RUclips video.
Thank you!!!
@@ab1dq593ironic comment - “prodcing“
As an Australian I am very disappointed to see 2 very experienced Qantas pilots breaking every rule in the book.
Disappointed that the simulation doesn't include a Convair 340 or other similar twin engine prop plane.
Would have been better to use a Douglas DC-3 for this video. It's older and a bit smaller than the Convair 340, but at least it has 2 engines and not 4.
In the video, it was stated that a similar plane was not available, and yes a DC-3 would have worked even as a tail dragger.
@@sgd5k292 This was the first video that I did not watch all the way through because of the 4 engine vs. 2 engine plane. Sorry. Plus I have seen the actual video footage before and of the plane crash itself. Overall I generally enjoy the channel. It is just hard for me to imagine a 2 engine plane when I see a 4 engine plane which looked like a DC-6.
No problem, here :). @@hawaiifiles
The aircraft shown looks like a DC4, the Convair 340 only had 2 engines.
Would have been better to use a Douglas DC-3 for this video. It's older and a bit smaller than the Convair 340, but at least it has 2 engines and not 4.
What a shame not only losing a historical aircraft, but also 2 lives due to not be certificated and still flying this type of aircraft. 🇿🇦 🇦🇺
A pair of historical military planes including a bomber just visited our local air show. A 1 hour go-around flight seat in the turret was selling for $850 per seat. Sold out all seats all 3 days, 4-5 flights/day.
I'm all for the pilots properly being certified in the country in which the aircraft is operated (circling the dots, so to speak) but to blame THAT on this crash is kind of like when journalists pinpoint the cause of a crash and blame pilots for not filing a flight plan. If the pilots were lacking in CRM or currency in type, THAT'S the actual issue. Everything else is just paperwork.
So the engine caught on fire due to lack of certification? It's like blaming the waiter for serving burnt steaks the chef "ducked up"...
I don't think the plane caught fire because they lacked paperwork. Also, the video is kind of lacking in the direct cause of the crash. If both engines were running why did they lose altitude? TFC seems to emphasize procedures and bureaucracy while skipping over what exactly happened. That's a thumbs down for this one.
I'm going to step and defend the channel on this one, he's merely stating the facts that came out of the report, whether we're to agree with them or not (don't shoot the messenger). As to the aircraft losing altitude on one engine - twin-engine planes can hold altitude when EVERYTHING is optimal, meaning at a certain weight, temperature, altitude and also a fast-acting crew. Certainly some of these factors were lacking, and down the plane went. Losing an engine on a twin at cruise altitude is a non-event, but losing an engine on takeoff, you better land quick (or crash-land anywhere suitable) @@HUNmerlin
Too many mistake we’re made in a very unforgiving method of transportation, may the people that lost their lives rest in peace. 😢
The plane was first delivered to the USAF in 1954 and it was still in use up to 2009??? That is absolutely wild
Planes are build to fly indefinitely - the only reason they are replaced or stopped from service is economical reasons, e.g. fuel consumption, passenger capacity… etc…
A plane can easily fly for 30, 40, 50+ years and even longer, if proper (regular) maintenance is given
@@gminix I thought there were limits from fatigue. Aluminum alloys, unlike steel, do not have a minimum stress under which they do not accumulate fatigue damage.
Aircraft like the B-52 and KC-135 were produced in the 50s and 60s and are still in use!
My thoughts exactly. The KC-135s that regularly fly over here are as old or older than me, and I am 60.@@kevinschweiss5433
@@gminix : Depends on airframe metal fatigue.
It's truly amazing all the passengers survived, and in fact, only the flight crew perished. One immediately and the other months later. So many problems. Mechanical, yes, but neither pilot should have been on that plane. I wondered when they didn't try to put out the engine fire what was going on with them. Even the mayday was wrong. Very sad. RIP the two souls lost. Thank you for another great presentation.
Rubbish, the co pilot is still living. The crew were qualified, certified and were current. The Mayday was not 'wrong' as you try to claim, the crew were obviously very busy at that time, their priorities rightly put the detailed provision of the nature of the fault to ATC way down the list.
@@woofblitz3694Nope. They just said mayday and didn't explain why they were calling in mayday. Watch it again. One of the flight crew died in the crash, another was badly injured and died months later from those injuries. Watch it again - they were not currently qualified to be flying that plane. Did you even watch this? Or are you talking about a different event?
Not just "MAYDAY" read the full report, it clearly contradicts itself. "Mayday, Mayday, Mayday left engine fire" was the call from the Convair on tower frequency. The crew also subsequently advised their intentions, and acknowledged tower's advisories and clearances. Not sure what more you think they should have done. That is a smokescreen, not a contributing factor at all.
While that aircraft was still airborne, including just prior to impact, control was never lost. That much can be easily established from the on board footage, as well as from eye witness accounts from people on the ground. The report is glaringly wrong about that. If control had been lost, even for a split second in that situation, the plane would have snap rolled and would have come down close to inverted, in an extreme nose down attitude, and all on board would almost certainly have been killed. That didn't happen.
Both pilots were rated and certified on the Convair, another error in the report. They had both gained their Convair ratings subsequent to 2016 when the SA gov issued them with licences to operate SA registered aircraft. They had also both delivered an almost identical Convair to Australia from the same airport, and from the same seller or previous owner. The SA gov issued them with the required clearances and documentation for that flight, which occurred in 2018, iirc. They were scheduled to fly the accident aircraft to the Netherlands, with many en route stops and lay overs. The preparatory clearances necessary for that delivery operation had been completed, including those required by the SA gov. If there was any kind of oversight over this, it was not intentional, they were not aware of any problem, and it had absolutely no bearing on the cause of the crash.
Both pilots had operated aircraft of a similar type in terms of era, size, systems, performance, controls, procedures and handling characteristics in the months prior to the accident. It's possible that the ICAO type recency requirements were met by that. Pilots are required to meet the ICAO's appropriate certification and qualification requirements when operating a foreign registered aircraft in a country foreign to that in which they hold a licence. An Australian licence meets those ICAO requirements. The aircraft's registration was South African, which adds a layer of requirement which is essentially bureaucratic in nature. Perhaps these pilots were in breach of the SA license requirement, but it's also very likely that they believed (perhaps in error) they were operating legally under an implied exemption since they were taking the aircraft out of SA. It was to be registered in the Netherlands. Again this has no bearing on the accident cause.
The pilots were aware of the notam re the 'destination' airfield; they rang the operator to find out more. I understand that they were told it might be possible to land there by the time of their ETA, but maybe not. So, they planned properly and appropriately for an overflight in the event that it wouldn't be available. Not in the least a contributing factor to the accident.
The pilots' decision to not shut the ailing engine down was sound, deliberate and correct. Nothing to do with an alleged lack of knowledge and failure to apply the correct engine fire procedure claimed in this report. Had they done what this report insists should have been done, the aircraft would have come down almost immediately. It is ludicrous to suggest that a Convair 340, loaded as it was, could have flown on one engine alone in that situation, especially considering the density height of 5,000'+ . Any twin pilot knows that you do not shut down an engine if it is still giving more net power/thrust than that which would result from a shutting the engine down with its prop feathered, if you really need the performance, even if it is on fire, which was the case here. You do not carry out the engine fire drill until continued flight is reasonably assured, or a suitable emergency forced landing area can be reached without that engine. On this factor, the report is woefully ignorant and inconsiderate. It is so very flawed.
The true cause of this accident was poor maintenance on the part of a shoddy facility that signed off on work that actually wasn't done. That facility was certified by the same SA gov organisation that is behind this 'report', despite that SA gov org being aware of that facility being not up to the required minimum standard for certification; ie not being equipped or ever having the necessary team of licenced engineers nor any independent engineering organisation to cross check its work. No wonder that SA gov org wants to deflect this all onto the pilots, who cannot now speak for themselves. Easy targets.
Clearly you haven't even read the full report and you certainly really don't know much about this tragedy. People here like you should hang your head in shame, carrying on like a self appointed lynch mob.
@@woofblitz3694 Excuse me, but my opinion was based on this presentation. And that is pretty much the case of most opinions listed here. Weird you should take it so personal and try to shame me.
Not surprised it crashed the engineer must have been exhausted what with having to repeatedly install and remove those 2 extra engines.
Lol
Almost a "Flight Of The Phoenix" situation.
Damn.. And both of those engines would have come in handy in this situation..
Yes when you're used to TFCs usual attention to detail, this was a pretty disappointing effort. Either that or the Convair 340 is a very special aircraft indeed.
@@DenisonBarracksPerimeterFence - That's what i thought. He CERTAINLY should've caught that.
This was totally unacceptable . I just wonder how they managed to recruit 17 passengers. Another great video, thanks Flight Channel. Always look forward to the next one.
Dude...The name of that airport!?!?
Wonderboom...Yeah, I think they're asking for trouble with a name like that! 😂
Lol it's an Afrikaans name which loosely translates to "miracle tree"
Great name, not for an airport, perhaps...
Soot and carbon in the manifold pressure gauge should have been a red flag demanding a full engine cylinder strip downs. Just cleaning and reassembling is a triumph of optimism over historical experience.
Absolutely! A real tell tale, that.
Your videos are getting better, and better each time! Really well done
Great video as always... The flight channel makes my week complete with new videos every week. This guy does an amazing job.
WTF??? Two extremely experienced pilots that just did not care to get valid licenses? That did not care about check lists? I thought for SURE Qantas people had more safety mind than that. I'm just staring in disbelief here....
It is totally wrong, this report. The aircrew have been thrown under the bus, they were qualified, certified and were current...shutting down an engine that was still developing some power would only have resulted in the flight coming down even sooner, the aircraft crashed due to sick engines, the aircrew had nothing to do with that.
Clearly the main culprit in this accident were the mainteance teams who conducted all three series of checks and cleared a plane that was not airworthy. It also raises serious questions on whether the maintenance team was still familiar with these oldtimer planes. On the pilots the main culpability I would see in not aborting the flight when hitting 50 kts but then you do not indicate what seed V1 for this aircraft is and how much time the pilots had to react.
It would be interesting if you coul cover a similar oldtimer plane crash with an 'Aunt Ju', a Ju-52 with a lot of history in 2018 in Switzerland. Thanks.
How did one compromised engine cause the plane to crash? The plane seemed like it was gaining altitude with one working engine until it suddenly dropped out of the sky. Why did the plane crash if it still had one working engine?
Well, they said the pilots lost control of the ailerons too. And I'm sure the continually burning engine didn't help the situation any.
I am guessing the uncontrolled fire may have caused damage to flight control systems of the aileron resulting in a complete loss of control.
Yeah that bothered me. Why does the video not address why the plane fell out of the sky.
One of the verrry few times you see an engine catch fire and all passengers and one crew member are able to escape the aircraft with their lives intact.
Bravo to you. I’ve never been interested in aviation but your videos always amaze me.
There's nothing like having unqualified pilots conducting your flight. You ask yourself, "how does this even happen?" The report of the left engine manifold pressure being low should have been sufficient to immediately turn back and land!
it isn't correct, these two pilots were very well qualified and were current. The low man pressure has been grossly overstated here, it was only slightly down and was within limits. It was on the runway at take off, not airborne, and it was not at all linked to the failure which occurred just after lift off.
Old plane badly maintained, flown by Pilots not approved for the aircraft,not aborting take off, not shutting down or extinguishing the faulty engine.
It's that Final Destination vibe.
There is a reason why airman need to do type rating no matter how experience they might be...
and they had both done it. This 'report' is garbage.
my dad was a ww 2 pilot that flew many types of aircraft---the usual check out was,"can you fly it?"--he told me many harrowing stories that happened daily--what cracked me up the most is the stories of drinking while flying! i got my own stories of pure luck over the years that would not even attempt today(no drinkin,not at war!)--the
I will never understand how experienced pilots can make this many mistakes.
Why you wouldcfly a plane that you are not qualified to fly or legally allowed to fly is beyond me.
And, I can understand not being able to figure out the engine fire extinguisher system, but they must have known how to , at least, shut the engine down. I assume you can shut down the fuel and electric on these engines. That alone might put the fire out but at the very least it will stop feeding the fire.
Both pilots had 30 years experience and neither of them can fly a plane.
Always sad when a historic plane is lost, especially if there is also loss of life as a result.
Tons of experience coupled with tons of incompetence. So tragic.
The Convair 340 is a 2 engine aircraft. Not sure why the video has a 4 engine
This was probably the closest aircraft he could find in his simulator, just guessing.
At the bottom 0:26
@@barbadianaviation I know it stated not the type but if you can generate a 4 engine why not the actual type? Just a note that gets me
@@publicxxer5379I guess this flight simulator doesn’t have Convair 340
Thank you for clarifying! I wasn’t certain which was which, the two engines or the four.
According to Wikipedia, there was a third fatality and eight more injuries on the ground where the plane crashed.
Can anyone else verify this from another source?
Great Catch ! That knowledge is significant.
It is correct. The plane slammed into a small dairy factory. One person inside lost both his legs and later died on the scene.
There were more injuries on the ground but I can't recall how many
@@hentuslemmer6081 The Wikipedia article on the accident says there were 8 people injured on the ground, in addition to all survivors on the plane having been injured.
I expected the pilot to turn LEFT back to the airport with the LEFT ENGINE on fire.
No time to do "engine fire checklist" as this happened immediately after takeoff.
The pilot likely didn't shut down the left engine on fire, because he probably wanted the extra lift for return to the airport.
Excess carbon deposits at the right(?) engine valve of the manifold pressure gauge should have alerted 5he maintenance engineer to do a more thorough check of both engines before repairing or replacing the unit. (Was the unit faulty or was it the engine?)
A basic compression test would have indicated a problem.
The maintenance engineer didn't do a thorough check, He "fixed" a symptom (replaced or "repaired" the manifold pressure gauge) instead of curing the illness.
You have the wrong aircraft in the clip. You show a four engine DC-6. The aircraft was twin engine Convair 340.
In all fairness, the creator of this video mentions that the aircraft computer generated images (Douglas DC-4 and DC-6B) do not match the actual aircraft (Convair 340) that crashed.
It's unbelievable that two experience commercially rated jet pilots would have even gotten close to a very old prop plane, especially under those circumstances.
Strange to think in this day and age so many failures can still happen.
It was a very old plane with pretty poor maintenance - an accident waiting to happen, sadly,
Maybe the crash was also caused due to the plane suddenly going from four engines to two engines as shown in the real time footage :)
How do crash investigators know what was damaged before a crash and not damaged in the crash itself?...
I’ve often thought this too
they guess, nobody can say otherwise.
in other plane crash investigation documentaries - this was explained - it can't always be done - but certain positions - certain types of damage - can sometimes reveal the cause
What I am impressed most impressed with is the REPEATED attitude of ignoring warnings and instruments.
They notice something abnormal after deep maintenance, a long period of storage and they continue to take off... what would have costed aborting the take off run!?
Also ever more worrying the usual scattering blames: the AC wasn't properly inspected, otherwise they would have found the mechanical problem. But anyways how about not using a fire suppression system and leaving an engine to self destruct.
But the lingering question is: why the right engine failed to carry on the flight.
that just isn't true. A manifold pressure indication was slightly low, but it was deemed to be within limits, and had nothing to do with the failure...it was not linked.
Bro knew that cameraman never dies
I’m surprised the remake version showed a plane with 4 engines when the real one only had 2!? Usually the details are spot on with this channel.
They did state that it wasn't the exact aircraft so I'm assuming they weren't able to find the exact model for the video (Same has happened in past videos as well).
The whole thing is as shoddy as hell.
@@woofblitz3694
The real event or this remake .
The fact that this ended as well as it did is a miracle. That plane should not be in the sky and those pilots shouldn't be operating it.
all correct, except for the pilot thing...they were both fully qualified and were current. They ware not South African pilots, they did not live in SA, and therefore did not have SA licences, but their licences, experience, currency and qualifications were up to ICAO standards, and this flight was a prelude to the delivery flight to Europe which was to occur the following day. They were the goods.
imagine how many rule breaks like this pilots actually get away with because nothing bad happens. The rules are there for a reason. Sad that these were experienced pilots that must have known. Very sad for those that lost their lives.
my dad was a ww 2 pilot that flew many types of aircraft---the usual check out was,"can you fly it?"--he told me many harrowing stories that happened daily--what cracked me up the most is the stories of drinking while flying! i got my own stories of pure luck over the years that would not even attempt today(no drinkin,not at war!)--the
Amazing footage inside wow that’s so scaryyyyy!! Incredible so many lived through that crash!
I'm confused, the Convair 340 is a twin engine aircraft as shown in the actual footage but in your video it has four!
If you look at the bottom toward the beginning of the video, it's stated that the model used was a different type than that of the accident plane.
@@daonlyzneggalz7522True but at least they could have gotten the number of engines right. It makes a difference.
@@daonlyzneggalz7522 Could have used a helicopter
It would have been better with the correct number of engines.@@deepthinker999
@@deepthinker999 some people don't take care to do their best work.
Wait, in the actual takeoff video, the plane only has 2 engines while in the sim video, it's four.
The video also states that the plane in the sim does not match the plane in the test flight.
sim?
@@K1OIK Simulator
shoddy work by TFC.
NOTE: Please don't rush the subtitles so fast! A few more seconds on each would help not cause one to either pause the video, or to go back; thus resulting in much better continuity for your viewers! That said, I love the quality of your videos and of the various accidents that we learn about.
I literally speed them up because they’re too slow
I agree with this statement. About halfway through I realized that I was missing all the graphics and was simply reading text. Yes, I am a slow reader, made worse by reading technical words that I am unfamiliar with. I realize that is not anyone else's problem but mine, but would greatly appreciate another 3-5 seconds more. Or, maybe consider doing a voice over of the presentation. Thanks!
@@cellgrrl I agree with more time on the subtitles being shown, but the creator has tried the voice overs before on and off and the majority of people (including myself) prefer to read the subtitles. The voice overs take away all of the "atmosphere and ambiance" of what is going on in the video. There were even some videos the creator uploaded both versions of a video and it was the subtitled one that folks migrated towards; but now if we could have those subtitles on the screen just a little longer would be nice.
I recall that one of these flight creators made a voice over, but didn't remember who it was, thus assumed it was someone else. I recall it wasn't well received. So I guess the only solution is to give us slow people a tiny bit more time. I am a total lay person, I don't understand the technical words but I want to so while I am trying to figure it out, everyone else has moved on. I will just skip what I don't instantly recognize in the future.
Using the fire extinguisher was the first thing I thought about and I’m not remotely able to fly a plane.
You do not shut down an engine on a piston twin just after take off if it is still developing some power, which this was. If the pilots had done what you think they should have, the aircraft would have come down sooner. The plane didn't come down because of fire, it came down because it didn't have enough power to keep it flying.
@@woofblitz3694Like I said I’m no expert. The people who made this video appear to think that the problem was exacerbated by not used the extinguisher. I have listened to a lot more of their videos than I have of yours, so I’ll stick with them.
Very good visuals. Good to see another post from the flight channel.
Welp. This was easily preventable.
I wonder if that recording passenger (as well as the other passengers) will ever be able to get on a plane again?
Probably not know
Sounds like the crew were in ‘holiday’ mode for this flight
Wrong....this report is in crooked mode, the SA gov is covering up the true cause, shoddy engine maintenance.
What a coincidence.. Today morning i was reading about this crash and watching recovered video .. and some few hours later comes your review... ))))))
I'm impressed that a four engine aircraft morphed into a 2 engine aircraft.
It was bought by a museum, that should've been a huge red flag.
That’s really incredible…
Put date in the video description
Gee, unqualified pilots, shotty maintenance, what could possibly go wrong?
Really confusing whether the plane was 4 engine or 2 engine. Also really confused why they didn't turn on the extinguisher. I thought anyone would know that regardless of being a pilot.
Kind of like comparing a modern automobile to one from the 50's without seat belts or air bags.
@@deepthinker999 I don't follow your reasoning, the plane had engine extinguishers according to the commentary
the pilots didn't shut down the engine very deliberately, because it was still developing some power...and they needed every bit they could find. Even then it wasn't enough, the other engine was also not giving them all it should have. The true cause of the crash was that the old plane had sick engines, which the aircrew knew nothing about. They were not to blame and actually did a great job to get the old thing down such that every passenger survived. One more thing, the crew were appropriately qualified, were highly experienced on these type of aircraft, and were up to date. What was not right was the shoddy engine maintenance and falsified records...and this report is an utter disgrace.
@@woofblitz3694 Thank You for sharing. It provides clarity to all of the issues which are involved.
So many levels of blame here its s damn miracle anyone survived.
The Convair 340 is a 2-engined aircraft. The real video shows a 2-engined aircraft while the simulated video shows a 4-engined aircraft. Why?
Would have been better to use a Douglas DC-3 for this video. It's older and a bit smaller than the Convair 340, but at least it has 2 engines and not 4.
Airplane mode
No matter the experience and the thousands of hours flying different airliners, these pilots at the time were not qualified/certificated to fly a Convair CV-340. Former A380 pilots? where was their judgement?
Wrong, they were appropriately licenced, and qualified. This report is shoddy as hell. Their judgement is what saved the lives of all passengers on board what was a very sick aircraft.
I agree. Their stick and rudder flying skills kicked in and saved everybody. @@woofblitz3694
you can't get all the models in MSFS2020(the flight sim he uses if im correct) since some arent made yet
My company operates and maintains an old CV340 with the radial engines, and this instance always makes me so sad
Please give those that died more than a quarter of a second's acknowledgement in your videos. Do those that perish not warrant at least a full second of our time?
The alleged experience of the Australian flight crew is completely at odds with the manner in which they [barely] managed the stricken aircraft. The details of the incident make it plain that they were unqualified in almost every metric. Thank Heaven that none of the passengers died as a consequence of the Aussies' seeming incompetence.
This report is wrong on every metric, it is a serious injustice; the pilots were appropriately experienced, qualified and were current. The aircraft was as sick as hell and had falsified paperwork which covered up that fact. The fact that all the passengers survived should tell you something which goes to the competence of the cockpit crew.
This infuriates me: flaunting the rules. As far as I'm concerned, a pilot is responsible for everyone on board, just like a bus driver. To knowingly jeopardise their safety, their lives, is inexcusable.
This report and vid is so wrong, it isn't what happened, and the pilots actually did a really good job to get the plane on the ground such that every passenger survived. They did not flaunt rules, that's total bs...they were qualified, licenced and were appropriately current. Easy to blame those who cannot answer. This stinks.;
@@woofblitz3694 I'm so glad you know better than the investigators.
The level of neglect is hard to believe....no effort to initiate the extinguish the engine on fire, really?
That many years of experience and going on this kind of flight without following the proper training, licensing and procedures seems almost suicidal. It's as if they threw all of those years of hard work away. All for not.
Literally needed the penguins of Madagascar on board to land this tub safely
"More than a feeling!!"
Bro knew the cameraman never dies
I see the problem.
The plane started out with 4 engines, but two engines fell off by the time it lifted off the runway
????
Convair 340 has only 2 engines. The aircraft used in the simulation is not Convair 340.
@sunnyfon9065 - thank god.
I'm glad you explained it.
I thought maybe the mechanic forgot to put two of the engines back on.
@@deepthinker999 -!!!!
I was trained to fly twins, but didn't do much after my flight school graduation. Yet, i immediately noticed a mistake in their actions in the video, when they started to turn right. Normally in an engine out you should make turns toward your dead engine.
You do such amazing work on your videos! What music are you using?
I like that your videos are accurate
Apart from having 4 engines instead of 2,...
@@westboundbadgerthere is no Convair 340 on the flight sim yet,so he had to use DC-4
@@denniswilson8013 thanks,I got confused because from DC-4 to DC-7 had a similar design
right, 4 engines.
@@westboundbadger well I just commented that because I was early but I actually didn’t watch the video until later
How many noticed that in some parts this aircraft had 2 engines and in others 4 engines. An unusual error for TFC? What a catalogue of strange events. How do experienced pilots not know that they are not permitted to fly certain aircraft? RIP the two innocent parties.
Yes I noticed that as well. What is shown in the video is not a convair but Douglas aircraft with 4 engines.
You must not be able to read, as it says in the video the aircraft demonstrated is not the same aircraft in the actual incident.
sloppy video production, something we're not used to seeing on this channel.
These 🎥man Never dies … Still Undefeated 🤷🏿♂️🏆
If this happen in 1960, I can understand it. This level of multiple errors happen in 2018. WoW !
what errors? This is a very poor vid, it misses the main problem, shoddy engine maintenance with record keeping cover ups, and dumps it all on the pilots. They were appropriately qualified, experienced and current, they did not shut the engine down because it was still developing power, some thing was very important and was a correct decision...the plane would not have made it if the engine had been shut down it would have come down sooner. The slightly low manifold pressure indication as within limits and, in any case, it was not connected to the engine failure. Everything about this stinks of SA gov crookedness.
@@woofblitz3694current??? Since when is not flying in type within the last 12+ months “current “??? The level of bullshit from most commenters on these videos (who clearly know nothing about aviation) is mind boggling. No, this flight crew was not “current “. Not by a long shot.
Very interesting! Thanks.
I am amazed there was no attempt to put out the engine fire. Not even pulling out the checklist. Amazing.
not correct, the engine was still developing power, no fire warning, the flames were out of the exhaust, so it was still helping the thing to fly. If they had shut the engine down it would have resulted in the aircraft coming down even sooner than it did.
Cool as Always