When Experimenting In A Damaged Plane Turns Fatal | Air Transport International 782
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 дек 2021
- Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
Images Public Domain
DC8 Image: Public Domain
This is the story of Air Transport International flight 782. On the 16th of february 1995 a air international flight 782 was to fly from kansas city international airport to toledo ohio. Before the plane even got off the ground the pilots were having a bit of trouble at kansas city international airport. The cargo dc 8 was fueled and filled with cargo but the pilots couldn't get the engine number one to start. A quick diagnosis revelaed that the gearbox drive of engine number one had failed and they had no way of fixing the problem at kansas. With that the flight to toledo was cancelled. There was no way that the plane could make the trip in this state. But the problem was complex enough that they couldnt fix the problem at kansas. So the decision was taken to ferry the plane to the westover metropolitan airport in massachusetts.
With one DC8 out of commission the company flew in a replacement form dover delaware. The flight crew from dover would be the ones ferrying the plane to westover. Theyd have their work cut out for them theyd have to takeoff fly and land this DC8 all without an operational engine. Now you might be surprised to find that out but broken planes are flown around all the time. For example, i once made a video about emirates flight 408, the plane had sustained some serious damage in australia and it was flown to france to be fixed. When flights like these are undertaken it is done so very carefully after considering all aspects of the flight. That was the case here. By 5:39 p the replacement dc8 had arrived and so had the pilots. The captain decided to take on about 30,000 pounds of fuel as ballast and they prepped for taking off with just 3 engines.
By 8:04 pm three of the four engines were operational with the left most enigne being the one out of commission. As the crew taxied to runway 01L they let the tower know that they only had 3 engines. The crew was very concerned with the winds and made preparations to takeoff. They really wanted to use runway 19R but that was out of the question because of inbound traffic. In the cockpit they went over the three engine departure procedure one more time. The plan was to line up on the runway and then set enignes 2 and three to max power, those are the two inboard engines. Then as the plane accelerated theyd bring engine four in slowly. By the VMCG or the minimum control speed on the ground theyd have engine four at max power as well.
By 8:19 the dc8 was at runway 01R for takeoff they staretd the takeoff run but the crew sensed something wrong and they decided to reject the takeoff. The controller enquired if they needed assistance, but they didnt, they just wanted to line up again and try once more.
As it turned out they hit max power on engine number 4 way too soon at about 100 knots instead of 107 knots. The pilots discussed what had happed they were slowly bringing in engine number 4 when the power suddenly jumped from 1.6 EPR to 1.9 EPR, that jump really caught them off guard and that's why they hit 107 knots so soon. 
Наука
![Natanael Cano - Ya Te Olvidé [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xLig8I91SJQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I knew the Captain of this tragic accident as he flew first officer for me at another airline. I flew several models of the DC-8 over a ten year period. A three engine ferry was not uncommon and all line Captains were trained for them at my company. Before any airplane was released for the three engine ferry our training dept. had two different instructors run the numbers separately to compare and then relay this information to the Capt. After this accident the FAA mandated that these ferry flights be performed by special trained crews only. As stated in the video there were a few mitigating circumstances that may have effected this terrible outcome. If your company asks you to do something your not comfortable with you have to say no, this Capt. didn't and we have three tombstones and loved ones left to live with the grief.
🙏🙏🙏
Thanks for sharing, Kevin ... I was wondering if the DC-8 can safely takeoff with just two engines? ...
@@optician53 They were to initially begin the take off using two engines, then as they accelerated, they were to slowly advance the power on engine #4. But, they could not advance eng#4 to full power until AFTER reaching VMCG(velocity minimum control ground) - the minimum speed that directional control can be maintained by use of rudder. So, actually, they would be lifting off on 3 engines.
@@thomfye5081 That doesn't answer the question.
@@optician53 Considering the they couldn't safely take off with three, I'm going to guess that they couldn't with two. Although, they can technically fly with one engine under power and technically land with no engines under power.
This reminds me of an incident in the late 70s. I was a passenger on a 747 that had an engine failure. It did an emergency landing in Nairobi. Nairobi had no facilities to repair the engine or any other available flights to ferry the passengers out. The airline insisted that as the aircraft was capable of taking off with 3 engines it should fly on to it's destination. Thankfully the captain refused and did not allow anyone else to take over from him.
After many hours they found space on a Dutch plane to get us home.
Wow! What was the airline?
@@jackroutledge352 To be honest I can't remember. It was a long time ago.
@@LesNewell that pilot saved your life and they prolly gave him hell for saying NO
I wouldn't have gotten on it regardless of how safe the airline said it was. I'm not getting on ANY plane that's having issues like an engine gone out. I would've stayed in Nairobi until the next flight and if there wasn't one I guess I'd just go apply for a job at the airport.
Wow! Amazing story, and good on that pilot.
"They insisted it's capable..."
It's capable of doing all sorts of shit, that doesn't mean they're all good ideas 🙄
The amount of greed required on the airline's part to even suggest that makes me shudder
Forget about the holes in the cheese lining up. They punched through the whole block of cheese here. A great video as always
Excellent explanation of VMCG! Top notch. Just hold out your hand in a car while driving at 20 vs. 80 kph / mph and simulate a control surface!
as every boy did so many times... ;)
@@billdolar9995 Same here. :) I did that as well when I was 8 years old, to see how flaps and ailerons worked.
@@billdolar9995 (and Alex) : Yep! Me too! 😉
Great to see how far you’ve come with your videos. Started watching you long time ago and the quality of the videos since then got so much better. Beside the virtualization with graphics and FlySim I really like Storytelling! Keep up the great work.
Thank you so much!
HE WAS AT SIXTY K WHEN I JOINED. I WONDER IF THERE'S A WAY TO FIND YOUR SUB NUMBER.
Ee
Yee
It never occurred to me that someone might have to knowingly fly a broken plane someplace else for repairs. Those pilots must have balls of steel.
Stupidity is more accurate
@@emilefouquet9005 Why do you say that?
In the right scenario planes can fly with 1 or even no engines for a fair while
This is a plane that was carrying a minimum of 18 tonnes of just people (Excluding fuel, cargo and luggage), had 4 engine failure and still flew it safely down en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_009
airliners get "ferried" every day.
@@Redminer9999 You obviously do not know the difference between an aircraft losing an engine(s) during a Flight Cruise as opposed to Take-Off and Landindgs. You should do your homework before making a comment on any subject, for which you do not have any knowledge, training or experience. 90% of all RUclips videos relative to aircraft crashes/losses are fairly worthless and are designed to entertain and earn money for the producer(s)
@@emilefouquet9005 Ahahaha oh you're a good laugh 😂
1. You didn't explain your point.
2. I never even mentioned takeoff or landing.
3. Boy you must be fun at parties
Oh and 4. A 3 engine takeoff is normal enough there's a checklist and how long ago was this again..?
Please continue though I could use another laugh tomorrow I'm sure
"Most of the calculations at ATI were done in Fahrenheit" - So, that's what they should use for everything. Choose one system, then keep using it.
I REALLY prefer the metric system for nearly all applications. But in aviation, this is not the standard, and apparently it wasn't the standard at ATI either. The only thing that matters is consistency, and that was lacking here.
Perhaps but aircraft design is done in metric so I'm more in favour of ripping off the bandaid and swapping the entire industry over to metric. Compartmentalised consistency is just delaying the inevitable and it's dangerous in the meantime. The longer we wait to standardise, the harder it will be to change.
Edit: Spelling, "of" to "off".
Exactly my thought. Pick one system and stick with it. Mixing things up causes troubles in all kind of applications, even NASA once crashed a multi-million dollar space probe into the mars surface because of that.
@@4x4cheesecake_19 Because Lockheed Martin forgot to convert from imperial to metric. NASA uses the metric system, but Lockheed Martin doesn't.
I'm torn. Metric SI units is my general preference for everything, everywhere.
But what about altitude in feet? I can see confusion about flight levels on controlled airspace being a souce of errors...
@@charmio * Ripping OFF the Band-Aid! (Sorry -- I don't mean to be nit-picky.... it's just that that one tiny typo is driving me nuts. The Band-Aid isn't itself being ripped, it's being ripped OFF. Once again, my apologies for the pedantry -- it's just this one thing that is driving me crazy every time I read it. 🥴 )
Anyway....
I'm not a metric fanatic like many RUclips commenters are. I believe that the U.S. Customary units have their place and don't deserve the near-universal condemnation that is heaped on them by many YT commenters.
But I've always thought that aviation, because much of it involves international travel and commerce, should use the metric system exclusively.
However, from some of the comments I've read on RUclips over the last few years from aviators (which I am not), they seem to prefer the American units -- even the foreign pilots. It seems to have something to do with the inherent error/confusion avoidance of using feet for altitude, and miles (or nautical miles) for distance. E.g., if a pilot hears a controller talking about something in feet, the pilot knows the controller is talking about altitude, and not distance. And vice versa.
Fair enough. But the aviation community could still use feet for altitude while using meters and kilometers for distance. And appropriate metric units for everything else, like temperature, weight, etc.
(Yes, I know nautical miles have been traditionally used in navigation because a nautical mile corresponds to one minute of arc on the earth's surface. But is that still a compelling argument in the modern world of navigation? With GPS and computers and everything? Maybe an experienced pilot can fill us in on that.)
Excellent discussion. As for measurement systems, the Insternational System of Measurements (the SI) (a.k.a the metric system) Should be the ONLY system used, largely because it it the system used by literally the rest of the world.
Great analysis! Flying the triple 7 now. I have 9,000 + hours of DC-8 time, 6,000 in the left seat, at Emery Worldwide and ironically I was in MCI that very night flying an Emery DC-8-73 through MCI from SMF on my way to Dayton, OH. I was parked in the northwest cargo area next to that very ATI aircraft, (N782AL) In fact, there were the two ATI aircraft, the accident aircraft, which was, being offloaded and another ATI DC-8 which had been dispatched to fly the offloaded freight from the accident aircraft. My flight engineer knew one of the ATI crewmembers and came back to my cockpit after doing his through flight walkaround and mentioned to me that ATI was going to three engine ferry one of the two DC-8s out of MCI later that night. We departed for Dayton successfully only to find out later about this very accident. We came through MCI the following day and saw the crash site investigation underway. Sad, very sad. In this era, there was a lot of "mission hacking" with little attention being paid to WOCL and flight crew fatigue. I have done a few 3 engine ferries on the "8" but I never liked doing them. We practiced them in the simulator but not often and since we rarely if ever did them on the line, one's proficiency level at this maneuver was marginal at best. The pilots are just as dead if they crash a part 91 flight as opposed to a part 121 operation. One nice thing about flying a twin engine aircraft, 777, 767, 787 is that I'll never have to do another dreaded 3 engine ferry!
SMF? WOCL? If I may make a good faith suggestion, may I suggest that uncommon abbreviations be spelled out the first time you use them? Yes, we can always stop reading and open a new browser window and Google the abbreviation (and that's exactly what I did -- twice), but one shouldn't force their readers to do that. 😉
@@Milesco Sorry, but I seriously don't have time to educate the entire world. Besides if you take the time to research an acronym, one stands a better chance to remember it in the future. BTW, You're welcome!
@@Rodgerball You don't have time to educate the entire world? Give me a break! How long does it take to type out "Sacramento International Airport" and "Window of Circadian Low"? Somehow I managed to do it.
You clearly don't understand the most basic concept of writing, which is to convey information to your reader. You fail to do that when you use uncommon abbreviations that almost no one knows.
And it wastes your time and effort. (And we all know how valuable your precious time is -- because you made a special point of telling us.)
You put in time and energy writing something, but a big chunk of that effort is wasted because the info you're presumably trying to convey to the reader ends up NOT being conveyed. Think about it: what's the point of writing something if what you write can't be understood? Why did you bother writing a comment if you're not interested in your readers understanding what you wrote?
______________________________
P.S. -- It's not the reader's job to try to decipher your cryptic code. When you write something, it's *_your_* job to make sure that what you write is intelligible.
The Captain was a dear friend and was ordered by the company to make "it work". Sad indeed!.
@@Milesco
Great rant. Well said, and true. There are very few stupid questions, just mostly poorly articulated statements and explanations that need clarification. When I started college, I needed to purchase a dictionary. Being on a budget, I picked up an old "American English" dictionary at the fleamarket. In the glossary, it had an entire essay on communication. It posited that the desire to communicate, and the desire to understand, were the most fundamentally important parts of communication, and that this was more important than whether two people spoke the same language, since two people who did not desire to communicate or listen would be more likely to misunderstand each other. Wish I still had that dictionary.
I have zero aviation experience but I find your videos and explanations of what happened to be very interesting.
I knew as soon as I heard "3 engine take off". Its all about physics. And you must have your calcs right. They need to come up with 1 system. Planes crash bc of this dual system. Not only C vs F in temp, but meters vs feet as well. Since the rest of the world is Metric, we should switch.
Actually it’s impossible to switch for America it would be a total mess only one highway has metric on it
Ah, I was lucky in the fact that when I was at school the UK was adopting the metric system so I was kinda forced to get familiar with both (Yes I really am that old). I worked at a factory in the UK later in life making fasteners, (Nuts and bolts) and our drawings came from head office in Pennsylvania. Many parts we made for aircraft had to be accurate to less than a thousandth of an inch - sometime two ten thousandths of an inch and the precision gauges to make these measurements cost thousands of dollars. To switch would have cost US manufacturing and arm and a leg, back in the day when the US actually made stuff. Sadly the US corporations sold out to cheaper foreign labor.
So yes, it is now time to switch, but old habits die hard. Metric is a far simpler system but not so simple to learn if you're getting on a bit.
@@danielt619We in the UK are metric mostly in shops and academia. Road signs are imperial miles and yards. I measure my weight in stones cos I’m old.
@@charlietame1892 I too am old enough to have been taught during the transition to metric period in the UK. As a retired engineer, I know there was a lot of resistance in industry at the time but the pain was worthwhile as the metric system is so much simpler. IMO it would make sense for the US to bite the bullet and go with the rest of the world, the initial pain would soon be forgotten. Having said that, we still use miles and yards for the road, but this is all, everything else is metric.
I snickered a bit cuz the ad placement had it play right after you said "the procedure said, and I quote," - insert ad here. Great timing, YT. In any case, succinct video as always.
Metric is always what i would choose b.c. it follows some logical ideas and is much easier to work with.
Temperature: 0°c = Water is freezing / 100°c = Water is boiling.
Weight: 1000g = 1kg /1000kg = 1ton.
Distance: 1000mm = 1meter / 1000 meter = 1km.
But in aviation, we work with feet / nautical miles and knots, so stay with it in all cases than.
I was part of our airline's 3 engine ferry crew. After this incident we required check airmen to fly the flights, takeoff data was checked by additional check airmen. If the first takeoff was aborted there was no second takeoff by that crew, another crew flew the trip. Simulator training consisted of two engines to full power, bring the third engine up to power as you reach Vmcg. Just to make it exciting you usually lost the other engine on the dead engine side. Definitely an E ticket ride.
In my opinion, by far the best system for units of measurement in aviation is a universal one. Regardless if tge states switch to metric, or the whole world switches back to imperial, until all aviation uses the same units of measurement, accidents like this can happen
It does. Aviation uses one language, too, and that wasn't by accident. None of which means that somebody somewhere can't screw things up.
The time for the US to switch to metric was 60 years ago, when there was still some public support for it. Now I fear it's just never going to happen.
Aviation is in imperial units. Altitudes are feet in almost all parts of the world.
@@00muinamir This isn't a US issue. Aviation uses the same choice of units worldwide (there are minor exceptions). This incident was a long time ago. Almost everything dealing with temperature in aviation uses degrees Celsius. Distance measurements use nautical miles. Knots are used for speed. Feet are used for altitude.
@@tomswift6198 you should listen in to European ATC.
Situational awareness of other air planes in the air space? Strange concept, when the controller speak english, french and German fluently.
But still better forcing people to use broken, accented English.
Excellent as always. 👍👍👍👌👌👌
Thank you!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation said it before and will again.. Its all of US who should be thanking YOU for such fantastic content.. PLEASE never stop. 🙏🙏👌👍
Kansas City International is in Kansas City, Missouri (where I live). Common mistake, no worries... Love your videos! Keep up the wonderful work!!
I was about to mention that. Glad you took care of it already.
Another fine video. A minor fact correction @ 0:38 - KCI airport is in Missouri. Interstate 29 goes right by it. Surrounded by cornfields. BTW, there are two Kansas City’s, one in Kansas, the other in Missouri. MKC, Kansas City municipal, it’s in downtown Kansas City Missouri.
Exactly.
Once again a great masterpiece of information about aircraft accidents. thank you so much! You forgot to link the other recommended episode in the end.
It's always a great day when I see a new video from this channel.
Your channel is Top Notch. So much better having a narrator than having to read subtitles like some of the other channels
I was on this plane in August 1985. It was a WORLDWAYS flight from BFS Belfast International to YYZ Toronto International and the most memorable of my life. The flight was 18 hours delayed, due to a replacement engine fitment in Dublin. Why? the passengers were told the DC-8 had suffered an engine strike during landing at Belfast. The plane was flown with 3 engines to Dublin where the engine was replaced before its return to Belfast to pick up the passengers.
The flight was now so late, it got going without the usual transatlantic catering, plastic wrapped sandwiches all around please and thank you.
The weather was very British but taken in stride as all were eager to get going. I was 14, traveling alone and had a window seat just in front of the right wing. It was raining as we took off and mins into the flight, still climbing through the turbulent storm the plane was hit by lighting. I was looking through the window when everything turned a strange pink colour, the plane fell straight down, I could hear nothing -not the engines -nor anyone anyone around me. Ofcourse the plane levelled out, as well as my senses, and the flight continued to Toronto with no further issue. Must say it was a very strange group event, the plane fell for a scary period of time, everyone looked one to another for explanation, reassurance or comfort. There was an announcement from the flight deck, in due time, to say that 'we had been hit lightning'.
Thanks for not getting me dead Worldways!
My favourite channel: so well explained. Thank you.
You're very welcome!
I am not afraid to fly but after watching some of these videos it makes me think how I'm handing my life over to the crew. Would love to see a video covering crash stats over the years. Thank you!
Thank you for sharing.
To address MANY of the comments (and a question posed in the video):
(1) This was not an issue of imperial vs. metric systems; it was an issue of (a) using different units of measure for the same thing (temperature) in a set of performance charts, and (b) a failure by the crew to pay attention to the units used in the chart.
(2) This has nothing to do with what units of measure the United States uses. Aviation uses the same units nearly worldwide for altitude (feet), distance (nautical miles), temperature (degrees Celsius), speed (knots), and other quantities (with some exceptions).
Absolutely brilliant video, I had no idea about this one
I'm in the UK and prefer and use metric units generally, especially in engineering, as calculations are so much easier when everything is base 10 and in decimals. Practical questions such as "How many sticks of X length can I cut from a plank of Y length" is much more difficult if X is, say, four and seven eighth inches and Y is six feet than when X is twelve point 5 cm and Y is two meters. I wish we would use km and kph on our roads like the rest of Europe.
However in aviation I much prefer to express altitude in feet (which we do in the UK), and it would be a pain to change this to metric - flight levels and separation heights would have to either change or become awkward numbers. I also prefer to navigate using NM and knots for distance & speed when in an aircraft or yacht (again this is the norm in the UK), as I am used to doing mental calculations using these units, and also the fact that 1 minute of latitude is 1 NM is convenient. In the UK we do however use milliBar for altimeter pressure settings rather than inches. I also use degrees for measuring angles rather than grads.
Also runway designations in the UK are always expressed as two digits rather than one digit for runway headings 90 degrees or below as is common in the US. I have mixed feelings about that ever since I almost flew a circuit in the wrong direction for runway 20. When looking at the runway from above, its easy to confuse the runway marker "20" with the upside-down marker of the opposite runway "02", especially as the runway numbers in this case were painted using a square font similar to a 7 segment display. As 02 was flown with a conventional left hand circuit at that particular airport but 20 had a right-hand circuit (to avoid overflying the nearby town), it was a very dangerous situation - I was setting myself up to fly an incorrect downwind head-on to other aircraft flying the correct pattern. Fortunately I realised my mistake before anything bad happened.
Rest assured, it’s really only the Americans that have the strange combination of inches of pressure and imperial distances for visibility and runway length, Almost the entire of the rest of the world uses a combination of hectopascals, meters and feet except for the Chinese who insist on metres for altitude. A strange and often frustrating scenario.
Bank 5 degrees to the right is part of the procedure for this take off
Very well narrated!
The simulated cockpit that is shown landing has the attitude indicator upside down, with brown (or black) on top, and blue on the bottom. Great explanations as usual!
I think you mean Celsius.... Centigrade is almost never used anymore, even though they functionally mean the same thing. Or, you could say that "centigrade" denotes a type of scale wherein there are 100 points of reference, ala 100 degrees, 100 inches, 100 pounds, etc, while "Celsius" is the proper name of a temperature scale that also happens to have 100 degrees between freezing and boiling.
Metric versus imperial: in a sense it doesn't matter which as long as EVERYONE sticks to the same system across the world. As an aside- was it a good idea to schedule this flight during hours of darkness rather than daytime?
I actually think they fly at night due to safety. During the day, the skies around the airport would be super busy. If another engine went bad or something else broke, they could easily strike a plane that is on the runway or in the air. Or if something went slightly wrong on the runway (i.e. the bad engine fell apart, etc) it wouldn't endanger someone who is next in line.
And it allowed them to quickly try a second time. These flights probably are more likely to reject a takeoff/do a go around on landing than other planes, and if there is a line of traffic behind them, they'd probably feel a bit more pressured to not reject.
I personally would go with metric/SI, cos 95% of the world population uses it (only US and a few other nations use imperial). Also, I think it is wrong for the company ATI to force pilots to fly after a long haul transatlantic flight. I think corporate greed played a part in this aviation accident.
Metric duh
Metric definately, vasta majority of the world uses it already and therefore it skips the teaching it for the majority of pilots, ATC and others.
Although, most important is as 'clarsach29' said, everyone should use just one system.
So, obvious Gold medal winner is "All use Metric"
Silver medal goes to "All use Imperial"
and Bronze goes to the current mixed random system.
The US technically, legally is supposed to use metric since the 50's or 60's they just never enforced it
Your videos get better and better
Interesting! Thanks.
good video. i've never seen anything on this crash before. without second guessing the decisions, in this situation, it is interesting to me that the takeoff got messed up like it did, particularly given that they knew what they were trying to do, knew they would have asym thrust issues, control issues, that there were calculations driving the procedures, they even had a RTO because their first attempt didn't go well. you would have thought on the second run that they would have been very well prepared to get it right.
I prefer in most cases metric system. But when it comes to velocity in aircrafts or ship vessels, I prefer knots (as it is better relatet to earth's dimensions [1NM ≙ 1' of geographical lattitude]).
but isn't that just at sealevel? I did some calculations, if you're at 40,000', that adds something like 700' to each degree
Well, you could say the same about meters. The meter originally defined the earth as 40,000 km in circumference. It's close enough in reality to consider it that in day-to-day calculations.
@@herzogsbuick Yes, that can be true. The NM was also invented before aircrafts, to guide ships at sea level. But may be with a "hight modified NM" it could be solved.
@@quinton1661 Yes, but the metre is no exact as there were problems to measure and define it correctly. It happened in the French revolution with a lot of chaos.
to me, the fact 1knot is very close to 2m/s is much more important... easy to count accelerations etc.
a lot of Soviet military aviation also used Mach speeds directly (0.1Mach, 0.2Mach etc.) so that when pilots had to go civilian they would get re-taught in the style of the plane they qualified into, metrics for airbus and imperial for DCs or Avro's...
some early Ilyushin's also had manifold pressure in ounces/square-cm & degrees-Grad calibrated compasses which was "fun"
Very interested as I flew as cabin crew with Worldways from 1982 to 1991!
Wow nice and early! 😃👍🏾💯
Feats of human endeavour, artistic or scientific (often somewhere in between) remain a constant source of fascination for me and, despite not having a connection to this industry, nor being able to fly, aviation must remain towards the top of Man's crowning achievements.
Nonetheless this excellent series of clips graphically demonstrate the dazzlingly complex, nuanced and delicate processes through which flight is achieved - and how, to this day, the individual personalities (despite all the redundancy, training and experience)still influence the subject. Even the forensic detail which the accident reports reveal, don't automatically point the way to "improvements for future". How do the people in charge decide which aspect of this crash was most pertinent? The metric/imperial mixup, yes(famously shown once again with the Gimli Glider if I m not mistaken!), but also Company level decisions to deploy a below average/inexperienced crew to begin with. But before even all that, can it be justified that, somewhat for expediency (rather than safety) there remains the possibility to operate a less than perfect aircraft?
We can see how the already Shakespearean drama of even uneventful flight can so quickly devolve to Greek tragedy. I salute all those involved in every aspect, with particular mention, perhaps inevitably, to the pilots.. .
Looking forward to you upgradig your sim - consider XP11. I have been simming so much I tried changing the views and panning twice while watching your video
I have ten years flying military aviation. In [my opinion] the best system in the one that is consistently and universally utilized. I don't believe metric is superior imperial, and I don't believe imperial is superior to metric. They both have their positives and negatives.
If one system could be made using the best of BOTH systems, then a lot of these accidents/incidents couldl be eliminated
So you're saying metric then. What could you bring from the imperial system that would improve the metric system? Also 95% of the world's population is already using the metric system. Time for the few backward countries still using imperial to catch up.
Because it's used in so many critical physics calculations, I think Celsius and other SI units are probably better for aviation. The amount of training necessary to become a pilot should be enough to familiarize pilots with those units.
Helios Airways Flight 522 is right up there, too, for "a small handle in the wrong position leading to catastrophe".
I feel so sorry for the crew and their families for the irresponsible practices of ATI at the time of the accident. They were put by the company in a situation that they were never trained for, while being fatigued from the previous flights. They did not know they were about to pay the heaviest price. Well done, ATI, you've successfully saved a couple bucks.
Wondering if you could cover any accident at Teteboro here in NJ. I witnessed a Learjet going down in Carlstadt a few miles short in 2017. Was wicked wind shear that day. 👍
Plus there was a mid air collision over the airport in 1985 and the botched takeoff in 2005 where the Learjet went across the highway and into a warehouse where just a few examples that we would love to see covered.
Thanks for the nice videos. Unfortunately, something has not yet been included in the programs: The attitude of propeller-driven airliners and the first generation of passenger jets. From the DC-4 to the L-1649 to the DC-8 and B-707, all of these airplanes had a clear nose-down approach attitude until shortly before touchdown and did not fly with their noses above the horizon in the style of sliding irons like all modern jets.
Nice video
If I'd been asked to do this, I would be alarmed. One type I flew was the RJ-100, and a three engine ferry was an option on it. It had very pleasant engine out performance though, quite unlike the DC-8. I'm surprised it was allowed.
The DC-8 has great 3 engine capabilities. So does the 747, 707, and I am sure even the 4engine airbuses have great 3 engine capabilities.. The ferries are done empty. The crew messed it up. I am surprised you did not know this as a “mini” 4 engine pilot. If you would be alarmed, if asked then you don’t have the experience . That is a good trait to have by knowing your limitations. It must be scary to do V1 cuts with you.
@@reltney20 Well, I haven't flown the DC-8, but, a bit like the 146 I don't remember getting any training for a 3 eng ferry, and I think I'd have liked a go in the sim first- which sounds like what they decided to do after crashing this one- but I agree, the crew got a lot wrong. As far as V1 cuts go, I've done plenty in the actual a/c, unlike many pilots (ERJ-145) and I'm still here.
The cartoon cgi DC-8 shows the ground spoilers up on approach. The DC-8 did not have flight spoilers, just ground spoilers. They were not used in the air.
The best system is consistent, regardless of what units you use just use the same one for everything
I have done a 3 engine ferry flight on the Avro RJ100 in 2003 from Rome to Birmingham (UK). The number 4 (outer right) had a bleed band failure. There was a lot of performance graphs to go through and you may not have a safe V1 speed (for Performance A transport). Similar T.O technique though, I brought up the power on the asymmetric engine as the co-pilot. The 3 engines were at take off trust for at least 5 minutes (very poor rate of climb) and then MCT (max continuous thrust) until decent. Four engine aircraft have poor performance, that’s why they have four engines! Aircraft performance is trust in excess of the drag. Thus a 25% reduction of thrust (1 fail out of 4) equals 90%+ reduction of performance. You only have to clear the end of the runway by 30 feet 😦. A twin Jet has very powerful engines to allow for the single engine fail at V1 (50% lost of thrust). Thus can continue takeoff safely. By the sound of it, their ground run was below VMCG when the asymmetric engine was at full thrust and then below VMGA in the climb. The only recovery is reduce thrust on asymmetric engine. Don’t have that problem anymore as I fly the A320. Did you notice the A.I is upside down on the video?
Word salad. Stick to flying.
3 Engine Takeoff is a tricky maneuver. The captain should manipulate the controls.
It sounds as though your AOC should establish a more conservative Max Ferry Weight.
@@NoTaboos 😊👍
This isn't the first time that confusion between units caused an incident. Sadly, it likely won't be the last.
YES THERE ARE A LOT OF INCIDENTS
Air Canada 143 moment
@@williamhuang8309 the gimli glider was the first thought that came to mind
@@thirdwheel1985au Yes. That's likely the most well known example.
Who smashed a space craft into Mars instead of the mission because half the calculations were in Kg, and the other half (different company) had numbers in Pounds??? Not saying anyone's proud, but it's already NOT the last time a matter of unit conversion has proven VERY VERY EXPENSIVE... ;o)
Yes whether metric or imperial.. as long as everyone use the same thing i believe all is good
Merci for the video. I would prefer if all measurements were metric.
And companies should be held responsible for these deadly mistakes.
Unfortunately "holding companies responsible" does nothing to prevent mistakes. Having somebody to blame afterwards is a poor substitute for prevention.
I believe another contributing factor is the flight crews desire to 'complete the mission'. This is a common factor in general aviation crashes. It is when a pilot, or flight crew in this case, feels that whatever they are doing must be completed, so they will ignore small issues and just continue on. For example, many private pilots will use their airplane to travel. They may be attending a wedding, going home for the holiday party, or to an important business meeting. They cannot miss the event. The drive to complete the mission makes them ignore weather, or assume it will get better. They might be familiar with an airport in the day, but not at night and now they have to land with a crosswind in the rain with minutes of fuel left.
The flight crew here was faced with a similar 'complete the mission' mentality. They were told to fly the jet back for repairs. Both had been involved in 3 engine take-offs so they should be able to do it. They are commercial pilots so it's their job to fly it back. So they ignored the warning signs and kept trying to complete the mission until they crashed. They had 3 opportunities to stop. To ask for help or turn back, but they felt compelled to complete the mission. And if your speculation about the pilot getting less than 5 hours of sleep with the transatlantic flight 12 hours before, then he was certainly mentally impaired in some way and was no in state to be flying, especially on a flight that requires a clear focused mind. The airline is at fault here for asking this of their pilots and putting profits over safety.
I don’t understand why they didn’t just not use engine #4 at all, to keep the thrust equal. It also was a terrible idea to put an inexperienced crew on a flight with an already partially disabled plane.
Can the DC-8-63 take off safely with two engines? My guess is the three-engine take-off wouldn't have been a standard procedure if a two-engine take-off was possible/safe.
They have to takeoff as well, surely not a good idea to do it with only 2 engines.
Taking off with only half thrust sounds like a terrible idea. More so as the plane still needs to get into the air if one (more) engine fails.
The runway is 10.800 ft: not bad, but too short for a late reject. Had the pilots waited a few more seconds before advancing the levers of engine 4, they would be playing with their grandchildren today.
@@schlollepop Sad, but true. It sounds like the captain didn't fully understand the concept of minimum control speeds.
@@Milesco I suspect the fear of insufficient thrust to climb (or running out of runway) was a bigger spectre in his mind than minimum control speed. The worrying thing was that they had already proved this with the rejected takeoff. Perhaps in hindsight it would have been better to wait until the longer runway was available.
To be fair, regular high altitude flights are planned just to carefully. My airline has a route from JFK to Washington DC,... Its done either in the high 20s or at 8,000 feet. Going that low prevents atc delays.
Alaska 261 did the same thing. They should have left the trim alone and put it down at the nice big military base right underneath them.
Another ATI crash that doesn't get talked about much is ATI 805. It was a regularly scheduled cargo flight that ATI operated for the now defunct Burlington Air Express. It flew from Seattle to Toledo Express Airport in Ohio. On February 15th, 1992 it crashed three miles from the runway at Toledo Express during a second go around attempt. All three of the flight crew were killed as well as a Buffalo Airways pilot who was sitting in the jump seat as a non revenue passenger. I've always been extra interested in that one because it got very little media coverage. I was also a flight load planner for Burlington Air at Toledo Express and was out there the night this flight went down so this crash has always really stuck with me. I could never figure out why the terrible visibility that night got downplayed so much in the aftermath of the crash. I guess they didn't want to shed light on just how heavily those pilots were pressured to get those planes in at all costs and to not use their alternate airports. CLE and DTW were both viable alternate options for this crew. Obviously the crew lost situational awareness and made multiple mistakes but if they had just chosen one of their alternates those men would likely still be here today. I'd love to see Mini Air Crash do a video on that crash.
This whole situation was a hell no from the beginning
As a pilot who has to use both systems (I live in a metric country) metric is VASTLY superior to barbarian units in every way, especially when calculating gliding distance and fuel weight, I have no idea how america hijacked aviation measurements when most of the world uses metric, but everything should be standardized using the metric system, it just makes the calculations an order of magnitude easier
I would also suggest metric time, but decimal time makes it a moot point to an extent
Examples
A: you are at 10,000ft when your engine quits, your true airspeed is 135kts and your sinkrate is 600ft/min
B: your engine quits at 3000m, your true airspeed is 250kph and your sinkrate is 180m per minute
Which one is easier to calculate without a calculator
I have a question though: Would it not have been sensible to do a 2-engine take-off to avoid asymetrical thrust and leave the third engine in idle unless needed? If if was a ferry flight only then the plane would be much lighter and would surely have been able to take off with only two engines? Am I missing something?
My thoughts exactly
I'd assume they'd do exactly that unless needed so probably the required fuel for the trip was enough to discount a dual engine takeoff
Perhaps the runway length was not enough
@@shoutitallloud they had asked for the longer runway, but it was being used for incoming traffic.
@@dans_Learning_Curve yes, i forgot that
My thoughts on this:
With engine 1 U/S, problems with drag on the left side are obvious. This could be somewhat compensated for by moving the plane's CofG to the right - i.e. having more fuel in the right wing tank than the left tank.
Taking off with an under-powered aircraft....
..minimise drag to enable acceleration - e.g. flaps 0 until Vr, then set flaps to normal t/o position & rotate.
.. Run engines 2& 3 at 100% up to Vr then increase to max as the plane rotates.
..Once airborne, increase thrust from engine 4 to obtain controllable straight flight. Reduce engs 2&3 back to 100% thrust.
..Fly level for as long as possible while gaining airspeed in order to reduce flaps quickly to reduce unnecessary drag.
..Compensate any tendency for the plane to turn left by trasferring more fuel to the right wing. Balance any tendency to turn right by increasing thrust from eng 4.
..Reduce flaps further as desirable and gently start to climb at a safe rate within the capabilities of the aircraft.
Navigate.
A 3 Engine Take Off is highly dangerous when one of the Out Board Engines is down compared to an Inboard one. The Asymetrical Thrust is severe in addition to Pressure Density Altitude, Temperature, Wind Velocity and Direction. The competency of the pilot(s) cannot be ignored and as such, resulted in this destruction. The Captain should have never accepted to do this ferry flight. The Airline could have flown a replacement engine for that aircraft, however in order to save a substantial amount of money, they risked the lives of the crew and an unknown number of other casualties if the aircraft had crashed in a populated area. Too many pilots choose to lose their lives and that of others, as opposed to losing their jobs ! There are no excuses for stupidity !
umm the pilot didnt plan to crash, nor did he choose to, and he might have thought he could have handled it, dont presume guilt through negligence when you do what your trained and told to do, it takes experence to know otherwise and the true people to blame are the management that trained this person, not the person itself.
as your blaming a solider for the battle going bad and not the general who rigged up the battle to begin with.
@@kavinskysmith4094 You obviously did not understand what you read ? 90% of all Commercial and General Aviation Accidents/Losses is due to "Pilot Error". If you're not a pilot, it would not be possible for you to grasp basic fundementals of any multi-engine aircraft that loses an engine on Take-Off. Whether it is deliberate or accidental doesn't matter relative to aerodynamic forces and physics.
@@emilefouquet9005 If you're not a pilot, it would not be possible for you to grasp basic fundementals of any multi-engine aircraft that loses an engine on Take-Off
its called Physics
My thoughts too - a terrible choice just to save some money - i guess a total loss of the a/c and attendent costs nulled that out - sad :-(
@@kavinskysmith4094 You obviously have no clue about of the difference between losing an engine during flight as opposed to Vr Speed. For people like yourself, that is known as rotation speed. The amount of Physics I have forgotten, you have yet to learn. I am a pilot, however I would never board an aircraft with you as 'Pilot-In-Command', if you know what that means?
9:03 What is the better system for aviation
definitely outdated naval units like knots
I watched a dc3 take off on one engine from a small airport where I was taking lessons. not only one engine, but with the wind!
Imperial system in engineering is a nightmare. If for some case, output must be given in imperial, then calculate it first in metric and then recalculate output to imperial - much easier and much less likely to make mistake.
But this isn't engineering. It's operational flying with precalculated charts etc. Fractions are handled as decimals. Pick a system and stick with it.
In the US we learned to use both. It's not a nightmare if you practice.
@@sashaalpatru8100 Its waste of time and more important, reason to make mistake.
@@norbert.kiszka If you live in a country that uses it, it isn't a waste of time. It's necessity.
@@sashaalpatru8100 in electronics engineering we use both (mostly millimetres and mils which is 1/1000 of inch). In aviation its same - both are used. Also my monitor connected to laptop have diagonal in inches. So practically every country use both...
I didnt know these planes were so redundant they could reliably and intentionally make a flight down an engine.
In an empty plane it’s no issue at all… would have been better if the dead engine was inboard though.
The early airliners usually had four engines due to the lack of thrust available from engines during that time period.
They’re also all designed to lose an engine at V1 (at MAX weight) and be able to continue the takeoff and climb.
Only f or APPROVED ferry flights
Start the takeoff roll then vere right on the runway and compensate with #4 engine?
Neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius are metric or imperial. Celsius is used almost everywhere except the US but Kelvin is even better! Though reporting temperatures to the cabin in kelvin might lead to unexpected results.
When I was in flight ops at Pan Am in the 60’s, 3-engine ferries from our training base in Roswell were made only by a Chief Pilot. They’d deadhead out from JFK or SFO and ferry the bird up to SFO for an engine change.
Nice
Any consistent set of units is preferred over a mixed set of units
Odd question: "Which system do you think is better in suchandsuch situation, metric or imperial". This implies that having two different systems with wildly different scales and conversions in for some reason desirable and useful. It is not. It is a recipe for disaster as we have seen now in this crash, but also in the Gimli Glider incident and in a lot of other situations. In order to maximize safety, we need to make sure that we are all working with one system. The worldwide dominance of the metric system means that in every situation where safety is concerned, we should use the metric system. The question is void as well in the sense that, basically, the US has already converted to the metric system, as all of its system units are currently defined using the metric system. It's just the misguided sense of superiority that prevents the american people from adopting it.
with a comment that it's not about any nation but human mentality and long established habits, inertia and lack of solid control in certain industries inclusive aviation even almost 1/4 the way in XXI century.
Don't expect anything to happen any time soon. In American engineering circles it's well-known that there are two kinds of countries - those which use the SI Metric system, and those which can put men on the moon. This is not arrogance, it's simple fact. And in any new industry, the first ones there establish the standards, they don't wait for the others to catch up. Certainly nobody is going to leave standards up to Europe or Asia, where nobody can even agree on electric power or TV broadcast standards, or which side of the road to drive on.
The tough part isn't the measurement system, it's the need to master English - not an easy job. I'm totally mystified how even native English speakers can make out anything over those damn radios; in my experience, the radios are the worst thing about general aviation.
@@tomswift6198 Sure forgot about Nazi and Russia who were first in space and both used metric.
@@tomswift6198 The saying is incomplete: There are two kinds of countries - those which use the SI system, and those which can put men on the moon using metric system while also crashing a probe to Mars using imperial system.
@@billdolar9995 Neat !
"...was flown to France to be fixed at low altitude." How do you fix an aircraft at ANY altitude?? 🤔🤔
highly trained acrobatic mechanics, clearly
Simple. Fix them at field elevation!
the best unit system, as everyone knows is, is bald egles per assult rifles squared over mcdonalds
Better known as Freedom Units
Would it be possible to take off and fly on the two inner engines only? That would have balanced the thrust out, but at cost of performance.
Personally I'd use metric in everything other than altitude (feet) and speed (kts).
@9:00 personally the idea of having dual measure was sometime intentional suppose to denote caution, but without deeper understanding users more than observable accident accounts just oblivous of the intent of caution.
As most of the world uses Metric lets stick to that...once, I think in the 90ies, a multi million space probe got lost because the engineers mixed up the two standards!
Yeah, in 1999 the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed into Mars as a result of a metric/U.S. Customary* mismatch.
NASA was using the metric system for all of its operations, but the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, used pounds for measuring the thrust of the retrorockets on the orbiter. NASA's mission control software was expecting the numbers to be in newtons, and as a result of the mismatch, too much reverse thrust was applied, resulting in the orbiter slowing down too much and crashing into the planet.
But just to be clear: this was Lockheed's fault, not NASA's. :-)
__________________________________________
* Most people incorrectly call the measurement system commonly used in the U.S. the "Imperial" system, but that's not correct. It's actually the U.S. Customary system. The Imperial system was established by Great Britain in 1824 -- but by that time, the United States had been an independent nation for nearly half a century. So the U.S. just continued to use the old English "Exchequer" units that it had been using for hundreds of years. (And still does, to this day.) Most of the units are same, but not all. Gallons and tons, for example, are different. An Imperial gallon is 1.2 U.S. gallons, while an Imperial fluid ounce is 0.96 U.S. fluid ounces. An Imperial ton is 2240 pounds, while a U.S. ton is 2000 pounds even.
@@Milesco Wow...that is a "ton" of good information,many thanks!
@@dipling.pitzler7650 LOL! 😄 Yer welcome!
@@Milesco In my days as a bona-fide "rocket scientist" I never once heard rocket thrust measured in anything except pounds. NASA doesn't design or build anything, it shuffles money around. It can specify rockets any way it wants, but Lockheed - or any other contractor - is going to work in pounds.
Pity your ending links are part broken, kind of all over the place when a second panel pops up with almost the same, but thankfully works
I think Metric is better for aviation because it is easier to change units and is more universal.
The airline I worked for used ATI for overflow and extra runs, their equipment was all terrible. In my experience the flight crews were top notch, they had to be to survive the ATI equipment.
Mothafukah... I seen every air crash investigation/ mayday.. but this is FRESH
The problem is never the units. It is always a lack of understanding the answer. I make tools and not only switch between units, but constantly have mixed units. If you don't understand the reasoning behind the formula, then you can never understand an approximation for the answer to safeguard against blindly making a mistake. The events seem to indicate they weren't understanding the need for these speeds. Whatever they calculated, they should have been well above it before bringing #4 up. If you are at the minimum, all it takes is a gust of wind or any kind of stumble on one of the remaining engines to send the plane over the edge. Also, being right at the minimum with the rudder full to the stop is a huge amount of drag. Not just that surface, but the entire airframe is going crooked through the air which is a tremendous amount of drag.
The only other THIS I get excited about is Doug Demuro's :)
Only an amateur single prop pilot myself, but I would think that there would also be a large difference in the calculation depending on whether the failed / functional engines would be inboard or outboard and this case would seem to have been the worst possible combination of asymmetric thrust. Had the failed engine been number 2 things might have worked out better as the effect should have been less. We all make mistakes from time to time, usually not fatal, but Kevin 747 makes a very good point. If it comes down to flying with a problem at least two people should do independent calculations. It seems that the first attempt should have been a red flag because if you ever have to use full rudder and still can't maintain a straight line it may be time to rethink the plan.
Either system works. The problem is when we change/convert from one system to another, regardless of which one it is. Reference: The Gimli Glider.
A B-747 at Maximum Gross Weight, at sea level with a median temperature of 59 degrees, has a Rate-of-Climb of 3000 ft. per minute. With an Out Board engine out(#1 or #4) it's Rate-of-Climb drops to 150 ft. per minute. Any aircraft that cannot maintain a Climb to a safe altitude with Wings Level, is doomed. Especially so relative to terrain and obstruction(s) from its Departure Runway.
Exactly. For this reason, an operator will establish a MTOW - 3 Engine Ferry.
Your attitude indicator shows you landing inverted at the end. Tells me all I need to know about your aviation knowledge.
Not much I can do about a broken instrument 🤷♂️
re: metric vs imperial units--the current state of American aviation is a complete mis-mash of units. We can't even decide on which kind of mile to use--we can either have nautical miles or statute miles. In general sm miles are for things on the ground, nm are for things in the air but that's not hard and fast. I don't recall the last time I had to deal with °F, though. Everything has been converted to °C at least.
"American aviation" doesn't have different units of measure from worldwide aviation. Knots, nautical miles, and feet and used (almost) worldwide AND in the U.S. for speed, distance, and altitude. I agree that degrees Celsius are also used almost worldwide for temperature measurements in aviation. The problem here was that the performance manual used Fahrenheit and Celsius in the same manual AND that the crew didn't pay attention to the units. I've been around aviation for almost 30 years (which doesn't go back to the time of this incident) and I've always or almost always seen degrees Celsius used for temperature.
Very informative. Wasn't aware of the exception of the 16hr rule for "non-revenue" flight's. Why would that exception even exist?!? 🤔 What dif does it make if its a revenue flight or not? You're still talkin' about the lives of the crew. 🤔
Presumably because the FAA has to answer to the traveling public , and not the aircrafts’ operators.
In Canada we use a mileage log even thou we use kilometers
Imperial and I like this video
Well I'm from the country which has invented the metric system which is the international measuring system in physics (MKSA) but I don't think this has anything to do with the metric system vs another system. By the way the Celsius (a Swedish scientist) system has been introduced in 1742, 47 years prior to the French Revolution which led to the metric system. It was adopted internationally in 1948, among 7 others temperature measurement systems, more as part of the International System than as part of the "metric system". But indeed the graduation is adapted to the metric system because it's decimal (0°C is freezing water - 100°C is boiling water). Since then temperatures are measured in degrees Celsius all over the world except in the US, Belize and the Caiman Islands.
However keep in mind that it's not a big deal to use the metric system when flying without any problem: it has been used in many countries since the begining of aviation until the end of WWII (the USSR used it until the end of the Soviet Union) when the US imposed their system. But you must be consistent and have then the speed in Km/h, the distances in Km and the altitude in meters. To be completely consistent they should use in this case grades instead of degrees for headings (400 grades for the circle instead of 360°) since the grade is consistent with the meter while the sexagesimal degree is consistent with the NM ... But they always used degrees and not grades for headings. So it was a little hybrid but it worked.
Anyway nowadays, in the aviation world, speeds are in knots, distances in NM, headings in degrees (like for sea navigation) and it's fine since it's a consistent system. Altitudes are in feet and that's Ok since it's far more convenient especially for vertical separation. On the other hand, weights and temperatures can be measured in Kg and °C since there are separate and not conficting data. Using speed in knots and distances in Kms would be a problem since it would be inconsistent but °C are not an issue at all.
The problem in this accident is that the flight engineer used charts in °C and read them in Farenheit because everything was computed in Farenheit in this company ...except the VMCG! That's where the problem lies. They should have had all temperature related charts either in Farenheit or in °C but never a mix!
My opinion
When it comes to calculating anything, my opinion is that it should be done in one unit of measure only, be it temperature, weight, fuel quantity or anything else. It's either ALL imperial or ALL metric, otherwise it can be confusing. It opens up countless avenues for error. Air Canada Flight 143 comes to mind.
Metric is always better, but imperial has been used for so long that it would take a lot of planning to switch.
By the way, "centigrade" has been Celsius since 1948.
Well considering English is the global flight language because it's the most common language we should go off the same thing with Imperial Vs Metric yes?
Therefore Metric should be the standard as it is the most global
This business about the speed and effect of the rudder vs the asymmetric thrust problem seems so basic and understandable I can't see how anyone flying a plane like this could not be taking this into account.
I am not in the aviation business and this seems like it ought to be in introduction to flying airplanes.
Yeah, I was kinda wondering about that myself. My guess is that it's perhaps not so much a matter of knowing about it or understanding it (which I'm sure the pilot did), but the timing and finesse with which the pilot rolled on the power.