A Close Call | United Airlines Flight 863
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2024
- Please support this channel by following me on Patreon
/ allecibay
On June 28, 1998 a United Airlines Boeing 747-400 flying United's regularly scheduled transpacific service from San Francisco Airport to Sydney Airport was forced to shut down one of its right-wing engines and nearly collided with San Bruno Mountain while recovering from the engine failure. The aircraft was able to dump fuel over the Pacific Ocean and return to San Francisco for an overweight landing, but the occurrence prompted United to change pilot training requirements.
Music: Sad Piano
Artist: Olexandr Ignatov
Listen to the entire music here:
• Olexandr Ignatov - Sad...
Follow me on:
/ allec.ibay
I live in South San Francisco and I clearly remember this day. I thought the pilot was suppose to continue out the gap and out over the water and was not suppose to turn right over San Bruno Mountain. I am a native and the only time I see the planes do a turn over the Southern part of the mountain is immediately after takeoff, this plane was on the Northern part and at the highest point of the mountain. Those three remaining Pratt and Whitney engines were screaming as he flew over and it shook our house really bad and all of the neighbors ran out and you could see him heading straight for the summit. I swear 100 feet is just about what he cleared it at. And the tail was really dragging you could tell he was trying to pull it up quick.
Great job Alex on this documentary you are amazing. The best out there you do your research. I can't understand why you would get even one negative.
There was a rural area in VA that had the same problem in the early ‘70s. Eventually one TWA plane didn’t make it. It was snowing, and when they pulled up it was too late. ruclips.net/video/g0-3OiIGXpE/видео.html
Hey bill, I’m also from the area and as you know on top of San Bruno mountain are a lot of tall radio towers, they are very lucky they didn’t clip one of those. You’re right, all the large aircraft taking off head directly west and out to the ocean, I’m sure this has a lot to do with noise. The residents in San Bruno just to the west of 101 have triple pane glass installed just to dampen the sound of the jets. Smaller aircraft seem to take off heading east, I often see them flying over Oakland airspace but have already climbed to a safe altitude by that point
A
seems you made this comment just to tell people you're from California. California natives are almost as bad a Texans.
@@Maplelust Jealous. Plus, Californians are a million times worse. Why, here is the Republic of Texas, you can’t find a horney toad that wouldn't be welcomin' to anyone who isn't a varmint or a yankee (that’s means Oklahoma).
See? As bad as Texan's? Come on... :)
Happy New Year to all!
Perfect example of one thing leading to another. Engine failure leading to improper procedure leading to airspeed loss leading to stall leading to near-collision. Good video Allec.
It seems many crashes on this channel are a kind of chain reaction.
Spenser T most are not 1 condition, but a CHAIN REACTION,WHICH LEADS TO PROBLEMS or CRASH, ONLY something CATASTROPIC , BRINGS 1 DOWN,,,,,,, Cheers from NJ
I'm still having trouble believing that a mighty 747 would suffer the described loss of thrust. Also at slower speeds, such as during takeoff the book tells pilots to use the ailerons instead of the rudder. This because the rudder is far less effective at turning the aircraft at slower speeds. Again the plane's problem appeared to be inadequate thrust coming from the remaining thre engines. It would be helpful to know at what power the engines were set for.
In fact a loaded 747 really ought to be about to takeoff on just two engines. San Bruno mountain is not that high. I 've climbed it many times. Can't be much more than a thousand feet. That and the aurcraft could easily have turned to AVOID heading towards the mountain. Instead of climbing over it.
@@jorgecallico9177 I know it was at 410, but China 006 did stall completely after losing one engine.
@@nicholasbutler153 when was that
Is this the first time I hear "Too low! Terrain!" and not have a crash?
It’s ‘pull up, terrain’ that’s the deadly one. Got to have a ‘pull up’ command if they’re going to die.
there was an air france 777 which almost crashed in Cameroon also having such warnings
I was a bit emotional hearing this, It was the first time I heard "too low terrain" "too low terrain" not followed by the sound of a crash! TG for the Pilots correcting the First Officer.
Thank you Allec for posting "close call " videos, they're just as exciting and nerve-wracking as the crash videos.
I remember it very well. Frankly I'm glad it was night and that I was sitting in the middle section of the aircraft and had no idea of our position or altitude. We heard what sounded like machine-gun fire coming from the right side of the aircraft. A short while later, while the seatbelt sign was still on, a flight attendant was running up the aisle, which confirmed to me that something was wrong. Some passengers who were sitting upstairs told me later they could hear someone in the cockpit yelling at someone else to get the aircraft up, which I'm also glad I wasn't aware of.
Back in the terminal we formed a long line and the airline started issuing accommodation vouchers for the night. However, that process was interrupted a little later when they announced that they'd found another aircraft for us, which departed a few hours after the original departure time and made it to Sydney without incident. I recall the captain on that second flight telling us we were fortunate the incident happened at SFO where the airline had a spare aircraft ready to fly. (There were empty seats on that second flight where the passengers who managed to get accommodation vouchers had been sitting - perhaps they later regretted being served first.)
It wasn't till a year or so later I heard from some United pilot I was chatting to how we'd missed Bruno by 100'.
On underqualified United pilots: www.adversity.net/united/1_UAL_incidents.htm.
I'm not a frequent airline passenger, I never flew on a 747, so seeing a flight attendant running and hearing weird noises would be a shit-in-the-pants situation...
Wow...thank God you are safe!
Am sure it was terrifying am glad you're alive though not everyone get to say that
'Narrowly miss colliding with mountain' ... That already created chills 😰
*misses
I remember this so well. I had a good friend that on occasion would let us fly the sims at a training center.
We did both climbs, one with only ailerons and one with rudder compensation. You would hit the top of the peak if you
completed with only aileron to compensate for thrust. It was a real stroke of luck to have those two in the back seat.
It’s amazing they didn’t hit any radio or TV antennas!
I grew up in San Bruno as you could see the tower and a runway from my bedroom window. Lots of great plane views1
Stick Shaker+"Too Low Terrain" call+pilot freaks out and uses wrong control surfaces. That was just pure luck that those people survived. Incredible.
It's a really difficult situation -- you're about to stall, so you need to point the nose down, but you're heading towards a mountain! You're damned if you do and damned if you don't!
As for the pilot -- I can see how that would be an easy mistake to make. The plane is yawing to the right, so naturally you steer it to the left to compensate. Problem is, steering the plane invokes the use of the ailerons. It's not like the pilot purposely chose to use ailerons -- he just steered the plane and the plane automatically uses the ailerons as part of the steering process.
@@Milesco That's incorrect. On the 747 (as with most aircraft), there are two distinct controls for the ailerons and the rudder. It's well-known and taught in basic flight school that the rudder controls yaw, and that you control the rudder with the pedals. Conversely, the ailerons control roll, and you control the ailerons and elevators with the yoke.
The major exception to this rule is the Ercoupe, which does not have manual control of the rudder. Instead there is an automatic system which controls the rudder for you. But the Ercoupe is a single-engine aircraft and would never experience asymmetric thrust.
When you hear the stick shaker it usually spells disaster. Whew.
Howly meatballs! That was a suuuper close call!
Howling balls of meat I agree
SantiGomapelaex the climbout from SFX , MANY planes have done the SAME thing except a twin private night flight years ago crashed into it ... Cheers from NJ
Yeah OK, Chris Farley.
The could have crashed into the Sheng Kee main bakery building. I'd hate to see them out of commission.
I believe i would crap my pants seeing that big beautiful bird heading right towards me if i were on that mountain, hill, or whatever! LOL B-)
I've been out to that southernmost point of San Bruno Mountain. If a 747 passed 100 feet over my head there it might have scared me, but it would also be the most exciting thing I ever did with my pants on!
Many people would die to experience that. Live a little guy. Smh
I would be saying the almighty Lord's prayer if the big bird came near me as well as crapping my drawers
Fun fact, the end of the chase scene in the movie bullet involves Guadelupe canyon road on sb mountain
@@markmnorcal - many people damn near did. A FO who didn't know how to fly the thing - smfh - it's just a big thank God or whatever you believe in, that they made it.
Well done, Allec! And also kudos to the pilots for averting disaster, even if they did come awful close.
A little surprised the Captain didn't take the over the aircraft. The music is well done and highly effective in these videos.
This is a hat-trick video with 'Everybody on the board survives' with a bonus 'no one is injured' 😊 👏
In other words...First Officer, back to the simulator.
Back to the tent
The first officer is shit Pilot with no basic flying skills. He shouldn’t be flying passenger Aircraft.
Thank you for this upload. No fatalities .... I'm so relieved.
One wonders if the passengers were aware of how close they were to death? When it's your time, it's your time....
Excellent as always Allec.
Greetings from South Africa 🇿🇦
Man this really was a close call
Like the way your videos are short and to the point
For those who are curious, the Captain was trouble shooting while the First Officer flew. This is not at all unusual and engine out procedures are drilled into every pilot. The aircraft started drifting right due to the thrust imbalance and the First Officer applied aileron to correct. This has the effect of also raising the spoilers on the opposite wing and that is what slowed the aircraft. When the relief pilots noticed the airspeed and the stick shaker went off the Captain took over control. He lowered the nose to gain speed and barely cleared the mountain. After that, everything went pretty much by the book. The reason for the engine failure is immaterial. It is how you fly the airplane when it happens that counts.
To this I might add that the problem of the pilots of large, complex and computerized aircraft losing their basic flying skill has been recognized for quite some time. Things that become instinctive to a light aircraft pilot are forgotten by heavy jet pilots. "Stick and Rudder" skills are lost. This is not a United problem but one that pervades the entire aviation industry.
@@jamesthompson3099 As a guy who has flown both small and large aircraft, I agree completely.
In a small plane, you don't have nearly as much cockpit automation as a large one. You have no choice but to fly the plane yourself.......in other words, be an actual pilot.
Thanks James. I asked earlier of two pilots if the captain should have taken over at the outset,, when it was realised the FO hadn't sufficient thrust or altitude, and was clearly headed towards danger, not knowing he had taken over ( did I miss something ,Allec?) . I wonder if he really believed they'd make it and whether it was a claculated bet the'd clear Bruno.Seems he had little option but to go for it rather than stall, which would certainly have ended in disaster...what a dilemma
Thanks I was wondering where the captain was
I remember this well. I was working at SFO then. They tried to cover it up. The story broke over a year after the fact. Man that was close.
Those responsible for the coverup should be charged with reckless endangerment at the least.
Amazing in the video the plane goes from 5000 feet to instantly landing. We are never told WHY the engine failed.
burt2481 you too do NOT PAY ATTENTION, #3 engines EXHAUST GAS TEMP, WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN AT TAKE OFF POWER, so was idled, Cheers from NJ
Leighton Samms We get it, but WHY did the temperatures go up, that’s what everyone is asking.
Everyone knows WHAT happened to Engine 3, but not WHY
@@flybyairplane3528 ha. you made yourself look like a tool.
@@angilolissimo5331 Why do you wish to know? The EGT exceeded limits and the crew is required to shut it down. Since they now have only three engines the best choice is to land back at SFO. The incident is recorded in the maintenance log after parking. The Captain is probably required to write a Safety Report. The crew probably will never hear another thing about the Incident except in this case they had a close call with the ground. It was a poor performance all around. The F/O in basic flying skills. The Captain and both relief pilots failed to catch that the F/O was screwing up. My guess is that UAL had a published EO procedure at SFO with all the high ground around.I recall at my company it was a radial off of SFO VOR or a heading and radial which would have been briefed to ensure avoidance of the high terrain.
@@georgeconway4360 I believe my comment stemms from one person trying to explain to everyone what happened in the video. It's been 3 years, so I don't really remember. All I recall was people asking why the engine overheated so much and this person just kept telling us what we already knew, which was that the engine overheated and was put to idle because of that. I didn't necessarely want to know, but it would be interesting nonetheless.
Rudder is always used on a multi-engine aircraft when you lose one or more engines
Apparently the FO's lack of take offs and landings made him forget that, or it was a training deficiency at United.
I've only been watching these videos for a few months, and have zero flying experience, and even *I* was expecting him to compensate the using the rudder...😅
@@comanchio1976
Yeah, using the ailerons will throw up all the spoilers on the the high wing.
Flying out of SFO I've always hated San Buno mountain, but apparently only one aircraft have ever crashed into her.
I use to live in the san bruno mountains. There are tons of houses in the departure flight path. I always felt it was just a matter of time before an aircraft goes into the mountain. I am surprised it hasnt happened yet.
Thanks for another fine video, Allec. Glory be to God that there were no fatalities or injuries! There have been far too many unnecessary crashes in flight history!
Indeed Steve - God saves us most of the time from ourselves and our own stupidity & short sightedness.
@@RamTruckSteeringFix Amen, thankfully he sure does
Sooo, ol god hated the other crash victims??? Amen was an Egyptian God.....
Miracle they cleared Bruno.
Why didn't the captain take over control of the aircraft?
Because usually whomever is flying continues to fly. The other pilot coordinates the emergency.
As a B747 Captain, with almost 12;000 hours total in every model: -100/-200/-300/-SP/-400/-8/-LCF, this was another example of lack of experience allowed,
The female FO should have never been in the FO seat during a heavy TO, and by having only a few TO/Landings in a year , speaks volumes. ( note most of these videos give the name and total hours flown of the crews, that was not mentioned) Always excellent reviews on this channel, and I always look forward to seeing more.
Good morning, good morning :) I like when it started with Boeing 747-400, or should I say "Queen of the sky" :) Have a nice day ppl and thanks for the video 🤗
Crazy part, those 288 people on board probably had no idea how close they were to being just another statistic that evening..😳
You're right, we didn't, and when I did find out a year later I was thankful that I didn't know at the time. 😀
Imagine how hard it would have been for fire and rescue crew trying to make it to the peak of the mountain!
@@wertherquartett wow! Glad you are ok. So, did the passsngers just think it was a routine engine out emergency until the investigation came out?
I don't think you can understate just how serious this incident was, how narrowly the crew avoided disaster and the potential consequences had the plane hit the mountain...it does not bear thinking about
Excellent video really close call looks like. Great suspense👍🏻
Thank you for not making this a 20 minute video like the flight channel!
Good video... But nothing is visible 😁😆
Lucky people in the aircraft
As others have asked, what caused the initial engine trouble?
The Mid Engined Legend THE EXHAUST ENGINE TEMP, WAS HIGHER THAN TAKE OFF, SO IT WAS IDLED, Cheers from NJ
@@flybyairplane3528 : Yeah, we know that, but why?
Captain Quirk pilots ARE NOT A& P mechanics, so you do what was the correct thing IDLE THAT ENGINE, do you KNOW ? The pilots have no god damned idea why. Cheers from NJ
@@flybyairplane3528 : Yeah, I don't expect the pilots to have known at the time why the engine was running hot, but presumably there was an investigation conducted afterwards that determined what was happening with that engine.
@@flybyairplane3528 You're missing the point. The sequence was bangs first, high engine temperature afterwards. So what caused the engine problem?
SFO is the land of close calls
You have no idea have close calls there have been at or near SFO. Its not as bad as it was years ago. I've seen one close call personally. About a year or two ago, I was at a park if you can call it that near SFO that gives a good side view of the southern half of runways 28L and 28R and saw a near repeat of the Asiana crash back in 2013. A Virgin American plane was going into too slow and too low and fortunately did a go round before hitting the sea wall.
@@TheOmega13a If it's a close call you're interested in, head down to the Castro district.😍
Brandon Amaro don’t forget air canada lining up on the taxiway and nearly taking out 5 planes
Vernon smithee sounds like you know from experience
@@Dunkaroos248 You're welcome to come along with, sailor 😍
The FO had no idea how to fly the plane and lost situational awareness of both air speed and terrain.
The Captain did an extraordinarily bad job of Crew Resource Management. Loss of an engine is an immediate “My Aircraft” moment.
Amen! My thoughts exactly!
Graham DeShaz No it’s not unless the FO is procedurally incorrect as was the case here.
Most CRM programs now emphasize the Captain dividing workload to meet the needs of the situation, using other crew members and automation as appropriate, and working the issue. Many companies are now preferring the FO to fly the aircraft while the Captain manages the procedures required to meet the emergency. This will require coordination with ATC, Flight Attendants, and (almost always) a PA and company notification though these requirements can be met in a variety of ways. In a situation with lots of time available you’ll end up doing more, in time-critical situations, you’ll do less coordination. The point is that if the FO is flying properly (he was not here, so a change in control would be warranted) he or she is a huge asset and let’s the Captain deal with bigger picture stuff. I’ve done it both ways in the sim and in real life, and though I’ve never had an FO make a fundamental flying error as was made here, it has generally worked better to let the FO keep flying. To claim that the Captain should arbitrarily take the aircraft in an emergency is not necessarily true (though I agree would have been appropriate here).
HEDGE1011 would have been appropriate here means the Captain should have taken over. There are some situations in which the PIC obviously takes over. This is one of them.
Graham DeShaz This is not the same as what you said in your initial post, and that’s all I’m pointing out. Your initial post said “Loss of an engine is an immediate ‘my aircraft’ moment”, which is an all-encompassing and incorrect statement.
I was careful to point out that a change of aircraft control WAS warranted here, so I agree with you about that, but a blanket statement that the Captain should always fly with an engine out, which was your initial contention, is not correct, and can be very bad CRM in some circumstances. There are lots of reasons that having the FO fly might be a better call, but every situation is different. Like I say, I’ve done it both ways in the plane and in the sim and it has normally worked better with the FO flying and the Captain doing all the coordination involved. That’s what CRM is all about. Obviously if the FO is not flying well the Captain must take the aircraft, and while it would have been warranted here, it’s fairly uncommon to need to do in the real world.
Loss of an engine is *not* an immediate my aircraft situation. All airline pilots train in power loss/ failure scenarios after V1. As long as the flying pilot has a handle of the situation the Captain will usually handle the coordination aspects if he’s already monitoring.
- 911, how can I help you?
- We can't sleep! There's a huge plane coming right at us! could you ask the plane to stop its engines, bank left or go higher? Thank you ~
holy moly that was close
Geez, that escalated quickly! That near miss was TOO close! More than three hundred people nearly lost their lives by just 100 feet of space!
I used to work there in the 80s at a retail store in a strip mall. That area is typical suburbia highly dense with houses and local strip malls. And from our store parking lot you can see the runways down at SFO because of the uphill elevation. Everyone I guess who works and lives there is used to the loud noise and roar of planes taking off some are so close to the ground as they climb you can really see the fine details of the aircraft. During breaks my co workers and I would hang out in he parking lot and we would have to stop talking when a plane is climbing because it is that loud. The area is also notorious during the winter when the fog rolls in from the other side of the mountain which is the Pacific Ocean.
That was indeed, a close call
Thank god that everyone survived
Very good Allec! One has to wonder how many close calls there that we never hear about....
Nice Vid!
I don't understand why any pilot would use aileron to correct asymmetrical thrust when ailerons are a roll control but the problem is one of yaw. If anyone can explain that, thanks in advance. BTW, my aircraft mechanic school was near the end of SFO's runway 28R. When there was a strong crosswind (rare) it was interesting to watch aircraft start moving sideways almost as fast as the wind was blowing as soon as their wheels left the ground.
_"I don't understand why any pilot would use aileron to correct asymmetrical thrust when ailerons are a roll control but the problem is one of yaw."_
Those were my thoughts exactly, and I'm not even a pilot!
Hs Hs because the yaw often induces a roll moment. So proper usage of both ailerons (to control the roll) and rudder (to correct the yaw) would seem prudent and a natural response to an engine out during takeoff.
I was confused by the use of aileron to compensate for the thrust differential as well. And as a private pilot, I am required to have made 3 take offs and landings within the previous 90 days in order to carry passengers. I was shocked to learn in this video that Airline pilots were under no such restriction.
@Malabanias I’ve been out of aviation for over 10 years, but I believe the FAR says you can’t be PIC carrying passengers without 3 take offs and landings in 90 days or whatever the number is. Perhaps the distinction here is that the FO was the flying pilot but the captain was the PIC. Also, I believe landings in the simulator count too.
As a non pilot I would have assumed that the gigantic rudder would cause more drag than ailerons. There are some cases where I don't understand why ailerons were NOT used. For example there was one flight that lost elevator control and could not pitch down properly. Why not just go into a turn using the ailerons, which would naturally force the nose down?
I LOVE YOUR VIDS
100 feet is absolutely nothing. Pure luck that thing didn't plow into the mountain. Allec -- what was the cause of the engine failure? Was it a blown tire sending debris into it or an internal failure?
I hate it when they don't explain everything!
100 ft is absolutely nothing.
Dear god can you imagine a 747 flying at 100 ft close to you and barley missing is very frightening
@@shapman280 it wouldn't make sense to our eyes
@@kyoakland still bud imagine the loudness going really close to your ear directly at you
@@shapman280 Couldn't imagine that would be something to tell the children lol
Again, cause of "thumps" and initial engine problem please? Anyone?
What I was wondering
#3 Engine failure
Speculating that it was a compressor stall in the engine.
The cause of the thumps & engine problem aren't even covered in the Wikipedia report
I know that the temperature on engine 3 was higher than normal, but why was this? How is it possible for an engine to be at a higher temperature than normal?
I think pilots must learn by first hand experience but not on a plane full of people.
We do. And we're supposed to carry that training on for our entire careers.
Apparently, the FO forgot to use mainly rudder to compensate for asymmetrical thrust. This is one of the first things you're trained to do during an engine failure.
Great video. However, what caused the initial engine problem? I live in the Bay Area and I have hiked up San Bruno Mountain. It isn't particularly tall as mountains go (roughly 1,300 feet) -- so this plane was flying very low.
Chris M #3 engines EXHAUST GAS TEMP EXCEEDED WHAT IT WOULD BE ON TAKE OFF,,, SO WAS IDLED, but with this going their attention was diverted, but the FO was flying, & he used flaps to compensate RATHER THAN RUDDER so it WAS NOT CLINBING AS IT SHOULD HAVE , SO TCAS CALLED OUT TERRAIN , FULL.POWER ON 3 ENGINES WAS ENOUGH,,BUT IT DID NOT CLIMB
CHEERS from NJ
Leighton Samms Ailerons, not flaps.
@@flybyairplane3528 TAWS called out terrain not TCAS
@@gummy4160 Maybe that's how Capt Leightons Microsoft FS is wired?
I was thinking it might have been a bird strike. This video has left me most unsatisfied on this point.
Considering communication towers on Mt. San Bruno can tall, yes this was a close call. That is why they have aviation warning lights.
Same exact plane, same exact airport, same exact destination:
Huh, oddly enough, this same exact plane experienced engine problems just last year, almost a year ago... Reports of flames coming out of one of the left side engines right after takeoff. Emergency landing back at SFO.
As with this flight, both were overweight, (this recent event had 295 passengers on board, 7 more than this video) and had to dump fuel before landing.
Dave Casserly HAD THID BEEN AN AIRBUS OF CERTAIN MODELS, they would have to fly for HOURS, as they did NOT HAVE A MEANS TO DUMP FUEL, , now the idiots have now started to utilisev such a system, .
@@flybyairplane3528 Lack of fuel dumping equipment is not limited to Airbus. Boeing 737 and 757 do not have the ability to dump fuel...same for DC-9/MD-80/717. Many 767 models do not either.
Dumping fuel is not required.
Flyby Airplane What are you talking about? All aircraft are certified to land at MGTOW if it’s needed to meet an emergency. There will be an inspection required after the flight. MLW is not a player if an emergency aircraft needs to land.
Having the relief pilots present increased the awareness for sure.
allec, you are better than the flight channel
^^ Facts
@@heyman2429 admit
I saw San Bruno Mountain earlier today and thought of this story. So scary.
Wait but what caused the engine to fail?
CrazyDash Yt Jesus,,you are about the 12 Th person whom pays zero attention, #3 engines EXHAUST GAS TEMP WAS HIGHER , THAN MAX TAKE OFF POWER, so was IDLEDED, Cheers from NJ
@@flybyairplane3528 The higher exhaust gas temperature was the effect, but what was the cause?
For example, if my car overheats, that would be the effect of a malfunction. A possible cause of this problem could be a hole in the radiator.
Eternal Tech someone on this article said THIS VERY SAME PLANE HAS HAD SEVERAL PROBLEMS, WITH VERY #3 engine, twice fire was seen from the engine, so go from there . Cheers from NJ
Interesting video, new to me. FYI San Bruno Mountain appears at 3:32. “SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO THE INDUSTRIAL CITY”
Seriously. I know that there was cloud cover but how could they fly straight to the mountain? Anyone whose ever been to SF via SFO knows that there is a huge mountain between SFO and SF. That pilot steered that plane in a clockwise direction directly to the mountain instead of continuing northwest after takeoff. They would have had to be above the Pacific Ocean to dump fuel anyways.
@@jeschr3462 blows my mind that the captain didn't take control once things went sideways. What a close call
I would literally shit myself if I heard a 747 clearing my house by only 100 feet. Because unless you live right next to an airport, then you can only assume it’s about to crash...
The real question should be how many flight hours each has,> flying the 747 itself, not the total hours the pilots have done over the years to determine experience. Ditto.
the day before I was born
send ass.
no clue to what cause the engine temp to above normal?
I was expecting to know the reason behind that engine issue. But great video as usual Allec. Thx
Yeah, so was I.
I would say, "excellent save" by a pilot who almost crashed the plane due to lack of training.
If this pilot hadn't realized that it takes rudder input to counteract adverse yaw produced by an engine failure after logging 9500 hours, no amount of training would have helped him. This is basic multi-engine flying--light twin to jumbo jet.
Close call is right! Had this crashed, it would have topped the 1979 AA 191 crash as the worst US plane disaster in history.
I would surmise that 1 or more Angels decided that some if not all of the Souls on board had important things yet to accomplish in this Life.
So when a plane does crash, you surmise that none of those people had anything important to do in life?
Mark S Right!
This video was one I was loving to see, thanks! maybe one time you could upload
Miracle Prevention | Southwest Airlines Flight 278
Allec, been forgetting to tell you, I love the new intro😊
I don't even want to begin to think about the people that were in their houses realizing a plane was flying too damn low above their house. I've had one too many nightmares of seeing 747's fly horrifyingly low above my house. Two Blue Angels one time flew over my house. The sound of the engines was getting louder and louder, the sound not letting up like it would once they pass over, I legitimately thought they were going to crash in my neighborhood. Scared the shit out of me. It didn't help much that it happened on September 10th of that year. 😞
100 feet is as good as 10,000 feet, if you don’t hit anything, I guess...😳
Not for the people who are standing under the flight path. Seeing a plane that low would cause them to die of fright. I once had a very rude awaking at 2 or 3 in the morning by a UPS MD-11 flying into Oakland ( which is across the bay from SFO) that was flying way too low (like 1000, 2000 ft) for the distance it was from Oakland (I live in the south bay, at least a half hour drive by freeway away from Oakland).
Brandon Amaro I was being sarcastic. I live and work close to a major airport. I once was at a building just across from the runway. The planes take off just 200-300 feet above it. Freaked me out at first!
3:58
Me:Hello this is citizen Lincoln speaking, warning you THAT A PLANE IS ABOUT TO CRASH! PLEASE TAKE EVASIVE ACTION AND ISSUE AN EAS!
Airport staff:Wait WTF?!
Captain should have taken the plane
United Airlines still uses Flight 863 for their San Francisco to Sydney leg to this day, though this terrifying incident happened 23 years ago. If UA Flight 863 became a tragic air disaster, then the airline would’ve retired that flight number. I’m pretty sure United now flies the 787-9 for that leg since they retired their 747 fleet in 2017.
The same flight number 863 is still being used today, but a Boeing 787-9 is used instead of the 744.
So what happened to cause the malfunction?
Thank goodness for landing safely !!! Had that plane hit the mountain it could have been the worst domestic crash in US history, possibly surpassing the AA flight 191 crash in 1979 depending on how many survivors there were, if any.
Seem to me even though this pilot had little experience on the 747 it pretty rudimentary to counter yaw when an engine is out- with the rudder. Bit like when you kick in rudder on a cross wind landing.
But for some reason he hadn't done many take offs and landings recent to his incident and could have forgotten all about that gem of knowledge.
Use of Rudder in a multi-engine airplane is basic 101. Also he didn't have 3 takeoff and Landings in the previous 90 days is outrageous.
How tall the plane flew over Bruno:
Two full-sized Greyhound buses and a pickup truck standing end to end.
Great 👍 video. Wow scary.
How in holy hell can someone log 9500 hours and not understand that rudder input is required to correct adverse yaw produced by an engine failure?? What was the captain doing?? First action item on any malfunction: FLY THE AIRPLANE! Second item: FLY THE AIRPLANE!
I flew back in the ''80-mid 90's". AFAIK, it was a requirement that whole time period for 3 takeoffs and landing every 90 day or trip to the simulator to do the same.
Alex joshua ! Faz um video da queda do TUPOLEV TU -154 da CUBANA ,voo 389 ,que aconteceu no dia 28/8/1998 ;quando o tupolev caiu logo apos decolar ,caindo sobre um campo de futebol.
*Bottom line is that everyone survived without any injuries and the plane made a safe landing*
That is not the bottom line. Because that happens thousands upon thousands of times per day. The bottom line is what does not happen every day - an experienced pilot screwed up big time and almost ran a plane into a mountain.
@Mark S
Are you a moron? All souls on board were safe, no injuries, and the plane was not damaged in any way. That IS the bottom line. Of course the pilot screwed up and probably should be fired. But lives are the most important issue of the incident.
@@watershed44 So there needs to be a loss of life for it to be a learning experience in what not to do? I think not.
@Mark Little
What the heck are you talking about?
@@watershed44 Your "bottom line" comment is "what the heck I'm talking about". As Mark S alluded to, this was a near catastrophe, and a complete failure of even basic airmanship. Just because everyone walked away does not mean this wasn't a colossal disaster in the making.
I grew up just on the other side of San Bruno Mountain from the airport. This was scary as hell and I will never forget it.
So what caused the engine trouble?
But we do know there were 288 on board.
Cassidan , gee you also did aNOT SEE/READ. the #3 engines exhaust gas temp was HIGHER that at FULL TAKE OFF POWER so was idled, Cheers from NJ
Leighton Samms That is not what he asked. The question is what caused the abnormal temp to occur and that info is not included in this video.
@@flybyairplane3528Einstein we know about the high temperature, what caused it?
@@flybyairplane3528 We want to know what the NTSB investigation learned. There HAD to be an investigation. Something caused the #3 engine to overheat, what was it? It didn't overheat without a reason.
Please add what was the cause of the engine problem
I live in the Bay Area and was not aware of any coverage of this incident in the local media at the time. I didn't hear about it until over a year later when my father told me about it, he had read about it somewhere. I assume United did its best to hide the incident from the media.
Excellent video i just wish we found out a little bit more about what caused the problem with #3 engine
You should do the Reeve Aleutian Airways Flight 8.
Crazy situation, heroic effort by the crew.
Good video
I always take comfort in the way major airlines will take strong measures, in this case training, to insure that incidents like these are not repeated.
I have been watching these videos for over 6 months and haven’t flown in that time. My next flight is in February. I’m curious if I’ll suddenly get nervous as we pull away from the terminal!
Ive been reading the comments regarding the radio masts on the hill top. I shudder to think that aircraft possibly missed them by inches. I wonder if the jet blast dislodged a few antennas.
Only in San Francisco would someone buy a house by the airport and then call to complain about the noise!!
Lack of training my @ss, damn plane was full of people, full of heavy fuel, taking off, huge heavy plane, and down one engine. That's why it almost stalled. Giving the plane ailerons instead of rudder had very little to do with why it almost stalled. Pilots should be given an award. Glad it turned out the way it did.
Matt H. 288 people onboard isn’t full for a 747 by any means and the aircraft is perfectly flyable with three engine’s. Unfortunately, the First Officer neglected to check his airspeed which he corrected by nosing down the aircraft, however at the same time he wasn’t paying attention to his navigation which nearly led him flying it into the side of a mountain. However, he successfully recovered this so called “heavy plane with heavy fuel with a supposedly full passenger load” with only three engines.
mvfc76 ONLY BECAUSE TCAS , WARNED HIM ABOUT TERRAIN AHEAD, We had NO SUCH THING BACK IN THE DAY B720, Cheers from NJ
Leighton Samms correct, however TCAS or not, the reason the pilots found themselves in difficulty was not due to passenger load or the amount of fuel on board as the OP has suggested, this was a case of poor situational awareness from the First Officer and poor crew resource management.
Matt H. On a large plane, ailerons are often assisted by spoilers which increase drag and reduce lift. Ergo the need to correct yaw with rudder and roll with ailerons. In this scenario, not using rudder was critical. Killing lift on a wing with reduced thrust and low airspeed at low altitude is not a good thing.
@@flybyairplane3528 EGPWS (enhanced ground proximity warning system) not TCAS warned them of the terrain. TCAS warns of possible collision with another aircraft.
HOLY F--K THIS WAS CLOSE! :)
Great video, except I can barely see the aircraft. I know it's night, but what happened to the logo lights or whatnot?
Could have been catastrophic
Please excuse my lapse of memory in my preceding comment. FAR 121.439 states that the three take-offs and landings made be performed in a visual simulator, as this pilot could have accomplished in one session, as do all airline pilots, copilots annually, captains semi-annually. I plead old age.