That is so sad that the one pilot was one that was charged. He did everything humanly possible to get those engines to restart, but I suppose the fact that he took off without the fuel slip is the reason. R.I.P. to all.
That guy probably killed his girlfriend by unfastening her belt and inflating her vest, rather than following procedures that were developed over decades.
Bad design at the component level because it didn't support a good aircraft configuration. A different model should have had a connector with a different key, at least.
Agreed, something so critically incompatible is made to just drop-in fit another plane?! What are these engineers thinking. I've had mundane connectors to kitchenware that's more protected from fault than a life and death flying machine.
@@kwaaaa Thats like AT&T. Ive been trying to port my number for months and they keep stalling me and stalling me cause they cant tell me the PIN because security. BUT they just sent me a letter that they let a hacker get ALL of my personal data!
I was taught to never trust fuel gauges. Always look in the tank. I was also taught if the engine failed, IMMEDIATELY configure for best glide speed and aim towards a runway. The engine-out checklist should have BEST GLIDE as the first step. They didnt mention it in the video, I just assumed they had done it and it just didnt make it into the video. In fact one time back in my initial training my instructor pulled the throttle and said "what you gonna do now?" (this isnt the unusual part, instructors do this all the time) I said "perfectly good airport behind us, we've been climbing into the wind ever since we left". So I did, and I dead-sticked it all the way back and touched down, musta been 15 minutes. Sprained my elbow patting myself on the back so hard...
ATR should have designed those fuel gauges with totally different connectors. An incorrect part, shouldn’t be able to be wired into the same spot on both aircraft. Simply having two different connectors would have saved lives.
About the refueling…if indeed the fueler added the amount requested then due to the incorrect FQI would have indicated a much larger fuel added amount, and that should have been noted by the flight crew. This issue wasn’t mentioned. Also, despite narrative, the plane was much too fast for a water ditching, should have been normal landing speed if not closer to stall.
In larger aircraft the fuel level is entered manually. They don't use a level sensor as you do in a car for example. As you see in the video, they receive a fuel pressure warning but not fuel level warning. The fuel level is set by the pilots and the aircraft meters how much Is consumed. What is consumed by the engines is deducted from the fuel quantity entered.
No way was the pilot at fault . Did they expect him to delay takeoff potentially for hours whilst they searched for a piece of paper that no one knew existed. In my opinion ATC should have put a call out to all the refuelling companies that the airport uses and ATC should have taken the decision to delay takeoff until such time as refuelling was confirmed. No way should they have shrugged off the Captain’s query as to where that refuelling ticket was .
The show still runs on cable, so only the old ones get licensed for YT. I bought the Kobe Bryant crash episode on Amazon prime because I didn't want to wait until 2035 when it ends up here.
What about the technician who put in the WRONG fuel indicator. What led the technician to believe that this swap was permissable? Perhaps it was done before or the technician was given the green light by the supervisor. Maybe the correct part simply was not available. They never say here, just that the responsible parties were treated as criminals.
Nothing wrong with the FQI. The new (second hand) FQI had the fuel quantity stored within from the last aircraft it was on. Upon installing, the quantity should have been set to 395 kg as it was on the previous unit. Instead they left it set at 1550 kg. The 2250 (ATR42), or 2500 (ATR72) is the maximum amount of fuel per wing, not the part number. Neither the technician or pilot changed it.
@@chippyjohn1the pilot couldn’t have known . He wasn’t in the cockpit when the unit was changed . This is 50% the maintenance engineers fault and 50% the manufacturers for not ensuring that the units were NOT interchangeable .
@lesley7321 It could have been replaced with the same unit, however the fuel quantity would still need to be set. No different to replacing a clock, even if identical, you still need to set the time.
@@conradanderson3928I get that, but they did check and were missing one receipt. Not sure how accurate this show is but it showed the captain radioing someone asking about the receipt and a person told them they would have it for them when they came back, which if true would have led the captain to believe that fuel was added. Blaming the deaths on the captain for not having one piece of paper out of a long checklist seems excessive. 99% of the blame should go to the maintenance person who put in the wrong part
@@iwanaGoFast2010 feathering is only done when the there is no chance of the engines restarting, he didn’t know the engines were out of gas and useless, he was still trying to restart the engines, not his fault, he followed the proper checklist for that situation which did not include feathering the blades. He could only react to the information he was given
I thought the episode was fair to him though. They did point out that the investigators who made it to the airport in the simulator had more knowledge of the situation and weren't in a life or death situation. An admission of armchair quarterbacking.
Greetings from Canada🍁Leap Year; so today we have an extra day. Does that mean that I am a day older every Leap Year? Hope everyone is taking advantatage of it to reflect. So glad that I had subscribed… never seen this episode although the old ones are just fine. Love the show!
I love when ditching is described as a "forced ditching," like anyone is ever gonna say, "you know what? Today looks like a beautiful day to crash my land-loving plane into the water. It never gets a chance to swim. Hope I don't die like almost everyone else who has ever tried this! Okayherewegooooo!"
There is such a thing as an unforced ditching. Such as US Airlines F 1549, aka Miracle on the Hudson. Pilots could've chosen to try for an airport or possibly land on a freeway but opted to ditch in the river. Other flights in similar situations.
@@pax6833 I see what you're saying, but I don't really agree with that example. Given the tightly-packed buildings and insanely populated streets of New York, "landing" on a street or highway would have been suicide, and would have killed many on the ground. We both know that Sully and Skiles proved that by the time they knew they would be forced to put the plane down they were aware they could not reach any airport, so that wasn't an option, either. They chose to crash-land into the one clear area they could reach, as it provided the best option for survival, but it was absolutely a forced ditching. No pilot on Earth has ever made a non-forced ditching, unless you consider maybe stunts or suicide/murders. For it to not be forced it would have to be the intention from the point of takeoff, and then it would just be a water landing. I guarantee if you asked Sully, he'd say he was forced to ditch in the Hudson.
@@kvarner6886 They did not know at the time for sure that a return to Le Guardia was out of the question, although yes the pilot did have a gut feeling he wouldn't have made it and his judgement was correct. I could point out other circumstances, such as Garuda Indonesia Flight 421, where a water landing in a river was chosen over a crash into a field. I think you're getting hung up on the term "forced" it just means they had no other options. If an option other than a water landing exists, even if that option is bad, then landing in the water is a voluntary (unforced) act.
So terribly sad 😢. I am afraid to fly and truly I do not fly . Too much can go wrong; mechanical , weather , crazy passengers , crazy pilots, poorly trained ATC, just too many variables. Now there seem to be more problems these days . Prayers for all those lost on this flight and the many others who passed in many other flights . One thing , they should attach some pontoons to planes that can be blown up if needed to land on water somehow. 😢❤🙏🏻
You shouldn't be afraid to fly...the mistakes that occurred have been fixed. To tell you the truth, I live in the US and would be able to fly to the Carribean but would NEVER be in a small plane (unreliable, mostly and too susceptible to wind speeds). I was in a helicopter once when I was in the service and that was the end for these small craft.
The point is that the video is taking you on a journey to the solving of the problem. They didn’t have the fuel indicators for several weeks as they had to be recovered from the bottom of the sea. Why bother watching if you’re just going to criticise ?
As soon as the second engine died, the copilot should have gone into "start engines"mode and the captain should have requested a vector to the nearest LAND (even of no airport there) meanwhile configured for best glide speed and tried to feather the props.
Wait a minute, now you are making a case for blaming the pilots? Anyone seen the Sully film? These guys had very strong and very reasonable confirmation bias as their instruments said they had plenty of fuel. Going from the first moment go to prove the plane could have made the airport is very unreasonable conclusion. This was well laid in in Sully. The pilots did all they could to restart their engines, because the wrong fuel gauge was showing them false results.
Ok and why wouldn't they? Microorganisms can survive in a lot of things, even stuff that is caustic. They've even found microorganisms in some acids as well, acids that are pretty deadly for us.
Does anyone know what charges the captain faced? I totally understand the violation of taking off without the refueling slip, but given the information he had at the time of losing fuel, it seems like he followed all the correct procedures. By the time they realized they couldn't restart the engines, there was no longer time to feather the props and glide to the runway, so keeping the props where they were seemed logical to slow the airspeed and lessen the forces upon landing.
The FAA needs to set regulations, to make it easier for mechanics to replace parts. Most aviation replacement parts should be, interchangeable. If this goal could be achieved , there would be less fatalities.
The pilot cut corners when he failed to get that refueling slip. He treated it like was a formality to get the slip when, in fact, it was not. Just like an inspector or supervisor signs off on job once it is completed, it was HIS job to make sure the plane had the proper amount of fuel (via the fuel slip). The fact that HE took off means HE accepted that the amount of fuel on board was correct, so it must be said that any fuel shortage was his fault.
That is why you never trust indicator gauges unless you have verified the fuel level before departure by dipping the tanks with a calibrated measuring stick. If the pilots knew the aircraft well they would have feathered the props immediately, but it the pilots are depending on check list they are likely to miss things. The thing to notice is the fuel gauges both reading exactly the same, and that is indicative of the tanks being empty. If the pilots just rocked the aircraft they should have noticed that the gauges did not change at all, and that also points to no fuel. Primarily the Airline and pilots were not keeping a fuel log properly. That would show entries for fuel consumed vs fuel loaded, and would have lead a knowledgeable pilot to know there was a discrepancy. When the fuel gauge control pack was serviced a reading of the fuel quantity onboard should have been noted, and when the new pack was installed, if the reading on the good side did not return, an investigation should have been started to find out why. But no, they just depend of check list and not knowledge of the systems involved. Knowledge is king, and I get so frustrated with people that say " I do not need to understand the system, I just want to follow a procedure", and "You always give me more information than I want, just give me the answer".
Lol. They don't use fuel level sensors in the wings. You enter the amount of fuel added and the fuel flow meter deducts the amount consumed. They FQI only knows what it is told by the pilots. The 400kg is added manually. Low fuel alarm only goes off if the FQI is low, but if the aircraft runs out of fuel, it doesn't actually know that.
The numbers on the FQI is the maximum amount of fuel for the aircraft, not a part number. The FQI stores the amount of fuel entered and consumed. The new one installed should have been set to what the original displayed. Both units are essentially identical. The ATR 42 holds up to 2250 per wing, and the ATR 72 holds up to 2500kg per wing. Maintenance people probably just think of it as a gauge rather than a computer. A few buttons pressed, and or a phone call would have prevented this crash.
With the props still moving the hydraulic pumps attached to the engines will still pump fluid through the system at reduced pressure. A trick many WW2 bombers employed.
Kind of wierd that BOTH fuel gages had EXACTLY the same amount, almost seems very unlikely and maybe a gage failure EDIT; I was pretty close! Crazy that the tech didnt notice the fuel level was different after changing the unit out, and that the captain took off despite not having a refueled ticket
Well no one did ask you and you obviously don’t even listen and consider the facts ! I guess you dipstick your engine oil, check tyre pressures water and everything else along with having a fuel tank dipper for your car every single time you get in to drive it ? Or do you just allow the gauges etc to deal with things !
Just a technical note here. One of the stupidest and most annoying strategies that has been embraced by far too many TV shows in the last 20 years is that of giving a synopsis of the show directly before the show. People are ALREADY watching! They don't want or need a synopsis-- if they wanted one, they got it in the schedule. Just stop it. It's pathetic and annoying.
It wasn't an accident. That's why it is correct to charge the men criminally. Pilot knew refuling slip was not there but took off anyway. Maintenance guy just shoved in whatever would fit rather than confirming he had the correct part.
You can't blame the pilot for the plane crashing in the water. With what he knew about what his instruments were telling him, he was trying to restart the engines. You want it to be human (pilot) error, then make it human (pilot) error. As it was human error that caused this crash to happen, just not pilot error. It was maintenance error as maintenance was the ones that had installed the wrong part to begin with. Because even if the correct fuel HAD been added for that part number, this crash would have happened to another pilot and more lives could have been lost in that crash, as it may have happened over land. So, maintenance should be blamed for this plane crash happening. As they are the ones that installed the wrong part to begin with.
"... flight requests 170". Really? Just for grins? Lose a bet? Just wanna waste fuel? Naked girl sunbathing on a yacht? How about "flight MaydayMaydayMayday engine failure descending to 170"
at the end they try to make the pilot seem as though he’s a hero when in fact, he broke regulations he clearly knew of for no good reason and it ended with many deaths and many many destroyed families. Shame on him
My heart breaks for the little girl and her mother especially, RIP people
That is so sad that the one pilot was one that was charged. He did everything humanly possible to get those engines to restart, but I suppose the fact that he took off without the fuel slip is the reason.
R.I.P. to all.
That guy probably killed his girlfriend by unfastening her belt and inflating her vest, rather than following procedures that were developed over decades.
Just thinking the same thing...unreal.
Maybe he wanted a new girlfriend
I thought the same thing. His actions underline the fact that it’s important to follow the procedures from flight crews.
He does not look like a killer come on
I honestly had no idea u weren’t supposed to inflate it until u actually get out of the plane until recently
Bad design at the component level because it didn't support a good aircraft configuration. A different model should have had a connector with a different key, at least.
Agreed, something so critically incompatible is made to just drop-in fit another plane?! What are these engineers thinking. I've had mundane connectors to kitchenware that's more protected from fault than a life and death flying machine.
@@kwaaaa Thats like AT&T. Ive been trying to port my number for months and they keep stalling me and stalling me cause they cant tell me the PIN because security. BUT they just sent me a letter that they let a hacker get ALL of my personal data!
I was taught to never trust fuel gauges. Always look in the tank. I was also taught if the engine failed, IMMEDIATELY configure for best glide speed and aim towards a runway. The engine-out checklist should have BEST GLIDE as the first step. They didnt mention it in the video, I just assumed they had done it and it just didnt make it into the video.
In fact one time back in my initial training my instructor pulled the throttle and said "what you gonna do now?" (this isnt the unusual part, instructors do this all the time) I said "perfectly good airport behind us, we've been climbing into the wind ever since we left". So I did, and I dead-sticked it all the way back and touched down, musta been 15 minutes. Sprained my elbow patting myself on the back so hard...
I love your show I am obsessed but I have seen the same videos several different times just with different titles
Yeah, each episode has been re uploaded dozens of times. I wish they would upload the new ones. But they want you to pay for those.
@@scottcol23 You should be happy there aren't any newer Disasters, though!
ATR should have designed those fuel gauges with totally different connectors.
An incorrect part, shouldn’t be able to be wired into the same spot on both aircraft.
Simply having two different connectors would have saved lives.
About the refueling…if indeed the fueler added the amount requested then due to the incorrect FQI would have indicated a much larger fuel added amount, and that should have been noted by the flight crew. This issue wasn’t mentioned. Also, despite narrative, the plane was much too fast for a water ditching, should have been normal landing speed if not closer to stall.
In larger aircraft the fuel level is entered manually. They don't use a level sensor as you do in a car for example. As you see in the video, they receive a fuel pressure warning but not fuel level warning. The fuel level is set by the pilots and the aircraft meters how much Is consumed. What is consumed by the engines is deducted from the fuel quantity entered.
No way was the pilot at fault . Did they expect him to delay takeoff potentially for hours whilst they searched for a piece of paper that no one knew existed. In my opinion ATC should have put a call out to all the refuelling companies that the airport uses and ATC should have taken the decision to delay takeoff until such time as refuelling was confirmed. No way should they have shrugged off the Captain’s query as to where that refuelling ticket was .
Wow, a “new”-ish episode of MAYDAY! Shocking
The show still runs on cable, so only the old ones get licensed for YT. I bought the Kobe Bryant crash episode on Amazon prime because I didn't want to wait until 2035 when it ends up here.
by new"ish" you meant 2009 episode lol
What about the technician who put in the WRONG fuel indicator. What led the technician to believe that this swap was permissable? Perhaps it was done before or the technician was given the green light by the supervisor. Maybe the correct part simply was not available. They never say here, just that the responsible parties were treated as criminals.
The reference materials provided by the airline showed the two FQI units to be interchangeable. A functional test wasn't required at the time.
Youd think he would have noticed the sudden change in the amount of fuel displayed before and after @@conradanderson3928
Nothing wrong with the FQI. The new (second hand) FQI had the fuel quantity stored within from the last aircraft it was on. Upon installing, the quantity should have been set to 395 kg as it was on the previous unit. Instead they left it set at 1550 kg. The 2250 (ATR42), or 2500 (ATR72) is the maximum amount of fuel per wing, not the part number. Neither the technician or pilot changed it.
@@chippyjohn1the pilot couldn’t have known . He wasn’t in the cockpit when the unit was changed . This is 50% the maintenance engineers fault and 50% the manufacturers for not ensuring that the units were NOT interchangeable .
@lesley7321 It could have been replaced with the same unit, however the fuel quantity would still need to be set. No different to replacing a clock, even if identical, you still need to set the time.
comedy of errors...the pilots can't be blamed for headwinds may have prevented them from making Palmeiro.
It’s sad to see how people push themselves to the absolute breaking point like we’re all human beings
Thank heavens for the senior flight attendant.
Just started the episode. I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and say that somehow the engines were deprived of fuel.
I think it’s wrong to put so much blame on the pilot
The flight crew failed to perform any of the required fuel cross checks. They should have known something was very wrong when they arrived at Bari.
@@conradanderson3928I get that, but they did check and were missing one receipt. Not sure how accurate this show is but it showed the captain radioing someone asking about the receipt and a person told them they would have it for them when they came back, which if true would have led the captain to believe that fuel was added. Blaming the deaths on the captain for not having one piece of paper out of a long checklist seems excessive. 99% of the blame should go to the maintenance person who put in the wrong part
HE DIDNT FEATHER
@@iwanaGoFast2010 feathering is only done when the there is no chance of the engines restarting, he didn’t know the engines were out of gas and useless, he was still trying to restart the engines, not his fault, he followed the proper checklist for that situation which did not include feathering the blades. He could only react to the information he was given
I thought the episode was fair to him though. They did point out that the investigators who made it to the airport in the simulator had more knowledge of the situation and weren't in a life or death situation. An admission of armchair quarterbacking.
Greetings from Canada🍁Leap Year; so today we have an extra day. Does that mean that I am a day older every Leap Year? Hope everyone is taking advantatage of it to reflect. So glad that I had subscribed… never seen this episode although the old ones are just fine. Love the show!
I love when ditching is described as a "forced ditching," like anyone is ever gonna say, "you know what? Today looks like a beautiful day to crash my land-loving plane into the water. It never gets a chance to swim. Hope I don't die like almost everyone else who has ever tried this! Okayherewegooooo!"
There is such a thing as an unforced ditching. Such as US Airlines F 1549, aka Miracle on the Hudson. Pilots could've chosen to try for an airport or possibly land on a freeway but opted to ditch in the river. Other flights in similar situations.
@@pax6833 I see what you're saying, but I don't really agree with that example. Given the tightly-packed buildings and insanely populated streets of New York, "landing" on a street or highway would have been suicide, and would have killed many on the ground.
We both know that Sully and Skiles proved that by the time they knew they would be forced to put the plane down they were aware they could not reach any airport, so that wasn't an option, either.
They chose to crash-land into the one clear area they could reach, as it provided the best option for survival, but it was absolutely a forced ditching. No pilot on Earth has ever made a non-forced ditching, unless you consider maybe stunts or suicide/murders.
For it to not be forced it would have to be the intention from the point of takeoff, and then it would just be a water landing. I guarantee if you asked Sully, he'd say he was forced to ditch in the Hudson.
@@kvarner6886 They did not know at the time for sure that a return to Le Guardia was out of the question, although yes the pilot did have a gut feeling he wouldn't have made it and his judgement was correct.
I could point out other circumstances, such as Garuda Indonesia Flight 421, where a water landing in a river was chosen over a crash into a field.
I think you're getting hung up on the term "forced" it just means they had no other options. If an option other than a water landing exists, even if that option is bad, then landing in the water is a voluntary (unforced) act.
@@pax6833 Eh, agree to disagree I suppose. Definitely not something worth arguing about. : )
So terribly sad 😢. I am afraid to fly and truly I do not fly . Too much can go wrong; mechanical , weather , crazy passengers , crazy pilots, poorly trained ATC, just too many variables. Now there seem to be more problems these days . Prayers for all those lost on this flight and the many others who passed in many other flights . One thing , they should attach some pontoons to planes that can be blown up if needed to land on water somehow. 😢❤🙏🏻
I don't suppose you drive then? 🤔
@@hippiechickie18 yes I drive but I am in control and the one driving the car and I’m not 30,000 feet in the air
@@SudiSaiorse13 😂 ok chief
You shouldn't be afraid to fly...the mistakes that occurred have been fixed. To tell you the truth, I live in the US and would be able to fly to the Carribean but would NEVER be in a small plane (unreliable, mostly and too susceptible to wind speeds). I was in a helicopter once when I was in the service and that was the end for these small craft.
I enjoy these videos, but they could be half as long and cover the information without so much repetition.
Plus they have to have 4 false solutions before they hit the right one, even when its obvious all along.
The point is that the video is taking you on a journey to the solving of the problem. They didn’t have the fuel indicators for several weeks as they had to be recovered from the bottom of the sea. Why bother watching if you’re just going to criticise ?
@@lesley7321 I'll criticize what I want and I'll watch what I want and you won't be telling me not to do either Karen
30:03 a careful investigation
Is it new or not?
As soon as the second engine died, the copilot should have gone into "start engines"mode and the captain should have requested a vector to the nearest LAND (even of no airport there) meanwhile configured for best glide speed and tried to feather the props.
But they did …are you deaf !?
Wait a minute, now you are making a case for blaming the pilots? Anyone seen the Sully film? These guys had very strong and very reasonable confirmation bias as their instruments said they had plenty of fuel. Going from the first moment go to prove the plane could have made the airport is very unreasonable conclusion. This was well laid in in Sully. The pilots did all they could to restart their engines, because the wrong fuel gauge was showing them false results.
Unfortunately, the pilots operated the aircraft illegally. They did not cross check the indicated fuel amount as required by company policy.
Microorganisms can survive in kerosene? That’s wild.
In brake fluid also.
Ok and why wouldn't they? Microorganisms can survive in a lot of things, even stuff that is caustic. They've even found microorganisms in some acids as well, acids that are pretty deadly for us.
You know they use microorganisms to clean up fuel spills as they consume it.
Does anyone know what charges the captain faced? I totally understand the violation of taking off without the refueling slip, but given the information he had at the time of losing fuel, it seems like he followed all the correct procedures. By the time they realized they couldn't restart the engines, there was no longer time to feather the props and glide to the runway, so keeping the props where they were seemed logical to slow the airspeed and lessen the forces upon landing.
It's my understanding he was charged with and convicted of manslaughter.
The FAA needs to set regulations, to make it easier for mechanics to replace parts. Most aviation replacement parts should be, interchangeable. If this goal could be achieved , there would be less fatalities.
Are you an idiot? This accident literally happened because the fuel gauge was interchangeable between the 2 planes.
The pilot cut corners when he failed to get that refueling slip. He treated it like was a formality to get the slip when, in fact, it was not. Just like an inspector or supervisor signs off on job once it is completed, it was HIS job to make sure the plane had the proper amount of fuel (via the fuel slip). The fact that HE took off means HE accepted that the amount of fuel on board was correct, so it must be said that any fuel shortage was his fault.
Could we get season 12 and newer plssss🎉🎉
That is why you never trust indicator gauges unless you have verified the fuel level before departure by dipping the tanks with a calibrated measuring stick. If the pilots knew the aircraft well they would have feathered the props immediately, but it the pilots are depending on check list they are likely to miss things. The thing to notice is the fuel gauges both reading exactly the same, and that is indicative of the tanks being empty. If the pilots just rocked the aircraft they should have noticed that the gauges did not change at all, and that also points to no fuel. Primarily the Airline and pilots were not keeping a fuel log properly. That would show entries for fuel consumed vs fuel loaded, and would have lead a knowledgeable pilot to know there was a discrepancy. When the fuel gauge control pack was serviced a reading of the fuel quantity onboard should have been noted, and when the new pack was installed, if the reading on the good side did not return, an investigation should have been started to find out why. But no, they just depend of check list and not knowledge of the systems involved. Knowledge is king, and I get so frustrated with people that say " I do not need to understand the system, I just want to follow a procedure", and "You always give me more information than I want, just give me the answer".
Where do you insert a dipstick to check for fuel levels, when the tanks are part of the wing??
@@vortex162 They're called dripless sticks. They are accessed from under the wing.
Lol. They don't use fuel level sensors in the wings. You enter the amount of fuel added and the fuel flow meter deducts the amount consumed. They FQI only knows what it is told by the pilots. The 400kg is added manually. Low fuel alarm only goes off if the FQI is low, but if the aircraft runs out of fuel, it doesn't actually know that.
Remember, Knowledge is King. People comment without any understanding.
@@chippyjohn1especially armchair experts ! Who don’t even bother to listen !
There are so many other people responsible for this accident!!
They need to install a glide mode feature to their software that automatically puts the plane in the right configuration.
I'm sorry but if you're SPECIFICALLY TOLD to not inflate your lifejacket and you STILL INFLATE YOUR LIFEJACKET you no longer deserve to survive.
At least it’s a overhead wing design. Probably saved a bunch of people in a water ditch.
What about the ditch in Uranus ?
The numbers on the FQI is the maximum amount of fuel for the aircraft, not a part number. The FQI stores the amount of fuel entered and consumed. The new one installed should have been set to what the original displayed. Both units are essentially identical. The ATR 42 holds up to 2250 per wing, and the ATR 72 holds up to 2500kg per wing. Maintenance people probably just think of it as a gauge rather than a computer. A few buttons pressed, and or a phone call would have prevented this crash.
With both engines out would there be power to control the prop and everything
They can be feathered with backup power.
With the props still moving the hydraulic pumps attached to the engines will still pump fluid through the system at reduced pressure. A trick many WW2 bombers employed.
Kind of wierd that BOTH fuel gages had EXACTLY the same amount, almost seems very unlikely and maybe a gage failure
EDIT; I was pretty close!
Crazy that the tech didnt notice the fuel level was different after changing the unit out, and that the captain took off despite not having a refueled ticket
Who else was yelling.... FEATHER, FEATHER, FEATHER THE PROPS!
Who else thinks they should bring back the flying boats!?!
@@j-man6001like the spruce goose?
Who else thinks they should ground all planes and go back to using ships ?
Who else thinks they should ground all planes, dock all ships and go back to swimming?
Pedals for propulsion
Poor little girl
Poor big girls who could have given birth to more little girls
A crash that could’ve been totally prevented pure laziness if you ask me
Well no one did ask you and you obviously don’t even listen and consider the facts ! I guess you dipstick your engine oil, check tyre pressures water and everything else along with having a fuel tank dipper for your car every single time you get in to drive it ? Or do you just allow the gauges etc to deal with things !
Just a technical note here. One of the stupidest and most annoying strategies that has been embraced by far too many TV shows in the last 20 years is that of giving a synopsis of the show directly before the show. People are ALREADY watching! They don't want or need a synopsis-- if they wanted one, they got it in the schedule. Just stop it. It's pathetic and annoying.
😅😅😅😅@sekacity3425
Engine stops and our first thought was a terrorist attak😂😂
Italy always criminalizes these accidents which can get in the way of using the event to improve safety.
It wasn't an accident. That's why it is correct to charge the men criminally. Pilot knew refuling slip was not there but took off anyway. Maintenance guy just shoved in whatever would fit rather than confirming he had the correct part.
Time to sit in the back since most people survived sitting in the back. Not just this one but a lot of other crashes to
I’ve thought the same after watching all of these 😅
I will sit inside the black box
It depends on what kind of crash tho
13:24 did this clown really think he knew better than a trained pro? May as well say that he killed her
Maybe an emergency exit on the roof would save lives in a water landing, but planes need to e able to float somehow
As a flight mechanic im appauled by this level of negligence by the mechanic. Horrible.
This is a rerun
22:37 it's very sad that a tail of Tuninter Flight 1153 sinks at the bottom of the sea
You can't blame the pilot for the plane crashing in the water. With what he knew about what his instruments were telling him, he was trying to restart the engines. You want it to be human (pilot) error, then make it human (pilot) error. As it was human error that caused this crash to happen, just not pilot error. It was maintenance error as maintenance was the ones that had installed the wrong part to begin with. Because even if the correct fuel HAD been added for that part number, this crash would have happened to another pilot and more lives could have been lost in that crash, as it may have happened over land. So, maintenance should be blamed for this plane crash happening. As they are the ones that installed the wrong part to begin with.
You're confusing a link in the chain of events with the cause. The mechanics did not make the decision to operate the aircraft illegally.
Mayday intro 0:53
jeez.
Ur next
How is this new? What about the Pakistani crash of 2020? The ATR crash in New Deli? Geez.
But when the second engine failed they were still trying to restart - so obviously the “test” was pointless
Can I start ur engines ?
Good ❤
12:23 Captain Chafik Al-Gharbi: cockpit fuel quantity 1800kg
What I'm confused is... He was fully clothed... Then Italian ENRIQUE INGLESIAS got naked to his boxers as he bobbed out of the water... HOW?!
Luca could’ve saved people if he wasn’t so selfish. I don’t know how he’ll ever look in the mirror again. Wow! What a selfish person.
Wow! You know Luca so well. Tell me. When is his birthday and how old is he? 😅
@@michigangirl5072 did you watch the same video as me? Maybe rewatch it and then think about your 3rd grade comment. Hes a douche
@@michigangirl5072 who cares. He didn’t help 1 person
Who dat? Who dere?
Could they have made it to the airport? Possibly, but they assumed they could restart the engines and wasted time. Sadly hindsight is 20/20.
"... flight requests 170". Really? Just for grins? Lose a bet? Just wanna waste fuel? Naked girl sunbathing on a yacht? How about "flight MaydayMaydayMayday engine failure descending to 170"
1st thing to do is feather props?
Not when they don’t know that they’re out of fuel. First thing is attempt engine restarts !
@@lesley7321
I was thinking it would give a bit of time to consider the best action.
Pushpanjali Bodhee asrtyu
Mechanic killed 16 people 😢
The final report came to a different conclusion. The mechanics actions did not cause this accident.
Stop. Uploading. The. Same. Episodes. Multiple. Times.
If you don’t like it ……stop watching
Planes need air bags so they can float in a water landing.
at the end they try to make the pilot seem as though he’s a hero when in fact, he broke regulations he clearly knew of for no good reason and it ended with many deaths and many many destroyed families. Shame on him
Man
Woman
Fake stories 🥱
15:03 Captain Chafik Al-Gharbi: Can you send helicopters or something similar fast fast fast