I flew the older 747 -200 for 15 years and was an instructor, Chief Pilot and Check pilot on that type. We had 2 pilots and a Flight engineer as opposed to the captain and two copilots on this type (-400) My procedure for calculating the take off speeds was for all cockpit crew members to independently calculate tha take off speeds from our tables and then compare them. If, for any reason the aircraft was not accelerating fast enough (sometimes due to undetected windshear) the throttles were advanced to full power and care was taken to rotate to 10 degrees nose up to let the plane fly off. This made sure of not having a tail strike. If we did have a APU fire (never happened to me, but practiced many times on the sim) we fired the extinguishers and only would have to make an emergency landing if the fire warning remained on. A "fly by" near the control tower would have determined whether there was an APU fire still raging. The fuel dumping in the 747-200 (and presumably the -400) was at the wing tips --so tne danger of fire was minimal. This incident was a cockpit crew problem. These things can happen if you are not alert. Once, when taxiing out a 747 from JFK to Frankfurt with a full load, the Tower asked us to take another runway. I asked the copilot and flight engineer if that runway was acceptable to them. They said that it was ok. I told the Tower that we could not accept that runway as it was too short for us. This happened while taxiing at JFK--which some pilots called a madhouse. There was no time in a dark cockpit with stacatto radio instructions coming in to recheck all our speeds or runways. But I knew the runways from years of flying 707s, DC 10s, and 747s out of JFK and knew that we could not make it from that runway. How easily it would have been for an inexperienced captain to have blindly accepted the runway change--and a possible disaster. In imparting training my motto was : "A Good Pilot is a THINKING pilot."
No way the amount of detail in this sim is crazy! I work Airside at Auckland airport and i noticed where the buses are parked up in front of the 747, they even have the skybus (which is the bus operator company) opr office and lunch room with the actual sign in there wow. And the Novotel outside of the Airport even. Thats crazy
Look closer and you will see it is NOVOTEL and not Novotel It is evident you were programmed to be a ZOMBIE. ZOMBIEs have eyes but cannot see - ears and cannot hear. When you L00K at something be sure you see 'exactly' what it is you are looking at. Learn to pay attention to detail - and start living outside of the ZOMBIE zone. Be conscious and pay attention. NOVOTEL and Novotel sound the same - BUT they are NOT the same. You have much to learn
You have to give the old 747 credit - with all the errors, tail dragging, power too low, and crew not helping much, it still flew them back for a safe landing.
@@jjeherrera Good point indeed!! The crew totaĺly ignored the computed figures in the system and replaced them with their incorrect figures. Poor training in cross checking and no concept of the required speeds for this long haul...needs to be a rotate speed of 170-180kts Remember this system is from the 1980's on the B747-400... from an even older plane from the 1960's. It takes a lot of expense and regulation to change things unfortunately! A lot of basic airmanship still required not like fly by wire...!!
My father, a former L1011 senior captain, always told his crew...if you're getting into a stall, you instantly slam the throttles to the firewall, level off, and pray. THEN pull out the dam checklist.
I used to work on the 34th Floor of the Vero centre in Auckland. My desk window looked looked to to the airport area, and I saw this 747 circling, and I said to my colleague at the time that there must be an issue, as the plane was just flying around with no obvious departure of the Auckland airspace. I remember being very troubled by the sighting, but then got busy and thought about it no more. On the news that night it became apparent that this issue had occurred. I have flown SQ286 to Singapore many times from Auckland, and its departure time used to be around 14:30. Funny how we remember these things that many years later. Great Simulation.
I distinctly remember this. I live in Auckland not far from the Auckland Airport. I saw it fly right overhead really low. It had a massive hole in the rear. An unbelievable sight that I've never forgotten. Amazing that it landed and didn't break up. Wish I had a phone/camera to take a photo but back then but we didn't all carry them around like today.
The simulated view from in front of the 747 after takeoff with the runway getting smaller and smaller behind it is the most realistic thing I've ever seen in these videos. Unbelievable quality. I blame the First Officer about 80% for this almost tragedy. The remaining fault lies with the Captain, not just for the erroneous FMC entry, but for not fire-walling the throttles at any time during this event. Degraded runway performance...low airspeed and an almost stall...what was he doing, or not doing? Great great job on this one. I've seen other sims of this incident but they didn't go nearly into the information or simulation detail you did. Bravo!!!
I was watching think "ok the captain will hit the TOGA button any second now..." But I guess the painfully sluggish take-off and subsequent stall warning at low altitude didn't seem urgent enough to him
@@Free-g8r I think he got task saturated...too many things going on and he wasn't experienced enough on the aircraft type to have any positive and reflexive responses. He just froze.
@@MrCrystalcranium I think the captain should hold the major responsability here. It's an airplane, not a pair of shoes. He was handed basic fundamental flight data and totally missed it. It's like thinking any plane will climb if you just pull back on the stick. It's a lot more than that. Potentially fatal to all on board.
It just defies belief that the first officer didn’t look at those V ref speeds and immediately say to himself, hang on, that doesn’t look right, what’s going on here?
Despite the mistakes made by the pilots and the reckless take-off, I'm sure everyone is comfortable and pleased that the plane returned safely and did not end in a fatal disaster.
They probably never knew how vulnerable they were to incineration: “This is your captain speaking. We’re having a very slight mechanical issue and for your safety, we’re returning to the terminal….” Then, many hours later, they may or may not have found a new seat on another plane. The scraped tail that hit the runway probably cost a fortune to repair, and could have seriously endangered the airplane.
Another example of the lack of situational awareness that overcomes pilots who become numb to the real world sensations of flying. Over-dependence on the computers is not only dangerous, but turns people into robots; which I've seen and experienced. When it was clear that the plane wasn't responding after the V1 "rotate" announcement, a real wrold-sensitive pilot would have pushed the throttles to full power. They never did use full engine power! They're damned lucky they didn't run out of runway and end up in a massive fireball of epic proportions. 😵😵💫
Also, one should question a number. A captain should know the ballpark figures for aircraft weight for a certain flight task. And if he did not check for that then he should've surely known ballpark figures for the V speeds. They're not just an abstract number as anybody can attest that has ever flown themselves.
@@olaflieser3812 Well the video did explain this may be partially due to the captain’s low experience on type. Before management computers, this calculation was done by the flight engineer, and a pilot with low experience and awareness still would not have spotted an error, so this isn’t the problem of the computer existing.
@@Roytulin I hear you and of course we are all smart in hindsight.... but still: Nobody blames the computer of course - and that "low experience on type" thing would then say that it is outright dangerous to fly with a captain that does have a fresh type rating with low hours on type - because they don't understand the numbers! That can't be right and I am sure the airline, which is a very reputable one, has done something about it by now.
@@Roytulin I was a flight engineer in the US Airforce. I taught young copilots what to look for! No one on our airplanes was ignorant. And we flew with two sometimes 3 engineers and we always double and triple checked data against raw data as well as the pilots checking data! Often times we were 840K!!! So very similar weight as the 747 at heavy weights.......😉
A strikingly similar incident happened 6 years later. On 20 March 2009, A6-ERG, operating Emirates Flight 407 from Melbourne to Dubai, suffered a similar tail-strike during takeoff, and this was even closer to a catastrophe as the A340-500 hit the localizer antenna array. One of the pilots had also understated the aircraft's weight by 100 tons prior to takeoff, and neither the other pilot nor the flight management computer notice anything unusual. The Airbus fortunately landed safely without injury to the 275 people onboard, but was badly damaged and returned to service only in December that year after being repaired by the manufacturer. The aviation industry needs to learn from these incidents!
There was one at Melbourne in the mid 70’s where ATC gave the crew of a 747-200 the option of using Runway 27. instead of the North South runway that had been planned for. The main wheel where just leaving the ground as the wheels ran off the runway leaving tyre tracks off the end of the runway . It was talked about a lot amongst pilots at the time . This was true ,was shortly after the 747-200’ s were first introduced.
He use to show photos all the time of the accident sights it damage and stopped like a year ago. I think his videos were getting flagged or something administration was happening because he just stopped and never showed a photo after.
@@vegasbabyy he's also starting to leave details out. There was no fire. The tailstrike shorted the wiring so it was giving a false alarm. The strike literally ripped a hole in the fuselage. I don't know if he's getting tired of making vids or just doesn't care anymore.
So, all of this happens because a first officer is incapable of accurately copying down figures and the other two crew members didn't spot it. MARVELOUS! add to this a Captain who incorrectly handles a stall warning, and you have the perfect cockpit crew. However, despite the mistakes, they managed a safe landing and no one was killed or even injured, so credit due to them for that.
Absolutely crazy to think that even the slightest oversight or error, could lead to such massively catastrophic results. Glad they landed safely but, damn!
Because people are programmed from the first day at school to be ZOMBIES Society is so brainwashed that people censor each other -further reinforcing the false belief that errors are insignificant --- This phenomenon is evident in what is written and HOW it is written --- and it is written incorrectly - because as I have stated over and over "people do not pay attention to detail' Once one starts doing that with 'little things' soon one learns to overlook the bigger and more critical details. As an example = People write Boeing instead of BOEING - yet they have seen BOEING written even on the aircraft as well as the SIGNAGE at the entrance pf the factory - but the ZOMBIES ignore this fact - They look at one thing but SEE something else because of their FAILURE to pay attention to detail - They are in effect semi-conscious To the ZOMBIES - these differences are insignificant - however - they are absolutely incorrect. The difference is very significant. As a former AIR FORCE pilot with 30 years service - serving three countries we are trained to pay attention to detail - such failures will sooner or later lead to disaster and an early demise. The untrained brainwashed ZOMBIES consider such attention to detail as 'nit picking' One cannot educate ZOMBIES when they choose ignorance and remain stubborn. To re-program decades of ZOMBIE programming and social conditioning requires a great deal of effort and discipline. So do not fall into that trap. The mind has to slow down - pay attention to detail and speak slower than one is used to. everything in this world now has become rush - rush - rush -- and for what ? Good luck and good bye
I wouldn't call entering info that the plane is 100 tons lighter than it actually was a "slight" error. Especially considering how huge it was, I'm surprised it lifted off of the runway at all with such huge weight miscalculation inputs.
@@loveblue2 - I agree. Looking back, it’s monumental. At the time it was being entered into the FMC, it could have just been a very simple case of “fat fingering” the entry. I was meaning “slightest” as opposed to something like failing to do a pre-flight walk around. Failing to fully secure a cargo door. Etc…
I worked in the Hangars in Auckland and had to steam clean/water blast the dirt and grass! YES Dirt and Grass off and out of the APU area the very next morning it was towed around to the hangars That plane was very lucky not to end up in sea! I was lucky to keep a piece of that plane as a souvenir!! A team from Boeing came down and worked around the clock for weeks to get that plane airworthy again.
This terrified me, and is a good lesson in checking and thinking critically- in my case in preventing medication errors in hospital with vulnerable children. Thank you for these amazing videos!
@@rnsteve2265 that’s why we need doctors, nurses and pharmacists ie we need each other and to listen to each other- I am so grateful to have someone checking up on me!! Thank you for your work❤️
I'm merely CURIOUS: Why do people always seem to elevate children's vulnerability over adults'??? Are adults LESS IMPORTANT? Are YOU special because you recognize childrens' involvement in receiving medicine? Are adults expected to withstand med errors BETTER than children? I thought medication mistakes were equally detrimental, i.e., dead is DEAD regardless of age. Sure, the younger the victim is, the more UN-lived life is the tragedy, but what are we adults, chopped liver?!? We seem to be falling into a "child-worshipping" society and people think they're somehow more enlightened and compassionate in so doing. "After all, children are our future"! When have they ever NOT been our future?!? Again, just curious🥴🙄🤔!!!
@@jillianbruce6143 I am not trying to elevate myself because I look after children, it is just that these are severely disabled children who will not live a normal life span. They are on many medications for severe epilepsy and other conditions. The doses are calculated by weight and sometimes we don’t get the correct handover of the doses. Under dosing can lead to seizures and overdosing can lead to other complications. I was not trying to be more enlightened or compassionate, I had had a near miss the day I saw the plane crash video and it really resonated with me how easy it can be to make a mistake. I am not sure why you think it is ok to sneer at me. You don’t know me or anything about me. These children will not be our future- some may live to their 20s most die in their teens or younger from their underlying disease. I am not child worshipping, I also look after people at the other end of life and of course correct doses are extremely important then. I think medicine has a lot to learn from aviation safety, for all ages. Not sure if I satisfied your curiosity. I am happy to remove my post if it is offensive.
@@jillianbruce6143 All med errors are treated equally. Age has no factor in the situation. We are all equal and I treat my patients the same and always try and take the same approach when it comes to patient care.
What's interesting is that they should have noticed the mistake when there was a large discrepancy between the FMC and FO's calculated speeds. Then again maybe they've input the wrong weight values in the FMC too so the values maybe goofy too. Still at a certain TOW, experience will tell you that a certain weight range usually corresponds to a certain V-speed range. IMHO the Captain should have investigated further and cross-checked the values as he was already made aware of the weights from the loadsheet but given their circumstances (delay + pressure) I can see how they could miss this important detail. I'm just glad they safely climbed out and made it back down on the ground in one piece. It could've gotten worse really. Just goes to show that there's no room for complacency in the industry even if you are experienced and I thank you for making this video for imparting an important and humbling reminder.
Great video as always, but this one seems a little unfinished. Did the APU actually catch fire? What was the extent of the damage resulting from the tale strike? Did the flight crew, in particular the pilot receive additional type training as a direct result of the incident?
From the New Zealand Herald 15 Dec, 2003 "The captain was demoted and had since left the airline. The first officer was severely reprimanded and the third officer, who played no active part in the take-off, was "reminded of his obligations"."
Someone posted this link to the report. The damage to the tail is quite substantial! reports.aviation-safety.net/2003/20030312-0_B744_9V-SMT.pdf I cant understand hos the tower didnt see this, should have been a lot of dust, sparks and debris flying on that takeoff.
I was a Flight Engineer for a cargo airline. This same thing happened twice at my airline. No crashes but two tail scrapes. The one I remember one of the pilots didn't have the proper credentials to operate the flight. So they had to get someone out of crew rest to operate. This caused a delay. The new pilot who didn't have his license decided help by filling out the take off card. Same exact thing he figured out the take off data 100,000 Kgs lower than the actual weight. Since they were delayed the new pilot also preflighted for the replacement pilot so he could just jump into the seat and they could go. No one checked the his take off card. Same thing they scrapped the tail. The pilot making the take off did push up the power during toke off. If he hadn't they would have been a smoking hole. The tower informed them that they had a tail strike. The airplane was pressurizing ok so they decided to continue to the US instead of dumping fuel and landing which is what the checklist said to do. As a Flight Engineer part of my job was to check the take off card. I always compared the load sheet weight added to the fuel weight that I put on the airplane to the weight on the card. Well anyway they were asked to seek employment elsewhere upon arrival at their destination.
@@elliotoliver8679 I did look it up, how do you think I knew what it looked like? I was asking because he is usually REALLY on point about the details on the aftermaths. was just strange that all info was missing from the end. And thats not the definition of a snowflake by the way.
So, was there an APU fire, or just false reading due to the prolonged tailstrike? Additionally, what damage was there to the 747 overall after tailstrike and overweight landing?
This tailstrike BS is just the same kind of diversion crap TheFlightChannel pulls every video to distract from the murder-suicide that was more likely the cause. Most airline crashes are probably due to pilots committing suicide and taking everyone else with them.
@@randc47 Yup - Reading a report (reports.aviation-safety.net/2003/20030312-0_B744_9V-SMT.pdf) shows APU Fire warning wiring damaged from tailstrike. It also shows a photo of the tailstrike damage.
I’ve heard of tail strikes causing miniature fractures or fatigue that resulted in a crash many years later…I hope and assume they are well aware of that
@@ignoto2010 I was thinking of the JAL flight 123 crash. I believe it had suffered a tail strike 20 years prior that was improperly repaired, but took that many cycles to result in a catastrophic failure. There were some other prominent accidents like that.,
During my flying days on the 747 and many other jets, EPR always stood for EXHAUST Pressure Ratio, not ENGINE Pressure Ratio, maybe it changed or Singapore calls it something else. In simple terms, it’s the ratio of P2 inlet pressure to exhaust pressure (maybe P7? It’s been many years) and EPR is used to set power instead of using N1 or N2 as in other types of aircraft and engine combinations. Really great video though, each of the pilots should have immediately realized that the V- speeds and EPR value were way, way too low for that aircraft at that weight. Those are even low speeds for a 737-800 or 900! Thanks for a well put together video, as usual.
I'll never understand why pilots just don't go full thrust with a stick shaker at low altitudes, it's caused so many tragedies. It's not like braking your car when u clearly see a pileup ahead.
@@typicalzero1391 With stick shaker, you couldn’t give a f about the plane. You’re literally about to stall and die. You ruin the engines if needed. Ruined engines are better than a plane in millions of pieces.
i wonder the same thing. it's almost like the controls are so automated the pilot doesn't know what to do, or figures it out too late. as many have said, during emergencies the pilot should go back to basics and simply fly plane.
Yes, not edging the nose down while increasing thrust when the stick shaker activates is such a basic error that it cannot be blamed on inexperience with this airplane type. This is a basic protocol for every airplane from a Cessna to an A380. Too many commercial pilots seem to have somehow missed basic stall recovery training.
I still remember watching this aircraft after take off over manukau city I was in the car park of the westfield shopping center as it did the turn around to return to the airport
So very glad the pilots were able to land this plane and save all souls on board especially since this event was preventable from the outset. Also glad they thought they had an APU fire and decided to land as the plane's tail section was obviously damaged to extensively to make the planned flight.
A couple of things...when you are plugging in V-speeds regularly, you get used to seeing certain numbers over and over. When the numbers you come up with sound "off" they usually are, and require you to go back, check your work. Next...I've never heard of anyone making a Mayday call for a perceived APU fire. It could have been a sensor error, and even if it was burning back there, by pulling the T-handle (I know..Boeing calls it a "switch") you have stopped: Air, Fuel, and Spark...so that AND suppressant going into the compartment, the Fire will go out eventually. I'm surprised the 747-400 doesn't have some kind of Takeoff configuration " warning. That would have caught the wrong numbers going in the box. Even Barbie Jets (ERJ's/CRJ's) have this feature. Next is overweight landing...I'm on the 767, and they tell us that technically, there's no such thing...that the gear will take the weight. Just Don't want to do a "Carrier Landing ". .grease it on, write it up. Could have ended WAY worse if you think about that huge Airplane with all thar fuel careening into a neighborhood off the end of the runway as is the case at most large Airports in the World. Lesson: if it doesn't sound right, it probably isn't.
Yeah then let mx do the overweight landing inspection ! We had o ne of those due to air turnback couldn't dump fuel , a separate occasion flap overspeed phase 2 inspection basically take all the slat mount bolts out and inspect, and a severe turbulence inspection,... what a week !
Retired wide bodied captain with a US Legacy carrier here. I don't think that a Mayday for an APU fire is unreasonable. Yes, everything you said would happen pulling the fire switch etc...should put the fire out, but you still had a fire and rolling the fire trucks is a cover your license move. The New Zealand aviation authorities might question you about not declaring a mayday since you had a fire. And in the US if you are going to land overweight you need to declare a mayday. It is illegal to land overweight and once you make the mayday call now you are legal to land overweight. It just keeps you from dealing with lawyers. It's a cover your license move. You are right about the overweight landing. Having watched a lot of these videos there is an urban myth that landing overweight is dangerous. About five years ago when I was at 777 recurrent training the company handed out an article that Boeing had written in their quarterly magazine about overweight landing vs. dumping fuel. I would send you the link to the article but it only comes up with an error message now. The take away from the article is that to be certified the airplane's landing gear has to be able to withstand a sink rate of ten ft. per second at max landing weight. At max TAKEOFF weight the gear must be able to withstand a sink rate of six ft. per second. And a normal landing is 3-4 ft.per second. So you are right if you make a normal landing when the aircraft is overweight just right it up and let maintenance check the airplane out.
You've got it taking off in the wrong direction! It took off to the East, over a populated area. I was driving towards the airport and saw it struggling into the sky, really low over Manukau city centre and surrounding suburbs. Would've been an even bigger disaster than the (more usual) take off over water to the West that you've depicted.
I'm from Jamaica and have flown on Singapore airlines several times during my working years. I have the highest regard for the pilots of the Megatop 747s, elegantly dressed flight attendants, and oh, the wonderful in-flight service. Now that I'm retired, I grasp every opportunity to read about the airline. Very glad that all ended well. I've been telling (those who will listen) that the airline has the best pilots in the world.
These guys were really lucky. Its amazing with the tail drag(friction), reduced takeoff power they ever were able to get airborne. I'm shocked they didn't stall it at low level/low power. Wouldn't it be procedure to lower the nose and apply full power? The pusher lowered the nose pitch..I'm surprised the Capt never applied full power...
I am a retired Naval aviator in earlier A/C, no computer input to take off speeds, etc. I was also a flight instructor in a single engine T-28 prop trainer, 1500 HP! All the jets had manual hydraulic assisted controls---pilot could feel every input stress (as high G-load required lots of strength). I tried to know as much as I could about the airspeeds needed for every maneuver, as well as what the A/C would feel like during the maneuver---"seat of the pants" flying (airmanship?). This was critical in high G air combat situations to avoid stalls. Stall prevention and recovery technique was drilled into every military pilot (assuming the USAF is almost as good as US Navy training!). This near disaster leads me to contemplate several ideas: 1. these pilots were NOT former military; 2. they were unaware of the basic speeds for their take-off, not to mention they were unaware of how much the A/C weight should have been---missing a weight by 100 tons is idiotic; 3. their stall recovery was barely adequate; 4. they all need serious retraining in bookwork and simulator before flying again.
Not to be underestimated is crew fatique! SG is known to keep the rest time within the minimum time possible according to aviation laws. Every 747-pilot know that a take-off weight of below 300 tons for such a long flight and fully booked has to be too low.
Every time I know there's going to be a take-off problem, I hold my breath. I don't realize I'm doing it until my brain finally disconnects from what's happening with the plane. Needless to say, these videos don't help with my fear of flying, but they fascinate me. I will never complain again about a flight being late. By all means, Pilots take all the time you need. I want you and your passengers to get to your destinations safely. Godspeed and happy trails. From a very sedated flyer.
Something I have learned in my surveying (data collection) career is to estimate values before calculating or measuring. This process will reduce gross errors in reading or transcribing data. Seriously, off by 30 knots of speed should be something that would have been caught if the crew just estimated and made a silly bet. Have everybody do it, and whoever is closest gets bragging rights, or something to make it interesting.
I used to fly in the same training circuit with SIA recruits in the mid 90’s. All I can say is money doesn’t buy flying skills… Their airmanship, navigation and lack of communication in the circuit and training area was appalling. Finally the college concerned grounded them for 2 weeks, purchased a fleet of bicycles, cleared out one of the hangers and made them ride circuits yelling out radio calls, settings, airspeed etc. They were the joke of the airport. One can only hope they improved…
Really?! Isn’t Singapore airline renowned for being one of the top airlines for 2 decades and for their safety record aswell since they only had 1 major accident?!!
Thanks for the video! Though one thing does not make sense to me: If they thought they were 100 tonnes lighter than they actually were, then they would not even have to discuss the topic of "overweight landing / dumping or not dumping fuel". It looks like they did not understand any of their weight and speed numbers. At 250 tonnes a 747-400 is not overweight for landing (it allows 265 tonnes) - no awareness of anything whatsoever. Amazing. At least the captain was able to hand-fly the aircraft to a safe landing and somehow did pick the proper approach speed there - or at least a "workable" speed (with 100 tonnes less you would fly slower with the same flap setting). Thinking of that: The landing might have been pretty dangerous, too - with that lack of awareness of the pilots. Imagine somewhat less favorable weather, e.g. stronger winds! Everybody that flies themselves knows that being too slow on approach can be especially dangerous then.
@@tabby73 They might have. Though it wasn't mentioned. I wonder whether the author of the video could get access to a cockpit voice recorder replay. Or maybe one can find it themselves, stuff is sometimes published somewhere on the Web. It would surely be interesting.
I was on board that plane to Singapore returning to UK. Following take off we circled around Auckland for about 45 minutes before landing with an escort of fire engines, making one fly past the airport. At one stage the "captain" announced we were about to land in Christchurch, which did not instil confidence in the cabin. The report into the incident did say the crew were busy explaining ops the reason for the delay when they were completing take-off prep. We flew the next day and Singapore Airlines did their very best to help us get over. We were very fortunate that the "good old 747" and the passengers and crew survived this adventure. There was considerable damage to the tale section, I understand the captain and plane did not fly with Singapore Airlines again....
I do miss the 747. Such a fantastic plane to travel in. I have been told it's the best plane to fly. I hear that some of the mothballed 747s are coming back for cargo runs.
Very good Video as always, but this captain flew A340 and he had never VR at 130knots for sure, so why should a way heavier 747-400 liftoff at 130knots? Thats simple logic!
- plane scrapes along runway and struggles into the air with underbelly absolutely destroyed "Did that feel like a tail strike to you?" "Nah, nothing to see, as we were." The level of crew incompetence displayed during this incident was staggering. It's only through sheer luck that this didn't end with hundreds of dead people.
I don't know if you can see this @theflightchannel but I've seen each and every one of your videos. they are so damn addictive... personal favorites are your recreations of the Southwest 1380 United Airlines 232 US airways 1549 Cried when I saw ALASKA 261, Swiss Air 111 and somehow UPS flight 6 was also really really sad because of the audio 😭 that poor pilot, flying that plane alone while it was on fire. so many more favorites I would like to mention.. Helios Flight 522.. Saudia Flight 163 (was actually comical!) .. Biritsh airways flight 009 (flew through volcanic ash) .. Birtish airways flight 5390 (captain flew out the plane) Aaaa this makes me want to rewatch all these videos again
Amazing the simple entry weighing nothing would have been enough to doom that flight. I'm surprised a fail-safe was not designed into the system to give at least an alarm warning of a discrepancy.
Oddly enough, the very same incident happened to an Emirates A340-500. Once again, the first officer made a mistake about the take off weight when entering it into the FMS by 100 tons.
Part of the reason for such errors is the way that the number is read out - and that is the way people are programmed / trained /indoctrinated at school. Besides which - people generally do not listen with attention - they listen to half of what is being said and fill in the blanks with what they have learned from their own experiences - and (b) people speak too fast - Now this may be acceptable to 'some' during conversation - but it is a dangerous practice when critical information is being exchanged. for example = 345 - people would generally say three hundred and forty five - The correct procedure is to read each numeral individually 'as it appears' Three four Five. Letters also HAVE to be spelled out individually and exactly as written. In aviation particularly - these must be repeated and confirmed by the one listening - confirming that what one heard is correct. Discrepancies can thus be detected. Now imagine flying a heavy bomber carrying nuclear weapons - as I had done in the RAF during the early 1960s I was with RAF bomber Command.
My goodness, I will fly with Singapore airline next Saturday. Hope everything is ok. Singapore airline is actually one of the best in the world. Hope they can learn from this incident.
The benefits outweigh the negatives when calculations are done correctly. Reduces fuel consumption, less noise, increase engine life. Also how is autothrottle bad when the pilots would have manually set the reduced thrust anyway
How can you NOT apply full power as soon as you feel the stick shaker?? Even as a non pilot that would be my first spontanous reaction.. Also at take off... as soon as you realize something is wrong and the plane doesnt take off as planned... then of course apply either full power or full brake.... ?!
It seems to me that modern pilots rely on the computer-controlled autothrottle in nearly all in-flight situations, and almost never touch the throttles manually except before take-off and after landing. A culture of 'always trust the computer'.
Because their idiots. And I'm sure they are still flying....I mean when you start driving up a steep hill, and your speed starts falling off, you press on the gas, and start regaining speed....seems simple enough doesn't it.
@@timonsolus funnily enough, the computer already calculated and set the correct / safe Take-off speed for V1 V2 VR, but the captain decided to overwrite it. rare case where the computer is right, but the human not.
Another fabulous video TFC! But yet another one where I'm yelling at my screen: "STUFF THE STICK FORWARD!! FULL POWER!! GET THE FLAPS UP!! YOU'RE GONNA CRASH 'N' BURN!" Is there something wrong with ATPL training?
Two inexperienced pilots on the type - that is a recipe for disaster! The second officer should have been the first officer or even captain. He had more experience with the type than the other two together! There's supposed to be a rule, I think, that at least one of the pilots have significant experience on the type rating, to protect against serious errors like this.
Just what I was gonna say. The Second had way more hours, and the FO should probably have been in a Cessna single. How can the captain be in the left seat with so little type? ... but I guess they have to juggle his other experience on the 340 - but these two virgins should not have shared the flight deck. However I'm not in the game so I'll bow to more knowlegeable views.
@@pomerau no, you are correct. I'm an avgeek because that's how I was raised. My dad belonged to a Naval air squadron. I learned a great deal about planes from him. I have to say, if I found out the pilot of a plane had so little experience with the type, I'd walk right back off. I know everyone has to learn, but not at my expense!
@@ecclestonsangel This proved in 2003 that the flight was in serious risk of complacency, over- confidence and misplaced deference between both pilots. Why didn't he recognise it was not lifting at V1 and stalling after V2 and power the hell out of it manually? (Again, I'm only a follower of aviation with 5 hours )
@@pomerau you bring up excellent points! How could they NOT know the tail was dragging?! That everyone survived was just sheer dumb luck. I would have laid into both pilots, and the second officer for not speaking up. Bad crew resource management at the time!
@@ecclestonsangel We don't know what the FO thought of the Captain's action or inaction or if the FO was calling out to him, perhaps this is recounted elsewhere, so it wasn't directly a CRM failure (long after CRM became an essential part of training - speak up, don't be intimidated etc) Also wondered at the time of viewing why the tower didn't notice the long nose up stance even if they couldn't see sparks.
Thanks for the excellent video, as always. 1.) Seems the captain flying had inadequate training on this particular aircraft. 2.) So much is bragged about the “redundancies” on modern aircraft mechanical systems. Big deal, if possible human errors that might bring the plane down are not assiduously monitored, carefully cross-checked. Why the hell was there not human-records redundancy, checking any and all manually written down numbers as well as vital numbers entered into the onboard computer, necessarily accurate information crucial for a safe and successful flight? Sure, this potential tragedy happened nearly 20 years ago but one cannot help but think there were 400 humans on that huge plane. A belated takeoff is preferable to never arriving.
Beautiful simulation and an overall good video, however a lot of unanswered questions here; was there an actual APU fire, did the final report examine causes for the failure to react to impending stall, did the flight crew communicate with the cabin crew/passengers throughout the emergency, had the Tower witnessed the tail strike, was debris left on the runway, did emergency vehicles respond and if so what damage/signs of fire was found, what were passengers told by the airline?
Sounds a lot like what happened with Emirates 407 over the other side of the Tasman at Melbourne Tulla a few years later. Glad everyone made it out alive.
You can tell that being a pilot of an airliner is just too complicated a task. No matter how many protocols and procedures they build in to the whole process, it's still humans therefore they'll make mistakes. It's that simple. They don't seem to have the wherewithal to notice what's wrong and correct a basic error. They all must've been looking at their instruments and saying "that's not right" but they couldn't work out what was wrong. This is because pilots have been trained to not think - just use check-lists and so they will literally look at the error and not see it.
Another well done video. 1989, I was flying at Continental Airlines ( I'm since retired from UAL, of course ). The TOGA switches? And the A/T disconnect switches? No way can they be confused. With your hand on the thrust levers, you use your forefinger to press TOGA. The A/T disconnect is on the SIDE of the levers, and you use your thumb for that. Furthermore? Before takeoff the A/T switch (on the MCP) is in the "Armed" position. So, procedure is this....manually advance thrust to observe BOTH engines equally spool, to about 25-30% N1, and THEN press TOGA, still monitoring the engines for smooth engagement. AFTER that point, if you use the thumb to DISCONNECT the A/T, the yellow "Master Caution" lights will come on...unless you double click with your thumb. I know, long-winded description. Easier to SHOW than to describe/explain.
Great music and vid to match it with. I have two comments. How does a seasoned first officer not understand immediately that his number is off? Second wouldn't even an inexperienced capt. want to know why his computer has come up with such a different set of speed inputs? I am a very curious person so I would automatically be triggered to want answers before I launch into the sky.
Love the ambient sounds here. But "bug card"? ¿Que? 🤷🏼♀️ Also, would help the likes of ground dwellers like me to indicate the locations of the fuel tanks. Thank you for this, each one is like a short cinematic movie experience with a side helping of ASMR. ✈️
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
I flew the older 747 -200 for 15 years and was an instructor, Chief Pilot and Check pilot on that type. We had 2 pilots and a Flight engineer as opposed to the captain and two copilots on this type (-400) My procedure for calculating the take off speeds was for all cockpit crew members to independently calculate tha take off speeds from our tables and then compare them. If, for any reason the aircraft was not accelerating fast enough (sometimes due to undetected windshear) the throttles were advanced to full power and care was taken to rotate to 10 degrees nose up to let the plane fly off. This made sure of not having a tail strike. If we did have a APU fire (never happened to me, but practiced many times on the sim) we fired the extinguishers and only would have to make an emergency landing if the fire warning remained on. A "fly by" near the control tower would have determined whether there was an APU fire still raging. The fuel dumping in the 747-200 (and presumably the -400) was at the wing tips --so tne danger of fire was minimal. This incident was a cockpit crew problem. These things can happen if you are not alert. Once, when taxiing out a 747 from JFK to Frankfurt with a full load, the Tower asked us to take another runway. I asked the copilot and flight engineer if that runway was acceptable to them. They said that it was ok. I told the Tower that we could not accept that runway as it was too short for us. This happened while taxiing at JFK--which some pilots called a madhouse. There was no time in a dark cockpit with stacatto radio instructions coming in to recheck all our speeds or runways. But I knew the runways from years of flying 707s, DC 10s, and 747s out of JFK and knew that we could not make it from that runway. How easily it would have been for an inexperienced captain to have blindly accepted the runway change--and a possible disaster. In imparting training my motto was : "A Good Pilot is a THINKING pilot."
That's Awesome. It's a team work
Good one…
Sometimes it's takes a lot of courage to say NO.
Depends what you r thinking...excuse me pretty hostess...hehe
Ya would think the tower would know which lanes are suitable for various size planes and weather challenges? No protocols?
No way the amount of detail in this sim is crazy!
I work Airside at Auckland airport and i noticed where the buses are parked up in front of the 747, they even have the skybus (which is the bus operator company) opr office and lunch room with the actual sign in there wow.
And the Novotel outside of the Airport even. Thats crazy
Are you the chubby guy with the fuzzy beard with a green jacket and your shirt tail out, cleaning his spectacles and smoking below Gate No 7?
:)
I noticed, too...and my vision is less than perfect.
At 0:44, you see an EK 777 whereas back in the day, they were flying the A343s for that sector, if memory serves, so a very minor glitch ;)
Look closer and you will see it is NOVOTEL and not Novotel
It is evident you were programmed to be a ZOMBIE.
ZOMBIEs have eyes but cannot see - ears and cannot hear.
When you L00K at something be sure you see 'exactly' what
it is you are looking at.
Learn to pay attention to detail - and start living outside of
the ZOMBIE zone. Be conscious and pay attention.
NOVOTEL and Novotel sound the same - BUT they are NOT the same.
You have much to learn
Was the Novotel there in 2003?
You have to give the old 747 credit - with all the errors, tail dragging, power too low, and crew not helping much, it still flew them back for a safe landing.
But it's computer allows any garbage to be entered with no problem
@@povertyspec9651 Like any computer operated by an idiot
@@povertyspec9651 Dumb computer. 😄
Exactly my thought.
@@jjeherrera
Good point indeed!!
The crew totaĺly ignored the computed figures in the system and replaced them with their incorrect figures.
Poor training in cross checking and no concept of the required speeds for this long haul...needs to be a rotate speed of 170-180kts
Remember this system is from the 1980's on the B747-400... from an even older plane from the 1960's.
It takes a lot of expense and regulation to change things unfortunately!
A lot of basic airmanship still required not like fly by wire...!!
I love it when these stories end safely with no lives lost.
Come on now, everybody loves a good plane crash unless they or their loved ones are in it
I don't. Not what I watch these videos for.
@@jn8ive60 bullshit
@@jn8ive60 That's disgusting.
@@JaneSmith0709 🤣 I say what many others think but are too chicken to say. Schadenfreude is a HUGE draw of these plane crash videos.
My father, a former L1011 senior captain, always told his crew...if you're getting into a stall, you instantly slam the throttles to the firewall, level off, and pray. THEN pull out the dam checklist.
correct thing to do in that situation
You need to pray before leaving, not when trouble happens! 🙂
@@Avendesora Not necessarily true. None of us, human beings, would be alive if it were not for the mercy of God.
@@Avendesora True, thank you for reminder, that we need to thank God for the Oxygen..🙂.
if the stall is at low altitude you can't just do that cuz it might drop
I used to work on the 34th Floor of the Vero centre in Auckland. My desk window looked looked to to the airport area, and I saw this 747 circling, and I said to my colleague at the time that there must be an issue, as the plane was just flying around with no obvious departure of the Auckland airspace. I remember being very troubled by the sighting, but then got busy and thought about it no more. On the news that night it became apparent that this issue had occurred. I have flown SQ286 to Singapore many times from Auckland, and its departure time used to be around 14:30. Funny how we remember these things that many years later. Great Simulation.
I distinctly remember this. I live in Auckland not far from the Auckland Airport. I saw it fly right overhead really low. It had a massive hole in the rear. An unbelievable sight that I've never forgotten. Amazing that it landed and didn't break up. Wish I had a phone/camera to take a photo but back then but we didn't all carry them around like today.
Nice reply
The simulated view from in front of the 747 after takeoff with the runway getting smaller and smaller behind it is the most realistic thing I've ever seen in these videos. Unbelievable quality. I blame the First Officer about 80% for this almost tragedy. The remaining fault lies with the Captain, not just for the erroneous FMC entry, but for not fire-walling the throttles at any time during this event. Degraded runway performance...low airspeed and an almost stall...what was he doing, or not doing? Great great job on this one. I've seen other sims of this incident but they didn't go nearly into the information or simulation detail you did. Bravo!!!
I was watching think "ok the captain will hit the TOGA button any second now..." But I guess the painfully sluggish take-off and subsequent stall warning at low altitude didn't seem urgent enough to him
@@Free-g8r yea...
@@Free-g8r I think he got task saturated...too many things going on and he wasn't experienced enough on the aircraft type to have any positive and reflexive responses. He just froze.
@@Free-g8r When you get a stall warning FORGET the TOGA button. What if it does not respond. ?PUSH the throttle forward MANUALLY.
@@MrCrystalcranium I think the captain should hold the major responsability here. It's an airplane, not a pair of shoes. He was handed basic fundamental flight data and totally missed it. It's like thinking any plane will climb if you just pull back on the stick. It's a lot more than that. Potentially fatal to all on board.
It just defies belief that the first officer didn’t look at those V ref speeds and immediately say to himself, hang on, that doesn’t look right, what’s going on here?
Complacency unfortunately.
Exactly
They must have been drunk.
That and the Captain didn't bother to verify it!
Yeah, that was my thought. Those are closer to 737 speeds.
Despite the mistakes made by the pilots and the reckless take-off, I'm sure everyone is comfortable and pleased that the plane returned safely and did not end in a fatal disaster.
Not everyone.
Muhaw! Muhawawahaahwahwahawahwah!!!!!!!!!!!!
Amazing control of that aircraft with an EXTRA 100 tons of weight!!!
They probably never knew how vulnerable they were to incineration: “This is your captain speaking. We’re having a very slight mechanical issue and for your safety, we’re returning to the terminal….”
Then, many hours later, they may or may not have found a new seat on another plane. The scraped tail that hit the runway probably cost a fortune to repair, and could have seriously endangered the airplane.
When in doubt, moar power
Cheers Jeff!
Another example of the lack of situational awareness that overcomes pilots who become numb to the real world sensations of flying. Over-dependence on the computers is not only dangerous, but turns people into robots; which I've seen and experienced.
When it was clear that the plane wasn't responding after the V1 "rotate" announcement, a real wrold-sensitive pilot would have pushed the throttles to full power. They never did use full engine power! They're damned lucky they didn't run out of runway and end up in a massive fireball of epic proportions. 😵😵💫
Also, one should question a number. A captain should know the ballpark figures for aircraft weight for a certain flight task. And if he did not check for that then he should've surely known ballpark figures for the V speeds. They're not just an abstract number as anybody can attest that has ever flown themselves.
@@olaflieser3812 Well the video did explain this may be partially due to the captain’s low experience on type.
Before management computers, this calculation was done by the flight engineer, and a pilot with low experience and awareness still would not have spotted an error, so this isn’t the problem of the computer existing.
@@Roytulin I hear you and of course we are all smart in hindsight.... but still: Nobody blames the computer of course - and that "low experience on type" thing would then say that it is outright dangerous to fly with a captain that does have a fresh type rating with low hours on type - because they don't understand the numbers!
That can't be right and I am sure the airline, which is a very reputable one, has done something about it by now.
@@olaflieser3812 absolutely agree! The math never lies......
@@Roytulin I was a flight engineer in the US Airforce. I taught young copilots what to look for! No one on our airplanes was ignorant. And we flew with two sometimes 3 engineers and we always double and triple checked data against raw data as well as the pilots checking data! Often times we were 840K!!! So very similar weight as the 747 at heavy weights.......😉
Thank goodness everyone survived. Fortunate day for everyone despite skidding no major fire or failure to land.
Once again an amazing editing.
A strikingly similar incident happened 6 years later. On 20 March 2009, A6-ERG, operating Emirates Flight 407 from Melbourne to Dubai, suffered a similar tail-strike during takeoff, and this was even closer to a catastrophe as the A340-500 hit the localizer antenna array. One of the pilots had also understated the aircraft's weight by 100 tons prior to takeoff, and neither the other pilot nor the flight management computer notice anything unusual. The Airbus fortunately landed safely without injury to the 275 people onboard, but was badly damaged and returned to service only in December that year after being repaired by the manufacturer. The aviation industry needs to learn from these incidents!
There was one at Melbourne in the mid 70’s where ATC gave the crew of a 747-200 the option of using Runway 27. instead of the North South runway that had been planned for. The main wheel where just leaving the ground as the wheels ran off the runway leaving tyre tracks off the end of the runway . It was talked about a lot amongst pilots at the time . This was true ,was shortly after the 747-200’ s were first introduced.
I would have liked to see some pictures of the damage this tail strike would have caused. I looked it up on google and the damage was tremendous!
Damn, I just looked up images. it ripped a massive hole in the undercarriage, not just a couple sparks that started a fire
Thanks, I’ll do an image search too.
He use to show photos all the time of the accident sights it damage and stopped like a year ago. I think his videos were getting flagged or something administration was happening because he just stopped and never showed a photo after.
@@vegasbabyy he's also starting to leave details out. There was no fire. The tailstrike shorted the wiring so it was giving a false alarm. The strike literally ripped a hole in the fuselage. I don't know if he's getting tired of making vids or just doesn't care anymore.
@@lexmarks567 hmm. Your bring up an interesting point. And a correct one. Maybe he’s just burnt out. 🤔
So, all of this happens because a first officer is incapable of accurately copying down figures and the other two crew members didn't spot it. MARVELOUS! add to this a Captain who incorrectly handles a stall warning, and you have the perfect cockpit crew. However, despite the mistakes, they managed a safe landing and no one was killed or even injured, so credit due to them for that.
Absolutely crazy to think that even the slightest oversight or error, could lead to such massively catastrophic results. Glad they landed safely but, damn!
Because people are programmed from the first day at school to be ZOMBIES
Society is so brainwashed that people censor each other -further reinforcing
the false belief that errors are insignificant --- This phenomenon is evident in
what is written and HOW it is written --- and it is written incorrectly - because
as I have stated over and over "people do not pay attention to detail'
Once one starts doing that with 'little things' soon one learns to overlook the
bigger and more critical details.
As an example = People write Boeing instead of BOEING - yet they have seen
BOEING written even on the aircraft as well as the SIGNAGE at the entrance pf
the factory - but the ZOMBIES ignore this fact -
They look at one thing but SEE something else because of their FAILURE to
pay attention to detail - They are in effect semi-conscious
To the ZOMBIES - these differences are insignificant - however - they are absolutely
incorrect. The difference is very significant.
As a former AIR FORCE pilot with 30 years service - serving three countries
we are trained to pay attention to detail - such failures will sooner or later lead to
disaster and an early demise.
The untrained brainwashed ZOMBIES consider such attention to detail as 'nit picking'
One cannot educate ZOMBIES when they choose ignorance and remain stubborn.
To re-program decades of ZOMBIE programming and social conditioning requires
a great deal of effort and discipline.
So do not fall into that trap.
The mind has to slow down - pay attention to detail and speak slower than one is used to.
everything in this world now has become rush - rush - rush -- and for what ?
Good luck and good bye
I wouldn't call entering info that the plane is 100 tons lighter than it actually was a "slight" error. Especially considering how huge it was, I'm surprised it lifted off of the runway at all with such huge weight miscalculation inputs.
@@loveblue2 - I agree. Looking back, it’s monumental. At the time it was being entered into the FMC, it could have just been a very simple case of “fat fingering” the entry. I was meaning “slightest” as opposed to something like failing to do a pre-flight walk around. Failing to fully secure a cargo door. Etc…
@@AzovAzza 👋💕
Graphics on this flight simulation program are great.
I worked in the Hangars in Auckland and had to steam clean/water blast the dirt and grass! YES Dirt and Grass off and out of the APU area the very next morning it was towed around to the hangars That plane was very lucky not to end up in sea! I was lucky to keep a piece of that plane as a souvenir!! A team from Boeing came down and worked around the clock for weeks to get that plane airworthy again.
Love the detail, down to the little people and trucks. And thank you for being respectful and remembering fatalities in some accidents.
Outstanding sound design. TFC know how to tell a story with music and natural sound! Bravo!
This terrified me, and is a good lesson in checking and thinking critically- in my case in preventing medication errors in hospital with vulnerable children. Thank you for these amazing videos!
No med errors. Im a nurse and fret med errors.
@@rnsteve2265 that’s why we need doctors, nurses and pharmacists ie we need each other and to listen to each other- I am so grateful to have someone checking up on me!! Thank you for your work❤️
I'm merely CURIOUS: Why do people always seem to elevate children's vulnerability over adults'??? Are adults LESS IMPORTANT? Are YOU special because you recognize childrens' involvement in receiving medicine? Are adults expected to withstand med errors BETTER than children? I thought medication mistakes were equally detrimental, i.e., dead is DEAD regardless of age. Sure, the younger the victim is, the more UN-lived life is the tragedy, but what are we adults, chopped liver?!? We seem to be falling into a "child-worshipping" society and people think they're somehow more enlightened and compassionate in so doing. "After all, children are our future"! When have they ever NOT been our future?!? Again, just curious🥴🙄🤔!!!
@@jillianbruce6143 I am not trying to elevate myself because I look after children, it is just that these are severely disabled children who will not live a normal life span. They are on many medications for severe epilepsy and other conditions. The doses are calculated by weight and sometimes we don’t get the correct handover of the doses. Under dosing can lead to seizures and overdosing can lead to other complications.
I was not trying to be more enlightened or compassionate, I had had a near miss the day I saw the plane crash video and it really resonated with me how easy it can be to make a mistake.
I am not sure why you think it is ok to sneer at me. You don’t know me or anything about me. These children will not be our future- some may live to their 20s most die in their teens or younger from their underlying disease. I am not child worshipping, I also look after people at the other end of life and of course correct doses are extremely important then. I think medicine has a lot to learn from aviation safety, for all ages.
Not sure if I satisfied your curiosity. I am happy to remove my post if it is offensive.
@@jillianbruce6143 All med errors are treated equally. Age has no factor in the situation. We are all equal and I treat my patients the same and always try and take the same approach when it comes to patient care.
What's interesting is that they should have noticed the mistake when there was a large discrepancy between the FMC and FO's calculated speeds. Then again maybe they've input the wrong weight values in the FMC too so the values maybe goofy too. Still at a certain TOW, experience will tell you that a certain weight range usually corresponds to a certain V-speed range. IMHO the Captain should have investigated further and cross-checked the values as he was already made aware of the weights from the loadsheet but given their circumstances (delay + pressure) I can see how they could miss this important detail. I'm just glad they safely climbed out and made it back down on the ground in one piece. It could've gotten worse really.
Just goes to show that there's no room for complacency in the industry even if you are experienced and I thank you for making this video for imparting an important and humbling reminder.
The iconic Boeing 747 is just one of the most beautiful and graceful looking planes ever. NOTHING Airbus has can even come close to one.
I couldn't agree more!!!
The 747 and the BUFF are my favorite giants. Both have striking profiles.
Great video as always, but this one seems a little unfinished.
Did the APU actually catch fire?
What was the extent of the damage resulting from the tale strike?
Did the flight crew, in particular the pilot receive additional type training as a direct result of the incident?
From the New Zealand Herald 15 Dec, 2003
"The captain was demoted and had since left the airline. The first officer was severely reprimanded and the third officer, who played no active part in the take-off, was "reminded of his obligations"."
Wouldn't the airplane be noticeably unresponsive even when taxiing on the runway after gaining an extra 100 tons?!
Someone posted this link to the report. The damage to the tail is quite substantial! reports.aviation-safety.net/2003/20030312-0_B744_9V-SMT.pdf
I cant understand hos the tower didnt see this, should have been a lot of dust, sparks and debris flying on that takeoff.
@@samitolonen1674 probably were on their tea time break.
@@riverwildcat1 NO,,
I was a Flight Engineer for a cargo airline. This same thing happened twice at my airline. No crashes but two tail scrapes. The one I remember one of the pilots didn't have the proper credentials to operate the flight. So they had to get someone out of crew rest to operate. This caused a delay. The new pilot who didn't have his license decided help by filling out the take off card. Same exact thing he figured out the take off data 100,000 Kgs lower than the actual weight. Since they were delayed the new pilot also preflighted for the replacement pilot so he could just jump into the seat and they could go. No one checked the his take off card. Same thing they scrapped the tail. The pilot making the take off did push up the power during toke off. If he hadn't they would have been a smoking hole. The tower informed them that they had a tail strike. The airplane was pressurizing ok so they decided to continue to the US instead of dumping fuel and landing which is what the checklist said to do. As a Flight Engineer part of my job was to check the take off card. I always compared the load sheet weight added to the fuel weight that I put on the airplane to the weight on the card. Well anyway they were asked to seek employment elsewhere upon arrival at their destination.
the tail damage was immense.. can believe that. curious as to why no pics here or outcome for the pilots? was the flight crew punished?
I'd like to know that too.
We can llom it up ourselves, we are supposed to be aviation enthusiasts not snowflakes
@@elliotoliver8679 I did look it up, how do you think I knew what it looked like? I was asking because he is usually REALLY on point about the details on the aftermaths. was just strange that all info was missing from the end. And thats not the definition of a snowflake by the way.
@@elliotoliver8679 do you know what a snowflake is?
@@a1c3c3u if youre going to hijack an insult you should know its roots. have a great weekend
So, was there an APU fire, or just false reading due to the prolonged tailstrike? Additionally, what damage was there to the 747 overall after tailstrike and overweight landing?
This tailstrike BS is just the same kind of diversion crap TheFlightChannel pulls every video to distract from the murder-suicide that was more likely the cause. Most airline crashes are probably due to pilots committing suicide and taking everyone else with them.
Was waiting fot that to be mentioned lol.
yeah same here..
Google search has the images. Wow! It absolutely shredded the tail!
@@randc47 Yup - Reading a report (reports.aviation-safety.net/2003/20030312-0_B744_9V-SMT.pdf) shows APU Fire warning wiring damaged from tailstrike. It also shows a photo of the tailstrike damage.
The gods were certainly with this plane that day. I didn’t think this was going end well. Another fantastic production TFC 🖤👏
When they identify the names of the pilot & co-pilot it does not end well.
gods? Pray who are they? Do you know them that you speak so confidently of them? Unless of course you've no qualms about lying your head off!
@@ninaballerina2807 it's a figure of speech.
@@chendaforest No, it is not a figure of speech. It is a lie!
It's amazing Singapore Airlines only ever had one major accident
So as a company it's not so bad… And it's better like this since I scheduled a flight with them at the end of the year.
@@julosx I'm not saying they're a bad company, flew with them multiple times. Having a safety record like that is a boon
@@arbiter1er 👋
I’ve heard of tail strikes causing miniature fractures or fatigue that resulted in a crash many years later…I hope and assume they are well aware of that
miniature fractures? I've checked the images online lol that tail was throw away already. the damage was massive, I was not expecting that
@@ignoto2010 I was thinking of the JAL flight 123 crash. I believe it had suffered a tail strike 20 years prior that was improperly repaired, but took that many cycles to result in a catastrophic failure. There were some other prominent accidents like that.,
Only if they are not mended correctly
During my flying days on the 747 and many other jets, EPR always stood for EXHAUST Pressure Ratio, not ENGINE Pressure Ratio, maybe it changed or Singapore calls it something else. In simple terms, it’s the ratio of P2 inlet pressure to exhaust pressure (maybe P7? It’s been many years) and EPR is used to set power instead of using N1 or N2 as in other types of aircraft and engine combinations. Really great video though, each of the pilots should have immediately realized that the V- speeds and EPR value were way, way too low for that aircraft at that weight. Those are even low speeds for a 737-800 or 900! Thanks for a well put together video, as usual.
Leroy Brown
Exhaust Pressure Ratio is correct - and it was in the 30 years I served
with three different AIR FORCE(s) UK - AU - US
@@andrew_koala2974 I thank you and your family (their sacrifice) for your service😁😝😊!!!
SIngapore Airlines and Boeing define EPR as "Engine" Pressure Ratio
The pilots should have been able to feel that the plane needed a higher take off speed and simply increased the power.
Thank God they turned back and landed safely. 🙏🏼 🙏🏿🙏🏼🙏🏾🙏🏽
I'll never understand why pilots just don't go full thrust with a stick shaker at low altitudes, it's caused so many tragedies. It's not like braking your car when u clearly see a pileup ahead.
if i’m correct they don’t go full thrust as it wears the engine out more
@@typicalzero1391 That's not really important when you're stalling 😉
@@typicalzero1391 With stick shaker, you couldn’t give a f about the plane. You’re literally about to stall and die. You ruin the engines if needed. Ruined engines are better than a plane in millions of pieces.
i wonder the same thing. it's almost like the controls are so automated the pilot doesn't know what to do, or figures it out too late. as many have said, during emergencies the pilot should go back to basics and simply fly plane.
Yes, not edging the nose down while increasing thrust when the stick shaker activates is such a basic error that it cannot be blamed on inexperience with this airplane type. This is a basic protocol for every airplane from a Cessna to an A380. Too many commercial pilots seem to have somehow missed basic stall recovery training.
I still remember watching this aircraft after take off over manukau city I was in the car park of the westfield shopping center as it did the turn around to return to the airport
What a catalogue of balls-ups that was. It's a miracle that no lives were lost.
"The Three Aero-Stooges did a Cluster-Intercourse."
sadly
I lived in, Titirangi, which is directly across the water from the runway end. Frightening to think where it could have ended up.
Keep looking up!
It’s not directly across. You can see the airport, but from an angle.
"Damn that seems really low weight for what I expected after flying about 400 of these flights with similar loads..."
So very glad the pilots were able to land this plane and save all souls on board especially since this event was preventable from the outset. Also glad they thought they had an APU fire and decided to land as the plane's tail section was obviously damaged to extensively to make the planned flight.
A couple of things...when you are plugging in V-speeds regularly, you get used to seeing certain numbers over and over. When the numbers you come up with sound "off" they usually are, and require you to go back, check your work. Next...I've never heard of anyone making a Mayday call for a perceived APU fire. It could have been a sensor error, and even if it was burning back there, by pulling the T-handle (I know..Boeing calls it a "switch") you have stopped: Air, Fuel, and Spark...so that AND suppressant going into the compartment, the Fire will go out eventually. I'm surprised the 747-400 doesn't have some kind of Takeoff configuration " warning. That would have caught the wrong numbers going in the box. Even Barbie Jets (ERJ's/CRJ's) have this feature. Next is overweight landing...I'm on the 767, and they tell us that technically, there's no such thing...that the gear will take the weight. Just Don't want to do a "Carrier Landing ". .grease it on, write it up. Could have ended WAY worse if you think about that huge Airplane with all thar fuel careening into a neighborhood off the end of the runway as is the case at most large Airports in the World. Lesson: if it doesn't sound right, it probably isn't.
Could be "overweight" for the runway vs the airframe.
Yeah then let mx do the overweight landing inspection ! We had o ne of those due to air turnback couldn't dump fuel , a separate occasion flap overspeed phase 2 inspection basically take all the slat mount bolts out and inspect, and a severe turbulence inspection,... what a week !
Retired wide bodied captain with a US Legacy carrier here. I don't think that a Mayday for an APU fire is unreasonable. Yes, everything you said would happen pulling the fire switch etc...should put the fire out, but you still had a fire and rolling the fire trucks is a cover your license move. The New Zealand aviation authorities might question you about not declaring a mayday since you had a fire. And in the US if you are going to land overweight you need to declare a mayday. It is illegal to land overweight and once you make the mayday call now you are legal to land overweight. It just keeps you from dealing with lawyers. It's a cover your license move. You are right about the overweight landing. Having watched a lot of these videos there is an urban myth that landing overweight is dangerous. About five years ago when I was at 777 recurrent training the company handed out an article that Boeing had written in their quarterly magazine about overweight landing vs. dumping fuel. I would send you the link to the article but it only comes up with an error message now. The take away from the article is that to be certified the airplane's landing gear has to be able to withstand a sink rate of ten ft. per second at max landing weight. At max TAKEOFF weight the gear must be able to withstand a sink rate of six ft. per second. And a normal landing is 3-4 ft.per second. So you are right if you make a normal landing when the aircraft is overweight just right it up and let maintenance check the airplane out.
Thanks TFC for bringing us those not-so-known incidents.
Hi 👋
@@LauRoot892 hi
@@LauRoot892 in from Colombia. And you
@@fecardona California
You've got it taking off in the wrong direction! It took off to the East, over a populated area. I was driving towards the airport and saw it struggling into the sky, really low over Manukau city centre and surrounding suburbs. Would've been an even bigger disaster than the (more usual) take off over water to the West that you've depicted.
I can't believe the didn't try powering this thing up, to get some safe turning altitude !!
I'm from Jamaica and have flown on Singapore airlines several times during my working years. I have the highest regard for the pilots of the Megatop 747s, elegantly dressed flight attendants, and oh, the wonderful in-flight service. Now that I'm retired, I grasp every opportunity to read about the airline. Very glad that all ended well. I've been telling (those who will listen) that the airline has the best pilots in the world.
Yesss early! Great video so far TFC!! I love Singapore Airlines :))
This is still the best re-enactment channel of all. Thanks
These guys were really lucky. Its amazing with the tail drag(friction), reduced takeoff power they ever were able to get airborne. I'm shocked they didn't stall it at low level/low power. Wouldn't it be procedure to lower the nose and apply full power? The pusher lowered the nose pitch..I'm surprised the Capt never applied full power...
yup, basic stall recovery procedure was not followed.
Great to hear a story with a happy ending once in a while.
the editing at the end is awesome!
I am a retired Naval aviator in earlier A/C, no computer input to take off speeds, etc. I was also a flight instructor in a single engine T-28 prop trainer, 1500 HP! All the jets had manual hydraulic assisted controls---pilot could feel every input stress (as high G-load required lots of strength). I tried to know as much as I could about the airspeeds needed for every maneuver, as well as what the A/C would feel like during the maneuver---"seat of the pants" flying (airmanship?). This was critical in high G air combat situations to avoid stalls. Stall prevention and recovery technique was drilled into every military pilot (assuming the USAF is almost as good as US Navy training!). This near disaster leads me to contemplate several ideas: 1. these pilots were NOT former military; 2. they were unaware of the basic speeds for their take-off, not to mention they were unaware of how much the A/C weight should have been---missing a weight by 100 tons is idiotic; 3. their stall recovery was barely adequate; 4. they all need serious retraining in bookwork and simulator before flying again.
Not to be underestimated is crew fatique!
SG is known to keep the rest time within the minimum time possible according to aviation laws.
Every 747-pilot know that a take-off weight of below 300 tons for such a long flight and fully booked has to be too low.
I am not racist, but I will NEVER fly on any Asiatic airline.
Well he was new on flying 747 but the 2nd officer should have noticed that low start weight.
Maybe the software should have recognised the low weight, at least it should have generated an "Are you sure?" prompt.
'I'm not racist, but ...' I beg to differ.
@@frankfarago2825 well because you are uncomfortable with mistakes done by an asiatic airline but a western one is just fine. just check the stats...
Every time I know there's going to be a take-off problem, I hold my breath. I don't realize I'm doing it until my brain finally disconnects from what's happening with the plane. Needless to say, these videos don't help with my fear of flying, but they fascinate me.
I will never complain again about a flight being late. By all means, Pilots take all the time you need. I want you and your passengers to get to your destinations safely.
Godspeed and happy trails.
From a very sedated flyer.
The greatest lesson you could have learned, " I will never complain again about a flight being late ". Safety first, nothing else matters.
I'd rather be late than dead.
@@crimejunkie1 I think the old expression "better late than never" is very appropriate for this situation, don't you?
Have a very blessed day.
The captain going from an A340 to a 747 was a big change. It's an entirely different kind of flying, altogether!
It's an entirely different kind of flying 😂
Striker, pull up! You're too slow!
Something I have learned in my surveying (data collection) career is to estimate values before calculating or measuring. This process will reduce gross errors in reading or transcribing data. Seriously, off by 30 knots of speed should be something that would have been caught if the crew just estimated and made a silly bet. Have everybody do it, and whoever is closest gets bragging rights, or something to make it interesting.
The mods that you use to make FSX way more realistic than it actually looks is incredible, I wish I could have a set like yours.
This is P3D
I used to fly in the same training circuit with SIA recruits in the mid 90’s. All I can say is money doesn’t buy flying skills…
Their airmanship, navigation and lack of communication in the circuit and training area was appalling. Finally the college concerned grounded them for 2 weeks, purchased a fleet of bicycles, cleared out one of the hangers and made them ride circuits yelling out radio calls, settings, airspeed etc. They were the joke of the airport. One can only hope they improved…
Really?! Isn’t Singapore airline renowned for being one of the top airlines for 2 decades and for their safety record aswell since they only had 1 major accident?!!
@@alien8855 that was the mid 90s, standards should have improved since then.
Nice video my friend!
Transcription errors can happen to anybody at any time (very grim). Let's be careful out there. Cheers!
Thanks for the video! Though one thing does not make sense to me: If they thought they were 100 tonnes lighter than they actually were, then they would not even have to discuss the topic of "overweight landing / dumping or not dumping fuel". It looks like they did not understand any of their weight and speed numbers. At 250 tonnes a 747-400 is not overweight for landing (it allows 265 tonnes) - no awareness of anything whatsoever. Amazing. At least the captain was able to hand-fly the aircraft to a safe landing and somehow did pick the proper approach speed there - or at least a "workable" speed (with 100 tonnes less you would fly slower with the same flap setting). Thinking of that: The landing might have been pretty dangerous, too - with that lack of awareness of the pilots. Imagine somewhat less favorable weather, e.g. stronger winds! Everybody that flies themselves knows that being too slow on approach can be especially dangerous then.
Maybe they figured out their mistake while still in the air and so knew their real weight?
@@tabby73 They might have. Though it wasn't mentioned. I wonder whether the author of the video could get access to a cockpit voice recorder replay. Or maybe one can find it themselves, stuff is sometimes published somewhere on the Web. It would surely be interesting.
I was on board that plane to Singapore returning to UK. Following take off we circled around Auckland for about 45 minutes before landing with an escort of fire engines, making one fly past the airport. At one stage the "captain" announced we were about to land in Christchurch, which did not instil confidence in the cabin. The report into the incident did say the crew were busy explaining ops the reason for the delay when they were completing take-off prep. We flew the next day and Singapore Airlines did their very best to help us get over. We were very fortunate that the "good old 747" and the passengers and crew survived this adventure. There was considerable damage to the tale section, I understand the captain and plane did not fly with Singapore Airlines again....
Well recorded, very informative. Thanks!
I do miss the 747. Such a fantastic plane to travel in. I have been told it's the best plane to fly. I hear that some of the mothballed 747s are coming back for cargo runs.
Very good Video as always, but this captain flew A340 and he had never VR at 130knots for sure, so why should a way heavier 747-400 liftoff at 130knots? Thats simple logic!
They were very very lucky to get off that lightly
Amazing video, keep up the good work!
Wow, what an error, and I am sure the passengers were all enjoying the view not knowing that they almost were killed
Ikr?! I'm wondering if the passengers felt the tail strike more than the pilots since they were closer to the back....
- plane scrapes along runway and struggles into the air with underbelly absolutely destroyed
"Did that feel like a tail strike to you?"
"Nah, nothing to see, as we were."
The level of crew incompetence displayed during this incident was staggering. It's only through sheer luck that this didn't end with hundreds of dead people.
am i the only one who's not a pilot ?)?????
I don't know if you can see this @theflightchannel but I've seen each and every one of your videos. they are so damn addictive... personal favorites are your recreations of the
Southwest 1380
United Airlines 232
US airways 1549
Cried when I saw ALASKA 261, Swiss Air 111 and somehow UPS flight 6 was also really really sad because of the audio 😭 that poor pilot, flying that plane alone while it was on fire.
so many more favorites I would like to mention.. Helios Flight 522.. Saudia Flight 163 (was actually comical!) .. Biritsh airways flight 009 (flew through volcanic ash) .. Birtish airways flight 5390 (captain flew out the plane) Aaaa this makes me want to rewatch all these videos again
TFC should have put a photo of the tail strike. The damage is extensive. Did they write off the plane?
i agree. but the photo is very easy to find online
Thank God that nobody was hurt or killed. The pilot was aware that he needed to return.
When the stall warning cries out, lower the nose and confirm full power. This could have been deadly.
Exciting to see the plane make it off the runway and not stall!! These videos can be so sad.
Amazing the simple entry weighing nothing would have been enough to doom that flight. I'm surprised a fail-safe was not designed into the system to give at least an alarm warning of a discrepancy.
Oddly enough, the very same incident happened to an Emirates A340-500. Once again, the first officer made a mistake about the take off weight when entering it into the FMS by 100 tons.
FMS?
@@Capecodham Flight Management System
Part of the reason for such errors is the way that the number is read out -
and that is the way people are programmed / trained /indoctrinated at school.
Besides which - people generally do not listen with attention - they listen to half
of what is being said and fill in the blanks with what they have learned from their
own experiences - and (b) people speak too fast -
Now this may be acceptable to 'some' during conversation - but it is a dangerous
practice when critical information is being exchanged.
for example = 345 - people would generally say three hundred and forty five -
The correct procedure is to read each numeral individually 'as it appears'
Three four Five.
Letters also HAVE to be spelled out individually and exactly as written.
In aviation particularly - these must be repeated and confirmed by the one listening -
confirming that what one heard is correct.
Discrepancies can thus be detected.
Now imagine flying a heavy bomber carrying nuclear weapons - as I had done
in the RAF during the early 1960s
I was with RAF bomber Command.
@@andrew_koala2974 But in this case the weight and resulting TOS was written down and then manually entered in the FMS, not spoken.
So glad everyone survived!
Why?
Very good video
My goodness, I will fly with Singapore airline next Saturday. Hope everything is ok. Singapore airline is actually one of the best in the world. Hope they can learn from this incident.
And this is why using minimum thrust at takeoff is bad. " autothrottle " is also bad.
Agree….
The benefits outweigh the negatives when calculations are done correctly. Reduces fuel consumption, less noise, increase engine life. Also how is autothrottle bad when the pilots would have manually set the reduced thrust anyway
The pilot's skill, quick thinking, and probably help from the orher side saved a lot that night. "It's ok, we got this". More then amazing.
Nah if he was skilled it wouldn't even happen in the first place because he'd realize "Hang on, aren't those speeds way too low?"
How can you NOT apply full power as soon as you feel the stick shaker?? Even as a non pilot that would be my first spontanous reaction..
Also at take off... as soon as you realize something is wrong and the plane doesnt take off as planned... then of course apply either full power or full brake.... ?!
It seems to me that modern pilots rely on the computer-controlled autothrottle in nearly all in-flight situations, and almost never touch the throttles manually except before take-off and after landing. A culture of 'always trust the computer'.
@@timonsolus Sadly, yeah. The captain was a former Airbus pilot. That explains a lot. Not everything, but definitely the reflex/mindset.
Because their idiots. And I'm sure they are still flying....I mean when you start driving up a steep hill, and your speed starts falling off, you press on the gas, and start regaining speed....seems simple enough doesn't it.
@@timonsolus funnily enough, the computer already calculated and set the correct / safe Take-off speed for V1 V2 VR, but the captain decided to overwrite it. rare case where the computer is right, but the human not.
@@zuflis I'm not so sure that's a rare occurrence.
Another fabulous video TFC! But yet another one where I'm yelling at my screen: "STUFF THE STICK FORWARD!! FULL POWER!! GET THE FLAPS UP!! YOU'RE GONNA CRASH 'N' BURN!" Is there something wrong with ATPL training?
Why wasn’t full thrust applied when they realised the plane is struggling to climb with the stick shaker going off?
No injuries. Great story! Thanks.
Two inexperienced pilots on the type - that is a recipe for disaster! The second officer should have been the first officer or even captain. He had more experience with the type than the other two together! There's supposed to be a rule, I think, that at least one of the pilots have significant experience on the type rating, to protect against serious errors like this.
Just what I was gonna say. The Second had way more hours, and the FO should probably have been in a Cessna single.
How can the captain be in the left seat with so little type? ... but I guess they have to juggle his other experience on the 340 - but these two virgins should not have shared the flight deck. However I'm not in the game so I'll bow to more knowlegeable views.
@@pomerau no, you are correct. I'm an avgeek because that's how I was raised. My dad belonged to a Naval air squadron. I learned a great deal about planes from him.
I have to say, if I found out the pilot of a plane had so little experience with the type, I'd walk right back off. I know everyone has to learn, but not at my expense!
@@ecclestonsangel This proved in 2003 that the flight was in serious risk of complacency, over- confidence and misplaced deference between both pilots.
Why didn't he recognise it was not lifting at V1 and stalling after V2 and power the hell out of it manually?
(Again, I'm only a follower of aviation with 5 hours )
@@pomerau you bring up excellent points! How could they NOT know the tail was dragging?! That everyone survived was just sheer dumb luck. I would have laid into both pilots, and the second officer for not speaking up. Bad crew resource management at the time!
@@ecclestonsangel We don't know what the FO thought of the Captain's action or inaction or if the FO was calling out to him, perhaps this is recounted elsewhere, so it wasn't directly a CRM failure (long after CRM became an essential part of training - speak up, don't be intimidated etc)
Also wondered at the time of viewing why the tower didn't notice the long nose up stance even if they couldn't see sparks.
Great upload! Thanks.
Thanks for the excellent video, as always.
1.) Seems the captain flying had inadequate training on this particular aircraft.
2.) So much is bragged about the “redundancies” on modern aircraft mechanical systems. Big deal, if possible human errors that might bring the plane down are not assiduously monitored, carefully cross-checked. Why the hell was there not human-records redundancy, checking any and all manually written down numbers as well as vital numbers entered into the onboard computer, necessarily accurate information crucial for a safe and successful flight?
Sure, this potential tragedy happened nearly 20 years ago but one cannot help but think there were 400 humans on that huge plane.
A belated takeoff is preferable to never arriving.
Beautiful simulation and an overall good video, however a lot of unanswered questions here; was there an actual APU fire, did the final report examine causes for the failure to react to impending stall, did the flight crew communicate with the cabin crew/passengers throughout the emergency, had the Tower witnessed the tail strike, was debris left on the runway, did emergency vehicles respond and if so what damage/signs of fire was found, what were passengers told by the airline?
Sounds a lot like what happened with Emirates 407 over the other side of the Tasman at Melbourne Tulla a few years later. Glad everyone made it out alive.
Thank you very much! Liked, subscribed and shared. My absolute favorite RUclips channel by far.
You can tell that being a pilot of an airliner is just too complicated a task. No matter how many protocols and procedures they build in to the whole process, it's still humans therefore they'll make mistakes. It's that simple. They don't seem to have the wherewithal to notice what's wrong and correct a basic error. They all must've been looking at their instruments and saying "that's not right" but they couldn't work out what was wrong. This is because pilots have been trained to not think - just use check-lists and so they will literally look at the error and not see it.
Brilliant video and overview. Respect to the Boeing 747.
I saw this one in a movie. I believe it was called "The Three Stooges get their Pilot's License."
Another well done video. 1989, I was flying at Continental Airlines ( I'm since retired from UAL, of course ). The TOGA switches? And the A/T disconnect switches? No way can they be confused. With your hand on the thrust levers, you use your forefinger to press TOGA. The A/T disconnect is on the SIDE of the levers, and you use your thumb for that. Furthermore? Before takeoff the A/T switch (on the MCP) is in the "Armed" position. So, procedure is this....manually advance thrust to observe BOTH engines equally spool, to about 25-30% N1, and THEN press TOGA, still monitoring the engines for smooth engagement. AFTER that point, if you use the thumb to DISCONNECT the A/T, the yellow "Master Caution" lights will come on...unless you double click with your thumb. I know, long-winded description. Easier to SHOW than to describe/explain.
First Officer may need a refresher course in Math?
Not only that but also the captain didnt check him...
What is the outro music? So good, I always love when this one is used!
Thanks for another excellent video :)
Good video 👌
The one in Australia the first officer also input takeoff weight 267 instead of 367.
What happened to the FO and Pilot after the investigation?
Amazing as usual. Thank you TheFlightChannel.
Great music and vid to match it with. I have two comments. How does a seasoned first officer not understand immediately that his number is off? Second wouldn't even an inexperienced capt. want to know why his computer has come up with such a different set of speed inputs? I am a very curious person so I would automatically be triggered to want answers before I launch into the sky.
Love your videos and have been subscribed for a while now. At 6:18 you have transposed the lables V2 and VR.
a full load 747, speeds come out to 120 130 ish and nobody batted an eye. Incredible brain fart moment from the pilots
Love the ambient sounds here. But "bug card"? ¿Que? 🤷🏼♀️ Also, would help the likes of ground dwellers like me to indicate the locations of the fuel tanks. Thank you for this, each one is like a short cinematic movie experience with a side helping of ASMR. ✈️
So many mistakes, all of the pilots should have been released from their jobs and and never again allowed to operate an aircraft.