Fighting For Survival Over Los Angeles | TWA 742
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 авг 2023
- Help Support The Channel!: / miniaci
Join My Discord: / discord
This is the story of TWA flight 542, On the 28th of august 1973 a boeing 707 was to fly from don mueang international airport to san fransico international airport, but this was not a direct flight it had stops, the plane was supposed to stop at kaitak in hong kong, taipei inn taiwan, okinawa japan, guam honolulu and LA before finally getting to sanfranciso. Imagine riding that flight from one end to the other. That would have been an experience. The plane had 141 passengers and 11 crew members. Before we go on can we just marvel at the the fact that a modern narrow body like the 737 or the A320 is capable of doing what a giant quad jet did in the 1970s, in fact planes like the A321 or the 757 can fly more passengers longer with two fewer engines and in a smaller footprint. We really are living in the future. But back to the story of flight 742. We join the jet as the plane closes in on LA from honolulu. The jet is at 33,000 feet with nothing out of the ordinary the pilots of the plane are in contact with LAX center. At 9:29 pm the controller gave the crew the all clear to take the plane down to 11,000 feet and so the crew disengaged the autopilot and then started taking the plane down. In the cabin the entertainment for the night had just ended and and the cabin crew members were making their way around the plane starting to prep it for landing. A few people stood around the lavatories. As the cabin crew members worked away the pilots flew the plane,bringing it down to their assigned altitude of 11,000 feet. As they were passing 22000 when the plane was at about 350 knots all hell broke lose. Out of nowhere the planes nose pitches up violently and then almost as instantly it had gone up the nose dropped and then the cycle repeated. The crew verified that the autopilot was indeed turned off and they turned on the fasten seatbelt sign. This looked like it would get worse before it got better. The nose would go up and then down and then up and then down. The flight data recorder recorded 50 such oscillations over the span of 2 minutes. In the cockpit the pilots frantically pulled back power on the engines and the flight engineer pulled the circuits to rudder power, mach trim and the yaw damper. If any of these subsystems were causing these control issues then this should fix that problem. But the problem still persisted the first officer and the captain were both working to get the plane under control. Trying to counteract the oscillations the best that they could. But as they wrestled with the plane the jet lost speed and altitude. By the time the jet was at 19,500 feet the oscillations had dampened and the plane was under control. The pilots would have been shaken by what had just happened. They tested the controllability of their jet to see what the plane could and couldn't do. That information would be crucial in the coming landing. If there was something wrong with their jet they needed to know about it now. A controllability issue popping up right before landing would be a very bad thing as the pilots would not have the time or altitude to recover from an upset. But the plane checked out fine, the controls were all normal except for a little bit of stiffness when they pushed the yoke forward. But they had another problem, the people on board, a lot of people had been standing when the upset happened. The ones who weren't lucky enough to make it to a seat in time were thrown from the floor to the ceiling multiple times as the plane oscillated. Some people were badly hurt and they needed to get this plane down on the ground as soon as possible. One of the flight attendants was a navy flight surgeon and two of the passengers onboard had medical experience, the three of them started treating the badly injured people the best that they could with the limited resources that they had. The pilots told LAX approach to have emergency vehicles meet them on the runway as soon as the plane landed. As they were having this conversation with the controllers the TWA technical team was made aware of what had happened to flight 742 They were trying to provide the pilots with all the information that they 
Наука
If you're into airline trivia: yes multi-stop flights were the norm in those days. Flight 742 was TWA's daily 'round the world flight, which actually originated in Boston but with a change of flight number at BKK. Thus the entire ride had 11-stops and took 54 hours 53 minutes! The return trip was 64 hours (due to the jetstream and an 8 hour stopover at Hong Kong.)
Now wasn't that fun.
"That's one nice thing about the 707, it can do everything but read."
Joe Patroni, TWA Mechanic, 1970
Great movie.
Now there's a name from the past George "Joe Patroni" Kennedy.
"Take the wings off this baby, and you can use it as a tank. This plane is built to withstand anything. Except a bad pilot!"
At one of our yearly engineering seminars at MCI I had a fellow point out the real Joe Patroni that the character was based on.. He was short and wiry. I don not remember his real name. When he actually powered out of the dirt two engines were badly damaged. They had to be changed.
I love that movie. Thats what started my fascination with airplane movies and now airplane docs!
What I really like about this channel is the enthusiasm that comes across from the creator. You can tell immediately that here is someone who just loves all things aviation. He has such a pleasant style of narration too - you get the feeling he’s a really nice person.
Would have liked to see a picture of the out of aligned elevator to get a feel for how much and whether it was readily visible to the eye.
So would I
Not visible from the left hand seat.
It was 1973. Just head to 7-11. They have time machines there.
The aircraft in question had the log write up red circled (cannot fly till fixed). It was trouble shot and test flown at LAX with no problems. We found there was history of pitch problems. When the passenger died the aircraft was ferried to MCI overhaul base. After extensive work there the stabilizer assembly was robbed from a 331 freighter. The stabilizer is different on the larger aircraft. Both aircraft flew normally from there on. I do not recall the skin problems being mentioned on that aircraft. I recently learned of that problem on another site's video. In that accident a 331 sheared half the stabilizer. There they spoke about skin problems associated with the 331 stabilizer.
I wasn't on this plane but have flown flight 742 a couple of times as a kid. It was a lot of fun on all the stops. Taking off was my favorite then the landings. TWA is the airline that made me fall in love with flying. As I got older it was the food and the service and the stewardess (now called flight attendants) that made my choice to which airline to fly and TWA became my first choice. Second would be a tie with Northwest and Varig. Third would be Lufthansa, United, American... The worst where Pan Am and Delta.
I flew TWA from the US to Italy...747. It was great!
who cares
who cares about you@@palmdc8
It is fine that you don't care but to actually take the time and respond with a who cares? How pathetic is that? I bet you watch paint dry for enjoyment.@@palmdc8
@@palmdc8what is it like going through life as a miserable kunt?
Please cover the story of the plane that had a bunch of snakes on it. One brave man saved that flight if my memory serves me well.
Yes I remember that one, Sam somebody wasn't it ?
so that wasn't just in a movie?
😂
@@Joyce_AneilaNo. Totally was based on a true story.
@@Joyce_Aneilayup, cobra force one
This had to be scary as heck for the pilots, who would have had very little idea of what might be going on. Thank goodness they were able to get the plane down without more loss of life; RIP to the passenger who died. And thank you for correctly saying "two fewer engines" instead of "two less engines"! ✈
You can wear your seatbelt for the entire flight but if something like this hits when you're in (or on your way to) the bathroom then you're still going to be injured. Those passengers were just very unlucky to be waiting in a toilet queue when this occurred.
There wasn't NEARLY the impressment upon passengers to keep their seatbelts fastened in the 70's and even the 80's and 90's seemed to trumpet repeatedly more of an attitude "My momma ain't raised NO p*ssies!" than any kind of safety conscientiousness... It's all well and good to point out that "When you're f*cked, you're still f*cked" but the POINT in the video is to show how we HAVE made real and tangible progress. In the 80's I saw a statistic somewhere that something like 80% or more of airline passengers released their seatbelts as soon as that light was off and didn't return the latch until they were about to land... period...
Let's maybe DON'T encourage folks to return to their former bad habits... mkay? ;o)
At age 8 I was bouncing through a thunderstorm in a Convair 580 and I HAD to go potty. I waited until the attendant had gone to her seat in the galley, I got up and sprinted to the head and got the door locked before anyone noticed. Ah, blessed relief.
As a general rule I keep the belt fastened whenever I can.
@@gnarthdarkanen7464 I do not think that is true I started life as an airline brat. My first flight was 1949 New York (Idlewild) to Los Angeles. The Stewardess did say to keep the belt on incase of turbulence. Remember there was more at the lower altitudes of flight.
@@jayreiter268 May have depended on the airline, specifically... BUT through the entirety of the 80's and 90's there was REAL public push to get seatbelts to be a regular thing, and people would get violent about it... Just because a stewardess makes a request also doesn't mean anyone's going to listen. I was on a couple different planes, and passengers would treat themselves to snacks in the galley, trot several aisles back to flirt or chat with someone... swap seats around... The crew might've had more or less control and pilots to back them up, but if it turned into a "full blown mutiny" in the air, EVERYBODY was done-for. They still had to be careful about how they used whatever "control" or "influence" they had.
AND I'm only as certain as flawed human memory from a magazine article (might've been Popular Science, or similar) I was perusing at some point while bored out of my mind in an office somewheres over 20 years ago... so there's that... ;o)
I'm impressed they were aboe to fly a 707 out of John Wayne, especially with the problem this one had. That's a short runway, and I bet the noise ordinances demand they catapult up steep and fast and then cut the engines over exclusive Newport Beach have been there from the start.
It's amazing to think that there are 707 variants/modifications still in service today.
There are.still DC-3s still in service 😊
I think only a few in the military. The last passenger flight was 10 years ago, and no more freighters either. I swear I heard one about 4 years ago while driving in Georgia, which if true shows not all of them were re-engined. Or maybe JT3Ds are used on other military planes? (too lazy to look that one up.)
edit: OK, just watched some B-52s landing, sound just like 707.
Fantastic video!😸
Thanks for another well-explained and well-presented video. Had I been a passenger on this flight, I'd have been terrified..! Actually I've recently seen another video about this incident, but Mini Air Crash Investigation has highlighted issues which were not mentioned on the other You Tube channel. This is a great channel..!
Great video.
Ah, the 707. Very comfortable. Mid '80s SFO-LAX first class on a Braniff 707 first leg to Rio was $19.
Wait did he say flight 542?👂🏾
In the description, too.
Tell the story about the crocodile that got lose in the cabin and crashed the airplane .it was a balance problem.everybody piled into the cockpit.
Was that a movie or something?
@@cchris874 Nope. It really happened in 2010. A FilAir flight was on final approach to Kinshash Airport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Africa, when a crocodile that was smuggled aboard in a duffel bag got loose and started crawling up the aisle. The passengers panicked and all moved forward, upsetting the balance of the plane (a small turboprop), causing a total loss of control. It was covered on a different RUclipsr's channel.
@@sct913 omg
one time I was sitting on an aeroplane and I looked out the window and saw a bird and some clouds.
Now that was a few years ago. 😊
Like shaking bugs in a can. 😬
Faster you go the faster small problems turn into huge big problems!!
I say those airports with hideous crowded airspace where they don't put large separations are just asking for disaster- just a small control issue could lead to a collision and disaster- something that wouldn't be a problem in any other circumstances.
"keep your plane trim kids ..." (Sigh)
Led Zeppelin had a 707
reminds me a bit of the 737 Max incidents
Yes, in terms of the ups and downs. It's hard to imagine 50 times. Glad I wasn't on that flight!
So, no commentary as to how the elevator became 'wavy' and misaligned in a regularly operated passenger jet? Something that precipitates a PIO (pilot induced oscillation) is important.
Opening audio and title say 542 but the text in the video says 742, which is right?
742 is right.
If I'm in an aircraft I keep my seatbelt fastened at ALL times on the Sod's Law principle (anything that can go wrong, WILL go wrong!). Seems I make the right call!
Damn, I remember creating a wiki article on this incident! It was a bit difficult, as this incident was very technical in nature. The only thing is the title - ...over the Pacific would be a bit better.
542 or 742?
0:02 Flight 542?
I played it four times--yep, Flight 542.
Twa has never flown out of John Wayne airport.the 707 take a much longer runway.its not an international airport.and it was called orange county airport in 1973.
Where is that in the video? The background animation?
Service into and out of SNA (Orange County Airport until 1979, then John Wayne) with TWA was inaugurated in 1987. But yes, the 707 would have had to be just about empty to get out of a 5700 ft runway.
I suspect A350 has the same problem, it has tendency go into longitudinal oscillation.
0:14 sTOPS
I have the impression you talk in this video very fast - I even reduced the speed to .75 in order to understand words better.
An oops in the start, you say "flight 542".
Really sad that someone died on that flight because of trim. Expensive for the airliner...
Phugoid cycle?
Phugoid cycles are self-sustaining due to loss of stability, not pilot-induced due to oversensitive controls
tell me what is the purpose of disengaging the autopilot to start the descent? I just don’t undestand
In 1973 it was normal for a pilot to leave the autopilot off for both climb and descent. The autopilots were far less reliable than they are today and it was easier to hand fly and maintain their skills.
1973 was before the time of the "Passenger Pilots" of today. AP was used in Cruise. Pilots flew the plane the rest of the time.
Still the Vietnam Era, only 4 years after the Moon Landing. Even that was a manual landing.
@@davemckansas4654 - I must say you are wrong. My father was a jet airliner pilot - he flew untill 1986, he retired as captain of 747 jumbo plane. IE I always understood everything about those ‘analogic’ planes. In 1965 I saw him performing a precision landing, in Heatrow - in winter - under a huge fog - of course it was not a cat 3, but I saw exactly when the AP was desingaged - over the inner market. In 1964 Caravelle performed the 1st auto-landing of history, and I saw no dad doing just that, piloting a Douglas DC-10-30 in Paris Orly, in 1974 - I was in the jump seat - I was 20 years old, no longer a child
@@georgeconway4360 They were definitely not engaged below 400ft on takeoff after the AA Jamaica Bay incident. Pilots had different preferences. Later on there were stricter procedures.
I was told by a check pilot they wanted them to fly by procedures. They did not want them to know how the aircraft worked.
@@jayreiter268 When I first went to the MD11 in 1992 it was an option. The auto throttles could be left of off a Captains discretion. Then they mandated auto throttles at all times. Eventually after a number of hull loses they completely reversed policy and encouraged hand flying with auto throttles off when conditions allowed. I made it a personal policy to hand fly most departures and climbs up to 180 or higher. On arrivals I usually took the autopilot off before the FAF. Low cloud and vis I let the automatics do this job. When it was very windy and gusty I would take the autopilot off before 1000’. I think it is a huge mistake to take the A/P off at 2-300’ in gusty conditions.
Cleaning up the interior was totally obvious- airliners have had severe turbulence and control problem events for as long as airliner have existed.
You meanf 742 NOT 542
So, they had the airplane version of a tank slapper.
I don’t understand how a physical changes in the stabilizer or the trim could change the threshold limit of an automated system.
Yes. This could have been explained better
Educated guess:
The physical misalignment could have altered the control geometry so that the automated system was doing more than it thought it was doing. Also, and probably more so, the skin and airflow issues likely amplified the inputs from the automated system in the same way as it did the inputs from the pilots.
My understanding is this: The autopilot monitors the force being exerted on the elevator servo, which relates directly to the sum of the left and right elevator control tab moments. But the left elevator deflected more than normal for the same force. So the autopilot thinks both elevators are deflected a certain amount, but doesn't realize the left elevator is deflected more than the forces suggest.
Then it never reached the force threshold for trimming the stabilizer, even though the amount of physical elevator deflection should be past the threshold - because it takes less force to reach the same deflection. As a result, the aircraft isn't trimmed. And as soon as the pilot disengaged the autopilot for descent, the out-of-trim condition caused a pitch upset.
Basically: in the software, the threshold limit never changed. But the same force limit translated to a different deflection in the hardware, 'effectively' changing the deflection limit.
The technical explanation is on pg 18 of the NTSB report, and is what I'm attempting to paraphrase.
Over LA? More like Hawaii
? The problem started on approach to LA.
flight 542 or 742 . .. .
Sadly, Flight 542 was never heard from again...
Haha
TWA 742? you said 542 in the beginning 🤨 Btw I’m first 😊
generally, a two engine always had a better power to weight ratio, and a better fuel-per-mile statistic... part of the reason a 777 is so much faster than a 757...
There is nothing very super special with having a lighter two engine do what a four engine is capable of, at least in terms of performance.... in his documentary books, the pilot writer Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1920s-early 1930s), describes 2 engined Bi-planes used on the Europe-Argentina route... indeed, back in the late 40s some of the earliest long range passenger airplanes flying Halifax -Shannon [Ireland] were single engine machines... albeit, there poor reliability made them gain a bad rep rather than success.
The big limitation is in how many percent of engine thrust you can safely lose on takeoff, which is what prevented a lot of passenger planes from going the 2 engine route. for a lot of smaller airplanes, they would have maybe have 60% takeoff speed if they could guarantee neither engine would fail, but because they cannot, they are not allowed to use certain flap settings and have to be X-knots above minimal maneuvering speed at all times.
given the busy LA approach, I was sure this would be a case of Wake Turbulence
Title needs changing is this not flight TWA 542?
The title is correct.
@@cchris874 lol try listening to the first few seconds of audio before you comment !??
@@PS-Straya_M8 I did. But I have the actual timetable :)
Too much traction control. Simply switch it off and drive by the seat of the pants.
All good
Dude you still sound like your fighting illness. Did you make this video a while ago. Speedy recovery. We need you. Joshua’s channel just isn’t as good as yours.
Wow, I'm one of the first to see this video!
Dude your not even close your 4th
@@Wadeamaiting, forth is indeed one of he first! 😂
@@mikemoreno4469 Fair sorry man 😓
@@Wadeamaiting no worries, mate
Come on guys that doesn't look good for your story.these details are easy too check.I worked on aircraft at orange county airport for years
Why are the graphics so bad? Looks like its straight out of the 90s/00s.
this looks like fsx which is a pretty old simulator at this point. doesn't have the fancy graphics of fs 2020
Was the title supposed to contain 542 then? 🤔
First
Nope your second
Nope he was the main man/woman he/she was 1st 😂
@@Wadeamaiting Indeed juniortake8, second it is for blindgt. And blindgt should really be "last". Videos like this deserve more than someone posting a "first" comment. I did not catch the flight number contradiction, but I'll check. Regards.
@@roderickcampbell2105 BRO I’m first what the heck????
@@Wadeamaiting. Junior, junior. Yes, were first. I didn't say you weren't. What the heck as you say.
Man, is this lisp on purpose??? Had to stop watching, more fun to be on the flite...
You talk too much
Don't care about footprints. It's a political nothing burger.
Man, somehow your story is waaaaay too long. I had to stop at half, it became unbearable.
If you think these are long, try Mentour Pilot.
This is a 10 minute video, is your attention span really that messed up?
502 or 742
542 or 742?
It was 742 - I have the actual timetable.