How A Forgetful Pilot Killed 30 People | Sudan Airways Flight 109
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 дек 2022
- Help Support The Channel!: / miniaci
Join My Discord: / discord
This is the story of the sudan airlines flight 109. On the 10th of june 2008 an airbus a310 was flying from damascus to khartoum airport. Now the airbus A310 that was making this trip was not in perfect flying condition. The right hand thrust reverse was out of commision. Now for those of you that dont know, thrust reversers are used to slow the plane down during the landing roll by directing some of the high pressure air to the front of the plane. Now these sound important but theyre really not. Reverserers are more nice to haves than must haves, you can totally operate a plane with one thrust reverser disabled, it just means that you just have to do a wee bit of additional work when youre landing your plane. On the ground at damascus the pilot of the a310 was busy making calls to khartoum to get a feel for the weather at khartoum. By the time the plane got close to khartoum the captain would get his answer, the weather at khartoum was bad. To the point where the plane had to be diverted to port sudan international airport for a bit. The A310 waited at port sudan international airport for an hour and 15 minutes waiting for the weather at khartoum to clear up, then they got the call that the weather was much better for landing and the pilots took the A310 back into the skies, this time wit the intention of putting the plane firmly on the ground at khartoum. The pilots would be making a night time approach to runway 36 and the controller gave the crew the wind conditions for the runway, the wind was coming in from 320 degrees at 7 knots and the runway was wet, sure these werent the best conditions but it certainly wasn't the worst. The plane would be able to stop the plane under these conditions and so the winds gave the pilots no reason to worry. The pilots lined the airbus a310 with 214 people onboard with the runway at kahrtoum and took the plane down. As the plane got lower and lower the lights of khartoum went flying by. Runway 36 now shone brightly in front of the pilots. Their ordeal was almost over. The captain and the first officer were in sync and they were working as a team. At 5:26 pm UTC the Airbus touched down 900 meters or 3000 feet from the threshold of the runway. The captain immediately put the engines into reverse, in an attempt to slow the plane down, but to his horror he was having a hard time keeping the massive plane on the centerline of the runway. He glanced down at his instruments to see how fast his plane was bleeding off airspeed. It wasnt fast enough, he knew that at the rate things were going he would not be able to stop the passenger jet before the runway ran out and unfortunately he was right. Flight 109 overran the end of runway 36, but the jet had so much momentum that it just kept going and going and going, it went on for another 215 meters or 705 feet after the runway ran out and then it came to a stop but this was far from over, a small fuel leak had started at the wing root of the right hand wing and this wing root then came in contact with the hot engine starting a fire on the right hand side of the plane, the fire quickly spread and it meant that all the three exits on the right hand side could not be used due to the fire in the ensuing chaos of the evacuation 30 of the 214 passengers did not make it off of the plane.
This was a simple landing that had gone horribly bad, As the dawn broke the jet was just a charred pile of ash at the end of runway 36. With the wings being the only part that was kind of intact. So how did this happen, even though the plane was charred and almost ash, individual parts of the plane survived most importantly the flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders. One of the questions that they had immediately after the crash was “was this caused by a brake failure?” and the flight data recorder would help them answer that question. The FDR detected that there were no brake failure onboard the plane as it landed this was backed up by the physical examination of the breaks themselves, and the FDR recorded no hydraulic failures as well, the biggest proof of all was right there on the runway. Skid marks along the runway while indicated that the pilots tried their best to stop the plane. The brakes were engaged so hard that the wheels locked up. The skid mark also disproved another theory. The runway was wet and so hydroplaning was a real issue. This has caused problems before, atlantic airways flight 670 was a bar 146 that was landing at an airport in norway and it hydroplaned causing the plane to fall into a gorge at the end of the runway. Let me know in the comments if you want to see a video about that crash by the way. The point in hydroplaning is an issue, but it leaves behind a tell tale skid mark and mushed ru 
Наука
"If you would like a video on that, let me know" I would like a video from you on every air crash that has ever happened frankly. I love this channel
Same here
and near crashes!
agreed
Me too! Would I like a video on this air accident? Silly question! Of course 😊.
Basically this :-) I hope he's only saying that as way to increase engagement hahaha, because the answer sure is always "yes"!
I’m a student pilot and once landed with a mild tailwind just to see what it was like. I was surprised at how much more runway I needed to safely land and came uncomfortably close to the end of the runway. Why would this pilot make his job harder rather than just landing in the opposite direction? With the wet runway and lack of thrust reverser giving two strikes against him, why take a third strike with a tail wind?
Runway used is a function of speed squared. I.e you are trying to remove kinetic energy through the brakes which is .05MV^2. Thus a little tailwind = a LOT more runway. Note also that fuel weight is varies enormously on jet aircraft, which is why they talk about overweight landings, i.e you can't just take off turn around and land like you can with a light aircraft. If you progress and get your instrument rating you will often be limited to doing downwind landings. Reason being that Municipal airports if equipped with an ILS system will only provide it on one end of the longest runway.. So yeah if you are flying a fast airplane with a 30 knot tailwind with cloud going down to 200ft above the runway then you had better be taking that into account..:)
@@frankish5314 Uh, .05MV^2 ?? Should that not be 0.5MV^2 ???
@@Vincent_Sullivan haha. Good catch..:)
Well I don't know the airport but there are airports where landing in the opposite direction is not an option although I don't think this was the case here. All of this shows a questionable attitude towards safety in my opinion.
I recently sat in a KLM flight into FLR (short runway), shortly before touchdown we went around, reason was tailwind. The planes before and after us landed there, we diverted. Many people were annoyed, I was very happy that the pilots wanted to make absolutely sure we would stay safe even if it would cost us a few hours and them a lot of money.
$$. Some airlines don’t like when you touch & go. More fuel is less profit
You're so good at being concise. It makes a far more enjoyable watch. Thank you.
Didn't this accident start with the controller reporting "Wind 7 kts at 320" instead of "Wind 15 kts at 180" ? That's a big difference !
They were landing on runway 36. That means they coming in from 360°N (true north) on the compass. ”Wind 7kts at 320" is 40° to the left of true north. The wind would have changed direction and intensity increasing the tailwind component.
@@PranavSinganapalli nope. Runway 36 means fly 360 on final and you would like wind from 360 (but 320 is not too far off: still plenty "on the nose").
@@rewolff2 yes you're right. Had a bit of a brain fart 😂
As a an airline pilot you still need to monitor your airspeed and ground speed on the final approach and make the necessary corrections. Airports like Khartoum experience heavy thunderstorms and sand storms which means the wind speed and direction can change rapidly especially close to the ground.
I didn't understand why the blame is on pilots for landing with a tailwind. Doesn't this airport have a tower? So it would be whichever runway ATC gives.
Relatively strong tailwind, one reverser inop, wet runway... This is when you might want to land on or close to the numbers.
Also yes, I'll be happy to watch the Atlantic Airways vid
On the numbers still remains dangerous... but the touchdown zone exists for a reason, I think
Landing 3,000' down the runway? I'm surprised this was not mentioned as a contributing factor.
Well it's mentioned as "smooth touchdown" 5:53
@Pandu POLUAN that is fundamentally different.
Exactly - Khartoum 36 is less than 3,000m long. With disabled RT's he was pushing his luck. The tailwind was a contributor, but likely not the killer.
@@PanduPoluan As I understand it (I'm not a pilot) a 'butter' landing only refers to how you get the nose-gear down. (ie after touchdown)
You do great videos. This was a tragic and preventable accident. GO AROUND or BALKED landing could have saved the day. I flew B737's into short runways, Midway, Laguardia, a few others, scheduled passenger service for years. You have to be on speed and touchdown zone, especially with a wet runway. You can get away with more on a 10,000' long runway, but disipline applies to every takeoff & landing regardless of runway and airport boundary. I also flew into Detroit City Airport, 6000' feet give or take, no real overrun. Literally a cemetery at each end.
@thecrashrecreator5307 Thanks I edited just as you were commenting. I had to look up a 310. Cheers
Glad to see that you didn’t go off the ‘end’ at Detroit!
My understanding is that in a lot of places a go around will still get you fired just because of the ridiculous amount of fuel it takes. Obviously we all should choose the passengers' safety over our jobs but that kind of pressure over a long time can really get to you.
Your voiceover really makes me comfortable no matter what the captains are up to 😁
Maybe not that often people collecting luggage cited in accident report but bet you if you spoke to cabin crew who survived accidents involving emergency disembarkations, they would provide a different story...
Always love these videos, they always strike a nice balance between listenability vs factuality, flow vs detail. I get a frisson of anticipation when the notification for MACI bings!🙂
Moscow 2021
There’s always ppl taking luggage, ppl can be so dumb
Absolutely LOVE your channel and videos!! Can you please explain to me the, “slam it down on the runway and hit the brakes hard,” versus Landry smoothly with aggressive braking? This concept is hanging me up, a little.
@@aaronallen943 because they wanted a super smooth landing (because they're good in good weather), they slowed how quickly the plane was descending the last few feet to the runway, causing it to land further down the runway.
@@Chellz801 I would only grab my medication.
A very detailed and very informative report.
It's really incredible how much information is in this 10 minute video !!!
Thank You for NOT wasting my time !!!
Love your work / channel....
keep 'em coming !!
So many crashes I was not aware of. Keep up the good work.
Such a full analysis! I wonder why this is the first time I see this channel , I am subscribing!
Finally sm1 talking about an accident in my country , thanks for making the time to do this
I wish he didn’t talk about our country
Thrust reversers direct low pressure bypass air, not hugh pressure air. In the days of the first high bypass engine, they tried putting reversers on the core exhaust but there was little gain and it was a maintenance nightmare.
I've been on a Kenyan Airlines flight to Khartoum that had to be diverted after a Go Around because of a Sandstorm. We went to Port Sudan, then to Cairo, then after many hours, finally back to Khartoum on a different flight. Good Times.
wow
@@KingK2205 Fun day, "touched" 6 airports in 24 hrs, OR Tambo, Jomo Kenyatta, touch and go-around at Khartoum, Port Sudan (not enough fuel to reach Luxor), Cairo, then back to Khartoum.
@@BloodSteyn You really traveled many cities and airports because of issues during your flight lol.
Actually, I have a "kinda neat" little aviation incident from back in the day, if you're interested... AND considering who's involved AND that EVERYONE LIVED to tell about it, we can even share a bit of a giggle and fascination with the fun of how history was made...
SO I'd like to suggest the 1953 Close Call involving Air Force Flight 8610 and not only because it involves a Constellation II... haha..
Have a look-see, PLEASE... and you'll understand why it should be kinda fun to cover and share! ;o)
I love the ones where everyone or almost everyone lives. The rest are very informative, but eventually I get depressed.
Yes a video on the other crash u mentioned please luv the channel and thankyou
I've read this comment somewhere before: overhead bins which can be locked by electromagnetic locks. This can then be part of the preparation for landing or crash and operated by the cabin crew. Con: additional weight and additional cabling and electric hazard. Another solution: sueing passengers who are caught with their bags after a crash and ban them from the airline. Make them pay for hindering the evacuation and the loss of their fellow passengers lives.
Why have an electronic solution when a mechanical one will do? Just have all the bins locked with the same lock, and have the flight attendants have the only keys. They lock them all before takeoff, unlock them after landing. If you want something inflight, you have to ask them to unlock it for you, after which it's re-locked. The best part of this is that the passengers will then know they can't access their bags in an emergency situation because they will see it get locked.
@@Yonkage-ik5qbthe Americans would bitch about their freedumbs and riiights! Leave shit reviews and kill your airline before your inaugural flight took off.
I’m American but I call it how it is.
That would be illegal
I can almost guarantee the luggage issue was due to people trying to get their carry-ons before evacuating the plane! Humans at times are VERY stupid!!
I wanted to say the same. You can bet huge amounts of money that people want to take their precious bag with them ... even if it's already burning.
@@DaveChimny Even if THEY are already burning !!
I think sometimes people underestimate the seriousness of the situation. Then there's the sociological impact: one person does it, others see and think they can\should. I have also seen this happen on a LOT of Middle Eastern flights, like maybe it's a cultural issue.
Most of the fatalities were disabled children, they were found still in their seats.
@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 Do you have a source for this? I know with a lot of stories out of foreign countries (esp. China) we get few if any details like that in English language reporting: thank goodness for Google Translate.
Video on another air crisis? Yes please I love this channel
🇬🇧🙋🏾♀️I'll Watch whatever you post bruv 👌🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Great channel !
if you would like a video on.... hell yeah. great video as always
Wouldn't the pilot not going around after eating up 2/3s of the runway before touchdown be a contributing factor? That runway is less than 3000m per Skyvector.
Usually the handbook says ‚landing within touch down zone‘ these days. Normally 900 meters. And these days the pilots have to precalculate the landing performance including unserviceable items as reversers, taking all weather parameters into consideration.
once i went in an emirates flight it was very rainy in the destination...like very windy they put the plane down hard and braked very heard everyone got scared af....but now i understand why so experienced pilot would do that
There are a few major details to this accident, as the crew were on there 5th sector and had already exceeded their flight limitations upon the diversion to Port Sudan, they should'nt have taken off from Port Sudan until rested. The company would have had to send another crew to operate back and they probably pressured the crew to return, cost reduction, safety culture and even poor oversight from the civil aviation authority to let this go. Definitely fatigue played a huge role, not setting autobrakes to save the brakes was another practice to reduce costs. The aircraft's engine caught fire as a result of ground contact due to a deep ditch that was dug up for some cables and approach light wiring. It became tilted on one side to the point that the evacuation slides didnt reach the ground. Also most passengers were returning from medical treatment so they were mostly elderly which may also have hindered the evacuation process; tilted aircraft, fire on one side and the other side slides not reaching the ground. Fire fighting also should have put the engine fire out immediately, but didnt have the foam, they were fighting with water and couldnt extinguish the fires until the aircraft was a total loss. There budget had not been approved. A very tragic event with multiple defects and non-standard practices all coming together in one time. May they rest in peace.
LH2904 immediately comes to mind. Have you done that one yet? Some similarities (wet conditions, inaccurate weather information), but with an Airbus flight computer making things only worse.
Love your work- but you might want to put a noise gate on your voice to reduce your breathing sound. Nothing drastic, but a 3-6db drop with fast attack and release would make your breath much less noticeable. Thanks again-❤
Very close mic work in general - crunchy consonants and a feeling that you're right in the listener's ear.
I thought 10 knots was the maximum allowed tailwind for landing? Should they not have been using the runway in the opposite direction?
That depends on the plane. There isn’t a blanket rule, each model of plane has its own limit. Airlines usually have a set limit their SOPs as well.
As always excellent episode on a tragic subject, thank you Sir!!!🙏😢🛬⚖️🤔❣️
Some more about hydroplaning would be nice. Flight 670 would be a good start to that
Tailwind landing was THE main cause of this- snowballing into 3000+ feet touchdown with a faulty thrust reverser
I'd love a video on the Atlantic Airways flight in Norway. I believe there was a hero flight attendant, who saved a lot of lives!
Believe it or not the captain had a similar landing in south America that scraped an A300-600 less than two years period to this accident. And he did another very bad landing in khartoum years after this one thank goodness the weather was ok so he just scraped another A310, I knew the flight attended that past away in this incident and a friend of mine lost his mother and his sister in this.
Although sudan airways had the best pilots and training programs at that time but this captain is the true meaning of the corporation can not be mixed with aviation he was not qualified at all how hire a pilot that has the worst handling and limited awareness and had an incident before. Thank you for doing this video no one from our authorities even think to share the simple details about this accident
At 4:45
Yup, we want to hear about that crash too!!
Well, look at the evacuations that were filmed from the outside. From what I remember, you won't find many where not at least one passenger (who could have been the critical one) went down the slide with a big bag delaying the evacuation. Even at the Sukhoi Superjet's crash landing in Moscow, they took their bags with them, and it couldn't have been any more urgent, as half of the plane was already burning before it came to a stop! Awful!
I am Sudanese and I have often noticed on planes that Sudanese people carry large and heavy hand luggage. Believe me, the reason is that sometimes they ignore the designated storage areas and place them near themselves. And Sometimes due to their weight and large size they fall
Would like to see that other video of an over run. Also more details about the pilots options.
You could also compare that to S7 flight 778, an A310 with inoperable left-hand thrust reverser, resulting in runway overrun.
9:42 the tam 3054 pilots followed a procedure that is now defunct from airbus ( it was updated because of this accident) + the pilots were overworked /exhausted and pilot error did the rest.
And the runway was much smaller in comparison to accident of Sudan Airways Flt 109.
On flt 3054, the pilots forgot one of the levers on accelerate and the other in reverse, the runway had there were 2 incidents that week : a Pantanal flight and a B.R.A. flight, because of a missing rwy feature named "grooving" that basically stops water from accumulating on runway so the airplanes can't aquaplane, The TAM 3054 flight wasn't so lucky, a lot of mounting pressure on the so called (air blackout) adapted from portuguese : Apagao Aereo
[during 2006-2007]
As you didn't mention it nor showed it in the video, did the pilots deploy the spoilers at all?
Dude i always have been thinking when will an episode will be made of this Fantastic. I love your videos Let's get to 200k subscribers! :D
Have you done a video on SAA Flight 295?
Have you made any TAM 3054 video? Thank you!
Sadly, even more luggage is brought aboard planes these days due to stowed luggage charges. Some people seem to take so much stuff onboard they use up an entire bin themselves.
Airlines restrict the amount of carry on luggage and also have size restrictions for those items. But it’s up to gate personnel and flight attendants to enforce those rules.
The video said there was no further detail on how hand luggage impeded the evacuation, but my guess is it was people trying to grab their stuff from the bins, rather than bins falling open. If the bins had failed they probably would have mentioned that.
Great video maybe boost the audio a bit
Awesome videos.
Please speak up a bit or increase naration volume during editing.
You can land the plane with both thrust reversers not working. The brakes are designed to slow and stop the plane at full takeoff speed with full passenger, cargo, and fuel on board …and safely. They should be able do this even with the brakes fully worn out.
Questions from me: (maybe rhetorical, but...)
Is that airport controlled?
Why were the pilots set up to land with a tailwind?
Why didn't the pilots go around?
more a common mistake then something unthinkable... in fact, I can think of a few other crashes where reverser trouble had far more severe effect...
per example: the crash of a re-positioning redwings flight into Vnukovo of Tu204-100 one of the "modern" Tupolevs... now to retain uniformity with Soviet cockpit designs the reversers on these airplanes were/are separately deployed from thrust controls... thus, the checklist is "reversers armed, levers to full thrust"... on that day, due to the plane being light and required to keep high approach speed for separation, the aircraft touched down not enough for the auto-pilots to sense touchdown, the pilots meanwhile, trying to put the plane down, manually engaged full spoilers early but missed the fact the reversers were not engaged, pulling thrust to max, as per normal procedure...
the plane overran the runway, cut through two barriers and broke apart against the far embankment having crossed a highway one carpark width beyond the airport perimeter...
another example, an airbus attempts a touch-&-go on a super short runway, but forgets to disengage automatic thrust reversers... forget where this was, but remember the story
Question: If you have a thrust reverser inop, but you elect to apply full reverse on both engines, what happens on the inop engine? Does it go into full thrust but forwards? That would be tough to handle if so, with one engine in the reverse and the other full forward.
No it just doesn’t deploy so you might start pushing to one side of the runway.
I’m not a pilot but based on the video it will cause a side to side thrust imbalance, which you have to counteract. The pilots in this case used the rudder to do that, but I wonder if it’s also possible to reduce the throttle on the engine with the inoperable reverser?
Question, if a reverser is disabled on this type (and others), does that mean the engine it is disabled on will not spin up when reverse thrust is selected, inadvertently pushing the aircraft further down the runway and reducing braking even further? Or, does it just ignore the thrust input and stay at idle? I hope the latter.
The reverser will be disabled and unable to be activated.
@@battyjoe as in, the thrust lever doesn't move? Or, could the pilots have inadvertently applied normal thrust?
@@ChristopherBurtraw The thrust reversers and the thrust levers are separate, you can’t even apply reverse thrust with the thrust levers at anything but idle. Also the thrust reverser wont be able to be moved out of idle unless the reverser has deployed. The thrust reverser will also be locked out and the reverser lever locked out on the inoperative side.
@@battyjoe thank you. So this pilot didn't realize one of the reversers we're disabled despite the controls being unable to move, and in hindsight it should have been obvious but got looked over in the stress of the moment, right?
At least in the USA the FAA only certifies use of runways for types of aircraft that are able to land there safely without the use of thrust-reversers. This is a safety precaution in case of emergencies involving engine failures. Thrust-reversers are meant to be a convenience to lessen the wear on the brakes and also to be able to clear the runway sooner.
The most critical mistake in this accident in my opinion was the attempt at a soft touch-down on a wet runway to begin with and thus hovering too long. Even without the tailwind this already reduced their options to having to execute every step of the braking perfectly from then on.
I agree. I see the lost 3000 feet of runway as the main cause of the accident. Even with all other mistakes, if they touched down closer to the beginning of the runway, the consequences wouldn't be as devastating.
USA has plenty of accidents caused by over running the runway.
The "hand luggage" reference could have inferred that the airline failed to enforce reasonable restrictions on carry-on luggage. Even in the US passengers would carry on the kitchen sink and the bathroom commode if the airlines let them. This flight was in Africa. I am imagining crated chickens and goats on leases in the cabin.
Need to go back to pilot school for a PPL refresher.
Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds a lot like the TAM A320 that managed to not land in CGH in 2008.
hand luggage was contributing factor...
Hey u mentioned wind was from 320 @ 7 knots for Runway 36. So that's 40 degrees port making it a cross wind landing and not Tailwind . So how did the extra 15 knots speed arise.
I think it was a combination of a wet runway, Reverser retracted and auto brakes not selected to Max and also a late touchdown . Also the aircraft would have been close to its Max landing weight thus adding extra momentum on the landing roll. Runway and stopway length calculations for their landing weight and braking distance with a wet Runway were not precisely calculated by the flight crew. Pilot error.
40 degrees off the tail still has a 75% tailwind component, sounds like there might have been a gust of 20kts
@@andrewgkorol hi, I disagree with all due respect. It's still in the left fwd quarter. More like 75% headwind actually. Think again. RWY 360 , Wind from 320 . Had it been from 220 or 140 degrees, that would be a 75 % tailwind component .
@@amithbanger5959 yeah oops don't know what I was thinking! Doesn't quite seem to add up does it?
320 at 7 knots was cited as the numbers given by ATC to the pilots, this wind measurement could be outdated by the time of landing as wind directions change, complex local weather systems may lead to the wind conditions being completely different at the runway threshold as compared to the wind at weather station, or there may be significant gusting. All of these factors either acting independently or in some combination can lead to the reported wind conditions being different from the actual conditions during landing.
@@avesphilic6727 this wind is given again just before landing clearance. "Clear to land Rwy 36 , Wind 320 7 knots" so it cannot be outdated or have changed drastically as the aircraft would have been 10nm and at around 3000 feet altitude from touch down. And if there were any windshear , it would have been told to the pilots by ATC after getting reports from an aircraft that landed before this one. Also plz note that the A310 is categorized as a heavy aircraft as its weight is between 200 and 300 tons. So it would have carried a lot of momentum on the landing roll with a wet runway thus requiring full reverse thrust and autobrakes set to max with spoilers deployed of course
A wee bit .
.
.
>me grinning
The pilots suffered from "get-on-the-ground-itis", IMO. Fatigue causing work load before landing caused them to lose situational awareness in the landing and rollout. Just my guess....
omg.. thats a livery blast from the past! 4.5 years i lived in khartoum.. as hard and chaotic as it was .. good times
One important factor not mentioned is that pilots land into headwinds and it is not normal to land on a runway where there is an active tailwind.
QUESTION No 1: Could the pilots have either come to land in the opposite direction along the same runway, OR was there another runway available?
QUESTION No 2: What (if any) information and advice was offered to the flight crew by Air Traffic Control?
I want to see a video about Atlantic Airways flight 670
Hi. I'm Paul, formerly Saul, blinded on the road to Damascus.
I’m confused. You said runway 36, wind 320 at 7 knots. That’s a 5.4 knot headwind component.
Bring on the Atlantic Airways video!
Video: if you would like a video..
Me: why ask? The answer Is OF COURSE!!!!!!!!
Very interesting and great sim. But there are no runway lights during those night approaches. I guess in real Karthoum airport has runway lights. But that is just a minor thing and not that important for this mini air crash investigation.
Wait so if auto-braking could have reduced the severity of the crash, how could it have been avoided?
Just another request for Mohawk flight 450, which crashed in Albany in 1972. Thanks
Did u say a plane in Norway crashed into a gorge after the runway? Better question, why is there a gorge right at the end of a runway? Might as well build a runway with a cliff at the end of it.
To me, it is not obvious that this was a tailwind landing. Didn't you mention that the wind was from320 at 7 knots? This doesn't explain the difference of 15 Kts between airspeed and groundspeed...
On what I do agree is that max breaking plus planting it 'on the numbers' plus using the right TR as much as possible would have saved the day.
But hindsight is always 20/20...
Landing with tailwind and 3000' down .....no need to be a licensed pilot to realize that this won't work unless your runway is Frankfurt (4000m) or longer
@@Dilley_G45 Well, retired ATP here... They landed on RW 36, right? The wind was reported as 320 deg. @ 7 kts. This doesn't make it a tailwind, but a quarterly headwind from the left, right? So no Frankfurt runway needed (landed there myself a hundred of times...).
Why didn't the captain call for a go around?
Man, the writing on this one was rough.
If you make it off a jet with your carry on while people die you should be charged with murder.
That has never happened
yes, bring the Norway accident ! ;) And.. when will they start making "off road" planes, a bit more sturdy and capable to handle a bit of rough treatment without falling apart. If that is even possible of course.
Just how many people do "The Unthinkable" on your channel?
Ohh I forgot this happened.
174 made it off alive o my mothra it’s a miracle.
Was there any particular reason why the pilot didn't want to use the autobrake?
It was somehow forgotten
anyone else heard it as cartoon instead of khartoum?
Monday, 17 July 2000e,
Alliance Air Flight 7412,
Place: Patna, India
Pls make a video of this air crash investigation
Over confident pilot making a tight turn to base and final for landing resulted in what is known as slip and a rapid loss of altitude due to over banking of wings at a low speed. A stall basically. It was s Boeing 737 200.
That’s sad!
This is good, I just can’t understand some of the words too clearly, maybe slow down.
This crash seems almost identical to TAM airlines 3054
They knew the reverser was poor and should have been taking note of the weather. I just don't understand why they didn't request the other direction on the runway or the other runway? Or at least put it down near the threshold and get it stopping asap.
Where is new vidio
Don't most airlines make a point of telling pax, in the pre-flight safety demo, not to take their hand luggage with them if plane is being is evacuated?
Not being a pilot I would ask why couldn’t the plane be directed to land in the opposite direction into to wind.
After watching many air crash investigations like this, I cannot for the life of me understand why governments continue to allow airlines to operate planes with unsolved problems such as 'one thrust reverser out of commission' (or a dodgy altimeter at night, or a non-functioning aileron that is masked by the autopilot then the plane suddenly goes into a roll when it turns off, startling the hell out of the pilot) - the same as driving a car with a brake partly locked on when stopping. In the event of a wet/windy accident though, the car usually contains only one person that can die. With a plane it's usually many more than that.
On a nice sunny day with ideal conditions and a headwind this would not have been an issue. But when conditions go south, pilots should NOT have to stress out about compensating for a crippled bird because some cheap *ss company that shouldn't be in business (!) if it can't afford to have safe planes in the sky wanted to save a few bucks. The same goes for 'extending service intervals'. Obviously there's a reason why manufacturers specify a certain interval; after a stress-fracture accident they are always reduced if identical replacement parts are used. IMHO, this is the only way service intervals should ever be altered unless the plane is redesigned.
If there was room for extra runway, why not just build a runway on it
I thought aircraft were the first to have anti-lock brakes and that they spread to cars then trucks from there. Didn’t this plane have them and if it did the skid marks would be much less apparent.
Does Sudan have an airline company ?
Wouldn't fly with them if my life depended on it.
Why max manual breaking made the plane skid? I believe no matter how hard the pilot brake, the wheels wont lock. Furthermore, the max autobrake setting is still weaker than max manual breaking. Doesnt the a310 have antiskid engagement for manual breaking?
What was the pilots name?
second!
Great videos!
Why in Hell operate a commercial plane with less than full braking capability? And if the pilot attempted to get reverse thrust on both engines, did he create more forward thrust from the deficient one of his engines ?? Less than totally brilliant …
why even evacuate if you cant take your luggage?