ATSB Preliminary Report Coulson 737 Airtanker Crash
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- Let's get into it...
LINKS:
ATSB Video: • Coulson 737 large air ...
ATSB Report: www.atsb.gov.a...
PATREON: www.patreon.co...
Learning The Finer Points -10% OFF! www.learnthefi...
Theme: "Weightless" Aram Bedrosian
• Weightless - Aram Bedr...
www.arambedros...
"The crew suffered minor injuries..."
Wow. Crashing out of the sky into rocks at 104mph and surviving. So happy for those two; lucky!
120 mph plus or minus
Well, they flew the damn plane
This is undulating sandy limestone country,no substantial "rocks"
Its 104 knots
I love a good "grammar Knot-zi"
......I'll show myself out 🍺
I flew that airplane numerous times when it was at SWA, along with the other two ex SWA A/C acquired by Coulson. Sad to see her come to an end, but glad the crew walked away from it. Nice analysis as always Juan.
That's gotta suck seeing a plane you were familiar with crash like this. Sorry man!
Can you answer a question?
Were the retardant loads in Imperial or US gallons?
I ask because the mass of 4,000 gallons of the former is near enough 25% greater.
@@GARDENER42 Interesting question. I assume the tanker has volume gauges on the flight deck to check her tanks and with Colson being an American operator the read-out will be in US gallons. If not they might depend on the read-out at the filling station for loading. If the equipment for filling was Australian the read-out may have been in liters as I believe the Australians have gone metric in most cases.Having previously used the imperial gallon, any conversion tables will be from liters to gallons, without indication of the "imperial" adjective - as that was the only gallon they were used to - opening the possibility of the aircraft being heavier than the pilots suspected and being more sluggish than they were expecting.
On the other hand the ATSB report seems to be very comprehensive, and if either pilot reported a sluggishness in the aircraft the ATSB would without doubt have looked at the load factor, which I suspect will be SOP in any case.
@@roykliffen9674 Ah, didn't know Coulson was a US, rather than domestic Australian company.
In that case, I'll presume they are indeed US gallons.
@@GARDENER42 4K US Gallons nominal. Doesn’t mean they actually had 4K on board initially, humans being humans and all. And Coulson is a Canadian company I believe.
That was an extremely well done report by the ozzie ATSB ….glad the crew survived, Coulson was one of the operators that kept the fire in Redding from taking my house along with Erickson they stopped a wall of flame less than an 1/8 of a mile from my neighborhood with helios dipping the Sacramento river. I have some great helicopter footage as they were right over my head. Thanks for the report!
Those guys sure did push the "Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing" to the limits. Great vid, keep 'em coming.
We're gonna have to rework that saying now...
Yeah that is no shit there whew. So damn lucky
The hampster pouches are ruined, absolutely ruined smh, good thing the crew made it out. ❤
Talk about mixed blessings. You survive a horrible crash, but you wrecked a perfectly good B-737-300. Probably a career ending move. Quite lucky it wasn't a life ending move. Someone has been very humbled.
Perfectly good 30 yr old plus airframe. Could very well be career ending but then again there pilots in the past that has done worse things and still managed to be employed. Thank God he’s still here, he could be a voice to pilots on what could happen in a matter of seconds.
Life's are irreplaceable. An airplane isn't.
18:15 I think the captain was actually saying "Fly, airplane!" as if knowing an impending stall was developing and telling the airplane to somehow fly out of it.
Great point! You are right!
Yes, I questioned that, too, as the captain was manipulating the controls and usually it's the pilot monitoring that screams "fly the airplane!" into the ear of the pilot who's trying to concentrate on flying the plane!
"Fly airplane" is the cool headed response VS. the less professional "Aww $@!%, we're F@#$'ing going down..."
Or maybe he was saying what I was thinking when I crashed an L-19 Birddog (Cessna 305A): "bye, airplane." 🤣
I thought he was telling the copilot to take over while he dumped retardant, but probably too late.
I know nothing about flying but I love airplanes. I have to tell you always make everything understandable even everyday people. You alway stop and take a moment to explain things. Love your channel and your reports.
I also know nothing about flying. This video really gave me the sense of how close to disaster they have to fly for these missions. There’s not much room for error when you’re a couple of seconds away from the ground. It’s beyond me what it takes to pull that off again and again.
Agree. This channel is great for pilots and non-pilots alike.
It's good that for once these matters are being discussed with the air crew still alive after the incident. The total loss of an aircraft is a costly mistake to make, but this asset will never compare to the value of human lives.
Never push fine margins! 2 new members of the 'Lucky B.....d' club..
glad they survived.
and as i said in another comment - i hope this crew are not dismissed, mistakes good or bad will give other crews a much broader look into the problems faced - their knowledge is invaluable, at least from my perspective
@@ericshrive7506
2 new members of the *"Any One You Can Walk Away From Is A Good One" club!*
Unless you are the insurance company or the CEO they don't give a shit. I am talking about big corporate America in general. We are fighting with the insurance company over a life saving procedure my 40 year old wife needs. They don't like the fact it's across the country
😮😮
Once agai your detailed description enabled me, a Vision Impaired Man, to follow the video. The best part though is that both pilots survived!
I am an Aussie living on the East coast and we had a catastophic accident a couple of years back just south of where I live. Thanks to the Yanks that come out to help us.👍
Great point for @blanco lirio: visual + audible.
Excellent channel excellent report
I worked on this A/C when it was with Southwest Airlines before the planes retirement.
Once you run out of energy that low and slow... nothing left to trade.
Glad the guys made it out.
Thanks again Juan.
I think at that point you’re trading air for ground
I'm astonished that any experienced pilot would let N1 decay to 30% in such circumstances. You simply cannot expect decent throttle response from 30%. This has ALWAYS been a classic limitation of jet engine characteristics (Mulhouse/Habsheim with the A320 comes to mind !).
My conclusion, especially since they survived, Is they got over confident with the multiple drop runs and were testing how Low And Slow they could get each time because of their overconfidence in their expertise and the ground jumped up and bit them, the picture of the terrain with the glide path shows they we're putting the pickle in the barrel but you can't win all the time.
To crash a jet aircraft because you failed to remember engine spool-up lag from idle, is the most amazingly embarrassing way to lose an airframe. I don't like to speak ill of these pilots, but this is something that quite honestly, never should have happened.
@@iankemp2627 I find it quite bizarre that they should get so low and slow to be honest. A Turkish 737 did the same approaching Schiphol, Amsterdam too and crashed but a defective radio altimeter played a part there in reducing the throttles to idle incorrectly, over-riding the set airspeed (140 kts IIRC) on the MCP.
Isn't the mission technically to fly as low and slow as possible? That's how you get the most bang for your buck of retardant
@@ShaunHensley Not to the point of nearly stalling the aircraft into the ground ! The owners won't be very happy with that ! They were only a few knots above stall speed (a stall would have been worse still). It's not exactly tricky to avoid doing that. Even the autothrottle on a -300 series should be able to cope.
Part of the pre drop checklist would be to deactivate the GPWS. I am surprised they use flaps 40 and not 20. That would probably add 10 knots. That is a lot of drag, combined with below reference back side of the power curve. The RA and altimeter are for reference for what is a visual looking out the window maneuver. 1800 v/s is unstable should have been a go-around callout. 30% N1 is low considering 60% N1 is normal for a stabilized approach maybe a little less because you don't have the gear out. Glad the crew got out. Kudos on the excellent reporting.
Thanks Juan,
Your understanding of these fire tankers,and bird dog lead planes,makes all this information digestible for us tubers.
To slow to low, but not by much. Sure glad the crew survived. 😊
Joe. AA AMT DFW intl.
28:10 - The last fly around the crash site, seeing the hollow edges of the terrain, is from a 3D camera, similar to what dentists now use to collect the tooth dimensions and profile for a crown. In the dental case, the image produced is just used to give the tech confirmation that the data set is complete. In the crash case, direct measurements can be taken from the data. I have several color pictures of my teeth and gums done that way. The crowns fit perfectly.
With airliners we were required to be on speed, engines spooled, configured, and on glide slope at a 500 foot window above the touch down zone. Failure to meet the requirements was a mandatory go-around. This came about due to the early B727 crashes where they would be high and fast on approach and attempting to get back to the glide slope from above with the engines at idle. Was there a window for this type of operation??
Secondly the radar altimeter would have been bouncing around due to the irregular terrain, thus it would only serve as a rough back up, alerting the crew that they were closing on terrain. The airspeed indicators and the radar altimeters both had bugs which would be set prior to the approach.
Flaps 40 is maximum flap extension and is a very high drag configuration. My airline discouraged using that setting if it was not required for fuel saving and to reduce wear and tear on the flap mechanisms.
Question? What where the changes to the FOM and recommendations to prevent further such accidents?
Very cool use (and first one I've ever seen) of photogrammetry to document the crash site in 3D - at the very end of the video.
Amazing that both pilots were able to survive that.
I don't think they stuck around in there for long...
As a student pilot, your insights and information is very helpful and really sinks in. Thanks for being so detailed in your presentations. I wish RUclips would realize that this is life saving and vital information for those of us who fly, or are learning to fly. Cheers from Winnipeg.
That was absolutely flawless! Thank you Juan. Since Oroville started I believe I have learned more from you than just about anybody else in my life. Thank you for your work. I really appreciate your effort.
I completely agree with your comment
5/5/23; Report from Australian NTSB on fire tanker crash: wow Juan, what a great technical analysis covering all major details. Great education for we armchair viewers not in forest fire zones. Impressed by your explanation, using yur little white board, of how this 3 aircraft formation is organized & flown into 'footprint' (heel to head) of this particular low brush (not tall timber) fire on low level rolling hills. Fantastic visuals showing animation via a split screen of both a/c flying-very low over hills- & cockpit view of yoke, throttle handles & 7-8 major dashboard instruments. Just a great review on many levels providing indepth education for all to see, understand & appreciate massive undertaking to fight these fires. Another great job Juan! A+✅️👏👏👍👍😊
Not being familiar with this crash, after seeing the opening images I was shocked the crew survived. So happy hear that! Other crews can learn without two families suffering. Thanks Juan!
Loved the animation. It makes it easier to understand for this old Fire truck driver.
My heyday was piloting the Fire Truck through downtown Phoenix traffic, no ATC except my Captain white knuckleing anything he could hold onto.
I'm 73 I still remember the fire / safety/ rescue/ training programs by my city fire department. That's just one example of the education system.
Excellent detailed explanation of the entire event. Your special expertise in this kind of operation is very educational.
Really enjoy your insights on aviation and some of the weather events that have affected your area recently.
Flying low and slow over unfamiliar terrain is about as risky as it gets. It’s any wonder we don’t lose more air tankers. Which speaks volumes about the crews and procedures. The most important thing to remember, expensive as it is, the aircraft can be replaced… the crew, not so much. I’ve worked with the 737 Air Tankers off and on since the first one got carded. Had some interesting times working those birds. As usual excellent analysis and explanations! Whenever something like this happens I eagerly await the BL report on it and frequently point others in this direction because I know they’ll learn a lot. Cheers!
Well said.
Heard another comment here pointing out that since the 737 wasn't designed for low and slow, but for high and fast, it's adding a particular risk to these kinds of operations. Do you have any thoughts on that? I'm just a layperson but it does raise an interesting point. I don't know if there's any other airliners or other similarly sized planes which are better for low and slow operations and would have better performance in situations like this.
@@R2Bl3nd it’s not a matter of “design”, they are all designed to change their configuration (flaps and slats) for low and slow because it’s how they land! Hahaha! Flying low and slow is risky for ANY aircraft because altitude and airspeed generally equate to safety, mostly because it gives you more time to address any situations that might develop. I am by no means “expert”, but I’ve been around aviation my entire life and been in the wildland aviation arena for going on 8 years now.
The Canadair CL line of “Scoopers” are the only built for purpose firefighting aircraft in the world, as far as I know. The Russians may have a version as well but I’m not certain. ALL other air tankers were built for other purposes, a mix of former airliners and military aircraft. This is absolutely NOT an issue because in just about every case they are operating well within their design envelopes, 737 being NO exception. Obviously they’ve been modified but each aircraft must pass a very strict inspection/test phase and must qualify (card as we say it) before they are allowed to be contracted. Similarly the crews go through extensive special training over multiple seasons before they are fully qualified. Most tanker pilots are highly “experienced” airmen who have had other careers before becoming aerial firefighters. The maintenance cycle is higher on certain critical parts of air tankers as well because of their high “cycle” (take off and landing frequency) rate, and because of additional requirements on the equipment, if that makes sense. For example engine igniters are changed on a much more rigorous schedule because they are turned on during every drop as a safety measure against possible engine flameout. Normal aircraft operating procedures don’t require such things. And I can tell you the crew chiefs and mechanics swarm over their aircraft the moment they stop upon returning to an airtanker base. EVERYONE on the flight line of a tanker base is CONSTANTLY looking over the aircraft for ANYTHING that might be amiss. If it looks stupid, chances are it IS stupid and should probably be reported immediately.
Again these are just my experiences and observations, the crews than maintain and fly the birds know the deeper truths. And sometimes we won’t ever know the truth simply because of how the world works.
Just as the wildland ground crews have learned very hard and costly lessons throughout the history of wildland firefighting so has the airtanker community. This time will be no different, lessons will be gleaned from the ashes and the community will be safer and stronger for it. Thankfully this time the price wasn’t paid in blood. It’s always a terrible thing when a tanker goes down. I know EVERY single time one leaves a base I’m on I say a little prayer for their safe return… because we just never know. It’s all part of the job. I hope that cleared some things up!
Great info Juan, very well presented!! The most important thing is they made it out alive and well!! During that last replay I found myself saying 'push push push' (throttles up} kind of long before they ever moved on screen. That means nothing, but after the fact you can see where more energy, sooner, would have helped them pull out of it. Again TG everyone got out and away from it. Peace --gary
Thank you Juan, I am with the majority here. Just so relieved the crew was able to go home to their loved ones ! ❤🇨🇦
I had no idea of the outcome - I assumed this would be fatal. The first hint was when Juan stated that "later" the co-pilot made a statement. They were extremely lucky.
This "nearly but not quite flat" terrain crash shares so much in common with the last Coulson crash in Australia, it's just spooky.
Not quite flat is much harder to fly in than actually flat or really steep. There's almost no visual clues in rolling terrain.
Out landing a hang glider you want to land up hill, even if there's not much slope. Over cultivated land there's features that can help, but over scrubby land there is almost nothing.
The country might be similar (rolling Australian hills) even though they are separated by a near enough 2000 miles. Other than that the situations were entirely different imo for the aircraft involved and the weather was problematic for the Cooma disaster. IIRC the Herc also didn't have a bird dog and turned into the smoke
@@zorbakaput8537 true, true. I was just thinking of the surprise rising terrain that looks flat.
I don't understand the comments about the radio altimeter. The numbers seem to accurately show the height above terrain, it being significantly less than the altitude above sea level is the whole point
Great breakdown as usual Juan. Just amazing that the crew walked away. I'm guessing there are not a lot of 737 drivers that completely destroyed the airframe and lived to have a beer.
Was ONE, in Hawaii, that actually landed the aircraft successfully. The ONLY Boeing aircraft that was ever successfully landed that was scrapped on the spot.
Prayers for the 1 crew member who was lost, mid-flight.
Edited to spell Juan's name correctly... u before a...my apologies
It’s why Navy pilots go to full power as they cross the stern of the carrier‘cause if they miss the wires at idle they will get wet.
Thankfully the crew survived,safe flying mate take care from ballarat in Oz,👋👋🙏🙏👍🇦🇺
Juan, your explaination was exceedingly good! Even us lay-men could fully understand. Keep up the great work.
I'm shocked but thankful that they survived ❤
You know when you want to comment on something but you can’t because you are in the industry and have flown with that Captain? Great breakdown Juan.
Thanks for a great analysis of this report Juan. Your insights bring this report to life.
It's really nice to hear the crew survived, way too many times it ends up all crew perished! Outstanding channel!
Funny enough i just met that pilot at a beach bar here in Cali
Great video the visual overlay of the data is fantastic
Very well organized presentation! I wonder whether the captain realized the throttles were at idle, also captain's experience level with the aircraft. Hope they got good information from the crew for future flights.
Your passion is contagious thank you.
Hat's off Juan. A stunning amount of relevant detail. As a lay, I can easily understand. Thank you.
Thaks for the detailed explanation. Glad to hear that the aircrew survived this.
Great job as usual. As a NM ground pounder on the fire line, I always loved the aircraft arrival. Glad everyone lived.
The time scale on the graph shows about midday to 1:30 ish, if that is correct? In our harsh sunburnt country, at or around midday, the shadows that give form to the landscape, disappear. So, they may not have been able to define the knoll by eyeball. i assume it would take extra training to fly vfr when there are no shadows. For example, without shadows, at midday we cannot see the holes in the gravel road, when riding a motorbike in dry dusty conditions.
I can see that because you know how to fly a 737 commercially doesn't make you a good pilot at extreme low level flying...what you take for granted in commercial flight can not be overlooked flying that close to the ground. I'm learning from Juan that eyeball training at 150 AGL over a flat runway is only the beginning of eyeball training over "seemingly flat" terrain. In this case wouldn't the lead dog's input be even more important to pass along information to the tanker crew about the type of terrain where there are ridges that can not be seen from directly over head. I have learned today that flying over a California mountainous area is not the same as the even more hazardous extreme low level flying in Australia...especially with a big "cumbersome" 737 jet that doesn't have the quick reaction time capability of a smaller prop driven airplane. I am glad the pilots of the 737 made it out safely and are still alive to pass that experience along for better flight safety in future fire fighting. Thank You Juan.
Great breakdown as usual JB. Cheers from OZ!
Thanks for this update JB. Thank God the crew were safe.
Always love your delivery with all available aids you use and showing your passion AND frustration.
Glad you got back safely from Sydney. Take care and fly safe. 🖖🏼🤟🏼
OMG. NO power until right at the end. Yeah, the "what were they thinking" question really is massive.
N619SW - one of Southwest's former -300s with winglets. I've got some time in that aircraft. Sorry it came to such an inglorious end. Gotta love the analog instruments.
👍
Appreciate all the detail in this report. Sometimes bad things happen quickly. Glad the crew survived.
Thanks for this. I live in Western Australia and have been to the Fitzgerald River National Park many times. I was astounded (a) that this happened, and (b) that the crew survived. I have read some opinions that suggest that a Boeing 737 is quite unsuitable as an air tanker, because low-and-slow flying is required for firefighting, and 737s are simply not designed for that - they are designed to move a load (usually people) over long distances at high altitudes and high speed. So this sort of flying goes against many of the basic design criteria of a 737. A specific problem (apparently) is that a swept wing is not good at rapid reversals of descent/ascent. I'm no aerodynamics expert - I'd be interested in your take on that.
Lots of jetliners have been adapted to be firefighting tankers, incl. BAe 146, DC-9, DC-10 and even the B747, and many others.
Pilots should know their tools, which need not be idiot proof
I am a retired National Park Ranger who worked in that Park briefly in 1986, but have a good memory of the terrain, soil and vegetation. Prior to that career I worked for 9 years in the precursor to the ATSB, so I have aviation knowledge and experience. As a ranger I developed a lot of fire experience and my take on this issue is that the B737 is a good tanker for Australian conditions; consider the distance from their base in Busselton to this fire site. The ex-airliner is ideal in having a very good transit speed from its base when repeat drops are necessary. Does the USA have a 737 capable runway every 100 miles? Perhaps you do in limited areas but that sort of luxury is pretty rare in a global context. The ATSB and Juan have correctly identified the cause of this accident; thank good luck that the crew walked away!
Well done. You are at the top of your game. Thank God the crew survived.
Great analysis and you were on point with your cause immediately after the incident
Busselton Juan, not Brusselton. Great report on this accident.
❤ Your channel.
I observed a 737's approach for a landing at my local airport and thought it looked odd. It looked like it wasn't moving at all, and just floating. Later I found the details online and it was dipping to 115 knots into a 5 knot wind. After that, they recovered to 120+ knots. It looked magical watching it and since I am no pilot, I don't know how close they were to a stall.
I used to live in Marietta, Georgia where Lockheed made the C-5A. I would be driving down the road staring at this giant aircraft hanging in the sky, motionless. Of course it wasn't motionless, but it sure looked like it.
@@elderbob100 Both my parents worked at Lockheed; in the mid ‘80s, when the C-5B first flew, I was working at a publishing company in Sandy Springs. Being a bunch of nosy reporters, we all went out to watch when the plane was being flown (out of Dobbins, as I recall) for visiting military officials. I swear, you could actually see the shadow as it flew overhead. It was like the Death Star - hard to believe such a massive thing could fly.
Some smaller aircraft can actually fly backwards relative to the ground under full control, given a healthy enough airspeed from headwinds etc.
Not sure what the minimums are for a 737, probably around 100-120? Suppose it depends on altitude above sea level, temperature, wind speed and direction, weight etc
@@TalkieToaster. Years ago I was a passenger in a friends Blanik glider during a Santana wind blowing against the ridge. He found a bowl that the wind was blowing directly into and turned into the wind while we backed up Mt Baldy. He had to nose down and increase airspeed to make sure he didn't get too close to the terrain. It was a sight to see.
@@TalkieToaster. can definitely fly backwards over ground in a lite wing / ultra lite ask me how I know 😂
Man. Juan goes to such lengths for us. He flew all the way to Oz and back just to bring this report back. What a guy!!
Thank You Juan for a very detailed and well explained explanation of this crash. Glad they survived.
Thanks Juan. I am glad the pilots made it safe. A lot to learn from!
I don't. Have any flight training. With all the details you provide, I am able to extrapolate many of the dangers and concerns they have to plan and look out for. Thanks for always giving such a thorough report.
So glad the crew survived. A lesson learned, now shared with others. God Bless Fire Response Crews around the globe. Stay safe out there.
I wonder if a physical stop on the throttle would help here. So if they transition to low level flight their checklist calls for a physical stop gets flipped to the throttle leavers, so they cannot be moved to a too low setting.
If the aircraft is too fast, the crew would then need to result to speed brakes instead to slow the aircraft.
So good that the crew survived! Thanks, Juan, for your reports!
I was flying over this area on that day. It really didn’t seem like fire conditions at all. One of my work colleagues was overhead the accident site (at flight levels) when it happened. He ended up acting as a radio relay between the on site personnel and ATC.
any idea if the wreck is still there im assuming not, or where they took the tail etc. its actully an easy place to access from the beach track
Very good and precise walktrough of what happened. Visual operations are easy but also the easiest way to get into trouble if you are not on top of the situation. Instrument approaches have very well defined segments and limitations that you work your way through until you land or perform a missed approach. Not so much on a visual approach which makes it difficult for the PM to call a Go around. Something to think about in the way you brief the approach for all of you that do a lot of visual operations.
Glad there were no fatalities other than the aircraft. Good animation and analysis so hopefully it can prevent accidents in the future.
Thank you for the amazing presentation of this report. You make it easy to understand how it unfolded.
Thanks for sharing your aerial firefighting expertise Juan.
Great roundup Jaun, 🇦🇺🤙
Thank you Juan, no one could explain this crash better than you.
Incredible forensics, thank you!
That picture of the terrain told me everything I had to know, they screwd up and are very lucky to be alive.
I often wonder how they manage the numbers, here, drop at 10K at over 100degF and mountain waves. It would be interesting to see some of these runs tried on a simulator.
As always a great analysis….. thank you Juan
That really went bad quickly. Flaps 40 on the 737 is so extreme and high drag, I am shocked that you'd have the throttles at idle unless you were really high and needed to lose altitude fast.
Bird-dog is a new one for me. Thanks for taking a step back to explain for people like me lol
Thank you Juan. Very instructive. Glad they walked away.
Love your content...you inspire my analytical brain....Thank You.
Good report, Juan. It looks to me like having flaps 40 in that situation is going to ensure a landing- too much drag!
Seems like more drag was actually needed so the plane could keep a higher engine setting (more responsive) while keeping an acceptable air speed.
I would have thought that as soon as the captain realised he was close to stalling he would have retracted the flaps to remove as much drag as possible at the same time increasing thrust.
Hi, @Ron Myers , I think that raising the flaps even a bit will reduce the lift of the wings and lead to a stall unless airspeed is increased. I suppose that landing speeds have a flap setting included, like the drag of the landing gear is factored in. The first time I learned about that was when a new private pilot had to make multiple approaches at a local airport. Each time she had to go around she would have to raise the flaps as she went back into the pattern. The flight data showed her doing this at consecutively lower airspeeds. This led to her stalling on the way up from her last attempt. I only fly Sims, but it was a major lesson to me.
All three on board died. They were flying to visit her dad, who was in the hospital in my city. What I did not understand was why she planned her flight to land at our 2nd busiest commercial airport instead of one of the many smaller GA airports. The situation started off with her being asked to abandon her first approach because the faster landing airliners were backing up behind her. Then she was directed to a secondary runway. She was in over her head, with nobody else on board who knew how to fly who could have helped with checklists or watching airspeed. And she got handed off to another controller at the shift change which was in the middle of all of this. People talk about the sea being a cruel mistress. The sky is unforgiving.
Hello Juan from Sydney Australia.
Thank you for explaining the tactical strategy and logistics of remote and long range bush firefighting. I especially like the retardant and fire trail parallel " to extinguish!!!
🌲💦🔥
Great coverage Juan....good job.
I just don't see how they get so low and slow. The FIRST thing we learn as pilots is not to be low and slow. I've never flown jets but I have to think you'd always be aware of jet lag. Glad the guys got out in one piece. Good video.
I had to check if this was an old Southwest Airlines bird before tanker conversion on account of the tail number, and it was.
Yes, it had still its old registration: N619SW.
We should make Juan an honorary Australian. He likes us and we like him
Just seems like the Aussies did a job more rapidly than I would expect USA authorities to manage. Nice one Juan and nice one ATSB.
First off.. Am glad the crew was able to get away safely... Secondly.. Thank you for your run down of the activities... As well as a bit of what should have been done, for those of us who are not familiar with tanker SOP... And thirdly... The RUclips folks need to knock it off on the demonetisation of your content!!
Glad they walked away from that one. Must've been a VIOLENT ride. Thanks for the insight, as always, Juan!
Thanks Juan for the input, but something call my attention and was the big discrepancies between the radio altimeter and the servoed altimeter, having in consideration they were flying on a flat terrain. probably the altimeter barometric setting was not correct at the moment of impact.
The barometric altimeter would be set to give height above sea level and the radio altimeter height above ground. Radio altimeters are also calibrated to read zero with the landing gear down with full oleo extension and the aircraft in a landing flare attitude, in other words at the point of touchdown in a landing.
It almost resembles Asiana at SFO. Good analysis from ATSB and great in-depth video!
Thanks again for a clear concise analysis of this near disaster [ crew loss ], I believe they should have bought a fist full of lottery coupons 👍🙃🙃oh,there's no R in Busselton 🙃
what amazes me is that the crew got out unassisted and mostly uninjured...
now that's some seriously tough crash-safety on that plane!!!!
lets just take a moment to thank those engineers who make this kind of survival possible...
Juan you’re a gem to the aviation community. Thanks for your analysis.
Excellent presentation, thanks Juan.
I had no idea they used jet engine planes for fire suppression drops. I guess you get used to it, but that has to be nerve racking flying that low and slow in planes that are right on the edge of stalling, with no room for error. Amazing the crew walked away, especially considering that if they hit that hill in a slightly different angle it could have been way worse.
I often wonder since a lot of these air tankers fly low and sometimes through smoke and haze if they shouldn't have terrain-following radar like the military fighters to make sure that they are not flying too low into a hazardous canyon or valley. These pilots were extremely fortunate to live to tell about it.
I'm glad they survived; I assumed otherwise through the early part of the video. Thanks for the analysis.
Wow. Thanks for your attention to detail and the facts. Excellent explanations 👍🏾
Such a low energy condition incredible the crew survived a small misjudgement never deserves the ultimate sacrifice, Great Channel.
I was wondering if the nose up and very slow airspeed coupled with the tail tagging the first ridge allowed the soft enough "landing" to allow the crew to survive.
@@billpennock8585 In a word, yes. Low and slow beats high and fast when it comes to crash landings.