Nah, they dont even hear them. There are 2,179 different alarms in a cockpit. Actually they should add a 2,180th one that only sounds if one of the others is ACTUALLY important and needs paid attention to...
I believe the actor playing the ATC was a Canadian actor who was in a show called Degrassi, he played a character named Joey Jeremiah. Sounds like him and looks like him. Just checked, it's him his name is Pat Mastroianni.
@@moiraatkinsonYes, however bad your life currently is, watch one of these and suddenly you are glad to be alive. The pilot actors must feel this doubly so.
@@rebelruth9582funnily enough that’s how I started watching air crash documentaries. I was in hospital following an emergency operation and I used to look for videos that made me realise there were people worse off than myself.
I've read and listened to the CVR transcript and recording many times, and have looked at the route that the plane flew. This is the basic progression of the flight: Fernandez was flying the plane at takeoff. Shortly after takeoff, the pilots realised that they had an instrument problem. For the first minute or so the plane was flying along the coast. Schreiber ordered Fernandez to turn to the right, probably to get away from land and reduce the chance of a collision as their altimeters weren't working. The crew declared an emergency about a minute and a half later. It was around this point that Schreiber decided to take control of the plane from Fernandez. The pilots disagreed about what to do next. Fernandez wanted to land right away; Schreiber wanted to spend some time to stabilise. Schreiber, being the captain and pilot flying, got his way. The plane continued on a south-westerly heading, out over the ocean, as the pilots assessed the situation. At 12:51 am, Schreiber apparently decided that the situation had stabilised, and turned the plane to a north- to north-westerly heading. (This turn is not shown in the episode.) At this point, the plane was flying basically parallel to the runway. The plan was that the pilots would fly north of the airport, turn around 180 degrees to the right, and come in and land. But as they were flying north, the airspeed indicators began giving very high readings, and the overspeed warning went off. Spooked by this, at approximately 12:57 am, they extended the speed brakes. The speed brakes caused the plane to slow down greatly, and at approximately 1 am, eventually stall. Fernandez realised this for what it was; Schreiber did not. Unfortunately, because Schreiber was flying the plane, the stall recovery procedure was not properly initiated. The plane continued to descend until it was dangerously close to the ground, triggering the terrain alarm at approximately 1:02 am. Schreiber was spooked enough by the terrain alarm that he turned the plane to the left, to the west, further away from any chance of flying over land. What's not shown in the episode is that 45 seconds after the turn began, the terrain alarm shut off; the plane had just climbed high enough to turn it off. (The episode shows the terrain alarm on constantly once it activates.) What's also not shown is that a couple of minutes after the pilots turned left, the controller told them that they were at 10,000 feet. Upon hearing this, Schreiber decided to turn back to the east and begin landing. This turn is not shown in the episode. (At this point, despite the stress shown in the episode, the pilots actually sound quite calm on the CVR.) Following the first activation of the terrain alarm, the plane had climbed to 4,000 feet. But at about 1:07 am, Schreiber, believing the plane to be at 10,000 feet, initiated a descent to capture the ILS. This is shown in the episode. This is the final decision that brought the plane down. The plane drifted down from 4,000 feet, until the terrain alarm was triggered again at 1:10 am. (The episode does not show this, as it shows the terrain alarm always on.) Fernandez's confidence that the plane was at a safe height immediately evaporated. He started to doubt the correctness of the 9,700 ft reading on the scope, hence his comment to the controller "Are you sure you have us on the radar at 50 miles?" Unfortunately, he was not flying the plane. Schreiber was, and Schreiber was by now unbothered by the terrain alarm. He continued the descent, believing it necessary to capture the ILS, until the plane hit the water.
@@nickv4073 You don't have to read my comment if you don't want. But 28 other people found it useful. Also, in my comment I explain a number of factors that the video missed.
Thx. Yes, appreciate better facts. The alarms made hard to watch so skipped ahead. Maintenance error by ground crew and pilot who paid with his life. Jailing the worker was not justice. Settling w families for agonizing vs sudden deaths. Not like it was intentional but who knows, maybe it was a mistreated workers revenge and didn't know made impossible to land.
@jacquelineoutlaw3252 Radar has made incredible advances. At the time, it, RADAR would ask the plane for information. Altitude, and speed. The plane would tell the radar what its speed was and altitude. To use another example. What state do I live in? Judging by my area code, 407, Florida would be a good guess. However, I may have mived and have not changed my phone number yet. In short, you can only work with information you have.
The pilots and controller should have known that the altitude was being given by the plane and not assumed that the tower alt was more accurate than the on board instruments...as in fact they were the same readings. Saying that...these guys had no real chance either way
The same wrong altitude that the pilot sees on his altimeter is transmitted to the ground as Gillham code data. So the radar altitude is coming to the radar screen from a data signal. It is not an altitude reading computed from a radar echo. The radar altimeter in the cockpit would have shown the altitude above the water. This would only work up to 2500 feet above the water. The pilots may have been able to use this if they understood the situation with the static pressures feeding the pneumatic altimeters.
As a pilot I feel sorry for the controller, who gave the crew false hope by accident. I haven’t been in such a situation, but if I’d receive over speed and stall = I’d believe the stall warning. If I’d receive a GPWS warning I’d believe it despite any reading. It’s always Aviate, Navigate, communicate. So my main priority would be to keep the plane airborne. Easy to say, but that would be my way to go - depending on other factors as well…
They were probably in a situation where they didn't even know which way was UP and which was DOWN. Total blank space. Like a spacecraft travelling in space.
@@indianfan1029Not in this case. Although the speed and altitude readings have been wrong due to the covered static port, the attitude display was fully functioning. Even if that one was wrong, there is the (analog) backup attitude indicator. If you lose your displays, this one is still working. According to the final report, they hit the water with the left wing tip first. Even if you lose all the additional tech in your cockpit, just fly it like a Cessna plane - with basic numbers instrumentation. It is easier said than done, but not impossible (depending on your emergency and system/technical failure).
@@ura9390 well, I’m also sitting in the left seat of a 748 and we do regular sim training for most possible emergency situations we could possible face when flying. I didn’t say anywhere I’d done it better, I said how I’d act in such a situation. So don’t try come sideways at a professional from your comfy seat.
@@Aviator747 mate you may think you're a big hero and know better than those poor pilots, but with a billion alarms going off and being fed faulty info by ATC literally in the dark don't try to come sideways slapping your own back as if only you would have saved the day, have some respect and also some understanding of how this unfolded in real time, rather than how it does when watching Air Crash investigation on RUclips from your comfy armchair
In high school I used to wash airplanes. We had to tape up the pitots and statics. But (since we were all pilot students) when we were done we always triple checked that we removed the tape!
they should have had typed checklists for that stuff like the pilots do. that way no remembering, just doing what's on the checklist. every. single. time. last checkbox... take off the tape!
@@daviddavis3389 i think typically they do. Here's what i got from wiki regarding this crash and the covers: The design of the aircraft did not incorporate a system of maintenance covers for the static ports. Such covers are commonly employed in aviation for blocking access to critical components when the aircraft is not in operation and are generally a bright color and carry flags (which may have "remove before flight" markings). Instead, the design of the aircraft and the relevant maintenance procedure called for the use of adhesive tape to cover the ports.
@@cheery-hex Part of the pilots’ checklist is to do the pre-flight walk around. The pilot performing the walk around on this flight overlooked the taped static port.
@@margarethagerman1652 It was grey tape on grey fuselage, 17 feet up, at night. He was using a non-LED flashlight to look for lots of potential issues all at once and had no reason to expect someone would use grey instead of the required bright red. That was one step above using clear tape. 3 other people also missed it, including the guy who put it there. I think your expectations of the pilot are a little too high.
I kind of pity the person who left the tape on the pitot tubes. Can you imagine having to live with the knowledge that YOU are responsible for the loss of all those lives?
I’m sure they feel the weight of the responsibility, but it’s unfair to put it all on that person. It’s worth noting, according to the video, that there were two other people (a supervisor and inspector) who were supposed to check that the tape had been removed, but did not. The captain did the preflight walk around and apparently missed it too.
the pilot is supposed to walk around the aircraft and look for things like that before every flight. It's never up to just one person, there is a string of people responsible but ultimately it falls on the captain's shoulders.
The point is, it’s not the maintenance guy’s responsibility! Thou shalt not kick the cat! Boeing should take responsibility for making the most important part of the plane so vulnerable. The solution is easy. As the engines are powered down, motorised covers cover the tubes and other sensors, so the plane can be washed etc… Then when the plane is powered up, those covers are automatically opened, and a computerised self-check is initiated to verify that all is well. They can do this on camera sensors and camera lenses. Why not on a plane. Instead, they blame the lowliest member of the workforce. Wasn’t his fault at all.
This is why I'll never fly at night, or during a crazy weather forecast. I've avoided three crashes listening to my gut instincts. It was obviously worth any 8 hour delay. God bless those precious souls that perished. 🙏✨️✈️😿
It’s cool to fly at night but not over the sea because you don’t have any landmarks to determine if you’re climbing or descending especially if the instrument aren’t working correctly
Same here! I only fly during the day. More so because I don’t want to arrive at my destination at night but after watching several episodes I have another reason.
I will never fly period. as this channel shows too much incompetence in the maintenance and mechanics of the planes. The airlines are rushing through to make more money and the passengers are just guinea pigs
Never saw an answer for why the pilot went by ATCs altitude figures when even non-pilots know that ATC doesn’t use actual radar - these figures are sent from the aircrafts own instruments via transponder.
The airline is certainly responsible for improper training, but if a manufacturer says "Do it this way and not that way" and someone does it that way instead of this way then the manufacturer is ABSOLUTELY NOT at fault.
I sort of agree with you, however if you buy a food slicer and the manufacturer did not provide any safety cover, it instead just said on the box 'don't cut yourself'... it seems to me that they would be partially responsible
As all pilots worth anything will. You never give up, even if you want to. Unless you are murderously suicidal and descending into a mountain range. Of course the chance you will die is high, but you cannot win if you don’t play the game.
I dont think it was fair to blame it on the employee, in such case, the supervisor and manager were also responsible. It was a mistake, he was not trained properly on how important was to remove such piece of tape.
Apparently was a miscommunication between the pilots and the air controller. The pilots were asking the controller to give them their altitude. At 13:50 the narrator said " but neither the pilot or the traffic controller knew that the altitude indicated on the scope was incorrect " Since the ground radar can't read the altitude of the plane the controller sees the information that is send by the plane's transponder. In my opinion the pilots and the controllers should have an extensive technical training of how things work. I'm electrical and electronics technician repairing machines in factories. I always demand from the operator to be present during the repair process. He knows best all the tricks and how the machine should be working.
Captain and XO should've immediately declared an emergency and turned back for Lima. It would've saved their passengers, themselves, along with their aircraft, but hindsight is always 20/20.
They should have declared an emergency once they found the altimeters non-working, they took a bit of time to take stock. But even turning around immediately and declaring an emergency would not have changed the outcome in any relevant way, except for possibly crashing into some houses.
Using this attorney’s logic, we should get rid of attorney’s because it’s foreseeable that people will use them to sue innocent people. 😂 It’s not Boeing’s fault someone ignored the warning written on the side of the plane and taped over the ports and then inadvertently forgot to remove it. If the guy hired to wash the plane wasn’t competent, that’s the fault of the airline who hired and trained him. Give me a break. He’s just an ambulance chaser that saw 💰 when he found a way to try to blame a big company with deep pockets. Notice he didn’t go after the airline that was really to blame because they don’t have any money (at least compared to Boeing).
i'm not a pilot but couldn't the pilot work out what instrument is accurate by process of elimination? for example, low terrain warning could be checked by climbing and see if it turns off. also, you can't clime going too slow so that could've gave clue as to whether they were stall speed or overspeed.
not really - you can never tell which to eliminate unless you have visual of the ground. if the instruments have faulty sensors, you rely on system redundancies. if all those fail, and it's night, over ocean, you're pretty much screwed.
It’s surprising that the first officer was the nephew of one of the investigators💔 and even though he lost his nephew in the crash🛩️💥. He still managed to act professional📚 and put aside his emotions🖤.
@@c.falcon5045 yep literally everything that could go wrong went wrong so many alarms that were contradictory? You wouldn't even see that in films reality is stranger than fiction
Such a tragic incident, I've always wondered why they did not turn around keeping the cities lights in some view and nearer to the airport. Just horrible.....
They should have returned to the airport. Without basic instruments in my mind it is an emergency.. They could have returned and still maintain visual perspective on the horizon.
They was returning back to the airport that wasn’t the problem it was a static port being blocked that was given false readings they was over the sea and didn’t have any landmarks to use for a reference point
Princesaleados is right. The cloud cover that night was at less than 1000 feet, which is definitely not a safe altitude to fly at so as to get a visual reference. The shot in the episode of the plane leaving Lima for the ocean is very misleading.
I am not a pilot, but I know that you should always trust too low terrain warning. There is a separate device like sonar that actually feels the proximity of an object or below. The pilots in this case knew that something is wrong with altitide and speed indication, so they had to at least trust the terrain warning. Just my humble opinion.
Few pieces of tape costing a few cents, brought down a plane, costing millions. with tragic lives lost. 🥲🥲🥲😢 Human error & negligence. So sad & could have been avoided.
If there was tape on the static ports and pitot heads, how did they take off while confirming V1 and (Vr) rotate and the Gears up call without positive rate of climb?
Would be possible to climb a little once the too low terrain starts alarming? Just a try to see if it disconnects, it means it was true they were close to a terrain.
But why though? We have all the data now but the same computer was telling them that they were both stalling and overspending so it was safe to assume that it was just another malfunction. Besides the air controller who they assumed had an independent reading gave them an altitude that was relatively safe Edit: spelling
@@AnonimatosTM True! Let’s suppose they missed the data and the instruments which is the least logical things to miss as a pilot, why they didn’t just pull up? Just pull up..!!!
@@AnonimatosTM Because the GWPS uses a radio altimeter, which is a completely different signal path and completely different instrument. Also, they know the overspeed warning must be bogus, you do not get an overspeed with engines idle and nose not down … and certainly not with airbrakes on top of that! And they knew or should have known the altitude display was doubtful and the speed display was bonkers. I understand there is an emergency checklist for unreliable airspeed that tells you to set the throttle to certain known-good settings and keep a certain attitude to have the speed within a narrow band. No idea if that was on the books at the time of the accident, but that is what - in my completely uninformed and never been there (nor even in a simulator) opinion - they could have tried. As to the ATC and the pilots, they ought to have been taught that the altitude on the radar screen comes from the transponder, not the radar return itself, and should have understood with unreliable altimeter and speed data in the plane at least the altitude on the scope must be assumed doubtful. But in the high stress situation I cannot fault them for not being perfect, they were fed BS information by the computers which were the only interface to the information they needed.
That's usually a good idea but take 1 look at Lima on google maps and you will see the problem. You will see how high the terrain is around (and even in) the city. 2,000 meters mountains surround it. I wouldn't want to fly around there, with no accurate terrain info. They won't crash into a mountain over the sea, it's 1 less thing to worry about. Bare in mind it would be pitch black around these moutains as well. Also Lima airport for both runways requires you to fly over the ocean on approach. They mentioned about wanting to land and this is probably why they flew over the sea. Really there was no good option for them.
I agree with everything that Jack Goldbridge has said. I want to add one more thing. The shot in the episode where the plane flies away from the lights of Lima out toward the ocean is very misleading. According to the accident report, there was a layer of cloud at just 270 metres above sea level. That would have prevented them from seeing the lights, even if the terrain around Lima didn't make it dangerous to fly over the city.
One way to detect something blocking the pitot static system would be to have a way to pressurize the system as a test on start up. If any pressure builds, a warning alerts in the cockpit. If it doesn't then it passes the test. A tiny amount of engine air bleed fed from the cabin pressurization system would be all you need.
There was conflicting information which nobody could have made sense of in addition to flying at night with low visibility. I don’t think any pilot could have saved the plane 😢
Wasn’t Air France 447 later than the Aero Peru accident? I’m not a pilot, but it’s common knowledge to lots of people now that pitot tubes can momentarily freeze and that speed/attitude info generated by the pito/static system, point to it being a computer error. I hope in the same situation I’d give priority to a warning coming from the radio altimeter (the ground proximity warning) which couldn’t be a computer error caused by blocked pitot tubes and “pull up” when instructed to. Mind, in nearly every aviation disaster I’ve watched, the pilots shrug off the EGPWS warning, even when there are .no other warnings going off
I have nearly completed my PPL, I watch ACI and MD series to not only learn from what causes accidents etc but to expand my knowledge ultimately making me a safer pilot. I do not understand how the faulty instruments were not detected at an earlier stage in the flight, the safety checks start at the beginning of the flight and during the flight safety checks (must - should be done frequently example FREDA etc) how have these pilots got this plane into the air without noticing common vital instruments are not working. Unless I missed something as I have watched this partially - surely that is impossible
Most pilots these days learn using a simple Cessna (or similar) to acquire the basics. When flying a passenger jet however pilots rely too heavily on onboard computer systems, often with tragic results. During WW2 B17 and Lancaster pilots routinely managed to land their crippled aircraft back at base with several key parts of the plane missing or severely damaged; they flew on guts, instinct and raw flying skills. In the event of a computer malfunction why don't cabin crews switch off ALL computers and fly the damned thing manually! If they could do it back in 1939-45 they should be able to do it nowadays!
I still don’t understand why pilots aren’t taught more about how their aircraft works. If they knew the altimeters and speed indicators relied on the same sensors and that the GPWS used a separate radar signal, they would have known to trust that one and ignore the others. Also, why don’t ATCs know where their info is coming from ie. That the altitude is coming from the transponder and not triangulated by their radar? They could have just put a bottle of water on the dash as a reference to their attitude and flown safely while waiting for another plane to guide them in to land if they’d had more training and knowledge. Lastly, why not scramble military jets? They’d get to them much faster and be able to see them in their radar and let them know they were only at 700ft. That 707 would be lucky to even find them since it would be looking at 10,000ft, not 1,000ft and has no radar capable of seeing them.
@@LAFC. right, but I meant when they get their type ratings. I wouldn’t expect an A380 pilot to know how systems on a 747 work or vice versa but it seems important to know as much as possible about the plane you are flying on a daily basis, especially when you are taking hundreds of other peoples lives in your hand each time.
@@andrewnajarian5994 How the pitot/static system and altitude transponder system work are actually very basic things that are taught to student pilots, and are the same on all planes*. Diagnosing a blocked static port is also a basic skill that's taught at a beginner level. It's one of those simple things that it's assumed every single pilot knows, but if it's been too long since their primary training and they haven't had any reinforcement training, it's something that could be simply forgotten. Water level is completely useless for determining attitude. Water is affected by the same g forces that affect the human sense of balance. The only (known) way of accurately tracking attitude is either gyroscope, multiple accelerometers in different parts of the plane, or reference to some external source (such as visually observing the horizon). I don't know about the military jets. It's possible that the controller just couldn't contact the military quickly, they didn't have any jets ready to scramble at the time, the base was so far away that the civilian jet could get there faster, or (most likely, IMHO) the controller simply didn't realize how urgent the situation was. * It _has_ to be the same on all planes, to avoid having a situation where two airplanes collide because they're at the same actual altitude, but they _thought_ they were at different altitudes due to differences in their altimeters.
Chilling, and what a tragedy on Aeroperu. What I don't understand is why the pilots would be flying (despite what warnings were being generated by the aircraft) with the engines on idle? I don't understand that.
All modern planes should have 3 mechanical gauges alt,speed and cumpass. Also hydrolic fluid should have valves at the wings and tail so if a leak is detected a valve turns off so not lose all the fluid and have some control.
@@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO _But you can't bail out of a fighter jet over the ocean at night (either)_ You absolutely can. You can bail out from a bomber, too. Even helicopters sometimes have ejection seats. They do work at night. _and hope and pray that a boat will [never] be able to find you._ Maybe you have not heard of emergency beacons and co. Quite common in WWII, and yes, there was quite a bit of night flying. And ditching into the ocean. US subs were among those who picked up airmen. But who am I to destroy your world view with facts?
@@advorak8529 yeah parachutist here, when you're jumping out of a plane, the plane is usually flying more or less 100 mph. We're talking about COMMERCIAL planes carrying REGULAR passengers going commercial speeds usually 300-600mph. you are definitely NOT going to be making a jump at that speed. If the plane is in a dire situation i.e spinning out of control extreme turbulence, good luck orienting yourself to even make it to the door to jump. The only way you're jumping out of a plane safely going faster than 100mph is if you're a paratrooper, but even then, the military plane is going less than 160mph AND the paratroopers are jumping from behind the wings at the sides or from the very back of the aircraft. Again, we're talking about speeds greater than 300mph, going too fast runs the guaranteed risk of damaging your parachute and/or yourself from high air resistance. The opening shock would be absurd. As far as I'm aware, no commercial airliner even has parachutes for their passengers. Another thing too, take a look at a commercial plane where the doors are and then locate where the wings, engines, and horizontal/vertical stabilizers are. If you jump, you are going to instantly die from hitting the wings/stabilizers or getting swallowed by the engines.
Seems only right that everybody involved with this aircraft from Towing it to the gate to pulling it away to washing it to cleaning it to servicing it the pilot should check before departure that there is nothing covering any instrument air intake..........EVERYONE should check to see nothing is covered that shouldnt be...period!! Captain and FO too.
There has to be a way to mechanically. Check for air flow on the pito tubes. See if there's a pressure build up when you add pressure to the situation. There's gotta be a way to put a cover whether it's magnetic or whatever that stays and? Beats and flashes a strobe light something I said beeps
A better solution is all aircraft are getting GPS. That can tell you location, speed and altitude. Provide both sets of number to the flight deck so they can check between them. Knowing the difference between air speed and ground speed is useful so it would be important to leave both systems in place.
A seen episode for me. Seems they (the maker and/or federation) never tested for a fault were the pitot tubes are completely blocked. Also the altitude being only determined by the planes sensors for both pilot and tower is kind of dumb or in the least should have been disclosed to all.
lol at the comments saying what the pilots should have done. even other pilots didn't judge their actions. Also feel sorry for tape guy... he probably wasn't even properly trained and those above him didn't do their job
'you' tape over a sensor. and its the airline manufacturer to tell you, you need to take the tape off? I really dont think you should be flying. i have a staple puller and a bin of magazines that need to be worked on. i think this is more your speed. - seriously.
Haze, cloud base below 300 feet, 2000 feet mountains etc in close vicinity, approach to any runway requires going over sea … Flying over the city would not have been a good idea at all.
If you have the throttles set to idle, you’re going to lose altitude, because gravity is not variable and can be trusted regardless of what the instruments are telling you.
There is a simple solution. Each aircraft is issued a set of covers for external fittings with the aircrafts tail number on them. Before take-off they must be attached to a board in the cabin in a particular order and the aircraft is not allowed to fly unless they are in place.
How can a small piece of tape on one sensor cause all of this? Are there no alternative or backup sensors and instruments? Like three different altimeter and speed displays receiving their data from different sensors and by different methods, so that one faulty instrument can be identified and disregarded?
Imprisoned for a time and for the rest of his life has the knowledge that his actions led to a plane crash killing everybody on board. What is that employee's life worth anymore?!!
The pilots should have stayed over the lights on land, near the airport they took off from, instead of heading out over the completely dark ocean. They knew already the altimeter was not working.
I can't believe that there would be a situation where an aircraft in flight would have the engines set to idle. I'm not a pilot so there may be a good reason.
No one has mentioned the one basic thing that both the pilots and air traffic controller should have known right from the very start and if either did they could have saved the plane. The pilots and controller didn't seen to understand that the controller was reading out the altitude which came from the planes faulty altimeter through the secondary radar/transponder, (so no point asking the controller what altitude they are at). They needed to establish if the controller could find their Primary radar altitude or only their secondary/transponder altitude. This is an incredibly basic fact that the controller should have known straight away but the pilots too. Neither the pilot nor the controller asked or understood their own equipment. To start with all the pilots needed to do was set the throttles and attitude on the ADI for climb while turning the plane around while asking the the controller to read out their ground speed at regular intervals (but not altitude) with the aim of getting the lights of the city in view in order to get back a visual reference. Furthermore the pilots should have recognised that all of the erroneous warnings derived from the pitot static system through the air data computer, but when the too low terrain warning came which uses a ground proximity system, they needed to take that seriously because it was not part of the pitot static system. Sorry I don't share the excuse that the pilots were in a difficult situation, they performed dismally, useless in fact.
If you listen closely, when Fernandez asks for ILS vectors, Schreiber replies “not yet, let’s get stabilised.” (It’s obscured by the narration.) Being the captain and the pilot flying, it was his decision. I agree it would have been better to turn back earlier; delaying landing to get stabilised is more of a process for when you have structural damage.
From what I have watched in this channel so far, Boeing has been evading taking responsibility and pushing it to the airlines. It's about time Boeing faces the music and pays off for all their wrongdoings. The 737-Max story might just be the icing on the cake for action against Boeing.
You lose and altitude and speed reading, WTF? Why did they not turn back and do an emergency landing? NVM they attempted to...how sad, and due to a tape that was not removed.
Why are the tubes covered with tape on the ground instead of having very specific caps that are fluorescent yellow to put over the end of the tubes that are connected to each other by cable and impossible to miss once maintenance is completed? But no a bit of sticky tape will do
The aircraft should have had a working GPS-based ground speed indication. Yet according to the video they keep asking ATC for their ground speed, don't use it do resolve the stall/overspeed conflict, and the video doesn't touch on this at all?
Watching the video and seeing that the pilots couldn't trust their instruments, after a while I would of asked if there was another plane near by. Their instruments were working and could of provided correct readings. I know they asked for a recovery plane but it was too late. I don't mean any disrespect, it's easy for me to type this sitting in my backyard.
The manufacturer should have foreseen all malfunctions and provided ways to overcome them. Instead of issuing a single warning about non-functioning sensors, the computer has gone crazy and bombarded the pilots with garbage alarms. The disaster was mainly caused by incredibly defective software. The pilots were also resopnsible, since they would have to return immediately. While Lima was in sight, they were able to control the flight visually. By the way, it is not clear do they have radio altimeter and why they don't use it.
yes but it was only used mostly for gpws and it is also only used for radio minimums but you have to select it over barometric minimums for it to use it and radio altimeters only just got mandated in 2017 by the faa for civil aviation
In a "steam gauges" airplane you can break the glass on the rate-of-climb indicator (ie the least important gauge) and it will serve as an alternate static air pressure source (which gives you altimeter back). Obviously with a computerized display cockpit all smashing the display will do is make you feel better, cause the real guts are down inside someplace you cant get at. As often as planes crash with frozen pitot tubes or AoA sensors, they need to have an emergency backup set of them behind a panel that they can deploy in an emergency like a RAT.
In an airline panel of this era the pilot would be reading data from the air data system. These instruments may or may not have pneumatic connections. The airdata system sends altimetry and airspeed as electrical signals to the instruments. Also, in an aircraft with a pressurized cabin that idea depends on opening up the cabin pressure to atmospheric which should be automatic.
Yes, that is a possibility however the cabin altitude controller may open to outside air pressure under 10,000 feet. Again, this aircraft most likely had an air data system and even with mechanical gauges the functions are more complex that light aircraft gauges. The pilots could have reverted to radar altitude below 2500 feet.
@@m2heavyindustries378 Yes, but pressurization only comes into play above that altitude, where you arent really worried much about hitting something; other than another airplane at least, and an altimeter isnt all that useful for that. Alternatively you can turn the pressurization off. This happens so often (or at least a habitual watcher of "Mayday..." would think it so) I would have thought they would just have the computer periodically pump a burst of air into the line and see if it went away and if not, set off (yet another) alarm.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![Stromae, Pomme - “Ma Meilleure Ennemie” (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Visualizer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1F3OGIFnW1k/mqdefault.jpg)
Even watching this give me anxiety with all the alarms going off, must be terrifying for them
@@mrbiaux991 exactly,,,un nerving event
Toughen up
@@trapmfnicc3022 💪 amazing
Nah, they dont even hear them. There are 2,179 different alarms in a cockpit. Actually they should add a 2,180th one that only sounds if one of the others is ACTUALLY important and needs paid attention to...
@@natehill8069 surely there aren’t 2,179 alarms going off at the same time?! That’s a weirdly specific amount as well 😊.
That was bloody awful. Poor pilots and passengers. RIP
The actors in these videos give award performances! They are really good!
I believe the actor playing the ATC was a Canadian actor who was in a show called Degrassi, he played a character named Joey Jeremiah. Sounds like him and looks like him. Just checked, it's him his name is Pat Mastroianni.
I agree. I can binge watch these episodes over and over.
@@moiraatkinsonYes, however bad your life currently is, watch one of these and suddenly you are glad to be alive. The pilot actors must feel this doubly so.
@@rebelruth9582funnily enough that’s how I started watching air crash documentaries. I was in hospital following an emergency operation and I used to look for videos that made me realise there were people worse off than myself.
Yes, the actors, in these aviation disasters programs, give award-worthy performances!👏
RIP, to the passengers, and crew.🙏
Omg 1996 was a bad year for airline accidents. Rest In Peace to all the victims.
Yup TWA 800 being the most infamous of course
@@liamb8644 oh, twa 800 was also in 96? didnt know that...
I've read and listened to the CVR transcript and recording many times, and have looked at the route that the plane flew. This is the basic progression of the flight:
Fernandez was flying the plane at takeoff. Shortly after takeoff, the pilots realised that they had an instrument problem. For the first minute or so the plane was flying along the coast. Schreiber ordered Fernandez to turn to the right, probably to get away from land and reduce the chance of a collision as their altimeters weren't working. The crew declared an emergency about a minute and a half later. It was around this point that Schreiber decided to take control of the plane from Fernandez.
The pilots disagreed about what to do next. Fernandez wanted to land right away; Schreiber wanted to spend some time to stabilise. Schreiber, being the captain and pilot flying, got his way. The plane continued on a south-westerly heading, out over the ocean, as the pilots assessed the situation. At 12:51 am, Schreiber apparently decided that the situation had stabilised, and turned the plane to a north- to north-westerly heading. (This turn is not shown in the episode.)
At this point, the plane was flying basically parallel to the runway. The plan was that the pilots would fly north of the airport, turn around 180 degrees to the right, and come in and land. But as they were flying north, the airspeed indicators began giving very high readings, and the overspeed warning went off. Spooked by this, at approximately 12:57 am, they extended the speed brakes.
The speed brakes caused the plane to slow down greatly, and at approximately 1 am, eventually stall. Fernandez realised this for what it was; Schreiber did not. Unfortunately, because Schreiber was flying the plane, the stall recovery procedure was not properly initiated. The plane continued to descend until it was dangerously close to the ground, triggering the terrain alarm at approximately 1:02 am.
Schreiber was spooked enough by the terrain alarm that he turned the plane to the left, to the west, further away from any chance of flying over land. What's not shown in the episode is that 45 seconds after the turn began, the terrain alarm shut off; the plane had just climbed high enough to turn it off. (The episode shows the terrain alarm on constantly once it activates.) What's also not shown is that a couple of minutes after the pilots turned left, the controller told them that they were at 10,000 feet. Upon hearing this, Schreiber decided to turn back to the east and begin landing. This turn is not shown in the episode. (At this point, despite the stress shown in the episode, the pilots actually sound quite calm on the CVR.)
Following the first activation of the terrain alarm, the plane had climbed to 4,000 feet. But at about 1:07 am, Schreiber, believing the plane to be at 10,000 feet, initiated a descent to capture the ILS. This is shown in the episode. This is the final decision that brought the plane down. The plane drifted down from 4,000 feet, until the terrain alarm was triggered again at 1:10 am. (The episode does not show this, as it shows the terrain alarm always on.) Fernandez's confidence that the plane was at a safe height immediately evaporated. He started to doubt the correctness of the 9,700 ft reading on the scope, hence his comment to the controller "Are you sure you have us on the radar at 50 miles?" Unfortunately, he was not flying the plane. Schreiber was, and Schreiber was by now unbothered by the terrain alarm. He continued the descent, believing it necessary to capture the ILS, until the plane hit the water.
Where can you find the original transcripts?
I don't come to RUclips to read novels. The video speaks for itself.
@@nickv4073 You don't have to read my comment if you don't want. But 28 other people found it useful. Also, in my comment I explain a number of factors that the video missed.
@@nickv4073 why didn't you just scrolled past it then? Why the need to comment?
Thx. Yes, appreciate better facts. The alarms made hard to watch so skipped ahead. Maintenance error by ground crew and pilot who paid with his life. Jailing the worker was not justice. Settling w families for agonizing vs sudden deaths. Not like it was intentional but who knows, maybe it was a mistreated workers revenge and didn't know made impossible to land.
This is by far the most chilling air crash investigation episode. No competition
I watched one equally chilling earlier. Plane dropped 10,000 ft in Venezuela.
What about JAL 123, worst single airline accident ever?
What a terrible death they suffered because of a little piece of tape! It's unimaginable! RIP
Man, radar showing them at 9700 while they are hitting the water. What a tragedy.
I don't understand the reasons the reading from the tower called it wrong. That is terrible and uncomfortable to know they could be so wrong.
@jacquelineoutlaw3252
Radar has made incredible advances. At the time, it, RADAR would ask the plane for information. Altitude, and speed. The plane would tell the radar what its speed was and altitude.
To use another example. What state do I live in? Judging by my area code, 407, Florida would be a good guess. However, I may have mived and have not changed my phone number yet.
In short, you can only work with information you have.
The pilots and controller should have known that the altitude was being given by the plane and not assumed that the tower alt was more accurate than the on board instruments...as in fact they were the same readings. Saying that...these guys had no real chance either way
The same wrong altitude that the pilot sees on his altimeter is transmitted to the ground as Gillham code data. So the radar altitude is coming to the radar screen from a data signal. It is not an altitude reading computed from a radar echo.
The radar altimeter in the cockpit would have shown the altitude above the water. This would only work up to 2500 feet above the water. The pilots may have been able to use this if they understood the situation with the static pressures feeding the pneumatic altimeters.
@@alexramrattan3500all of that in the emergency situation and not having any sighting outside to even notice
As a pilot I feel sorry for the controller, who gave the crew false hope by accident.
I haven’t been in such a situation, but if I’d receive over speed and stall = I’d believe the stall warning.
If I’d receive a GPWS warning I’d believe it despite any reading.
It’s always Aviate, Navigate, communicate. So my main priority would be to keep the plane airborne.
Easy to say, but that would be my way to go - depending on other factors as well…
They were probably in a situation where they didn't even know which way was UP and which was DOWN. Total blank space. Like a spacecraft travelling in space.
@@indianfan1029Not in this case. Although the speed and altitude readings have been wrong due to the covered static port, the attitude display was fully functioning. Even if that one was wrong, there is the (analog) backup attitude indicator. If you lose your displays, this one is still working.
According to the final report, they hit the water with the left wing tip first.
Even if you lose all the additional tech in your cockpit, just fly it like a Cessna plane - with basic numbers instrumentation.
It is easier said than done, but not impossible (depending on your emergency and system/technical failure).
@@Aviator747 i dont think you would have done better than them mate, its easy when you're watching this from a comfy chair on youtube
@@ura9390 well, I’m also sitting in the left seat of a 748 and we do regular sim training for most possible emergency situations we could possible face when flying. I didn’t say anywhere I’d done it better, I said how I’d act in such a situation. So don’t try come sideways at a professional from your comfy seat.
@@Aviator747 mate you may think you're a big hero and know better than those poor pilots, but with a billion alarms going off and being fed faulty info by ATC literally in the dark don't try to come sideways slapping your own back as if only you would have saved the day, have some respect and also some understanding of how this unfolded in real time, rather than how it does when watching Air Crash investigation on RUclips from your comfy armchair
In high school I used to wash airplanes. We had to tape up the pitots and statics. But (since we were all pilot students) when we were done we always triple checked that we removed the tape!
they should have had typed checklists for that stuff like the pilots do. that way no remembering, just doing what's on the checklist. every. single. time. last checkbox... take off the tape!
It may bave been helpful to use an extremely bright and transparent coulor that could easily be seen.
@@daviddavis3389 i think typically they do. Here's what i got from wiki regarding this crash and the covers:
The design of the aircraft did not incorporate a system of maintenance covers for the static ports. Such covers are commonly employed in aviation for blocking access to critical components when the aircraft is not in operation and are generally a bright color and carry flags (which may have "remove before flight" markings). Instead, the design of the aircraft and the relevant maintenance procedure called for the use of adhesive tape to cover the ports.
@@cheery-hex Part of the pilots’ checklist is to do the pre-flight walk around. The pilot performing the walk around on this flight overlooked the taped static port.
@@margarethagerman1652 It was grey tape on grey fuselage, 17 feet up, at night. He was using a non-LED flashlight to look for lots of potential issues all at once and had no reason to expect someone would use grey instead of the required bright red. That was one step above using clear tape. 3 other people also missed it, including the guy who put it there. I think your expectations of the pilot are a little too high.
I kind of pity the person who left the tape on the pitot tubes. Can you imagine having to live with the knowledge that YOU are responsible for the loss of all those lives?
I’m sure they feel the weight of the responsibility, but it’s unfair to put it all on that person. It’s worth noting, according to the video, that there were two other people (a supervisor and inspector) who were supposed to check that the tape had been removed, but did not. The captain did the preflight walk around and apparently missed it too.
@@messmeister92yeah
Very unfortunate. That will really haunt.
the pilot is supposed to walk around the aircraft and look for things like that before every flight. It's never up to just one person, there is a string of people responsible but ultimately it falls on the captain's shoulders.
The point is, it’s not the maintenance guy’s responsibility! Thou shalt not kick the cat! Boeing should take responsibility for making the most important part of the plane so vulnerable. The solution is easy. As the engines are powered down, motorised covers cover the tubes and other sensors, so the plane can be washed etc… Then when the plane is powered up, those covers are automatically opened, and a computerised self-check is initiated to verify that all is well. They can do this on camera sensors and camera lenses. Why not on a plane. Instead, they blame the lowliest member of the workforce. Wasn’t his fault at all.
This is why I'll never fly at night, or during a crazy weather forecast. I've avoided three crashes listening to my gut instincts. It was obviously worth any 8 hour delay. God bless those precious souls that perished. 🙏✨️✈️😿
It’s cool to fly at night but not over the sea because you don’t have any landmarks to determine if you’re climbing or descending especially if the instrument aren’t working correctly
@@Dizz3378Today, everyone has GPS, making a rough (a few dozen feet off) altitude check easy via your phone.
Same here! I only fly during the day. More so because I don’t want to arrive at my destination at night but after watching several episodes I have another reason.
I will never fly period. as this channel shows too much incompetence in the maintenance and mechanics of the planes. The airlines are rushing through to make more money and the passengers are just guinea pigs
Feet wet is definitely a NO-GO when Blind IFR.
Never saw an answer for why the pilot went by ATCs altitude figures when even non-pilots know that ATC doesn’t use actual radar - these figures are sent from the aircrafts own instruments via transponder.
The airline is certainly responsible for improper training, but if a manufacturer says "Do it this way and not that way" and someone does it that way instead of this way then the manufacturer is ABSOLUTELY NOT at fault.
I sort of agree with you, however if you buy a food slicer and the manufacturer did not provide any safety cover, it instead just said on the box 'don't cut yourself'... it seems to me that they would be partially responsible
@@cheery-hex Personally, I call that slicer a "knife". ;)
Those Pilots fought to the very end ! 😢😢😢😢😢😢
As all pilots worth anything will. You never give up, even if you want to. Unless you are murderously suicidal and descending into a mountain range.
Of course the chance you will die is high, but you cannot win if you don’t play the game.
I dont think it was fair to blame it on the employee, in such case, the supervisor and manager were also responsible. It was a mistake, he was not trained properly on how important was to remove such piece of tape.
That's right, but the chain always breaks at the weakest link.🤷♂️
None of the pilots did a walk about.
True,but the worker used gray duct tape instead of the standard bright colored tape.
@@serdna9307
Agree. he was probably trained improperly and b/c those above him did not do their job he went to jail
Apparently was a miscommunication between the pilots and the air controller. The pilots were asking the controller to give them their altitude. At 13:50 the narrator said " but neither the pilot or the traffic controller knew that the altitude indicated on the scope was incorrect " Since the ground radar can't read the altitude of the plane the controller sees the information that is send by the plane's transponder. In my opinion the pilots and the controllers should have an extensive technical training of how things work.
I'm electrical and electronics technician repairing machines in factories. I always demand from the operator to be present during the repair process. He knows best all the tricks and how the machine should be working.
Its like the hospital cleaner unpluging equipment to plug her hoover in. Then finding out the death rates up because she was unplugging life support
Captain and XO should've immediately declared an emergency and turned back for Lima. It would've saved their passengers, themselves, along with their aircraft, but hindsight is always 20/20.
Easy to say when sitting at home and not being in that situation
@@TalaR04Whacha call "hindsight," or some such.
They should have declared an emergency once they found the altimeters non-working, they took a bit of time to take stock.
But even turning around immediately and declaring an emergency would not have changed the outcome in any relevant way, except for possibly crashing into some houses.
Using this attorney’s logic, we should get rid of attorney’s because it’s foreseeable that people will use them to sue innocent people. 😂
It’s not Boeing’s fault someone ignored the warning written on the side of the plane and taped over the ports and then inadvertently forgot to remove it. If the guy hired to wash the plane wasn’t competent, that’s the fault of the airline who hired and trained him. Give me a break. He’s just an ambulance chaser that saw 💰 when he found a way to try to blame a big company with deep pockets. Notice he didn’t go after the airline that was really to blame because they don’t have any money (at least compared to Boeing).
RIP to everyone that has died
i'm not a pilot but couldn't the pilot work out what instrument is accurate by process of elimination? for example, low terrain warning could be checked by climbing and see if it turns off. also, you can't clime going too slow so that could've gave clue as to whether they were stall speed or overspeed.
not really - you can never tell which to eliminate unless you have visual of the ground. if the instruments have faulty sensors, you rely on system redundancies. if all those fail, and it's night, over ocean, you're pretty much screwed.
It’s surprising that the first officer was the nephew of one of the investigators💔 and even though he lost his nephew in the crash🛩️💥. He still managed to act professional📚 and put aside his emotions🖤.
What's with people using emojis like this?
Pilots must return to the airport as soon they detected the instrument failed.
Agreed!
@@c.falcon5045 overspeed stall too low terrain it wasn't them who was controlling the plane it has a mind of it's own
@@Magister195 It was a sh*I show no doubt about it.
@@c.falcon5045 yep literally everything that could go wrong went wrong so many alarms that were contradictory? You wouldn't even see that in films reality is stranger than fiction
@@Magister195 RIP TO ALL THE LOST SOULS!🙏🏾🥀
Such a tragic incident, I've always wondered why they did not turn around keeping the cities lights in some view and nearer to the airport. Just horrible.....
I agree! They should have immediately turned around once they knew there was a problem. The city lights were their only points of reference!
Happens all the time...pilots trust TOO MUCH on their abilities , putting at risk lives of others
@@serdna9307yea and some survive on ither accidents. Some is total malfunction of the plane
@@axeljacobs9723 exactly
My thought exactly
Flying out into open ocean night was a mistake. Lights inland could have helped them a bit
If you had to choose between overspeed and stalling speed while the engines are at idle i think the choice should be pretty obvious.
this is two times that the Boeing 757 has crashed Birgenair and AeroPeru
They should have returned to the airport. Without basic instruments in my mind it is an emergency.. They could have returned and still maintain visual perspective on the horizon.
Yup. They needed the city lights as a visual reference on the horizon/ altitude.
They were returning to the airport actually.
@@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO it was a foggy night with no stars, they couldnt see the city lights
They was returning back to the airport that wasn’t the problem it was a static port being blocked that was given false readings they was over the sea and didn’t have any landmarks to use for a reference point
Princesaleados is right. The cloud cover that night was at less than 1000 feet, which is definitely not a safe altitude to fly at so as to get a visual reference. The shot in the episode of the plane leaving Lima for the ocean is very misleading.
I am not a pilot, but I know that you should always trust too low terrain warning. There is a separate device like sonar that actually feels the proximity of an object or below. The pilots in this case knew that something is wrong with altitide and speed indication, so they had to at least trust the terrain warning. Just my humble opinion.
Few pieces of tape costing a few cents, brought down a plane, costing millions. with tragic lives lost. 🥲🥲🥲😢 Human error & negligence. So sad & could have been avoided.
If there was tape on the static ports and pitot heads, how did they take off while confirming V1 and (Vr) rotate and the Gears up call without positive rate of climb?
May all the victims rest in peace.
Would be possible to climb a little once the too low terrain starts alarming? Just a try to see if it disconnects, it means it was true they were close to a terrain.
But why though? We have all the data now but the same computer was telling them that they were both stalling and overspending so it was safe to assume that it was just another malfunction. Besides the air controller who they assumed had an independent reading gave them an altitude that was relatively safe
Edit: spelling
@@AnonimatosTM True! Let’s suppose they missed the data and the instruments which is the least logical things to miss as a pilot, why they didn’t just pull up? Just pull up..!!!
@@AnonimatosTM Because the GWPS uses a radio altimeter, which is a completely different signal path and completely different instrument.
Also, they know the overspeed warning must be bogus, you do not get an overspeed with engines idle and nose not down … and certainly not with airbrakes on top of that!
And they knew or should have known the altitude display was doubtful and the speed display was bonkers.
I understand there is an emergency checklist for unreliable airspeed that tells you to set the throttle to certain known-good settings and keep a certain attitude to have the speed within a narrow band. No idea if that was on the books at the time of the accident, but that is what - in my completely uninformed and never been there (nor even in a simulator) opinion - they could have tried.
As to the ATC and the pilots, they ought to have been taught that the altitude on the radar screen comes from the transponder, not the radar return itself, and should have understood with unreliable altimeter and speed data in the plane at least the altitude on the scope must be assumed doubtful.
But in the high stress situation I cannot fault them for not being perfect, they were fed BS information by the computers which were the only interface to the information they needed.
Crazy how an investigator gets a call about a plane crash then must board a plane to get to the crash site...😮
I mean it’s kind of like fatal car accidents 🤷
that has crossed my mind😮
Not really considering its the most safe form of transport, his drive to or from the airport would have been more dangerous
too far to walk mate
😂😂
If you lose all instruments...never leave lights for a black ocean!
That's usually a good idea but take 1 look at Lima on google maps and you will see the problem. You will see how high the terrain is around (and even in) the city. 2,000 meters mountains surround it. I wouldn't want to fly around there, with no accurate terrain info. They won't crash into a mountain over the sea, it's 1 less thing to worry about. Bare in mind it would be pitch black around these moutains as well.
Also Lima airport for both runways requires you to fly over the ocean on approach. They mentioned about wanting to land and this is probably why they flew over the sea. Really there was no good option for them.
I agree with everything that Jack Goldbridge has said. I want to add one more thing.
The shot in the episode where the plane flies away from the lights of Lima out toward the ocean is very misleading. According to the accident report, there was a layer of cloud at just 270 metres above sea level. That would have prevented them from seeing the lights, even if the terrain around Lima didn't make it dangerous to fly over the city.
And you do NOT want to crash into buildings at 1am. The people sleeping there are innocent and did not agree to ride a plane.
What a horrible preventable tragedy.
Rest in peace all of the victims.
My deepest condolences to all if their loved ones
Why did not they return to the airport directly when the problems began?
They pretty much did, however, without knowing where the plane is altitude-wise, landing is going to be a real problem.
I feel sad for the passengers. They didn't even know that the plane was in danger. Its just going to be a sudden death with no time to think.
I can't exactly explain why, but I've watched hundreds of these, and this one had me crying on the kitchen floor.
Grow up
One way to detect something blocking the pitot static system would be to have a way to pressurize the system as a test on start up. If any pressure builds, a warning alerts in the cockpit. If it doesn't then it passes the test. A tiny amount of engine air bleed fed from the cabin pressurization system would be all you need.
There was conflicting information which nobody could have made sense of in addition to flying at night with low visibility. I don’t think any pilot could have saved the plane 😢
Pilot Instinct and experience in pitch darkness isn't as simple as people think.
Who thinks it is? Lol
This is probably why they’re taught to ignore everything except their instruments. True?
Wasn’t Air France 447 later than the Aero Peru accident? I’m not a pilot, but it’s common knowledge to lots of people now that pitot tubes can momentarily freeze and that speed/attitude info generated by the pito/static system, point to it being a computer error. I hope in the same situation I’d give priority to a warning coming from the radio altimeter (the ground proximity warning) which couldn’t be a computer error caused by blocked pitot tubes and “pull up” when instructed to. Mind, in nearly every aviation disaster I’ve watched, the pilots shrug off the EGPWS warning, even when there are .no other warnings going off
I have nearly completed my PPL, I watch ACI and MD series to not only learn from what causes accidents etc but to expand my knowledge ultimately making me a safer pilot. I do not understand how the faulty instruments were not detected at an earlier stage in the flight, the safety checks start at the beginning of the flight and during the flight safety checks (must - should be done frequently example FREDA etc) how have these pilots got this plane into the air without noticing common vital instruments are not working. Unless I missed something as I have watched this partially - surely that is impossible
Most pilots these days learn using a simple Cessna (or similar) to acquire the basics.
When flying a passenger jet however pilots rely too heavily on onboard computer systems, often with tragic results.
During WW2 B17 and Lancaster pilots routinely managed to land their crippled aircraft back at base with several key parts of the plane missing or severely damaged; they flew on guts, instinct and raw flying skills. In the event of a computer malfunction why don't cabin crews switch off ALL computers and fly the damned thing manually! If they could do it back in 1939-45 they should be able to do it nowadays!
I can't imagine how stressfull it must have been in the cockpit, with no clear idea of what's happening.
I still don’t understand why pilots aren’t taught more about how their aircraft works. If they knew the altimeters and speed indicators relied on the same sensors and that the GPWS used a separate radar signal, they would have known to trust that one and ignore the others. Also, why don’t ATCs know where their info is coming from ie. That the altitude is coming from the transponder and not triangulated by their radar?
They could have just put a bottle of water on the dash as a reference to their attitude and flown safely while waiting for another plane to guide them in to land if they’d had more training and knowledge.
Lastly, why not scramble military jets? They’d get to them much faster and be able to see them in their radar and let them know they were only at 700ft. That 707 would be lucky to even find them since it would be looking at 10,000ft, not 1,000ft and has no radar capable of seeing them.
They are now, but this was way back. I agree though, the absence of understanding of how these systems work is stunning.
Because aircrafts work differently. In addition to that airports and ATC have different work methods in different countries.
@@LAFC. right, but I meant when they get their type ratings. I wouldn’t expect an A380 pilot to know how systems on a 747 work or vice versa but it seems important to know as much as possible about the plane you are flying on a daily basis, especially when you are taking hundreds of other peoples lives in your hand each time.
@@andrewnajarian5994 How the pitot/static system and altitude transponder system work are actually very basic things that are taught to student pilots, and are the same on all planes*. Diagnosing a blocked static port is also a basic skill that's taught at a beginner level. It's one of those simple things that it's assumed every single pilot knows, but if it's been too long since their primary training and they haven't had any reinforcement training, it's something that could be simply forgotten.
Water level is completely useless for determining attitude. Water is affected by the same g forces that affect the human sense of balance. The only (known) way of accurately tracking attitude is either gyroscope, multiple accelerometers in different parts of the plane, or reference to some external source (such as visually observing the horizon).
I don't know about the military jets. It's possible that the controller just couldn't contact the military quickly, they didn't have any jets ready to scramble at the time, the base was so far away that the civilian jet could get there faster, or (most likely, IMHO) the controller simply didn't realize how urgent the situation was.
* It _has_ to be the same on all planes, to avoid having a situation where two airplanes collide because they're at the same actual altitude, but they _thought_ they were at different altitudes due to differences in their altimeters.
@@LAFC. In this specific way, no, airplanes actually _all_ work the same.
Chilling, and what a tragedy on Aeroperu. What I don't understand is why the pilots would be flying (despite what warnings were being generated by the aircraft) with the engines on idle? I don't understand that.
The pilot and/or co-pilot are also responsible. They are required to do a walk around before the flight just for this reason.
"... I don't have to let go, I don't want to let go". Thank you! Freddy Chavré of Maple Valley
All modern planes should have 3 mechanical gauges alt,speed and cumpass.
Also hydrolic fluid should have valves at the wings and tail so if a leak is detected a valve turns off so not lose all the fluid and have some control.
0:50 " estamos impactando el agua!". We're impact the water😢😢😢
May they rest in peace 😢💔
I wanted to be a pilot, but a military pilot., not a commercial pilot, because you can't bail out of a commercial plane.
well unless you're going to be in a jet fighter, if you ever find yourself in a bad position you'll be in the cockpit unable to jump out.
But you can't bail our of a fighter jet over the ocean at night (either), and hope and pray that a boat will [never] be able to find you.
@@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO _But you can't bail out of a fighter jet over the ocean at night (either)_
You absolutely can. You can bail out from a bomber, too. Even helicopters sometimes have ejection seats. They do work at night.
_and hope and pray that a boat will [never] be able to find you._
Maybe you have not heard of emergency beacons and co. Quite common in WWII, and yes, there was quite a bit of night flying. And ditching into the ocean.
US subs were among those who picked up airmen.
But who am I to destroy your world view with facts?
_you can't bail out of a commercial plane._
Parachutists beg to differ.
And some planes have parachutes for the whole plane.
@@advorak8529 yeah parachutist here, when you're jumping out of a plane, the plane is usually flying more or less 100 mph. We're talking about COMMERCIAL planes carrying REGULAR passengers going commercial speeds usually 300-600mph. you are definitely NOT going to be making a jump at that speed. If the plane is in a dire situation i.e spinning out of control extreme turbulence, good luck orienting yourself to even make it to the door to jump. The only way you're jumping out of a plane safely going faster than 100mph is if you're a paratrooper, but even then, the military plane is going less than 160mph AND the paratroopers are jumping from behind the wings at the sides or from the very back of the aircraft. Again, we're talking about speeds greater than 300mph, going too fast runs the guaranteed risk of damaging your parachute and/or yourself from high air resistance. The opening shock would be absurd. As far as I'm aware, no commercial airliner even has parachutes for their passengers. Another thing too, take a look at a commercial plane where the doors are and then locate where the wings, engines, and horizontal/vertical stabilizers are. If you jump, you are going to instantly die from hitting the wings/stabilizers or getting swallowed by the engines.
If these systems components are so critical and fragile why are they dont fit more of them?
Seems only right that everybody involved with this aircraft from Towing it to the gate to pulling it away to washing it to cleaning it to servicing it the pilot should check before departure that there is nothing covering any instrument air intake..........EVERYONE should check to see nothing is covered that shouldnt be...period!! Captain and FO too.
This kind of documentaries always break my heart
This is why BOTH of the pilots are supposed to do a pre-flight inspection. We always did (military). No exception, ever.
Well done by the actors you can hear / feel the confusion and fear in their voices
At 2 dollars an hour? That’s negligent in itself 🤦🏽♀️
There has to be a way to mechanically. Check for air flow on the pito tubes. See if there's a pressure build up when you add pressure to the situation. There's gotta be a way to put a cover whether it's magnetic or whatever that stays and?
Beats and flashes a strobe light something I said beeps
A better solution is all aircraft are getting GPS. That can tell you location, speed and altitude. Provide both sets of number to the flight deck so they can check between them. Knowing the difference between air speed and ground speed is useful so it would be important to leave both systems in place.
A seen episode for me. Seems they (the maker and/or federation) never tested for a fault were the pitot tubes are completely blocked. Also the altitude being only determined by the planes sensors for both pilot and tower is kind of dumb or in the least should have been disclosed to all.
Anybody else that listens to this to fall asleep? Lol.
The narrator voice is so soothing….😴
lol at the comments saying what the pilots should have done. even other pilots didn't judge their actions. Also feel sorry for tape guy... he probably wasn't even properly trained and those above him didn't do their job
'you' tape over a sensor. and its the airline manufacturer to tell you, you need to take the tape off? I really dont think you should be flying. i have a staple puller and a bin of magazines that need to be worked on. i think this is more your speed. - seriously.
While it was terrible the guy left the tape, getting jailed for a simple mistake is crazy!
they Left the only visual aid to recalibrate their spatial bearings, the night lights of the city behind them.. Its sad... Condolences to the families
Haze, cloud base below 300 feet, 2000 feet mountains etc in close vicinity, approach to any runway requires going over sea …
Flying over the city would not have been a good idea at all.
@@advorak8529 So very tragic...
Its sad what?
You can't blame pilots when all areoplane systems failed they are helpless what is the duty of checking staff supervisor to sleep
If you have the throttles set to idle, you’re going to lose altitude, because gravity is not variable and can be trusted regardless of what the instruments are telling you.
Brilliant !! Using Silver TAPE.
why not tape the pitot tubes as well ??
This is exactly why I do not trust a computer to have control of ANYTHING regarding my life. I will not hand myself over to it.
I mean the computers censors were blocked so of course it didn't work properly.
@@joshntn37111”censors” were blocked😃
I see what you did there👍
@@joshntn37111And still, the radar has failed them. So I see the first person's point.
😅😅😅😅 And yet you do every day ... and this was human error, not caused by a computer.
@@danhickman7103Not every plane crash is caused by human error. Maybe in this case, but a failed radar is the cause also.
There is a simple solution. Each aircraft is issued a set of covers for external fittings with the aircrafts tail number on them. Before take-off they must be attached to a board in the cabin in a particular order and the aircraft is not allowed to fly unless they are in place.
How can a small piece of tape on one sensor cause all of this? Are there no alternative or backup sensors and instruments? Like three different altimeter and speed displays receiving their data from different sensors and by different methods, so that one faulty instrument can be identified and disregarded?
Do those alarms really need to be that stress inducing it seems counter productive.
Imprisoned for a time and for the rest of his life has the knowledge that his actions led to a plane crash killing everybody on board. What is that employee's life worth anymore?!!
The pilots should have stayed over the lights on land, near the airport they took off from, instead of heading out over the completely dark ocean. They knew already the altimeter was not working.
Aviate Navigate Communicate . Altitude is your best friend .
I can't believe that there would be a situation where an aircraft in flight would have the engines set to idle. I'm not a pilot so there may be a good reason.
What's up with the jittery video? The picture jumping up and down is really distracting.
No one has mentioned the one basic thing that both the pilots and air traffic controller should have known right from the very start and if either did they could have saved the plane. The pilots and controller didn't seen to understand that the controller was reading out the altitude which came from the planes faulty altimeter through the secondary radar/transponder, (so no point asking the controller what altitude they are at). They needed to establish if the controller could find their Primary radar altitude or only their secondary/transponder altitude. This is an incredibly basic fact that the controller should have known straight away but the pilots too. Neither the pilot nor the controller asked or understood their own equipment. To start with all the pilots needed to do was set the throttles and attitude on the ADI for climb while turning the plane around while asking the the controller to read out their ground speed at regular intervals (but not altitude) with the aim of getting the lights of the city in view in order to get back a visual reference. Furthermore the pilots should have recognised that all of the erroneous warnings derived from the pitot static system through the air data computer, but when the too low terrain warning came which uses a ground proximity system, they needed to take that seriously because it was not part of the pitot static system. Sorry I don't share the excuse that the pilots were in a difficult situation, they performed dismally, useless in fact.
This guy is enjoying himself 24:05
Boeing should not have paid out any settlement in this case. The blame here lies with Aeroperu and their maintenance workers.
True they blame the American.
I agree 100%.
I e been binging these kinds of plane accidents and this is too 3 worst thing you ever want to know could/did happen
Why didn't they immediately turn back to the airport???
Immediately. As soon as the first warning was received and they knew they had bad data.
@@kamakaziozzie3038 that's what im saying LOL.... Like there is a giant gap between takeoff & first radio call of issues
If you listen closely, when Fernandez asks for ILS vectors, Schreiber replies “not yet, let’s get stabilised.” (It’s obscured by the narration.) Being the captain and the pilot flying, it was his decision. I agree it would have been better to turn back earlier; delaying landing to get stabilised is more of a process for when you have structural damage.
Would not have changed the outcome, in the end. Also, if you have the aircraft all over the place, how will you land?
@@advorak8529 it absolutely would have made a difference... They would have had a horizon to work with... Something tangible that they can see
The piece of tape, is mind bothering.
From what I have watched in this channel so far, Boeing has been evading taking responsibility and pushing it to the airlines. It's about time Boeing faces the music and pays off for all their wrongdoings. The 737-Max story might just be the icing on the cake for action against Boeing.
To prevent this from happening, put a banner on the tape for much easier notice.
You lose and altitude and speed reading, WTF?
Why did they not turn back and do an emergency landing?
NVM they attempted to...how sad, and due to a tape that was not removed.
Why are the tubes covered with tape on the ground instead of having very specific caps that are fluorescent yellow to put over the end of the tubes that are connected to each other by cable and impossible to miss once maintenance is completed? But no a bit of sticky tape will do
The aircraft should have had a working GPS-based ground speed indication. Yet according to the video they keep asking ATC for their ground speed, don't use it do resolve the stall/overspeed conflict, and the video doesn't touch on this at all?
There's way too much dependance on technology. Pilots should fly their planes,not a computer.
Incredible.
I really don't know how I would react on getting the news that my relative died because some idiot forgot to remove the tape..????
Watching the video and seeing that the pilots couldn't trust their instruments, after a while I would of asked if there was another plane near by. Their instruments were working and could of provided correct readings.
I know they asked for a recovery plane but it was too late.
I don't mean any disrespect, it's easy for me to type this sitting in my backyard.
They should have returned asap to airport.and stayed over land using the grouned lights to help with speed and altitude.
The manufacturer should have foreseen all malfunctions and provided ways to overcome them. Instead of issuing a single warning about non-functioning sensors, the computer has gone crazy and bombarded the pilots with garbage alarms. The disaster was mainly caused by incredibly defective software.
The pilots were also resopnsible, since they would have to return immediately. While Lima was in sight, they were able to control the flight visually. By the way, it is not clear do they have radio altimeter and why they don't use it.
I’m more impressed duct tape survived that
@@kabar123ar duct tape survives everything.
Don't 757's also have RADAR altimeters? ....Or, does this predate them?
I think they did
yes but it was only used mostly for gpws and it is also only used for radio minimums but you have to select it over barometric minimums for it to use it and radio altimeters only just got mandated in 2017 by the faa for civil aviation
In a "steam gauges" airplane you can break the glass on the rate-of-climb indicator (ie the least important gauge) and it will serve as an alternate static air pressure source (which gives you altimeter back). Obviously with a computerized display cockpit all smashing the display will do is make you feel better, cause the real guts are down inside someplace you cant get at. As often as planes crash with frozen pitot tubes or AoA sensors, they need to have an emergency backup set of them behind a panel that they can deploy in an emergency like a RAT.
In an airline panel of this era the pilot would be reading data from the air data system. These instruments may or may not have pneumatic connections. The airdata system sends altimetry and airspeed as electrical signals to the instruments. Also, in an aircraft with a pressurized cabin that idea depends on opening up the cabin pressure to atmospheric which should be automatic.
If you break the glass in a pressurized cockpit gauge, would it not simply read the interior cockpit air pressure? Which stays at 8000ft?
Yes, that is a possibility however the cabin altitude controller may open to outside air pressure under 10,000 feet. Again, this aircraft most likely had an air data system and even with mechanical gauges the functions are more complex that light aircraft gauges. The pilots could have reverted to radar altitude below 2500 feet.
@@m2heavyindustries378 Yes, but pressurization only comes into play above that altitude, where you arent really worried much about hitting something; other than another airplane at least, and an altimeter isnt all that useful for that. Alternatively you can turn the pressurization off.
This happens so often (or at least a habitual watcher of "Mayday..." would think it so) I would have thought they would just have the computer periodically pump a burst of air into the line and see if it went away and if not, set off (yet another) alarm.