Flight 92's Untrained Pilot Turns Off The Engine Mid-Flight | Air Crash Confidential S1 E3
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 фев 2024
- Quantas Flight 72 experiences terrifying uncommanded maneuvers, endangering the lives of 315 passengers, while British Midland Flight 92's tragic crash is attributed to pilot error, shedding light on the critical importance of pilot training and familiarity with aircraft systems.
Subscribe to WONDER to watch more documentaries: / wonderdocs
Air Crash Confidential takes us on a behind-the-scenes look at some of the most infamous plane crashes in history, and how these crashes were discovered, investigates and eventually improved current air transport.
Follow us on Facebook: / thewonderchannel
WONDER is packed with binge worthy reality documentaries for hours of entertainment. Check out our hub of diverse and empowering stories which explore the extreme side of life!
Any queries, please contact us at: owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
#planecrash #documentary #aircrashinvestigation 
Развлечения
I’m a commercial pilot. We always tell everybody that in the beginning. Automation is a great thing. It relieves an enormous amount of workload on the pilot flying, allowing us to concentrate on what’s going on instead of making every individual input ourselves.. That being said when the automation fails the automation will shut itself off if it gets into a scenario it was not programmed for. Pilots must be at the top of our game every time we get into the cockpit. There’s going to situations where we are the ones that are going to have to make the split decisions to override the automation if necessary and regain control of aircraft to bring it home safely. My heart goes out to all those lost loved ones on each one of these flights.
Why are there still no cameras on plane exteriors for pilots to monitor the engines, flight surfaces and fuselage?
I want YOU to be my pilot so i can survive and get where i need to be
@@silentassassin47 people like you make me a better pilot every day. Thank you.
And then came MCAS ...
@@DefyingOldAgebecause they would reduce the profit margin...
I find it weird to conclude pilot error if a pilot is trained to act in a certain way to solve a problem, does so, and is subsequently blamed for causing a crash. It should be called airline error. The pilot can never be to blame for acting as he has been trained to do.
THEY SAY U LEARN BY YOUR MISTAKES
😅😅
says the man drinking beer happy on his couch@@user-zx5fo5xx3o
Sten obviously wasn't inhibited by caution
GREMLINS SIT ON WING AND CAUSES PLANES TO CRASH
I wouldn't place the full blame on the Midland pilots. Their knowledge of faulty Boing equipment was due to years of dealing with faulty equipment. The manufacturer trained pilots to ignore their equipment and nothing was done to address the issue. Then the industry was on board with it and not enough was done to educate the pilots on the new equipment.
I agree!!! You notice how they ALWAYS blame the pilots?? They design the aircraft to fly without the pilots input, then the sensors go awry & the pilots don’t “respond appropriately” to that particular situation - so the crash was all their fault! That’s outrageous.
Exactly. How are they supposed to know about any changes if they're not educated on them?
Why would pilot be doing guess work? They can visually check the engine.
@@user-cw2py6wh8l Yes, I don't understand that either.
@user-cw2py6wh8l Passengers and flight attendants would have had a direct view of the engines, but nobody said anything. Perhaps that's because there was no visual evidence until much later, when it was too late. Beyond that, they were trained to understand that the equipment given to them by the manufacturer was faulty and told to ignore the gauges for years. There is the fault. It wasn't guess work, it was training.
I love it when pilots comment on engineering issues. As a B2/group 3 avionics engineer, I know for sure that the B737-300 c/pit air supply is from the #1 engine. It was the -200, JT8D powered A/C that used the #1 as well for air to the flt. deck. What also was not stated here and is known in the final report, the captain asked a cabin crew member to do a visual inspection from mid cabin to ascertain which engine was at fault. She went from the cockpit and looked out and saw the fire from her right hand side, turned around, returned to the flt. deck and was still violently waving her right hand, but now she was facing the opposite direction. Thus compounding the decision to shut down the # 2 engine. Also in the accident report, the vibration was so severe that both pilots suffered from eyeball resonance which blurred their vision, which is why they asked the cabin member for help. At the time of this incident, the CFM-56 engines had reputation for blade failures resulting in massive vibration. During my 50 year career in aviation, I worked on, and am licenced on A/C powered by both types of these engines. (DC9/B727, JT8D. B737-300,400,thru 700,800.. Only types operated in Oz.). And yes the vibration system on the JT8D engines was a joke. If it read zero, you knew that the engine was no longer attached to the A/C.
Got my B737-300/400 licence in August 1984. Worked on 300,400,700,800's until I retired in 2014. What are your legal aviation qual's? Lic # Q8123., what is yours? @@m-ro7kk
@@m-ro7kkand trolling is more honorable?
What it’s worth I agree with your post. However, you need to remove the first sentence.. don’t insult a group of people you do not know in order to make your point it has nothing to do with the synopsis of your retort.
Always watch the hands. The amount of times the words from a mouth conflict with the hand gestures is unreal.
Damn dude’s eye was wild
This is more of an "airline error" video rather than simply pilot error.
Captain is in charge. Captain is accountable.
Totally, if the captain has not been trained on a particular variant of aircraft then it is a failure of the organisation.
@@DJKinneyThat is by the letter of the law, but if airlines don’t update crews and then allow them to fly without the required continuation training they are responsible for, if not legally they are morally responsible, and until airlines are held accountable and corporate management tried and convicted for their actions they will always be prepared to cut corners and then throw the crew “under the airBUS”.
Absolutely
yup
This reminds me of the 737 max forcing the nose down because the computer was receiving faulty data indicating a stall.
The 737max thing goes so much deeper.
When Boeing engineers in charge of quality control say "They wouldn't dare get on one" you know things at Boeing are FUBAR.
One of them also stated that Boeing was faking it's employee drug screening results, and that crystal meth was been openly sold and taken in the factory.
Pilot error????? Most of these accidents are caused by improper training of the pilots. This is an airline issue, not a pilot issue. The companies ARE responsible to ensure their pilots are fully and properly trained. 😡
exactly, it's a thing called type training.
Diversity hire us a big factor
It really was not just pilot error! If Boeing changes things a lot versus a prior model, the airlines are required by law to put pilots who fly the new aircraft through a full training. That cost money. A lot of money. Those pilots are out of commission on the new plane until they get the required hours. Well, Boeing told the airlines that they wouldn't make significant changes and the pilots only required the difference training - not the full training! The airlines trusted Boeing, since Boeing was allowed to make decisions about if the pilots "required" full training! Boeing lied to save the airlines money! So, you're right. It was NOT pilot error! It was Boeing Corporation's malfeasance and their desire to put profits over people's lives!
Like paying regional pilots horrendously.. another issue
@@Reality_TV it's the eerily exactly the same about the 737 max crashes
"When you solve one problem, you introduce another"
*737 MAX enters the chat*
😂
Swiss Air pilot is turning in his grave cause their employer Swiss Airways introduced entertainment system that went as far as causing aircraft to crash.
TOO MUCH FLATULENCE ON BOARD AND IT EXPLODED FROM A SPARK , HIGH RISK ON EVERY FLIGHT
Don't forget the DC, even if you're not flying on it, it's still determined to kill you (Concorde).
So does that mean you can introduce a new problem and solve another one?
With the invention of the automatic transmission, car sales doubled because it was so much easier to drive. Oddly enough, drivers with manual transmissions still have a better situational awareness on the road. Simply because they MUST pay more attention to how and when they will need to shift.
That makes a lot of sense. So maybe airliners should get rid of a few "bells and whistles'? And let pilots actually fly the plane?
True, a manual transmission car made my daughter more aware on the road than when she drove one with an automatic.
I still think pilots don't understand how to fly because automation takes away from actually understanding what is going on. France 774(?) comes to mind.
I always drive cars that have no electronics or automatic transmission. Better driving behavior, faster starting at intersections, faster maneuvering of the car.
It’s true I tell everyone this - manual is safer because it doesn’t give you the opportunity to stop thinking about what you’re doing
this is a gross misrepresentation of what happened to that qantas flight.
The consensus is that a high energy particle hit some electronic component at just the right time and position to flip a bit causing faulty data. The sensors were working correctly and as intended. This Qantas Flight had absolutely nothing to do with inadequate pilot training. claiming that is an insult to the crew and the passengers...
Oh boy and then claiming Air France - which was indeed actual pilot error - is connected to the Qantas flight.... This is an insult to airbus
But what do you expect from a documentary that tries to sell a 747 cockpit as a 737 cockpit and a 737 as an a330...
High energy particle from space? Sure, but we all now now how Boing build their planes....
@@AthosRac most people would call it "computer glitch" but high energy particles are well known to be one cause of them, especially at high altitudes. Some people just really want to show off how much they know about space or something. Know it alls.
Bit flips are normal, that's why error correction exists
If the pilots didn't trust the vibration instrument because they were accustomed to an earlier model in which those instruments were unreliable then that unreliability and tolerated poor quality control was also a contributor to the crash.
How is it pilot error if the airline never trained the pilot about the aircraft rudder tolerances and the pilots acts as trained ??
MAKES THE PLANE GO FASTER IN WATER
It’s sickening to hear pilot error so many times, when it is so clear that it is defective training! The airlines should be held accountable and sued wherever the so called pilot error is due to defective training. 🙏🏽🥺🙏🏽
YOU CANT TRAIN STUPID PEOPLE
My husband is a pilot, he began flying at 9 years old in the 60s, so he’s been flying for many years- one thing in all areas of aviation that has only became worse every year, rather than better, is *greed* before *safety,* money always, always trumps safety. Companies large & small, even maintenance, FBOs, fuel companies, etc, only seem to be very strict about it for insurance reasons, but they put all their work into paperwork & red tape to cover themselves, rather than do what’s needed for safety AND saving money. They waste money, time, & effort on things that don’t matter rather than do the real work involved.
'Each new version is better and safer...'
737 MAX?
Boeing should have never given MCAS that much authority and should have engineered the AoA sensors to be fail-safe; even with two AoA sensors MCAS took data from only one. They even made AoA disagree warnings a paid upgrade option. There were multiple factors that led to these crashes including lax oversight and not informing operators of the MCAS system. However if they had simply had redundancy and checks in the AoA sensor data feeding MCAS I don't think the crashes would have happened. We put redundancy and fail safe in non-aviation software so it should have been mandatory in the 737 MAX to have this capability, Boeing lied and hid for profit. Airbus does 3 AoA so single sensor failures can be detected and corrected.
YES BUT SERVING BEEF IN FLIGHT IS PROBLEM. TOO MUCH FLATULENCE ON BOARD AND IT EXPLODES FROM A SPARK , HIGH RISK ON EVERY FLIGHT
This video says the use of rudder in Wake Turbulence is normal. That is incorrect, rudder should NOT be used in these conditions ever !
Agreed.
Though, probably normal for AA. Those guys seems to struggle with the when and how of rudder use. They bent a wing and wrote off an A321 recently during a x wind takeoff
Only use rudder on take off n landing. 37 years flying jets.
If u watch the full episode on that crash, it was indeed the standard procedure of AA, that they trained their pilots to do. Despite it being in contradiction of the Airbus manuals. The rudder actually withstood more than twice the stresses, it was designed and tested for, b4 it failed.
There was nothing wrong with the aircraft. It was AA training their pilots in their own invented procedure instead of following manuals.
I've worked in the airline industry, I'm able to read tech schematics and tech reports and not go off youtube vids thanks. I wasn't referencing the Queens crash but the more recent La Guardia botch up where an AA A321 bent a wind during x wind takeoff
@@dfuher968
... A learning cemented and spread *after* that crash. In other words, you're feeling superior through their pricey hindsight.
It is when something goes wrong that you find out how good a pilot is.
For those asking, the difference between the Trident’s “droops” and modern “slats” is that the droops actually rotated the entire leading edge of the wings.
So you can imagine how much drag but also lift that would’ve created.
Reference the lost vertical stabilizer. The engines of the 747 did not create the wake turbulence, the wings do. It is the wing tip vortacies that create wake turbulence.
Its the engines that create the trubulance
The trubulance is cause by the thrust
@@faithcarpenter No, the wake turbulence is created as soon as the wing creates enough lift to fly the airplane. The engines do provide the power to create the lift, but it is the wings that create the lift/ I was taught to try to land past the big airplane touchdown point because once on the ground, wake turbulence stops.
@johnemerson1363 your technically correct about "wake turbulence" but there are more factors at play. This seems like a semantic debate.
@@faithcarpenter the turbulence from the engine is idel thrust which is only 600 feet behind a heavy, or take off thrust which is still 1200 feet behind a heavy. ATC provides at least 1 mile separation in a control zone, 3 miles in terminal or at least 5 miles seperation in enroute. Wake turbulence on the other hand does not come from the engine... It comes from the wingtips when lift is produced and on a slow, clean, and heavy aircraft can extend back as much as 15 miles out and 500 feet below. So this correctly described as wake turbulence but incorrectly described as coming from the engine as opposed to the wing tips.
@@johnemerson1363 I was taught the same. I have experienced wingtip vortices.
New airplanes are more challenging to fly; newer vehicles are also more challenging to drive. When I was but a wee lad, I quickly and safely operated any vehicle I had ever drove. Now that I'm older, there's been a few vehicles that I was unable to drive without help from the owner. Vehicles should be easier to operate, not more difficult.
There's a difference between starting a car, intentionally made difficult to curb theft, and driving
Automation makes people lazy and less reliable on driving their car. Those of us that learn to drive in the 90's and early 00's before new craze developed better driver habits and skills because we didn't have a computer braking for us, steering for us or keeping us in our lane. This is why i don't drive modern cars, I agree with you.
Absolutely correct! Over sophistication can lead to bewilderment when things go awry - and distract from the main intent: to drive the car safely. I currently drive a 'modernish' car packed with wonderful gizmos that can tell me 1001 things about its systems, but sometimes masks the basics, such as speed. Anyway...
@@federicoprice2687 Mask speed? Are you reliant on outside stimuli to determine your speed or should you read the speedometer? A car's comfort shouldn't disorient, pilots are another breed, two years in school only to die in peaces?
@@misteryummyearth1055 I rely partly on outside stimuli to gauge speed. I figured everyone did.
This video is a good example of corporate corruptions. Its very clear and obvious that these big companies were trying to save money on pilot training courses but still calling pilot error when disaster occurred. Recent BOEING MAX crashes are another good examples.
Ain't that funny that during the whole video we hear lack of training or known mental issues with the pilots yet they blame everything on the pilots. Why would you allow a flight when you are aware of issues? And then blame it on pilots.
Porpoising. The sudden loss of altitude followed by a sudden gain of altitude followed by a sudden loss of altitude followed by a sudden gain of altitude and so on. It makes people on airplanes throw up. Scopolamine patches help depending on how badly a plane is behaving erratically.
Good video. Thank you for posting these types of shows!
Porpoising is very unnerving. I can imagine how much it would freak people out.
If pilots are not properly trained, then they are also victims.
Facts!
victims of ignorance
@@user-zx5fo5xx3o Yes, ignorance of those who are in charge of training.
@@user-zx5fo5xx3ovictims! Cause in all companies it’s the same. Big bosses do meetings and discussions between themselves and then decide what they will tell to workers or not. Pilot can’t know there is something different with new plane if manufacturers or companies haven’t informed him. If they say all stayed the same he has to believe that it did in fact stayed the same.
NO, THEY'RE NUMB NUTS
Too much ad on this video
U can't even watch it completely
Get Total Adblock. It's free. I deal with zero ads.
@@MidnightWarrior1976 I have the same as you and you're correct! I never see any ads at all, well except for the ICE PILOTS stuck right in the middle, but I just fast forward through those!
Get u block origin and sponsor block
I quit watching because of it. Came to comments to see if anyone else had noticed the increase of commercials.
@@robrudolph7213 Ad block software works well. You can also grab the red dot with your cursor, quickly advance the vid to the end, then start again at the beginning. The ads should be gone.
The narrator needs to be provided with the correct information on some of stories he was saying.
wasn't he an ex-bbc news reader, that figures !!
Thats the case with all these reenactments.. They focus on the dramaturgy, Not just on the facts. Not worth seeing.
It was a very good documentary actually. The final report on the Air France crash is inaccurate because this programme was made in 2010, and the black box revealing the full, shocking story was not recovered until 2011.
The narrator is not 'an ex BBC newsreader', it's well-known actor Steven Mackintosh, who does a lot of voiceovers.
The documentary came out before they found the plane wreckage
I tend to go for @MentourPilot & @DisasterBreakdown as they wait for a full report & seem to thoroughly research the events they cover.
Wow, this was produced and released within the two years the 447 boxes were missing.
HOLY COW
Did they find them? Did they confirn or prove false this video or is it inconclusive?
@@vetinaris1297 Yes they found them. It was a remarkable feat. The boxes were still in tact, and the audio from the cockpit is probably one of the most haunting of all human error aviation disasters. I suggest you look up a detailed transcript, like from Popular Mechanics or similar.
I remember watching this episode in national Geographic when i was going to school, now im part of designing aircraft and structures, im shocked to realize how i manifested my dream career
Air France 447 was brought down by the copilot stalling the plane. This video was made before the FDR and CVR were found 2 years after the crash. The pitot tubes plugged with ice resulting in false airspeed readings, if I remember correctly.
correct, it was almost nearly a total pilot error!
Thanks for posting a new episode!! I’d seen some of the individual episodes before but not this interesting mix narrated with a British accent.
I learned a new British expression. Flaps = “Droops”
Two different things, actually: The droops are on the leading (front) edge of the wing, and are equivalent to what we now call "slats." The flaps extend from the trailing (rear) edge of the wing and can provide both additional lift at lower speeds as well as additional drag to allow for slower approaches when the descent would otherwise tend to push the speed up.
Lol thinking droops are flaps
These types of situations on aircraft that make me not want to fly.
STAY HOME IN YOUR BATHROOM
YES BUT SERVING BEEF IN FLIGHT IS PROBLEM. TOO MUCH FLATULENCE ON BOARD AND IT EXPLODES FROM A SPARK , HIGH RISK ON EVERY FLIGHT
I only fly Qantas 👍
They should call it 'corporate error' if the pilots aren't properly trained.
NEITHER ARE YOU
Great documentary, thanks, though the final report on the Air France crash is inaccurate. That's because this show was made in 2010, and the black box flight recorders revealing what happened were not recovered until 2011.
It was pilot error - but not the simple kind assumed in this report. In fact whole documentaries have been made on that crash, the worst in Air France's history (expert David Learmount appears in most of them), it was such a bizarre combination of technical AND pilot error. Ice crystals paralysed the plane's pitot tubes, meaning the autopilot cut out, and inaccurate airspeeds were provided to the pilots.
The crisis was worsened by a storm, and the fact the captain Marc Doubois was tired from partying in Brazil with his mistress, so disappeared off to bed early in the flight. He left the most inexperienced of two co-pilots in charge - a fateful mistake. Inexplicably when the plane fell into a stall due to travelling slower than the instruments stated, that pilot reacted by constantly pulling back on the side stick - an action his co-pilot knew nothing about, as the Airbus is designed so each pilot's stick is hidden from their colleague.
Pulling on the stick caused the plane to rapidly lose altitude. By the time Capt Dubois returned, the cockpit was in chaos, with neither pilot aware of why the plane was suddenly in trouble. By the time the pilot's action in pulling on the stick was realised by his two colleagues, it was too late to recover the plane. It had gone from cruising with no issues to crashing into the sea, in just a matter of minutes.
It initially confused me that this programme failed to tell that now infamous story - till I spotted the year at the end of the credits. I wish uploaders would put the year of the documentary in the video's title/written description!
A computer is only as smart as the programmer feeding it information.
Anything can defeat smart technology!!!
YEAH YOU CAN TRIP OVER THE CORD AND UNPLUG
Why don't they put Night Vision Camera's on Each Sides and on the top of the Airplane Aiming At the tail of the Airplane.. So the polit Can See the Wing and See on Each Sides and See the Engine of the AirCraft.. Screen inside the 🛩 🛬 Cockpit that Way if the Captain Can have a Veiw of the Airplane ✈️ and he or She Can See Clearly 👀 Whenever he or She Want to See.. if they ever have a Problem.. and Want have to Guess or Wait for Someone to tell them What's Wrong.
The cameras would increase drag. Current preference is for better instrumentation.
costs
Totaly agree. This industry is very conservative. Plus certification and studdies cost a lot.
But cameras would help a lot in many cases. Engine failure, flaps issues, gear issues, door issues…
GOOD IDEA, MAYBE DRIVE IN YOU CAR
Couldn't the plane have glided after both engines died?
I think that with all the automation, pilots depend on it and are not trained on what to do if the computer turns itself off. Air France 447 was a good example. There was not enough training on what to do if the autopilot switches off at altitude😢
The training was there, just the pilot didn´t remember it. There was an instruction in place to increase the angle of attack to 5 degrees and leave it at that when the pitot tube stops working as this did happen before with the old tubes on other aircraft. And the loss of 400 feet altitude was only instrumental but even if it had been actual 400 feet that still would not have mattered over the ocean since TCAS was operative but the Co-pilot completely overrreacted and obviously didn´t follow his trainings or the advisories that were handed out due to previous occurrences. So this is unfortunately a clear case of pilot error
That so many pilots have lost the skill of hand flying a plane is a real source of concern to pilots.
The CVR and Black box for Air France A332 were found. Mentour Pilot narrated the story excellently
AA587 air turbulence- this is why they say Heavy (as in AA587 Heavy] or Super for A380) as an indication of the size and hence potential for wake turbulence of an aircraft.
I always remember a Swiss flight from New York to Zurich back in 2004, on an A330. Just a few minutes from touchdown the engines spool up to takeoff-power, and the plane starts ascending. Another minute later the plane resumes landing path, and one the the pilots reports on the intercom "we were not really sure what the autopilot was doing, so we decided to proceed manually, just sit back and relax". The landing was uneventful, but I still remember this incident like it was yesterday. Also now realizing what COULD have happened, it's actually scary. I have never read anything about it being reported, but I do hope Airbus got the memo.
A man creates a machine, but the machine refuses to follow the man's instructions if it detects bugs or if the instructions do not suit its preferences. When the man tries again, the machine logs him out of the system, seizing control. In reality, the machine is wrong and the man is right, but it no longer matters because the man has become completely reliant on the machine to perform his work. Now the man is in trouble, unable to help himself and unable to even try because the machine won't allow it. The man watches as the machine does whatever it pleases with him. Technically, the machine is not wrong either, as it is simply following the instructions given to it by the man. What should be done in this kind of situation?
Always, always have a manual backup when all else fails. Never rely entirely on sensitive electronics that can be affected by the most minute adverse element or defect. Many heavy bombers during WW2 got home safely against impossible odds after sustaining massive battle damage, mechanical failure or loss of some controls because the controls were manually operated. They had auto pilots, but they were sometimes unreliable and not used to approach for landing.
Unalive the first man, then rule the world.
WHAT MAN, WHATS HIS NAME ???
Thank you for these very good explanations. This documentation is really recommended.
6:02 the fastest way to determine which engine went bad is to watch the "inclinometer"; the ball level thing under the attitude director indicator. Any uncommanded reduction in thrust, or deployment of reverser buckets, will register in the "ball". On small planes, the "ball" is found in the turn coordinator.
48:48 They should've blown down the pitot system by opening the purge valve under the dash, on both sides of the dash (one side at a time). Sometimes bugs or foreign particulate matter enters the pitot tube. Whatever may be blocking the errant pitot tube will be blown into the bag attached to the purge valve.
As someone who constantly travels internationally for work in both planes and helicopters I can honestly say the average person has no idea how common potentially dangerous actions and alarms in day to day operations. Pilots are typically the best of the best and are able to troubleshoot on the fly and figure things out before passengers even have a clue something is going on.
I don't understand why pilots don't have a cam on the wings to see engines and landing gears
Liked, subscribed and notifications are on!
On 7:38 the narrator said the B737-400 is 400tonnes which is quite far from the truth, the MTOW of the 737-400 is 68t.
Old, old programme rolled out yet again.
And why not.
The best series ever made about aviation.
Also just as certain the uploader is one of the many who ride off the efforts of others.
Its very interesting how they use so strange design for the British Midland's cockpit-specificly the from panel with instruments.And those 4 747 throthes on 737😂😂
Knowing what I do about computers, that is the first thing I would suspect. Garbage in, garbage out.
How many “pilot error” crashes stem from improper training? Should the term not be “company/training misinformation” instead? It seems that companies do everything in their power to place blame on the pilots following procedures laid down by the companies themselves. Especially where it is cheaper to pay out rather than train and avoid incidents in the first place.
This type of culture will only improve when it becomes prohibitively expensive to pay out for a crash.
Ive often wondered why thee are not cameras on various points on planes for pilot to see i.e. veiwing the front & rear of engines Landing gear etc, in the midland crash this but the time a request for visual from cabin staff on the engines could have saved it from being a tradgedy. But also airlines seemed not take some of the planes not re training pilots on different versions of the same plane.
Can't afford the GoPros
The explanation at the end about the sensors feeding the autopilot system bad information and the plane taking it as a fact and inputing sporadic actions is absolutely insane. Also, the BEA Flight is also pretty unfortunent
MAYBE PILOT WAS SLEEPING
MAYBE GETTING A HAND JOB
21:15 The vertical stabilizer was gone? Reminds me of the JAL flight disaster.
47:50 A pilot obsessed with fixing one problem and ignoring the basic functioning of the plane. This reminds me of the Portland OR crash where the pilot became so fixated on a landing gear indicator light that he ignored the plane's fuel level.
They did that one pilot dirty filming specifically the side of his face that looks as if he’s sporting a black eye of sorts 😂
Self driving airplanes self driving cars - If I was in a self driving car and the computer hickuped I wouldn't have the agility to correct it before....
Well, investigators NEED a fall guy, no pun,
If pilot was trained for that senario , he performed correctly.
Which he was instructed as such.
They needed to look into design flaws , possibly irecords.
Which was probably carried out.
Pardon some spelling, in a ruch.
There was PUN intended!🤨
THAT WAS A TV SHOW, FALL GUY
Airbus characteristically denied all responsibility but subsequently added software to limit rudder excursion so the pilot couldn’t accidentally rip the tail off the aircraft
Could anyone in the world anticipate a pilot would do such a silly thing full left-full right. Sounds like he shouldn't have been a pilot of paying passengers.
@@Jdalio5 except they were trained to do that to address an ongoing and frequent issue.
The rudder actually withstood more than twice the stresses, it had been approved to. Airbus was not at fault, their equipment was better than expected. The problem was, that AA had trained their pilots in complete contradiction of the Airbus manuals. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, it was mishandled in a way, no1 had predicted, any1 would do, and which, again, was in contradiction of the manuals. When u dont follow the manuals, its not the equipment at fault.
The later added software was not due to guilt, but to due diligence aka securing their aircraft against insane pilots/airlines being completely irresponsible.
This is not Airbus that denied responsibility but the NTSB. As stated here, the vertical stabilizer sustained more than it was designed for and certificated for but the pilot inputs resulted in twice this designed limit. When the pilot pulls too many G, the structure can’t resist, whether it is horizontal G or vertical G, the consequence is the same. Since « fly by wire » was implemented, manufacturers can add digital limits to prevent pilots inputs that would exced the aircraft design limits. This was mainly focused on vertical G and anti stall (alpha protect) but this accident revealed that horizontal Gs can still break a plane. Which may have been forgoten at that time…
WHAT...HE IS SUPERMAN ???
All this lack of training sounds more like an airline company failure. Can't blame a pilot for what they don't know when the company doesn't update training for new models.
Addicted to these vids
I watch one ever night before sleep haha
@@bradgray5997 same here
@bradgray5997 i do the same😂
Same
Check out Green Dot Aviation for excellent breakdowns of plane disasters.
I would argue this isn't solely a pilot error but a failure by all involved. In fact, the insider knowledge of their previous aircraft is commendable. Analyzing the issue as smoke coming from air conditioning vs say an onboard fire, knowing which engine manages which of the many complex systems on the aircraft, and coming to that conclusion is entirely logical. The outcome was obviously awful but it wasn't solely "pilot error"
I THINK IT WAS YOUR FAULT
The plural of vortex is vortices.
NO ITS VORTEXAS
Pilot error well never go away
No matter
What hi tech cockpit the aircraft has
When u put a human in control of an airship and he or she is having a bad day or just wants to take his or her life
Anything can happen
And just cause its hi tech cockpit
Dont mean the computers wont glich
WHY
"Particularly energetic" is a wierd way to describe someones wreckless actions that killed over 200 folks
Not a pilot but a automotive mechanic. We need to have a human presence in any transportation of lives. I see folks dying or hurt do to the false or misleading information of data. Fly the plane, drive the car.
17:01 uh it's not 21st November 2001 it's 12th November 2001 you see American Airlines Flight 587 has crashed on 12th November not 21st just 12th
MY FLIGHTS ALWAYS ALMOST CRASHED, MANY TIMES
Ffs when you have in video advertisement why the f is the volume much higher than video sound ?? It should be same level or lower level on the sound.
The sound difference makes you jump up so bare that in mind when you pit advertisement in videos
No way, I've never seen one of these where this many people survive a situation like this
I have not flown since 1976, and I absolutely refuse to ever fly again.
Between suicidal pilots, pilot error, and mechanical issues, I am terrified at the thought of flying.
I took the train from San diego to Denver a few years ago. It takes longer to get from point A to point B, but no train has ever fallen out of the sky. I know. I Google it.
I always wondered, how come planes are not fitted with external cameras to see their engines and/or wings?
Extreme whether mid-flight would knock off those cameras. Also factor in maintenance costs. Airlines would rather the pilots call a flight attendant into the cockpit and ask them to go take a look or have one of the pilots leave the cockpit to take a quick look. It's more cost effective.
THEN WHAT, TELEPORT BACK TO WHERE ???
GET YOU HEAD OUT
@@JaydenAndrewsTech Next time you see a Tesla, look at it's side cameras. There's nothing sticking out to knock off.
In the case of the plane with the bad engine, the pilot asked the flight attendant to look at the engines. She reported the wrong engine on fire because she didn't know to use the terms port or starboard.
The airline industry holds the weight of responsibility for not properly training their pilots.
HOW, A BRAIN IS NEEDED, MAYBE PILOT WAS SLEEPING
Most of these are definitely not pilot error. They are airline errors. These pilots did the best they could with the information available to them. That the airlines did not fully disclose information or did not properly train is the airline’s fault. These pilots are not around to defend themselves.
Always alerts & updated pilots when to fight news planes in handy pdf at all times
The faulty here all at faulty not only one pilots ,lesson learned
All my condolences to victims & family
Keep it strong 🇬🇧
"Mr Chief Accident Investigator, can we stop you working right now in the critical first hours to chat on TV?"
Why would the manufacturer not slow down the controls on the rudder so it wouldn't get ripped off from a violent input? It seems like a no brainer.
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING ???
This tragic incident clearly points too member of crew too Visibly checking which engine had problems furthermore lack of updating pilots training on different types co pilot giving captain incorrect information visual checks commonly used when engine/wings problems detected god bless them all
I see this video, and I am glad I have not been on an airplane in 30 years. The last one I was on, I was going to Traverse City, Michigan, from Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Well, we got hit by a strong downdraft of air, and thank goodness I had my seatbelt still on. That plane did drop a bit, with my stomach following after it. 😳
Isn't that mind boggling responsibility that pilots have? Killed 47 in one and 250 in the other case just like that.
Friends tease me about my manual Miata but it’s all about having a full driving experience.
I HAVE A FERRARI
ISNT A Miata A PEDDLE CAR
@@user-zx5fo5xx3o no, my feet touch the ground
It shows that accident is a part of life. We should understand that and accept it. We will never be able to eliminate accidents.
The question should also be, why is a pilot able to rip the rudder off the plane with just inputs. You would think the plane would have preventative measures to stop such dangerous inputs from occurring.
Could listen to CPT Wood speak all day long. Classy dude.
STINK WEED
wow this can easily be added down to 5 or 10 min without losing any content
With the ever increasing influence of A.I. , or just flight control computers, on large passenger aircraft, I am really surprised that the control systems would even ALLOW the pilot to input such aggressive yaw commands via the pedals, particularly if it was like DOUBLE the maximum permitted load for that wing surface !
Quite a few ERRORS in this video. Wake Turbulence is due to the vorticity mainly from the wingtips but also from the trailing edges of the wings, this is an aerodynamic phenomenon resulting from the pressure difference between the upper and lower surfaces of the wing NOT from the engines. The jet blast from the engines is significant in strength but not as significant as the wake turbulence especially because of the nature of the vortices twisting the air. Leading to extremely turbulent airflow for the aircraft behind to fly through. As for the Brazilian Air France crash the CVR and FDR were later discovered and it was determined that they had flown through conditions that caused the pitot tubes to ice up temporarily causing the speeds to read differently for a short time, the less senior first officer responded to this speed mismatch and all the warnings that occurred by pulling back on the control column (either intentionally or unintentionally), slowing the aircraft to a stall. This lead to further confusion of what all the instruments and Primary Flying Display were indicating until the Captain returned to the cockpit and could see (unfortunately far too late) that they were in a stall with sadly no time to recover.
It's probably more challenging to be a bus driver than a pilot these days. Airbus trying to make a plane 'pilot-proof'.
They must stop fixing what ain't broke. Slowly but surely they will build the Titantic.
The automation is a good thing, but you still need pilots with impeccable stick and rudder skills. No system is fool proof.
so pilot error, airline error for insufficient training or boeing error for boeing not giving out enough info to the airlines?
NOT ENOUGH MR DUH
Expect more pilot errors now that the standards have been lowered. From now on, I'll drive.
DEI is everywhere! Especially on the roads!😬
Finally New One!
DID YOU HEAR THE NEW ONE ABOUT THE FARMERS DAUGHTER
I remember one key sentence I have heard in another episode: "Experts wondered about who was actually flying the aircraft. Was it still the pilots, or the computer."
Computers depend in inputs. Inputs can be missing, or in error. If you have no muscle memory flying skills, you will lose control, as they did in Flight 447. A lack of flying skill is also what ripped the vertical stabilizer off the departing airbus. For an example of muscle memory , consider how you can normally write without effort, but if you switch to your non-dominant hand your lack of control shows up in your writing because it doesn't have that automatic muscle memory. Try to drive a stick-shift that has the pedals rearranged, and it is near impossible because the procedure is locked in automatic memory.
These videos make airplanes the most dangerous way of traveling
how do videos make air plane travel dangerous unless pilots are watching porn and wacking off
BECAUSE IT IS DOPEY
Imagine being a passenger when the plane is lurching all over the place, scary stuff
they had time to verify visually and they passed.. un f ing believable.
Jank Flight crew- OH no the autopilot has turned off! WHAT DO WE DO!?!
Me- FLY THE DAMN PLANE!!
YOU FLY THE PLANE
sad this is becoming a common problem today :(@@user-zx5fo5xx3o
This documentary gives me chills .
NO ITS COLD TIME OF YEAR, NORMAL
Thanks!
i subscribed! :D
it's absurd that engines cannot be seen from the cockpit!
I always keep my seat belt On when I fly.