US Airways 1702 Crashes on Takeoff in Philadelphia (with crash footage)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- US Airways Flight 1702 crashed onto the Runway at Philadelphia after a Take-Off attempt went horribly wrong due to some forgotten numbers. Find out what lead to this accident thal almost destroyed an Airbus A320.
Patreon: / airspace_yt
Join this channel to get access to RUclips Perks:
/ @airspacevideos
Discord: / discord
___________________________________________
US Airways 1702 Crashes on Takeoff in Philadelphia (with crash footage)
Credits
Music:
Epidemic Sounds
Visuals:
MSFS2020
Storyblocks
The trouble began at 2:06 when a bus and a firetruck drove THROUGH the food service truck, leading to unpredictable consequences.
A terrible accident caused by sloppy programming 😄
I thought it was my mind playing tricks on me lol
I know, was freaking out when I first saw that.
That had started the disturbance in the force 🤣
It's odd how we notice the small things.....
A320: "Weird flex, but OK."
Great pun 😆 I couldn't keep it TOGAther
Very CLever puns
Toga toga toga!
Nice
Wow! Look at the way the fire truck passed right through the service vehicle! That's the first indication that something very strange was going on that day.
Lol, I saw that too, 😄!!
@@kolasom Happens all the time with MS FS 2020 ..
I was wondering if anyone else noticed that
All laws of physics are now negotiable.
😂😅🤣
This is a great video, very informative. The one thing I need to correct you is 11:10 This airplane unfortunately never flew again after that day. The damage was beyond repair and was deemed a hull loss by the insurance company. I was at the hangar the day after the accident. The nose gear had been ripped, there was extensive damage in the tail and most likely extensive airframe damage from the overweight landing. The airplane sat at the old east ramp idle for years until it was finally dismantled just a few years ago. I hope this helps.
Thank you very much! Another viewer already pointed this out to me, I was very surprised to hear that - I wouldn't have thought that they just had it sitting on a ramp for 7 years!
@@AirspaceVideos Well, you didn’t actually check if it was in service, yet said it was… But man-oh-man: Those two pilots! I frankly hope they were fired, because both seem to be well past their expiration date and should no longer have the lives of passengers in their hands imo…
@Game Plays 1230 Use less dope and more *_English!_*
2:08 fire truck casually crashed into truck
🤣🤣🤣
There was a previous crash a few seconds earlier.
Yeah the automatic airport traffic by msfs is terrible. Sometimes I have to retake footage because an airport vehicle casually crosses the runway while I'm taking off 🤷🏼♂️
Very nicely done, as usual. The phrase “while berating his first officer” made we wonder if a toxic cockpit climate was to blame here. The captain wasn’t the “cool under pressure” type. Neither was the first officer. At the most critical time the captain got too carried away with being irritated at his copilot. The copilot became too flustered and that prevented him from doing his job in a timely and correct manner. Yelling at and berating a person isn’t immediately going to improve their job performance, it very likely will have the opposite effect. As it did, in this case. I mean, you have been entrusted with a heavy airplane with dozens of passengers , and you don’t have your priorities lined up?! Thank goodness nobody got hurt, but man, what an utterly embarrassing performance!
They didn't disclose the pilots' consequences, but since the latter were 62 and 61, I wouldn't be surprised to hear they were offered mandatory early retirement.
Yeah especially with the “privacy reasons”. If they were kept on wouldn’t they have simply said so?
First of all, it's very common to keep disciplinary actions private, regardless if the persons subjected to them were fired or not. There are a few reasons for this, but mostly it centers around employee privacy and some concerns about litigation if US Airways informed future employers about the issue. And nothing about this accident suggest US Airways would have a reason to publicly disclose the pilots' fate. Generally, the kinds of actions that would result in a public disclosure of disciplinary actions (i.e. said employee being fired) would have to contain some sort of malicious actions and/or multiple public instances (said employee subject to a lot of news coverage over a period of time). We're talking something like a surgeon with a history littered with many medical accidents and malpractice suits or a police officer publicly busted by the media of abusing their position for enrichment through corrupt means.
I looked at the NTSB report for the accident. The report did not include any recommendations to prevent this from happening again (which is what the NTSB focuses on.), but the report did seem to suggest that the issue was almost 100% pilot error. They noted that both pilots were current on their training and health checks, did not note any issues with discipline, no issues raised by check ride (training) pilots for either pilot during initial or recurrent training, and both had recently covered rejected take off procedures below, at, and above V1/VR speeds. (Yes, you can reject takeoff at or above V1 speeds, but only for specific issues, usually Master Warning type issues). The pilots also received training on what to do when the FMS has the wrong runway configured, although at the time of the accident the training and published US Airways safety manuals did not include the RETARD warning (normally heard during landings) heard in the incident. US Airways would end up revising their training and manuals to include this warning in the event of take offs, since both pilots indicated they didn't know what it meant in that scenario. And, the NTSB report suggested both pilots fully cooperated with the investigations.
The report stated these were the following issues that either caused or contributed to the event. Please remember that fixing any one of these items would have avoided the accident:
- Inputting the incorrect runway into the FMS control.
- Failure to verify FMS had the correct information at the stand.
- Failure to input the takeoff data into the FMS when correcting the runway information.
- (Captain) Failure to verify list item when prompted by the copilot (Thrust lever setting).
- (Copilot) As pilot monitoring, failure to read out V1 and VR speeds to Pilot Flying. There was some confusion if the V1 and VR indicators were on the display, but NTSB said Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) should of had the Copilot using ground or airspeed for those callouts.
- (Captain) Failure to reject takeoff while below V1 speeds when alert messages started showing up.
- (Captain) Rejecting takeoff after starting VR rotation and the nose was in the air instead of flying an "Engine Out Go Around procedure" for issues between VR and V2 speeds. At V1 and after, takeoff should ONLY be rejected for specific Master Warning issues. (This is counter to the video, as there are some "very nasty" edge cases where takeoff can be rejected at/after V1 speeds.)
- Airbus using the RETARD audio warning normally used for a landing event for a takeoff event that causes confusion in the cabin.
- US Airways lacking training for the RETARD warning during takeoff. (This was rectified after the incident.)
So, knowing all of this, would you shitcan a pair of otherwise capable pilots with clean records and caught up on their training, even knowing the training was inadequate? Without the recommendations section of the report, it's hard to say what the NTSB would suggest. My guess from reading would have been the following:
1. Both pilots receive additional training on rejected takeoffs, standard operating procedures, and (in the pilot's case) Cockpit Resource Management. (NOTE: not fire.)
2. US Airways update their training programs and safety binders to include the RETARD alarm.
3. Airbus push out information to make sure all airlines using that aircraft have this scenario included in training and the onboard safety binders.
Please remember, whenever we review events like this, our thoughts should be "what caused the issue and how to we prevent it from happening in the future" and not "Who do we burn at the stake for this". You'll fix more problems and have less accidents this way.
Don't trust what I say about the report. Here's the report if your interested in reading: data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/88921/pdf
Generally, I always thought that for scheduled carriers, retirement was mandatory for pilots. They can still fly for non- scheds ( supplemental carriers).
@@fluffy-fluffy5996 if the pilots were kept they wouldn t say so since they dont want to scare customers
@@jackielinde7568 Sorry, but rejecting a T/O beyond V1 is neither recommended nor trained in any airline
I know
I love that you don‘t dramatise your videos unnecessarily, keep it up! great video as always
09:37 in fact is the opposite: "Takeoff with flexible thrust increases fuel consumption compared with takeoff with TOGA thrust, due to the longer takeoff phase. But the use of flexible thrust reduces engine wear and reduces general costs." A320 FAM Flight Crew Technique Manual - Green Operating Procedures
Great video!
whoops, you're right of course. thanks!
Interesting, that totally makes sense, it is always presented as cost savings through maintenance and fuel consumption but the people mentioning it are just regurgitating info from another source.
I wonder at what point the fuel is more valuable than the engine wear. Are they taking off with TOGA thrust at the moment during the Russo-Ukraine war?
@@Musikur good question, perhaps our President can answer that, he is learning how to tie his tie this week, and rehearsing for the BS he is going to say about all the money Hunter got, while everyone looks the other way. Putin is laughing about America right now. It took a year and a half for this country to turn into a complete joke, oh yea the adults are running things now. but i digress.
this is an aviation channel. Please keep your political views to yourself.
Don’t know much about airbus. But on a Boeing you definitely need 10 minutes or so for a runway change. It requires a new brief, performance, flap setting etc. It is a potential can of worms. It needs to be well managed. When you are just to line up to then discover that the wrong data is in puts even more pressure on the situation. But the only right thing to do here was to cancel the takeoff clearance. Tell atc that you need a few minutes and will call ready when you are ready for it.
But it is always easier to say these things from the comfort of home. In real life pressure is on.
2:08 Oh. My. God. The fire truck killed a man!
"Get Home-Itis" bites another pilot in the ass. On Boeing equipment, when you do a runway change you get an EICAS message that says "TAKEOFF SPEEDS DELETED", similar to what the Airbus has. This guy was in such a hurry to get to his destination that instead of pulling off the runway and getting everything sorted out [probably 3-5 minutes + whatever delay would be encountered getting back to being number one for take off...], he just "pressed ahead" and totally screwed up. The dog has a sore ass.
What boggles my mind is that I know offhand just about what speed I need to bring a 767 off of a runway since we brief it beforehand, and if the speeds were to suddenly drop out on the takeoff roll, I could rotate and fly away and figure it out after leveling off at 2000 feet or some safe altitude like that. Simple airmanship. I don't know why this guy dropped the nose like that; A 767, which is much much heavier, can easily rotate at 167 knots at any weight we are flying at, so you know you are going to fly away safely. A smaller plane like the A320 shouldn't have any trouble getting airborne at that speed.
Should this be called an unstabilized takeoff attempt?
(with a little "get thereitis" thrown in)
haha, why not...
10:45, "what could this crew have done better..." The best option would have been as they were taking the runway and realized they didn't have the correct runway loaded would have been just to call the tower with: "we are not ready yet". Probably followed by a "U"-turn off the runway at the next intersection. Take their time and set things up right. Then go. CRM 101.
I agree -- although not a pilot, I would suspect training tells the crew that accurate flight parameters are an essential component to safe flight. The first entry error by the first officer should have triggered a "not ready" situation, and the captain/first officer should have reviewed the ENTIRE data entry process for the flight --- especially since they both knew that entry of a new runway would overwrite/negate the Vx values. When the captain discovered his flex setting was unusable, he could have rejected takeoff, or gone max power. Not clear from the video why he waffled. Parenthetically it is very problematic that the First Officer disregarded/blew past the clearing of the Vx parameters when he changed runways on the computer. It was an opportunity for him to say "Captain --- I'm sorry, but none of the parameters for safe flight are reliable at this point. We need to re-configure." The crew needs to be able to trust the information in the computer/output of working instruments.
The airplane never flew align after the incident. It sat in the corner of the airport near the FBO until 2020. Then it was moved to another part of the airport and dismantled. Awesome video. Nice to have a clear picture with illustrations of what happened
Oh really? Wow, for seven years. Crazy, I thought it surely flew again if they kept it for so long. Thanks for letting me know!
@@AirspaceVideos at the height of 2020 falling apart, I had the opportunity to reposition an airplane over there(by the FBO) for storage with my airline. My first officer and I had a unique opportunity to walk around the airplane. Given the enormous stress during the impact, it’s a miracle that the fuselage did not break in half. There were several points of rippling skin where underlying pieces had bent or flexed significantly.
Must have been interesting to see! That's what I thought, I thought the fuselage would probably have creases and wrinkles - usually, that's a death sentence for a plane. Interesting to see it confirmed!
Align?
@@koharumi1 Think he meant 'again'.
It felt like the captain was wracked with anxiety and fear of crashing the plane as the warnings blared, he didn't want to risk anything in-flight in the eve of his retirement. He chose to reject the takeoff, but a bit too late.
Great Video as always :) they had so many opportunities to correct their mistake... the display even said "thrust levers to TOGA" as is to say "just power this bird into the skies and get it over with".
Thank you! To be fair - I'm not sure if the older A320's also show the line "THURST LEVERS - TOGA" on the ECAM. As far as I recall, the older ones just display "THRUST NOT SET" without any instructions. But I might be wrong.
@@AirspaceVideos interesting, thanks for the clarification mate! cheers!
2:06 bus casually crash into truck.
2:08 fire truck casually crash into another truck
15 year A-320 A&P Mechanic here, (working out of PHL as well), sad to see a beautiful machine mangled up that way, but thank God no one was hurt!
I've always wanted to talk to an a320 A&P. How reliable are they not safety wise but as far as dispatch reliability? There's so many sensors and computers used on them....I just wonder how they compare to like 737s and other aircraft in your fleet. Are they easy to work on? I love the buses by the way.
@@NovejSpeed3 Lol no worries, are you an A&P too? If not cool beans I was just wondering, if so... I'm glad there is another person on here that has an inherent passion/hate for aircraft engineers/designers lol. For the 320's there are many redundancy systems regarding the avionics/electrical so they may have a higher maintenance demand (for performing computer-based system checks) but they perform well and have a very dependable dispatch reliability. They are "easy" to troubleshoot because you can access the alpha-codes that can pull up information regarding (for example) sensor position at a particular phase of flight, to help you understand what is happening and when, when a fault occurs.
They are also very safe, (even though you hear a lot about accidents involving 320's like this one and Flight 1549 Hudson River landing), they have an excellent safety record. If you recall in this video, the computer system correctly realized that there was a wrong (missing) input for the runway and alerted the crew and then provided actions to take. We call this principle "Blue: You Do" because the computers will project the best course of action directly in front of the pilots on the ECAM (in bold blue lettering) so they don't waste time reading gauges trying to understand the situation themselves first.
They are extremely popular in Europe and gaining a lot of traction here in the States with the Legacy Carriers because they fulfill that role of (for shorter range flights) "we need to get the most people moved as cost-effective as possible but without having many open seats leftover". The 737 also fulfills this role very well, and they also have a good safety record, despite the recent problems with the 737-Max. It's hard to say as they are both very similar in terms of role / capability, and are on par with each other for the most part. I enjoy wrenching on the 320's very much, it's like trying to keep a Corvette up to race-ready status (lots of sensors, lots of composites, lots of computers) and the 737's are like wrenching on your Granddads diesel pickup truck (less complex, many cables and pulleys, heavy metal-parts) lol. Also to disclose, our Airline only has 320 Family aircraft (and the newer A320-NEO) so my comments/opinions *could* be a little biased lol.
@@skyvipers Wow that was EXACTLY what I was looking for please feel free to add anything else that you may think we may love to learn about the Bus from the mx side I would love to just sit down and drink a beer with you listening to your stories.... That way you'll be distracted and not realize your talking to an engineer 🤣🤣🤣🤣 (No worries i was a maintainer first! Heavy avionics in US Air Force 😉)
"all while berating his first officer" 🤣
With my luck I'd have used the rear slide and landed on a LEGO barefoot and been the only casualty.
I did have to use the rear slide and it was awful and super scary cause it didn’t touch the ground
4:54 You should consider also giving us a full explanation video! I'd watch it xP
This was a very compelling look at the 1702, uhm... incident. Despite my single hour of actual stick time and countless ones surfing the RUclips aviation channels, I never felt like I was being talked down to or scoffed at. Things were simply explained in a clear manner that made them seem very matter of fact. I also thought the whole piece was very - cinematic - I suppose you'd say.
As we'd say here in the southern USA, I learn't something an had a good time doin' it! Thanks... very good piece.
Excellent video and analysis of a little-known accident. Hard to imagine that such an experienced flight crew committed such a string of errors, with corrective actions available to them which were ignored. Many thanks for posting.
Jesus it's good everyone made it without getting hurt. they should have just cancelled the takeoff when they had the chance. It's like they just, forgot how to fly the plane for a bit there.
Jesus is good indeed.
Nice vid as usual - thanks. Oh, and what a clever firetruck @ 2:08!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I was not aware of this accident - what a mess!
Thank you. I’ve been fascinated by planes from a very young age. I remember watching my aunt and uncle fly off from Prestwick airport in Scotland to New York in a Boeing 707. (1963?) It was way beyond my parent’s ability to afford to fly. When we immigrated to Australia flying was still out of reach. However as I recall an Ansett Australian subsidiary Airlines of New South Wales which flew to regional destinations such as Dubbo, Wagga Wagga and Griffith offered mystery flights. You phoned reservations the day before and were told to be at Sydney airport by a certain time. As a teenager it cost about $4 aud I can’t remember exactly, but it was my first chance to experience the absolute joy of flight. Now at age 67 I still can’t believe how easy it appears for an aircraft to rotate. I had no clue as to how COMPLEX the process is.
He dithered at a critical moment and decided to take off AND abort, not sure which to do. Thats about as BAD as it gets for a professional pilot! He did it to himself! I hope he's not still flying.
The aircraft flew again? Amazing feat considering the amount of stress it sustained. I have no idea how engineers could clear it.
It did not fly again. That information is incorrect.
@@airplanegeek893That is correct. The aircraft was not repaired . And never flew again.
An experienced pilot would have had the “feel” for the right V1. Hesitation is worse than making a wrong decision.
For real, how could they have zero clue at all to what an acceptable V1 would be and why would they think 160+ kts wasn't meeting it?
During the take off roll the captain was confused,had a lot of workload so maybe his brain slowed down while the aircraft still accelerated
The 1st real decision he made was to raise the nose when he felt he was above V1 thanks to his experience.At that moment that was the best thing to do.
Then his knowledge of the rules kicked in and he realized he should of rejected the take off in the 1st place. This thought was so strong so he cancelled take off as thought. It s like when you think strongly at something you should or have to say and you realize you speak out loud.
Even experienced people can lose a lot of performance when they encounter a situation they don t understand, a better training would have helped
Um no. V1 is widely different across a 4 day trip. In 6000hrs on type I can't "feel" when we hit v1.
by the way, they had the v1 and vR for the other runway, didn't they?
(yes, it was not in the computer at that moment, but they should have been aware of that number, shouldn't they?)
is there anything that could dramatically change the v1 and vR between the two runways?
I suppose v1 can be a bit different if the runways are of different lengths (they don't seem to be that different, well, now one of them was extended, but...)
They have the same mass, same outside temperature, so the vR should be the same, shouldn't it? (if the wind is the same, which it should be since the runways are parallel)
is there anything that I am missing?
Of course, I have the power of hindsight, but I don't have any experience flying planes, so maybe I am missing something why the vR would have been different
Such good content from this channel.
Mr Airspace, you have a very calming voice. I insist you market a series of relaxation audio tapes.
Animation looks like maybe a tail strike too.
yes that happened!
Usually I feel sorry for pilots, their job is difficult and we're only human, we make mistakes in tense situations. But in this case I have no sympathy for that Captain! Just sheer stupidity and neglect. It was such a simple solution 🙄
Are you perfect? I'm guessing not because making such a post proves your character is deeply flawed.
ikr, rejecting takeoff mid-rotation is.... odd, to say the least.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 are you joking? this is the most basic of basic mistakes! Like i said i usually feel sorry for pilots but this is ridiculous! It's like driving a car and changing lanes without checking your mirrors, or a doctor giving a heavily pregnant woman medication not suitable for her even though it's obvious she's pregnant. these are completely inexcusable BASIC mistakes, check your mirrors, check if the meds are okay for pregnancy. How is he rejecting takeoff at such high speeds??
@@takers786 So you are confirming that you believe you are perfect..... thanks for verifying my point.
@@hewhohasnoidentity4377 Grow up
Don't forget to like and subscribe 😉 Can we get to 50k subscribers today?
What could this crew have done better? Er RETIRE.
Both Pilots were probably quickly retired since they seemed to be showing signs of Fatigue and perhaps early Dementia. Don't all airlines test and retest their pilots' proficiency? I would think annual examinations to be absolutely necessary. 👨✈️✈👮♀️
They do. Very frequently too, and even more when a pilot gets past a certain age. I've never heard of two 60+ pilots flying together though
@2:10, I love how one truck drives right through another one.
Using the aft slides would have been perfect for any passengers who had given the cabin crew problems!
As someone said on another of your videos, you are doing outstanding work and deserve a huge subscriber base. I hope you get there. For info, I'm a 41 year pilot flying a C441.
✈I agree, I find myself hitting the 'like' button before watching the video.. Didn't you tell me when you hit 50K, you would show yourself👨✈ ?
Thank you Rob!
no, I'll probably never show my face. The internet is a nasty place and the channel content wouldn't benefit from my face 🙃
Series of stupid actions.
The wreck did not fly again as you said. It sat on the north end of the PHL Atlantic Aviation ramp since the crash for several years. Broken up in 2021.
I never knew this happened at my home town airport nice video 👍🏼
Hate to correct here but the “V” in speeds stands for the French word vitesse meaning speed. It’s not a velocity. (Speed and direction)
Oh my god. So many questions, but mainly… what stopped the Captain from requesting to hold in the lined-up position or to exit the runway? Lots of impulsive decisions being made. Where was that coming from?
Who knows! There really would have been so many ways out instead of commiting themselves...
@@AirspaceVideos Yet we’ve all been there though, right? I have to keep reminding myself to not be critical of these events but instead see them as well timed reminders of what can go wrong.
@@PatrickJWenzel I've watched enough Mentour Pilot reviewing accidents, and that's something he stresses. Rarely the people involved in events like this set out their days intending to cause an incident. It's so easy for us to see this with the benefit of hindsight. I do know that the NTSB report shows the Captain spotted the issue as he lined up on the runway for takeoff. I know I'd be pretty nervous sitting on a runway trying to fix an issue with incoming flights probably lined up behind me. (I don't know if this airport uses separate runways for takeoff and landing. Some do, some don't). Also, the report stated that there wasn't much information that US Airways provided with the RETARD audio warning appearing during takeoff, and I could see that throwing someone off their game. I know I would have thought the computer on the plane was going nuts if I heard that alert without context. Airbus could have used a different callout. And I could see the captain wanting to reject takeoff if he thought the computer running the plane was having issues. After all, Airbus planes are more integrated and less "hands on" over their Boeing cousins.
@@jackielinde7568 Yeah for sure. All really good points.
@Game Plays 1230 Yes indeed, and as we both know the world is filled with people that are doing things they probably shouldn’t, or holding views or attitudes that don’t serve them well.
‘While berating his first officer’ would love to hear that 😅 9:56
3:30 There are some cases where a take off might be rejected after V1, but only in cases where takeoff or safe flight is not possible, such as flight control failure. To say a rejected take off is not possible after V1 is not accurate. It is possible, but an accident will most likely result. This would be a case of choosing between something bad (a survivable accident) and something worse (an non-survivable accident).
Yes, but the point remains, the captain must have known that he was well above the safe takeoff rejection speed, and there was no reason as far as he knew why the aircraft wouldn't have been airworthy, in fact he already knew what the problem was.
@@Musikur I was just pointing out that there are times when a post V1 rejection is the correct choice. I was not saying it was the correct choice in this case.
You are correct. In this case the pilot chose to reject a take off when a rejection was not the correct response.
However, you can't say what the pilot knew or did not know. Especially if you are not a pilot yourself.
The most difficult and important part of a pilot's job is not controlling the airplane. That part is actually really easy. The hard part is making decisions. Deciding what to do in any given situation is something pilots have to do all the time. Sometimes they will make the wrong decision.
Watching it before flying
As you know, the points during the takeoff past V1, but prior to rotation, when the gear is still down is not going to afford time for a checklist and it is not something that even a 61 year old pilot has ever probably faced. All things considered, since every person on that plane walked away. There is very little left to truly dig into with the exception of using the situation to work into simulation for training. Imagine, not being certain exactly what was wrong, and still having the option of staying on the ground. I would take that every time. Lets say he got up, tucked the landing gear and found one engine maxing out at idle and the other one stuck in TOGA, being 300 feet off the ground and having to deal with finding a place to land, again, this was not going to happen but they did not know this, we would not have known it. And i would much rather be part of the ever growing simulations of avoided air tragedies and not part of the much more terrifying simulated no survivor epasodes. As far as the expensive fixes to the plane. i have three letters/words that anyone who might have died on that plane including whoever wrote this would agree with.... ready,,,,, BFD
@Jonas Jonaitis Exactly. If the pilot would have continued, and there was a critical malfunction there is nothing the pilot could have done, there is exactly zero chance of turning around and landing at that airport, he did the right thing with the exception of never rolling to begin with.
you said it. There is not enough time to do anything once you commit to take off, and thats why the V1 call out is so critical. Once you are in V1, you still have to keep in the mind set of "what am I going to do if tragedy strikes?" But your options are impossibly narrow. Ugg it makes me think about the Potomac. We took away much stricter deicing procedures from that nightmare, but to think a pilot would close the gap behind the plane before him to hope the heat from the engine thrust ahead would melt the ice when, in fact, it created a more difficult icing issue by turning snow into water momentarily before it iced over. We have to learn from every trgidy, it does not bring anyone back, but at least they did not perish in vane.
Constantly amazed by the cgi/production quality of the content created by my favorite RUclipsrs. The history channel has spent millions over the past decade and hasn’t been able to create anything remotely good.
thank you so much! :))
Excellent video, I subscribed! 😊
As usual, very well done.
Yet another incident where experienced pilots didnt do the things they should and then didn't know they hadn't done them.
I don't know much about airliner computer systems but wouldn't it have been ideal if they were programmed not to even ALLOW the engines to spool up to flex when the airplane is stationary if there was an error like this? So using this incident as an example - when you push the thrust levers to FLEX - nothing happens. Instead all you see are error messages warning of the missing data. A voice should say TAKE OFF NOT ALLOWED.
Great video as always, respect Airspace!
Imagine the thrust generally going up when pulling the thrust leaver, except on the "flex indent", there the computer behaves differently.
Now imagine an in flight incident, where the system "thinks" the leaver is in the flex indent and a voice screaming "take off not allowed".
Not really feasible. Until the thrust levers reach flex, the power on the ground is manual. The real defence is a crew not continuing a takeoff without valid data.
At 2:15 I’d be concerned about the virtual bus and fire truck driving through the box van parked near the flight waiting at the gate.
Ha ha! I thought WTF? and the immediately remembered it was a flight sim.
Now that's some extreme porpoising...
The plane actually never flew again
Captain has the responsibility for the equipment, crew and passengers. Captains can't trust other people to do his job. Co-pilot had screwed up one time and the captain allowed him to fail again!
I seen this aircraft a few times on the GA ramp before it went for scrapping. Glad I have a photo of it before they took it away.
That was a scary moment for everyone.
Another great one as always! Another one of those discreet incidents. Funny ending ya' got there too, a neat change of pace
Temperature is extremely important, you get more lift at 20C than you get at 40C, basically colder = more lift. If you had a airplane at max weight, it may not lift off if it is too hot.
That’s not the point of the video. Bad input means bad output in the FMS. The temperature was just the flex
That's a very weird decision. I am not an airline pilot of course, but my feeling is that I would just went on with the takeoff. I mean you know that 164 knots is more than enough speed even if you don't have the V1 indication available. So why did the pilot make such a decision? Pressure of the moment? Panic?
True. At that sort of speed you can usuallly lift a 777 of the runway lol
Never mind about what the problem was with the aircraft - what about the double truck crash at 2:05 at the left of the video ???
Thanks Airspace.
Glad all were safe.
5.1.5 FLEX THRUST
Compared to a full thrust take-off, flex thrust will generally increase fuel burn. The increased time at low level offsets the slight reduction in fuel flow induced by the lower thrust. Typical increases are as follows:
A320 config 1+F:
1kg; config 2:
5kg; config 3: 5kg;
Airbus getting to grips
fuel economy
Issue 4 - October 2004
Very nice vide as always btw 😉
2:09 Why does the fire truck go THROUGH the catering truck? Just asking.
The captain should have aborted the takeoff as soon as the warnings went off or double checked everything prior to commencing the takeoff roll.
The big question is how the firetruck was able to drive right through that truck without damage?
The NTSB discussed this in their report. They recommended more checks in the programming stage.
Obviously either or both pilots come from Texas - how else would you explain this 'bucking bronco'??
Just go to TOGA 😖
If it can be called flight then it was even shorter than the first Right brothers' flight let alone Sully's full featured adventure.The pilot, being experienced one, must have been exhausted or something to make such a mistake.
At 6:30 you can see displayed on the upper ECAM, in cyan, the request to move the thrust leavers to TOGA.
Apparently, the Captain only read the orange line above this.
Classic case of GIGO. That's what happens when you make computers fly.
Being afraid of a delay and a butt chewing causes more incidents. It would also be nice if pilots could revert to flying skills vs technology skills when things go awry.
I love the way that the firetruck drives straight through the catering truck at 2.06 Why aren't planes made of the same materials?
I think the automation could have responded better. Absent a flex temperature, treat flex thrust as maximum take-off thrust. Show V1 and Vr accordingly.
The system doesn’t know the new V1 and vr.
V1 is dependent on the runway length, weather it is wet or dry, the weight of the aircraft, and any derate applied as well as the actual air temperature. No way a computer can determine this with no info
@@musicalaviator It could still give Vr.
@@sylviaelse5086 no, for the same reason.
@@peteconrad2077 The systems already know the weight of the aircraft, and can calculate Vr from it.
I guess no aviation channel would be complete without a clip of Kennedy Steve in the intro. ^_^ Great content!
See at 2:08 how the fire truck drove over the ground crew and hit the bus ;)
2:05 Look what is going on with those ground vehicle. Did no one notes the trucks passing through each other?
Amazing video as always!!! You're my favorite Swiss youtube channel lol
Thanks! 😃
I'll call it the negligence of age. Both pilots were trapped by habit from long years of doing things routinely. They had forgotten their emergency response training. They were not up to proficiency standard anymore, in other words they had become incompetent.
Captain should get prison time! What a JERK!!!!
3:03 Got it so to thoroughly calculate the departure type in "H U Y J J I U H Y U U J H G H"
2:08 - Watch a firetruck drive right through another vehicle on the ground without any damage.
These two pilots should have been retired long time ago. There is no excuse for this!
1702 was definitely not an A320NEO
@2:05...Is it me, or did a bus & a firetruck basically ghost it's way through the food & beverage truck?? Tell me someone noticed that. 🤔
This aircrew had no business in the cockpit of an airliner.
I would imagine at a minimum the captain retired, that was a fairly serious brain fart
…when you forget your cell phone charger in the pilot’s lounge 😂
This is absolutely a pilot error, he is still lucky that the aircraft did not catch fire as the aircraft fell down nose first. A slight bank would make the wing tip touch ground and catch fire as the aircraft was full with fuel. In the future the aircraft and the airport should be totally equipped with AI as this kind of pilot error accounts for 99% of all aircraft accidents.
You would have to do a lot more than strike a wingtip to start a fire
videos like his are unwatchable without an adblocker
Job openings at US Aurways.
Very interesting video!! Liked your information!!
Those poor passengers and FAs! What a wild ride. This happened less than one week after MH370 went missing, so I’m sure anxiety levels were already higher than usual, and the pilots should have been even sharper than ever.
Thay were close to retirement anyway, and I'm sure it was advanced. After a performance like that, even if not forcibly retired, I'd have resigned out of sheer embarrassment.
It's amazing that all that pogoing didn't break the aeroplane; it would have been very heavy.
this makes one wonder why we still bother to have pilots.
Aren't there emergency circumstances where an unsafe rejected takeoff and resultant overrun would still be preferable to managing to get into the air only to not be able to climb or maintain altitude?
I guess there's no procedure on that. Sure, if you lose a wing maybe, but what are the chances of that...
One of the main reasons for the reduced throttle setting of take offs is very rarely mentioned by Aviation RUclipsrs.
That reason is noise.
Over the last few decades, Aircraft manufacturers and Engine suppliers have been battling with noise reduction to keep people on the ground and environmentalists happy.
Anything that can reduce noise production by Aircraft is happily used by the Airlines, even if it has the potential to cause other problems.
I sincerely hope these two Pilots were advised to take early retirement, their CRM and decision making was utterly lacking in any sort of effective and professional performance.
not a primary concern, but yes, a nice side effect!
@@AirspaceVideos I'm afraid it has been a primary concern of Manufacturers and operators for decades, right up there with Fuel Economy......... how stupid of me to expect an Aviation RUclipsr to know this?
pardon me - it's not a primary concern for pilots when doing take off calculations. Of course it's a very high priority for manufacturers!
Should have chosen my words more clearly.
This incident happened four days after flight 370 disappeared and went unnoticed by the mdeia.
I remember seeing this on the news at the time
It's incredible that that capain with that low knowledge and experiance had flown for decades, quite incredible.