Loved that reference, but I wouldn't be surprised if the post-incident investigators, insurance adjusters, and passenger lawyers weren't so amused when they heard that on the cockpit voice recorder. The pilot makes a little joke and now they have to drug test him and listen to idiots are arguing "Well, maybe if he wasn't addicted to sniffing glue, we'd have less injuries, pay my client several million more!"
@@hotlavatube After every incident at the FAAs request the crew and traffic control are breathalyzed and drug tested after, it's policy. And if they can they are brought in as soon as possible after the incident for their statements. Only exceptions is if they are hospitalized. Everyone involved gets the treatment, even if they were "heros" or not.
@@AccidentallyOnPurposeyea ok lol I’m sure they are going to make a hero who landed the malfunctioning plane immediately take drug and alcohol tests they probably are taking him to a luxury hotel and ordering him room service, probably sending a call girl up to his room as well and discussing his bonus and promotion in the morning! YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!
@@hotlavatube Yea, it is sad that in todays world people don't understand humor; they hear something and right away think that the person has done something they shouldn't. Perhaps one of these days we'll go back to when people tolerate humor and jokes, but I don't see that day anytime soon.
The passengers were SO fortunate to have had a seasoned military pilot in the cockpit. He kept his cool and saved the day. That landing was incredible.
Not just the pilot, his other fellow officers too. They did the checklists and monitored the plane while he flew. Poor first officer though, he actually broke his nose in one of the dips before he came in, he helped covered in his blood, they don't show that on this one though.
@@AccidentallyOnPurposeCaptain Sullivan had me when he told the first officer, "Congratulations, sit down, strap in, we're in trouble." It was a line I'd expect from a Top Gun pilot, or John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, (your favorite action movie hero here).
@@ninjabearpress2574 His ability to use dark humor to his advantage is such a great skill. This version of the telling doesn't show just how terrible the situation was. The first officer in reality walked in covered from his own bleeding nose, bruised, clothes all torn up from helping strap injured people into their seats all the way, and just experienced walking through pretty much a blood bath. He probably looked terrible so sullivan was trying to tell him to get it together so the FO can help them.
D.E.I. has taken care of that issue. Won't have seasoned military pilots saving the days these days. Now we have unqualified minorities who'll fly that b***h into the ground.
Yup. Trying to design aircraft that prevents pilot error- leads to computer error. That’s the modern ( Airbus) approach. On the other hand, Boeing’s greed leads to mechanical failures.
Not being able to find the actual cause of the fault is never a good thing. Wihtout knowing the root cause of the error you can never guarantee that it won't happen again.
Here is the thing, I believe the root cause is just there is a software bug in airbus’s computer. They just do not want to admit it for obvious PR reasons. How else would it just be *fixed* instantly after enough attention is gathered.(I know they could’ve just added redundancy to not trust a single computer for readings, but there was never another report of ADIRU data fault either) Assuming the reports are accurate about label being swapped, a memory overflow or access violation of the software could easily result in that, or if the flight computer’s memory is not ECC protected as either neglect or cost-cutting.
@@SeanGonzalezMDHEXT that’s what I meant by they probably did not use ECC memory protection in such an important piece of computer. And I agree, it does seem to be the most likely explanation given all these happened around Australia Coast, so geographical locations seems to be a factor. What’s interesting to me though is how would a single bit flip(2 bit flip at the same time would be basically impossible), lead to mis labeling. It couldn’t have happened during data transfer or from transceiver, because whatever protocol they use must have checksum(if they don’t, that’s extreme stupidity in its own, last time I checked airbus use CANbus) which would be generated the moment data reached transceiver. So it likely happened inside the ADIRU main processor’s memory. How would a single bit flip cause essentially a variable to be *consistently* swapped with another is interesting. Upon each runtime, the processor would allocate different and unknown memory addresses for them, and most modern compiler will avoid putting a variable right next to another variable address for security reasons. Unless they are using an ASIC which is unlikely, since a software update was applied, and whoever designed the chip just didn’t think this would be an issue. FPGA is possible, but they usually don’t have great environmental stability to be put on an aircraft.
@@patrickchen2878 This right here. I write code and work for an IT company. This is without a doubt a software bug baked in. Fly-by-wire is usually written in C++, so that's gonna be a compiled binary. They would have had to decompile and reverse everything step by step even though Airbus should've been forced to submit the source for review in the investigation, which they probably did under the condition of an NDA. But I guess since nobody had died and the problem could be 100% fixed internally, they agreed...
As a former Maintenance Chief for the US Air Force, I have seen a similar problem on a C-17 Globemaster III. Back in 2003, we had an aircraft suffer a total system failure near Hawaii. Flight Computers, Inertial Reference Units, all Primary Flight Displays just shut down. The C-17 has only VERY basic analog backup instruments (altimeter, compass, attitude indicator, etc) and are powered by batteries. If they fail, you have the Ram Air Turbine (RAT). The crew reported for 6 minutes the aircraft had NO primary power. Eventually after the crew reset the circuit breakers , power was restored. Boeing Engineering tried multiple simulations of this problem. The eventual cause was determined to be something called "crosstalk". In short, it's where all the flight computers are constantly talking to each other and eventually they begin to spit gibberish out at each other. This can cause the computer to agree/disagree so much, they can literally fail themselves. Imagine that? They babble themselves literally into near oblivion. That Quantas Crew deserves a medal for that save. I'm not sure about Airbus, but Boeing has a "history" of issues with flight computers and software.
Edit. To clarify, the C-17 regained it's normal functioning. As for the Quantas Jet, it could be a similar issue, but the crew got the plane down, rather than mess with circuit breakers and resets. So we might never know if a reset was even possible, recommended by the aircraft builder, or it wasn't thought of due to the extreme emergency.
Fascinating. In another Mayday episode on a Boeing 757 Birginair plane carrying German tourists from the Dominican Republic ("SHOCKING Truth Behind the Terrifying 757 Disaster"), the Turkish captain reset the circuit breakers after getting warnings for both over-speed and a stall (that apparently resulted from a clogged pitot tube connected to the autopilot). It was all to no avail. The investigators in that episode asserted that resetting the circuit is a method employed by old-fashioned pilots due to their experience with earlier planes, and that it would have been better had the younger pilots stood up to him by insisting instead that he take action to avoid the stall (but probably did not do so due to a strong cultural tendency to defer to seniority). But I take it from you that he may actually have been onto something.
@@MegaLokopo interesting fact to look in to, is that obstruction of the fly data pitots outside of the airplane's nose can be responsible for the wrong data given to the computer onboard, i have heard at least of a case like that in which the mechanics working on the plane before departure forgot to remove a piece of tape from one of the pitots, just like that piece of tape, debris can build up overtime inside or even ice specialy at high altitudes.
@@lcfflc3887 Yup..or bugs fill in little holes with dirt. Good old mud wasps. I have had wasps fill in all sorts of things on equipment. Wasps did a number clogging up my portable welder. I know one plane investigation showed wasps near an airport had filled in small indicator tubes on a plane that messed up the plane computers. Also a military high tech jet had the computers fail due to moisture getting into the sensors. Little things can lead to catastrophe.
The ones with the worst outcomes have a notice in the beginning like, "These events have been re-created from NTSB reports, black box data, ATC Radar information, and witnesses on the ground." At least if you are interviewing people who were ON the plane, then there is hope.
Yeah. Everyone survived this, some with lifechanging disabling injuries, but everyone nonetheless. One woman almost died though when she broke her back in the incident and her heart stopped in surgery. Another episode interviews more survivors, the damage was absolutely terrible.
Kinda creepy that they never did find out what actually caused the bad data, but at least they came up with a software workaround in case it happens again.
They might have but if it was govt / military related they weren't going to admit it to the public. Just put it to bed and say they fixed it with the plane's updated systems.
The full report said that what best fit the evidence was random cosmic-ray-induced data corruption, and that presumably that particular ADIRU was just a bit more susceptible to that than most. Sometimes glitches just happen.
No need to panic! Statistically you are safer in an airplane than you are walking down the street or driving your car! Civil aviation had a fatal accident rate of 0.0 per 100,000 flight hours in 2022, compare that to the roughly 43,000 people who die every year in car accidents. “If you take one flight a day, you would on average need to fly every day for 55,000 years before being involved in a fatal crash.” These are the words of Arnold Barnett, who has calculated the chances of a plane crashing, and is an expert in the field of aviation safety and risk and Professor of Statistics at MIT. And according to NTSB, if you're involved in a plane crash, your survivability is 95.7%. If you need some consolation, just look up the number
Last flight I was on had to make an emergency landing. Looked out window of plane and saw all sorts of emergency services and news crews awaiting our landing. That was enough to make me keep my feet on the ground!!! Not flown since.
Another disaster program claimed 100 thousand flights are completed globally safely everyday. Of course there's inherent risk to flying (or any form of transportation for that matter), you're 4-8 miles in the air going about 500mph with gravity always winning, but I like to think if my perception of the risk being high was real, there wouldn't be any career flight attendants or pilots.
With Airbuses, the computers are *always* in control; they just sometimes listen to the pilots. In this case, there was an almost lethal level of GIGO, however.
The toilets flush into s separate tanks so it probably wouldn't be as bad, probably no back flow. It would probably be safer too, would keep you from flying around.
Please take note that is is a "state of the art" AirBus that could easily have ended in the death of all aboard just like the 737 Max tragedies. What saved this situation was the pilots' competence.
And enough altitude that they had time to apply said competence - at least one of the max crashes sounded like it happened so close to the ground they simply ran out of time and altitude to apply the required mitigations and manually hand-crank the trim wheels before impact since it was during initial climb-out
I always love watching these videos with Qantas planes, because I know the plane lands safely. Qantas is the only airline currently in operation that has not had a major crash of any of its aircraft.
Ten years later a faulty AOA sensor and faulty MCAS software would cause the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max aircraft, killing hundreds. Why didn"t Boeing designers know of (or heed) the dangers these "safety" systems?
Well, I’m definitely no insider but from my understanding the engineers did have concerns, but the company had some kind of change up where those in charge were numbers crunchers and I don’t wanna put words in their mouths, but I think there may be some kind of unspoken thought where if they think something is unlikely to occur, and if it does the percentage of their customers that would be affected would be relatively small so they may have decided it would be way more expensive to correct or train better wish it wasn’t even a totally new aircraft. It literally was something about it that they just needed to understand. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t recommend XYZ training to avoid any accident let alone loss of lives. I do know that there’s enough evidence that they were aware of the potential danger that I think it’s going to end up being a lot more expensive than the number crunchers anticipated. I think if these kind of safety issues keep happening and even almost incidents that that could do in the company. Terrible way to do business. Even if they had an engineer with a stellar reputation and a very good accountant working together with the engineer not being alarmist, but being taken seriously when he has serious concerns that would’ve been so much better for everyone was at the company and in the flying public.
The MCAS itself works fine so long as the ONE sensor that was tied into it was working fine. If that sensor malfunctioned, Boeing didn't program MCAS to look at any other sensors, so...no redundancy. Boeing broke a cardinal rule in regards to flight automation: Any system that directly controls any aspect of the flight must have redundant inputs to prevent a single point of failure.
@@matth9254 - Same reason Boeing didn't fix the problems until hundreds of people died and Government Aviation authorities grounded planes: Low probability of occurrence.
The computer was practically out for blood, albeit involuntarily. And people today are so complacent about all the new AI tech popping up all over the place........
From Mentour Pilot's channel I learned that Boeing and Airbus have opposite mentalities. Airbus' mentality is that computers should fly the plane and pilots are a backup. Boeing's mentality is that the pilot should fly the plane and computers are to make it more convenient. This instance is an example of why I don't like Airbus' mentality.
Captain A330, 9,500 flight hours on type here. You don’t have any knowlege about the Airbus’ philosophy. The true is : « the pilot flow the plane and the computer forbidden him to trespass the flight enveloppes limits in "normal law", less protections in "alternate law 1 then 2" and no protection in "direct law". In this final level of control law the computer is lobotomised and it’s exactely doing what the pilot demand.
Airbus 330 Captain here, 9,500 flight hours on type. « …Airbus mentality is that computers should fly the plane and pilots are a backup… ». I'm pretty sure Mentour Pilot didn't mean that. It would be ridiculous of him. First of all we don't say « mentality » but « philosophy » about flight controls. The airbus philosophy does not put the pilot in "back up". This is the contrary. The computers are only there to protect the plane by preventing the pilot from exceeding the limits of the "flight envelope" nothing more. That only in « Normal law », less protection in Alternate law 1 or Alternate law 2. No protection in « direct law »; at this point the plane do exactly what the pilot want, even if he’s getting out the flight enveloppe. The Boeing philosophy was to warn the pilot that he is exceeding the limits without preventing him... until MCAS where they wanted to adopt the airbus philosophy with the success that we know….🙄 In this mishap computers did the job. Issue was in the corrupted datas not in the software nor hardware. I would add that latest flybywire fighters adopted the Airbus philosophy.
@@joelcalmet5710 Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding. It's great that professionals that know the ins and outs are able to explain these things on RUclips. After your explanation I'm sure I misunderstood Mentour Pilot since he also seems very knowledgeable.
unfortunately now I think Boeings mentality is profits over safety, seeing as the quality of their planes are not great at the moment- mcas killing 346, door plugs that blow out of the plane midflight because Boeing somehow missed the 4 bolts that are supposed to hold in place not being there straight off the production line, the 787 being built by people with geds and not actually aerospace engineers. I wouldn't be praising them too much
Someone at Airbus knows how that happened. A person or team who wrote the code for the ADIRU's operating system knows what happened. How could Airbus correct the problem if they 'didn't know' what caused it?
Do a small amount of reaserch as to whats on that coast and you'll have your answer. And its not aliens. Its military. HAARP Is in Alaska and in Australia as well.
Yep...I don't fly much but one of the last flights I was on there was unexpected turbulence. It hurt like heck the belt yanking me downward...but probably less than the people ahead of me who bounced off the overhead bins. It was all over and back to normal faster than I could really process or react, just one sudden "jolt".
Yes it was. I don’t think that was the point. He did a great job of in the midst of fighting for his, and other lives keeping a bit of a sense of humor which speaks volumes as to his character under pressure!
The flight crew of Flight 72 did a commendable job landing a very crippled aircraft and though there were severe injuries sustained by some passengers and crew members,all of them survived. I’m glad that the Australian investigators discovered the problem and forced Airbus to take corrective measures to ensure that there was never an issue like these incidents happened again.
If you want to watch the full story of Flight 72, check out Green Dot Aviation's video alongside Captain Sullivan. It goes much further by highlighting Sullivan's thought process during each event.
Everybody casts shade on Boeing, but Aurbus’s software was just as buggy and pitched the plane nose down when it received bad sensor data - just like the MAX
True, people forget that airbus has made mistakes in the past too. Especially prior to the release of the 737 max where airbus was entering new territories by having their planes rely more on electrical systems rather than manual systems. This naturally led to airbus being more prone to errors with their planes. However, I think it’s also important to keep in mind the timelines the accident. Flight 72 predates the 737 MAX. The accident highlighted the importance of the AOA data and how a single error can cause catastrophic results. The original 737 max only relied only on a single aoa sensor and the Boeing engineers that pointed out the risk were ignored. On top of that it’s established by Flight 72 that the autopilot should not have the ability to drastically change the pitch of the plane-yet Boeing knowingly increased the degree of pitch the MCAS could make to hide that the plane had different aerodynamics than its predecessor. Furthermore, on flight 72, the pilots knew it was an autopilot error and responded accordingly by shutting off the autopilot. However, the MCAS on the 737 max was a separate system from the autopilot. So MCAS could still be activated with autopilot off (in fact, it was a condition that MCAS could ONLY trigger when the autopilot was OFF). Boeing also hid this feature from the pilots so the pilots were clueless as to what was causing the plane’s insistence on pitching the plane down. Once known for being the safest commercial aircraft manufacturer, they’ve smeared their reputation by intentionally reintroducing faults into their aircraft to save money.
There’s a lot of me that says, this incident should’ve been a warning about these types of systems and what do when a software glitch occurs, Because this and the 737 Max’s failures are uncanny similar
I can only imagine the feeling the captain had about his plane after not responding to his control.. and not knowing if the plane was going to pitch down again without warning
To fix the issue, they didn't need to know exactly why the data got corrupted. They had learned how the bad data led to the incident, so all they needed to do was to ensure it could be recognized as bad data so the plane wouldn't use it. Their solution was to add data checks that would prevent impossible data figures like that from triggering the plane's protections, meaning that even if the problem did return, it would be stopped before it got to the flight controls. The A330 has multiple ADIRUs, so if a fault happened in one, one of the others could take over.
It's popular these days to trash Boeing for the problems it's had, but this is a nice reminder that Airbus too has had difficulties with the fly by wire technology.
8:27 I don't think it is possible to be pushed up and forward at the same time in a dive. Up means you are accelerating down, while being pushed forward would means you are slowing (accelerating toward the rear of the aircraft), it's simple Newtonian Physics.
It can feel like you are being pushed forward in a dive. It’s the way the fluid in our ears moves to give us data about rotation. It’s an affect utilized to give the feeling of acceleration in simulators.
@@malice6081 I'm curious as to what the simulator does to induce that feeling? I have been sitting here trying to come up with ways that feeling occurs in a dive and the only thing I can think of is that the visual cues of the aircraft tilted forward faked them out into thinking they were pushed forward. We all expect to be pushed forward when we are titled forward, so that might have been what caused the sensation.
@@wayneyadamsrecommend to go watch Green Dot Aviation's Flight 72 video. They cover the broader story of the flight with more help from Captain Sullivan in a interview.
@@wayneyadams I think Green Dot Aviation highlighted a few things for Flight 72 in their video. They interviewed Sullivan last year in July, which went slightly beyond Mayday's video. Sullivan used an old trick from his top gun days to hopefully neutralize the controls by pushing the stick forward until he managed to get some control back in the pitch up state
Correct me if I'm wrong, but later didn't investigators find out that the Flight Computers' microchips can be vulnerable to cosmic radiation? What happens when a cosmic ray hits a microchip, it can cause data to be corrupted as it is stored in the computer's memory such a single bit being flipped that changes the value of flight data. The fact all three of the A330 upsets took place in the same region off the coast of Australia was not the fault of a radio tower but an unusually intense amount of cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere around that part of the Earth. A computer on the ground will almost never experience this kind of issue as the miles thick layers of our atmosphere absorbs that radiation and robs it of potential energy needed to cause the weird computer malfunctions. However, a plane at 37,000 ft has a thinner atmosphere above it and some of the cosmic radiation can reach that altitude. The solution is what Airbus already implemented even without fully understanding the cause: data checks. The data the Flight Computers gets has to be given a "sanity check" for erroneous data or corruption. This allows the computer to discard data that is clearly wrong, such as an Angle of Attack data that sudden changes at an impossible speed (like going from level 0 degrees to +48 degrees in a millisecond).
Anyone else very concerned they never figured out why this happened, but "somehow" Airbus was able to alter the computer s it wouldn't pitch? It seems really weird and suspicious a problem as serious as this doesn't have a solution to it, yet these planes are still out there in force.
as someone says while the cause was not found they can prevent it from havign the same affect. they had three of this computer system so if one is coutnering 2 it is now ignored by the rest
That is definitely either a memory bug or overflow bug of some sort. They should have had computer experts go in as soon as they saw the mis labeled data.
Sounds much like MCAS. Is there not a Master Disconnect from the computer to allow manual mode? What about a possible "bit flop" caused by some random cosmic ray?
0:34 Imagine having to analyze that screen while alarms are blaring and your heart is racing. You have seconds to address that. 1:37 "Fuzzy"? :D 22:56 Damn, those holes in the ceiling are from people's heads
After this and the Miracle on the Hudson, All I know is that if I'm flying, I want my captains name to contain Sullivan. Amazing work by the captain and crew to prevent tragedy. I also note that angle of attack sensors are not always friendly on Airbus or Boeing aircraft.
1. Try to call the naval base and ask if they were transmitting anything unusual at that time. 2. Comb all the source code related to that sensor's processing to find any bugs that would only cause problems in extremely specific scenarios.
There appears to be a continuity error with the altitudes being displayed. At around 17:32 and 17:40, the altitude is displayed as 11,000 feet. Shortly after, someone (narrator?) announces that the pilots make the decision to start the landing process at 11,000 feet. At around 18:15, the altitude is shown around 13,330 feet and descending. Then at around 18:29, the altitude is shown at 13,000 and descending. Then after that, the altitude is shown gradually decreasing below 10,000 in a couple of increments before the plane finally lands. (Apologies for not having accurate times and the precise sequence - trying to watch and type at the same time.)
Captain, It wasn't your fault, Actually your A hero, Everyone knows you done an amazing job and are greatly appreciative that you were the leader that day,
Sounds like they were unable to determine the exact cause, so they changed the way the system responds to that malfunction should it happen again in the future.
Learmonth Airport doesn’t have a control tower, nor does it have their own Fire or Rescue services, nor do they have services for a commercial aircraft.
when they said the unit was sending right data with the wrong "label" i was pretty sure the problem was in the code that generates the label, possibly in a section of code that's called only if certain combinations of values are seen to explain why it happens rarely. it's the kind of thing that can happen especially if the programmer is trying to be slick, say generating the label mathematically, instead of using a lookup table. for one example
I’ve worked for the healthcare system (15 years and counting)and I’ve ALWAYS said WE get blamed for EVERYTHING and I must say I was terribly wrong Pilots and their Crew does!
A Software Glitch where 2 systems triggered one another causing the issue. It's too bad the Human Pilots don't have an Override switch to disable the onboard computer to maintain control of the plane. How difficult could that be to install?
It would be impossible in this type because of how the flight controls work, without the computers all you have are trim tabs which could in theory control the aircraft but it would not be easy
Thank goodness for the fighter pilot and the maneuvers taken to make a safe landing. Instead of losing many or all they ultimately saved everyone! Amazing job!
This is similar to the holes in the swiss cheese description of errors that leads to the accident. In software, that concept is generally a result of concurrence. That meaning when multiple systems are operating, at times there is undetected interference, e.g. locking information to use, but another system manages to bypass the lock. Usually there is no effect because the conflicting operations do not use the same resource simultaneously. However, there comes the time where the information does get corrupted and thus causes an error.
When the atsb replayed the cockpit recording and heard " i picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue" , im sure atleast for 1 minute the investigation changed its focus.
When I heard the name "Fuzzy" I thought lol "Fuzzy" but its probably something like "Fazi" and then BAM it really is Fuzzy! I am an industrial power, controls, and instrumentation guy, and the idea of an aircraft operating "by wire" is astonishing to me. In my line of work, usually the modules do what they are told with frightening reliability, but that damned wire connecting them always ruins everything. Also hats off to this pilot. When something goes wrong, usually its one, at most two fraudulent readings going on from damaged devices, but a sudden laundry list of failures indicates that communications have been severed somewhere, or the reality has been obfuscated by those pesky humans.
this is far from the first time a fault in a computer locked out the pilots. There should be a standardized computer shut off that shuts down the emergency overrides that requires the actions of 2 pilots but when activated allows hand flying by the crew.
Wait, did they rerecord this episode because it looks different than the previous. They look much older. I must be imagining things. It has to be because they interviewed more victims last time.
This is perfect explanation of why the idea of pilotless commercial aircraft idea is absolutely completely wrong..we are putting too much trust in automation..as seen here electronics can fail suddenly..with no explanation..if there is not a human behind the yoke I will NOT get on it!
I have flown on A-330 on a few Aircraft, have always enjoyed my flights, although this incident makes me Nervous about flying in general, but I could have an accident in My Car too
To err is human, to really screw up you need a computer. On a Lufthansa flight scheduled from Frankfort Germany to Dullas Airport near Washington DC, there were software problems and the flight was cancelled after 2 hours of futzing around. The airline gave us a voucher for a local hotel and 2 meals. The next day we flew to Munich and connected to a flight to Dulles.
"looks like I picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue" absolutely lost it at the Airplane reference
It was genius too, he saw his crew was too tense so he tried to ease the tension out enough to focus, with a hilarious joke
Loved that reference, but I wouldn't be surprised if the post-incident investigators, insurance adjusters, and passenger lawyers weren't so amused when they heard that on the cockpit voice recorder. The pilot makes a little joke and now they have to drug test him and listen to idiots are arguing "Well, maybe if he wasn't addicted to sniffing glue, we'd have less injuries, pay my client several million more!"
@@hotlavatube After every incident at the FAAs request the crew and traffic control are breathalyzed and drug tested after, it's policy. And if they can they are brought in as soon as possible after the incident for their statements. Only exceptions is if they are hospitalized. Everyone involved gets the treatment, even if they were "heros" or not.
@@AccidentallyOnPurposeyea ok lol I’m sure they are going to make a hero who landed the malfunctioning plane immediately take drug and alcohol tests they probably are taking him to a luxury hotel and ordering him room service, probably sending a call girl up to his room as well and discussing his bonus and promotion in the morning!
YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!
@@hotlavatube Yea, it is sad that in todays world people don't understand humor; they hear something and right away think that the person has done something they shouldn't. Perhaps one of these days we'll go back to when people tolerate humor and jokes, but I don't see that day anytime soon.
“After the 2nd pitch down, I began to get a little bit cranky”
Don’t blame him at all.
Anyone who has seen the Academy Award winning film Rain Man knew the plane would be fine.
The passengers were SO fortunate to have had a seasoned military pilot in the cockpit. He kept his cool and saved the day. That landing was incredible.
"Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue."
That's 007 level coolness under fire, the kind of pilot I want.
Not just the pilot, his other fellow officers too. They did the checklists and monitored the plane while he flew. Poor first officer though, he actually broke his nose in one of the dips before he came in, he helped covered in his blood, they don't show that on this one though.
@@AccidentallyOnPurposeCaptain Sullivan had me when he told the first officer, "Congratulations, sit down, strap in, we're in trouble."
It was a line I'd expect from a Top Gun pilot, or John Wayne, Sylvester Stallone, (your favorite action movie hero here).
@@ninjabearpress2574 His ability to use dark humor to his advantage is such a great skill. This version of the telling doesn't show just how terrible the situation was. The first officer in reality walked in covered from his own bleeding nose, bruised, clothes all torn up from helping strap injured people into their seats all the way, and just experienced walking through pretty much a blood bath. He probably looked terrible so sullivan was trying to tell him to get it together so the FO can help them.
D.E.I. has taken care of that issue. Won't have seasoned military pilots saving the days these days. Now we have unqualified minorities who'll fly that b***h into the ground.
Isn't that ironic. The system designed to protect the plane from a dangerous pitch, CAUSED a dangerous pitch.
**plays the Terminator theme**
Yup. Trying to design aircraft that prevents pilot error- leads to computer error. That’s the modern ( Airbus) approach. On the other hand, Boeing’s greed leads to mechanical failures.
Just like the 737 max
Boeing is getting all the negative attention at the moment, but Airbus has its own faults.
MCAS has entered the chat
Not being able to find the actual cause of the fault is never a good thing. Wihtout knowing the root cause of the error you can never guarantee that it won't happen again.
I believe it was the communication station. Could be the reason they couldn't recreate the issue is because it wasn't broadcasting at the time.
Here is the thing, I believe the root cause is just there is a software bug in airbus’s computer. They just do not want to admit it for obvious PR reasons. How else would it just be *fixed* instantly after enough attention is gathered.(I know they could’ve just added redundancy to not trust a single computer for readings, but there was never another report of ADIRU data fault either) Assuming the reports are accurate about label being swapped, a memory overflow or access violation of the software could easily result in that, or if the flight computer’s memory is not ECC protected as either neglect or cost-cutting.
@@patrickchen2878it could've been a bit flip caused by a cosmic ray. It's incredibly rare, but it does happen often enough to be a concern.
@@SeanGonzalezMDHEXT that’s what I meant by they probably did not use ECC memory protection in such an important piece of computer. And I agree, it does seem to be the most likely explanation given all these happened around Australia Coast, so geographical locations seems to be a factor. What’s interesting to me though is how would a single bit flip(2 bit flip at the same time would be basically impossible), lead to mis labeling. It couldn’t have happened during data transfer or from transceiver, because whatever protocol they use must have checksum(if they don’t, that’s extreme stupidity in its own, last time I checked airbus use CANbus) which would be generated the moment data reached transceiver. So it likely happened inside the ADIRU main processor’s memory. How would a single bit flip cause essentially a variable to be *consistently* swapped with another is interesting. Upon each runtime, the processor would allocate different and unknown memory addresses for them, and most modern compiler will avoid putting a variable right next to another variable address for security reasons. Unless they are using an ASIC which is unlikely, since a software update was applied, and whoever designed the chip just didn’t think this would be an issue. FPGA is possible, but they usually don’t have great environmental stability to be put on an aircraft.
@@patrickchen2878 This right here. I write code and work for an IT company. This is without a doubt a software bug baked in. Fly-by-wire is usually written in C++, so that's gonna be a compiled binary. They would have had to decompile and reverse everything step by step even though Airbus should've been forced to submit the source for review in the investigation, which they probably did under the condition of an NDA. But I guess since nobody had died and the problem could be 100% fixed internally, they agreed...
As a former Maintenance Chief for the US Air Force, I have seen a similar problem on a C-17 Globemaster III. Back in 2003, we had an aircraft suffer a total system failure near Hawaii. Flight Computers, Inertial Reference Units, all Primary Flight Displays just shut down. The C-17 has only VERY basic analog backup instruments (altimeter, compass, attitude indicator, etc) and are powered by batteries. If they fail, you have the Ram Air Turbine (RAT). The crew reported for 6 minutes the aircraft had NO primary power. Eventually after the crew reset the circuit breakers , power was restored.
Boeing Engineering tried multiple simulations of this problem. The eventual cause was determined to be something called "crosstalk". In short, it's where all the flight computers are constantly talking to each other and eventually they begin to spit gibberish out at each other. This can cause the computer to agree/disagree so much, they can literally fail themselves. Imagine that? They babble themselves literally into near oblivion. That Quantas Crew deserves a medal for that save. I'm not sure about Airbus, but Boeing has a "history" of issues with flight computers and software.
Edit. To clarify, the C-17 regained it's normal functioning. As for the Quantas Jet, it could be a similar issue, but the crew got the plane down, rather than mess with circuit breakers and resets. So we might never know if a reset was even possible, recommended by the aircraft builder, or it wasn't thought of due to the extreme emergency.
Fascinating. In another Mayday episode on a Boeing 757 Birginair plane carrying German tourists from the Dominican Republic ("SHOCKING Truth Behind the Terrifying 757 Disaster"), the Turkish captain reset the circuit breakers after getting warnings for both over-speed and a stall (that apparently resulted from a clogged pitot tube connected to the autopilot). It was all to no avail. The investigators in that episode asserted that resetting the circuit is a method employed by old-fashioned pilots due to their experience with earlier planes, and that it would have been better had the younger pilots stood up to him by insisting instead that he take action to avoid the stall (but probably did not do so due to a strong cultural tendency to defer to seniority). But I take it from you that he may actually have been onto something.
Both airplane manufacturers have similar issues with their planes. Boeing's history of computer issues is not longer or no more than airbus's.
@@MegaLokopo interesting fact to look in to, is that obstruction of the fly data pitots outside of the airplane's nose can be responsible for the wrong data given to the computer onboard, i have heard at least of a case like that in which the mechanics working on the plane before departure forgot to remove a piece of tape from one of the pitots, just like that piece of tape, debris can build up overtime inside or even ice specialy at high altitudes.
@@lcfflc3887 Yup..or bugs fill in little holes with dirt. Good old mud wasps. I have had wasps fill in all sorts of things on equipment. Wasps did a number clogging up my portable welder. I know one plane investigation showed wasps near an airport had filled in small indicator tubes on a plane that messed up the plane computers. Also a military high tech jet had the computers fail due to moisture getting into the sensors. Little things can lead to catastrophe.
The ones with the worst outcomes have a notice in the beginning like, "These events have been re-created from NTSB reports, black box data, ATC Radar information, and witnesses on the ground." At least if you are interviewing people who were ON the plane, then there is hope.
Yeah. Everyone survived this, some with lifechanging disabling injuries, but everyone nonetheless. One woman almost died though when she broke her back in the incident and her heart stopped in surgery. Another episode interviews more survivors, the damage was absolutely terrible.
Kinda creepy that they never did find out what actually caused the bad data, but at least they came up with a software workaround in case it happens again.
the curse of automated systems in airplanes.
@@lcfflc3887[Terminator theme]
They might have but if it was govt / military related they weren't going to admit it to the public. Just put it to bed and say they fixed it with the plane's updated systems.
The full report said that what best fit the evidence was random cosmic-ray-induced data corruption, and that presumably that particular ADIRU was just a bit more susceptible to that than most.
Sometimes glitches just happen.
@@vikkimcdonough6153 "...a bit more susceptible..." I saw what you did there. :D
5:20 "How can we be in a stall and overspeed at the same time?"
Because greedy rich people think a computer can fly better than a human! 🤣🤣🤣
not this day obviously but most flights nowadays are flown by computer, and we rarely have any crashes anymore
@@breakbad9753 "rarely"? What rock are you living under?
How is that greed? It costs more money for the computers than for pilots..
@@jeromeschwartz3699 Yeah 1 in 11 million must happen every day... tool box
@@PodcastClips23969 right. lol. If that were true, there wouldn’t be any computers. 🤣🤣🤣
Capt Kevin Sullivan is the Captain I would want aboard any plane emergency! Highly intelligent and talented at flying
Should watch Green Dot Aviation's video of this flight. He interviewed Captain Sullivan
I love these documentaries, but they honestly scared the bejesus out of me! After watching these I don’t think I could ever fly again.
No need to panic! Statistically you are safer in an airplane than you are walking down the street or driving your car! Civil aviation had a fatal accident rate of 0.0 per 100,000 flight hours in 2022, compare that to the roughly 43,000 people who die every year in car accidents.
“If you take one flight a day, you would on average need to fly every day for 55,000 years before being involved in a fatal crash.” These are the words of Arnold Barnett, who has calculated the chances of a plane crashing, and is an expert in the field of aviation safety and risk and Professor of Statistics at MIT. And according to NTSB, if you're involved in a plane crash, your survivability is 95.7%.
If you need some consolation, just look up the number
Last flight I was on had to make an emergency landing. Looked out window of plane and saw all sorts of emergency services and news crews awaiting our landing. That was enough to make me keep my feet on the ground!!! Not flown since.
@@marthalisk303 well thank God that you were OK… God bless and thank you for sharing your story.
Facts Same Here 🙈🇵🇷👊💯
Another disaster program claimed 100 thousand flights are completed globally safely everyday. Of course there's inherent risk to flying (or any form of transportation for that matter), you're 4-8 miles in the air going about 500mph with gravity always winning, but I like to think if my perception of the risk being high was real, there wouldn't be any career flight attendants or pilots.
The computers took control.
Reminds me of Terminator Judgment Day
*cue the Terminator Plasma Rifle Sound effect*
@@Zephyr_Phoenix76 right! Lol
Unfortunately there will come a day when we are slaves to computers
With Airbuses, the computers are *always* in control; they just sometimes listen to the pilots. In this case, there was an almost lethal level of GIGO, however.
The computer only took over because the humans that made it told it it has priority over the pilots.
This is still human error.
I love this show. And I really hope no one was in the bathrooms when those drops came. That would seriously suck.
The toilets flush into s separate tanks so it probably wouldn't be as bad, probably no back flow. It would probably be safer too, would keep you from flying around.
That's good to know. I've been in an airplane bathroom during some moderate turbulence and that was no fun.
I love this program with the pilot and copilot say they’re in a situation where they thought they would not survive, but did
Please take note that is is a "state of the art" AirBus that could easily have ended in the death of all aboard just like the 737 Max tragedies. What saved this situation was the pilots' competence.
And enough altitude that they had time to apply said competence - at least one of the max crashes sounded like it happened so close to the ground they simply ran out of time and altitude to apply the required mitigations and manually hand-crank the trim wheels before impact since it was during initial climb-out
It also happened during the day. I've seen faults like this at night, and the plane ended up in the ocean.
I always love watching these videos with Qantas planes, because I know the plane lands safely. Qantas is the only airline currently in operation that has not had a major crash of any of its aircraft.
Ten years later a faulty AOA sensor and faulty MCAS software would cause the crashes of two Boeing 737 Max aircraft, killing hundreds. Why didn"t Boeing designers know of (or heed) the dangers these "safety" systems?
Well, I’m definitely no insider but from my understanding the engineers did have concerns, but the company had some kind of change up where those in charge were numbers crunchers and I don’t wanna put words in their mouths, but I think there may be some kind of unspoken thought where if they think something is unlikely to occur, and if it does the percentage of their customers that would be affected would be relatively small so they may have decided it would be way more expensive to correct or train better wish it wasn’t even a totally new aircraft. It literally was something about it that they just needed to understand. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t recommend XYZ training to avoid any accident let alone loss of lives. I do know that there’s enough evidence that they were aware of the potential danger that I think it’s going to end up being a lot more expensive than the number crunchers anticipated. I think if these kind of safety issues keep happening and even almost incidents that that could do in the company.
Terrible way to do business. Even if they had an engineer with a stellar reputation and a very good accountant working together with the engineer not being alarmist, but being taken seriously when he has serious concerns that would’ve been so much better for everyone was at the company and in the flying public.
Why hasn’t airbus fixed the dual input that crashed 2 in the last 15 years?
The MCAS itself works fine so long as the ONE sensor that was tied into it was working fine. If that sensor malfunctioned, Boeing didn't program MCAS to look at any other sensors, so...no redundancy. Boeing broke a cardinal rule in regards to flight automation: Any system that directly controls any aspect of the flight must have redundant inputs to prevent a single point of failure.
@@matth9254 - Same reason Boeing didn't fix the problems until hundreds of people died and Government Aviation authorities grounded planes: Low probability of occurrence.
@@rachmunshine9474 their management came from McDonell Douglas that was the inhereent problem. that merge should have never been allowed.
The Airplance reference made this episode so much better!
he knew it could have been his last joke. going out in style, why not.
The computer was practically out for blood, albeit involuntarily. And people today are so complacent about all the new AI tech popping up all over the place........
From Mentour Pilot's channel I learned that Boeing and Airbus have opposite mentalities. Airbus' mentality is that computers should fly the plane and pilots are a backup. Boeing's mentality is that the pilot should fly the plane and computers are to make it more convenient. This instance is an example of why I don't like Airbus' mentality.
Captain A330, 9,500 flight hours on type here.
You don’t have any knowlege about the Airbus’ philosophy.
The true is : « the pilot flow the plane and the computer forbidden him to trespass the flight enveloppes limits in "normal law", less protections in "alternate law 1 then 2" and no protection in "direct law". In this final level of control law the computer is lobotomised and it’s exactely doing what the pilot demand.
Me either
Airbus 330 Captain here, 9,500 flight hours on type.
« …Airbus mentality is that computers should fly the plane and pilots are a backup… ».
I'm pretty sure Mentour Pilot didn't mean that. It would be ridiculous of him.
First of all we don't say « mentality » but « philosophy » about flight controls.
The airbus philosophy does not put the pilot in "back up". This is the contrary.
The computers are only there to protect the plane by preventing the pilot from exceeding the limits of the "flight envelope" nothing more.
That only in « Normal law », less protection in Alternate law 1 or Alternate law 2.
No protection in « direct law »; at this point the plane do exactly what the pilot want, even if he’s getting out the flight enveloppe.
The Boeing philosophy was to warn the pilot that he is exceeding the limits without preventing him... until MCAS where they wanted to adopt the airbus philosophy with the success that we know….🙄
In this mishap computers did the job. Issue was in the corrupted datas not in the software nor hardware.
I would add that latest flybywire fighters adopted the Airbus philosophy.
@@joelcalmet5710 Thank you for clearing up the misunderstanding. It's great that professionals that know the ins and outs are able to explain these things on RUclips. After your explanation I'm sure I misunderstood Mentour Pilot since he also seems very knowledgeable.
unfortunately now I think Boeings mentality is profits over safety, seeing as the quality of their planes are not great at the moment- mcas killing 346, door plugs that blow out of the plane midflight because Boeing somehow missed the 4 bolts that are supposed to hold in place not being there straight off the production line, the 787 being built by people with geds and not actually aerospace engineers. I wouldn't be praising them too much
Someone at Airbus knows how that happened. A person or team who wrote the code for the ADIRU's operating system knows what happened. How could Airbus correct the problem if they 'didn't know' what caused it?
They may have had suspicions that were impossible to confirm and acted on them
All 3 instances of the computer going haywire happened off the coast of Western Australia. That can't be sheer coincidence.
Yep maybe some alien base or something they are not saying comes out in the sky or oceans of Australia that causes total malfunction
@@shel0016 Perhaps dragons
Do a small amount of reaserch as to whats on that coast and you'll have your answer. And its not aliens. Its military. HAARP Is in Alaska and in Australia as well.
Having a military pilot in the cockpit during an emergency is like having a sore p*nis. (You can’t beat it!) Great job by the crew,
Omg
That's one way to put it LOL
I GIGGLED
Lol!
another amazing edition about human endurance, courage and heroism.
Buckle up. ALWAYS have you lap belt at least on loosely. Unless you want to decorate the ceiling.
Yep...I don't fly much but one of the last flights I was on there was unexpected turbulence. It hurt like heck the belt yanking me downward...but probably less than the people ahead of me who bounced off the overhead bins. It was all over and back to normal faster than I could really process or react, just one sudden "jolt".
Poor Fuzzy, he got screwed over by the airline so bad.
Fuzzy got millions in a lawsuit he's good😅
Fuzzy Maiava reminds me of the chief in the Key and Peele sketch, "Gideon's kitchen" lol
Reminds me of Temura Morrison
First time I saw this episode, I said, “OMG! this was just like what happened with the 737 Max!” 😱. Im glad this episode had a happy ending:)
Love the Airpkane reference. In the movie it wasn’t the pilot that said it, it was air traffic control. ✌🏻👍🏻
Surely you can't be serious
I am serious, and don’t call me shurley
@@yankcaptain3942 the name Shirley is spelled Shirley. 😮
Yes it was. I don’t think that was the point. He did a great job of in the midst of fighting for his, and other lives keeping a bit of a sense of humor which speaks volumes as to his character under pressure!
@@rachmunshine9474Shirley? Doctor what is it?
I highly recommend Captain Sullivan's book. (might cause difficulty sleeping)
And Green Dot Aviation's video covering this flight. Sullivan was happy to do an interview with GDA covering the broader story of Flight 72.
Difficult reading.
As of today, nothing will replace pilots.
Australia is upside down of course the computers tried to pitch down duh. Get me in there ntsb
The flight crew of Flight 72 did a commendable job landing a very crippled aircraft and though there were severe injuries sustained by some passengers and crew members,all of them survived. I’m glad that the Australian investigators discovered the problem and forced Airbus to take corrective measures to ensure that there was never an issue like these incidents happened again.
If you want to watch the full story of Flight 72, check out Green Dot Aviation's video alongside Captain Sullivan. It goes much further by highlighting Sullivan's thought process during each event.
Everybody casts shade on Boeing, but Aurbus’s software was just as buggy and pitched the plane nose down when it received bad sensor data - just like the MAX
True, people forget that airbus has made mistakes in the past too. Especially prior to the release of the 737 max where airbus was entering new territories by having their planes rely more on electrical systems rather than manual systems. This naturally led to airbus being more prone to errors with their planes.
However, I think it’s also important to keep in mind the timelines the accident. Flight 72 predates the 737 MAX. The accident highlighted the importance of the AOA data and how a single error can cause catastrophic results. The original 737 max only relied only on a single aoa sensor and the Boeing engineers that pointed out the risk were ignored. On top of that it’s established by Flight 72 that the autopilot should not have the ability to drastically change the pitch of the plane-yet Boeing knowingly increased the degree of pitch the MCAS could make to hide that the plane had different aerodynamics than its predecessor. Furthermore, on flight 72, the pilots knew it was an autopilot error and responded accordingly by shutting off the autopilot. However, the MCAS on the 737 max was a separate system from the autopilot. So MCAS could still be activated with autopilot off (in fact, it was a condition that MCAS could ONLY trigger when the autopilot was OFF). Boeing also hid this feature from the pilots so the pilots were clueless as to what was causing the plane’s insistence on pitching the plane down. Once known for being the safest commercial aircraft manufacturer, they’ve smeared their reputation by intentionally reintroducing faults into their aircraft to save money.
@@willy4588 Boeing's issue is quality control. Airbus is over reliance of computer systems
There’s a lot of me that says, this incident should’ve been a warning about these types of systems and what do when a software glitch occurs, Because this and the 737 Max’s failures are uncanny similar
In the age where corporations want to automate everything... get ready to see more of this.
“This had happened in the same airspace 3 years earlier on the same model”
“This was a black swan event no one had ever seen before”
🤔
I can only imagine the feeling the captain had about his plane after not responding to his control.. and not knowing if the plane was going to pitch down again without warning
We don't know why it happened but we fixed it so it won't happen again. Why am I not convinced?
To fix the issue, they didn't need to know exactly why the data got corrupted. They had learned how the bad data led to the incident, so all they needed to do was to ensure it could be recognized as bad data so the plane wouldn't use it. Their solution was to add data checks that would prevent impossible data figures like that from triggering the plane's protections, meaning that even if the problem did return, it would be stopped before it got to the flight controls. The A330 has multiple ADIRUs, so if a fault happened in one, one of the others could take over.
Barely anyone in the comments has mentioned how similar this is to boeing's recent issues.
It's popular these days to trash Boeing for the problems it's had, but this is a nice reminder that Airbus too has had difficulties with the fly by wire technology.
8:27 I don't think it is possible to be pushed up and forward at the same time in a dive. Up means you are accelerating down, while being pushed forward would means you are slowing (accelerating toward the rear of the aircraft), it's simple Newtonian Physics.
It can feel like you are being pushed forward in a dive. It’s the way the fluid in our ears moves to give us data about rotation. It’s an affect utilized to give the feeling of acceleration in simulators.
@@malice6081 I'm curious as to what the simulator does to induce that feeling? I have been sitting here trying to come up with ways that feeling occurs in a dive and the only thing I can think of is that the visual cues of the aircraft tilted forward faked them out into thinking they were pushed forward. We all expect to be pushed forward when we are titled forward, so that might have been what caused the sensation.
@@wayneyadamsrecommend to go watch Green Dot Aviation's Flight 72 video. They cover the broader story of the flight with more help from Captain Sullivan in a interview.
@@wayneyadams I think Green Dot Aviation highlighted a few things for Flight 72 in their video. They interviewed Sullivan last year in July, which went slightly beyond Mayday's video. Sullivan used an old trick from his top gun days to hopefully neutralize the controls by pushing the stick forward until he managed to get some control back in the pitch up state
Correct me if I'm wrong, but later didn't investigators find out that the Flight Computers' microchips can be vulnerable to cosmic radiation? What happens when a cosmic ray hits a microchip, it can cause data to be corrupted as it is stored in the computer's memory such a single bit being flipped that changes the value of flight data.
The fact all three of the A330 upsets took place in the same region off the coast of Australia was not the fault of a radio tower but an unusually intense amount of cosmic radiation hitting the atmosphere around that part of the Earth. A computer on the ground will almost never experience this kind of issue as the miles thick layers of our atmosphere absorbs that radiation and robs it of potential energy needed to cause the weird computer malfunctions. However, a plane at 37,000 ft has a thinner atmosphere above it and some of the cosmic radiation can reach that altitude.
The solution is what Airbus already implemented even without fully understanding the cause: data checks. The data the Flight Computers gets has to be given a "sanity check" for erroneous data or corruption. This allows the computer to discard data that is clearly wrong, such as an Angle of Attack data that sudden changes at an impossible speed (like going from level 0 degrees to +48 degrees in a millisecond).
That was considered a possibility, but to my knowledge wasn't conclusively proven.
I love these documentaries
Anyone else very concerned they never figured out why this happened, but "somehow" Airbus was able to alter the computer s it wouldn't pitch? It seems really weird and suspicious a problem as serious as this doesn't have a solution to it, yet these planes are still out there in force.
as someone says while the cause was not found they can prevent it from havign the same affect. they had three of this computer system so if one is coutnering 2 it is now ignored by the rest
That is definitely either a memory bug or overflow bug of some sort. They should have had computer experts go in as soon as they saw the mis labeled data.
Sounds much like MCAS. Is there not a Master Disconnect from the computer to allow manual mode? What about a possible "bit flop" caused by some random cosmic ray?
Imagine being in a plane that is susceptible to a cyber attack... now that is scary.
Was nice to see Conan O'Brien in the film as one of the investigators.
Dang, this is like the 2 737 MCAS crashes were very similar to this.
0:34 Imagine having to analyze that screen while alarms are blaring and your heart is racing. You have seconds to address that.
1:37 "Fuzzy"? :D
22:56 Damn, those holes in the ceiling are from people's heads
Imagine if this aircraft was flying at night over the ocean! Pilots can’t see - and all the warnings giving them erroneous information.
After this and the Miracle on the Hudson, All I know is that if I'm flying, I want my captains name to contain Sullivan. Amazing work by the captain and crew to prevent tragedy. I also note that angle of attack sensors are not always friendly on Airbus or Boeing aircraft.
1. Try to call the naval base and ask if they were transmitting anything unusual at that time.
2. Comb all the source code related to that sensor's processing to find any bugs that would only cause problems in extremely specific scenarios.
Hi folks 2nd premier from this channel I'm seeing today!
There appears to be a continuity error with the altitudes being displayed. At around 17:32 and 17:40, the altitude is displayed as 11,000 feet. Shortly after, someone (narrator?) announces that the pilots make the decision to start the landing process at 11,000 feet. At around 18:15, the altitude is shown around 13,330 feet and descending. Then at around 18:29, the altitude is shown at 13,000 and descending. Then after that, the altitude is shown gradually decreasing below 10,000 in a couple of increments before the plane finally lands. (Apologies for not having accurate times and the precise sequence - trying to watch and type at the same time.)
Captain, It wasn't your fault, Actually your A hero, Everyone knows you done an amazing job and are greatly appreciative that you were the leader that day,
Sounds like they were unable to determine the exact cause, so they changed the way the system responds to that malfunction should it happen again in the future.
Green Dot Aviation did a video alongside interviewing Captain Sullivan covering Quantas Flight 72 on RUclips.
"we need some of that Top Gun sh*t, Maverick."
Learmonth Airport doesn’t have a control tower, nor does it have their own Fire or Rescue services, nor do they have services for a commercial aircraft.
It’s always nice to have the passengers interview 😅
Excellent story! Well told.
Has this A-330 system issue been solved?
There seems to have been a rash of events that are due to "protection" software.
33:00
“Somewhat of a concern “😂
when they said the unit was sending right data with the wrong "label" i was pretty sure the problem was in the code that generates the label, possibly in a section of code that's called only if certain combinations of values are seen to explain why it happens rarely. it's the kind of thing that can happen especially if the programmer is trying to be slick, say generating the label mathematically, instead of using a lookup table. for one example
I’ve worked for the healthcare system (15 years and counting)and I’ve ALWAYS said WE get blamed for EVERYTHING and I must say I was terribly wrong Pilots and their Crew does!
Great bravery and heroism of aviation
A Software Glitch where 2 systems triggered one another causing the issue. It's too bad the Human Pilots don't have an Override switch to disable the onboard computer to maintain control of the plane. How difficult could that be to install?
It is it's just the pilots probably didn't think the computer was going rogue at first cause it was fine with them on the first hours of the flight
@@Zephyr_Phoenix76 no the issue is mentality of Airbus. to them the pilot is the backup with boeing the computer is the backup
It would be impossible in this type because of how the flight controls work, without the computers all you have are trim tabs which could in theory control the aircraft but it would not be easy
7:58
I can’t be the only person who thinks she looks like she’s having the time of her life. lol
That auto-pilot disconnecting alarm . lol . It sounded like the engine fire alarm...
They need to find out what went wrong with that airplane computer and fix it, or somebody's gonna die.
Thank goodness for the fighter pilot and the maneuvers taken to make a safe landing. Instead of losing many or all they ultimately saved everyone! Amazing job!
God bless these heroes
This is similar to the holes in the swiss cheese description of errors that leads to the accident. In software, that concept is generally a result of concurrence. That meaning when multiple systems are operating, at times there is undetected interference, e.g. locking information to use, but another system manages to bypass the lock. Usually there is no effect because the conflicting operations do not use the same resource simultaneously. However, there comes the time where the information does get corrupted and thus causes an error.
Finally a new episode
When the atsb replayed the cockpit recording and heard " i picked a bad day to stop sniffing glue" , im sure atleast for 1 minute the investigation changed its focus.
When I heard the name "Fuzzy" I thought lol "Fuzzy" but its probably something like "Fazi" and then BAM it really is Fuzzy!
I am an industrial power, controls, and instrumentation guy, and the idea of an aircraft operating "by wire" is astonishing to me. In my line of work, usually the modules do what they are told with frightening reliability, but that damned wire connecting them always ruins everything.
Also hats off to this pilot. When something goes wrong, usually its one, at most two fraudulent readings going on from damaged devices, but a sudden laundry list of failures indicates that communications have been severed somewhere, or the reality has been obfuscated by those pesky humans.
5:48 THATS A HOTAS CONTROLLER LMFAOOO
Always make sure your Pilots name is Sullivan
Pilot #1. Pilot #2. Computer Optional.
That actor pilot was such a turn on with the way he took control and was so confident flying. I know he was acting but still LOL
Why didn't the computer go by the two other flight computer data if there is a discrepancy from the first unit?
My friend said he was at an ATM and the software had a glitch and he withdrew few thousand dollars 😁 so glad they all survived 🙏🏽🙏🏽
Time to dust off those old Connie’s and Stratocruiser’s and get em back in service, or at least the 707’s and DC-8’s 🙄
Not many connies or stratocruisers left, same for DC-8s and 707s.
Wow, looks like that plane wasn't the only thing that went flying
Computers glitch all the time why would you want a computer flying 😂
this is far from the first time a fault in a computer locked out the pilots. There should be a standardized computer shut off that shuts down the emergency overrides that requires the actions of 2 pilots but when activated allows hand flying by the crew.
How about an override switch?
The pilots on the other plane (who had heard of the incident on Flight 72) immediately switched off the computer. And the malfunction stopped.
Wait, did they rerecord this episode because it looks different than the previous. They look much older. I must be imagining things. It has to be because they interviewed more victims last time.
They were so lucky that they had a top gun pilot!
It was a bizarre event. The pilot was able to conquer the rogue computer and land. He saved everyone on the flight that day.
This is perfect explanation of why the idea of pilotless commercial aircraft idea is absolutely completely wrong..we are putting too much trust in automation..as seen here electronics can fail suddenly..with no explanation..if there is not a human behind the yoke I will NOT get on it!
Isn't there an on-off switch or a fuse to disconnect?
No
Similar to 737 Max issues?
I have flown on A-330 on a few Aircraft, have always enjoyed my flights, although this incident makes me Nervous about flying in general, but I could have an accident in My Car too
I know what happened to that airplane's computer. They were below the equator so they were upside-down and the computer got confused!
The “original” Captain Sullivan!
Perhaps it’s in the name.
To err is human, to really screw up you need a computer. On a Lufthansa flight scheduled from Frankfort Germany to Dullas Airport near Washington DC, there were software problems and the flight was cancelled after 2 hours of futzing around. The airline gave us a voucher for a local hotel and 2 meals. The next day we flew to Munich and connected to a flight to Dulles.