I watched that plane pancake and I actually said out loud, “The human body can’t take that kind of downward force. There can’t have been survivors.” Seven survived. WHAT????? Two were children. WHAT?????????? I’m really shocked. That’s mind boggling!
@@meghanmisaliarsmall children may have a slight better chance as they will be sheltered by their parents as a protective “bubble” during impact (at least I’d do that to protect my daughter) thus making the G forces act with much more force in the adult holding them , and also protecting from debris. In this case , large sections of the plane didn’t burn apart from the middle one , what killed the people was the free fall from the stall, causing their bodies to break up , and others also burned after dead . It’s like jumping from a high place . Had the plane crashed on a more shallow angle and not stalled , almost everyone would have survived it fire didn’t break up .
@@jameswest8280 I can’t imagine any world in which that happens. Automated takeoffs and landings will likely become more common, but I highly doubt there will ever not be 2 pilots onboard.
Imagine the passengers in the planes landing right next to the crash site. Looking out the window and seeing the spot where 200+ people died just days before.
I’ve done similar, but it wasn’t a crash. I flew out of SFO and taxied within sight of a 747 that was heavily damaged from turbulence over the ocean. It had managed to land, minus a few parts.
@johnathanstephens7015 how do you figure it would be a fallacy? The odds of two airplanes crashing at the same airport on back to back days IS less likely.
That’s the fallacy. It isn’t less likely. The odds of any plane crashing is independent of the origin or destination airport or what happened on any other plane previously. The plane has just as likely a chance to crash going to an airport that just had a crash. Look it up if you don’t believe me. It’s called the gambler’s fallacy.
They said the engines could shoot flames when surging so some might say they “exploded” into flames. Meanwhile, the title of this video says this whole thing was “due to a mechanical fault.” I think Tom was more correct than this misleading episode title. ;)
What a terrible system design. That’s like installing cruise control in a car that doesn’t disengage with the brake pedal, but just fights you and accelerates more the harder you try to stop. Also, I thought AIRBUS’ were programmed to prevent pilots from putting them into a stall? So did one of their idiotic pre-programmed “safety systems” override the other in this case? 🤦♂️
A go around is automatic once you flip the toga switches. This pilot added throttle power to a plane in go around mode and stalled the aircraft. If both pilots' would have gone hands-off, the plane would have climbed out normally.
@@morganmccarthur1633 I understand, but given that most automated systems disengage when you take control, and their own simulator was even configured to do just that, it seems like a really poor design and not intuitive at all for it to basically lock itself on and fight the pilot.
* Why was it designed so that a push forward on the yoke would not deactivate TOGA. * Why was the service bulletin not attached to an airworthiness directive.
Airbus operates from the assumption that the computer is in control of the plane and the pilot only makes "requests". Boeing started doing it this way too after they morphed into a clone of McDonnell Douglas.
I don’t and never will trust Airbus automation . The same apply to modern Boeings . For me the last generation of Boeing I trusted was made more than a decade ago . 777, 767, 747-8, 737 before the max , those were good and reliable . Even Airbus from the A320-200 generation are good per se , like the older A330s, have crossed the Atlantic many times on those and are good plane , but won’t beat the 777-300.
@@thematrixwillfindyou i'm planning to travel this summer and i'm losing my mind trying to find a flight that doesn't have at least one leg on an airbus... i'm just not confident in them at all
It still feels like a design failure to have ANY situation that could potentially lock the pilot out, what if the machine has a system fail and it decides to push the nose down without the pilot being able to override because of false information? Go drive a car with a computer in total control of your breaks if you think this design is fine.
@@katesharon47 Because flying is by far the safest mode of transportation. Aviation enthusiasts and people in the industry say it because we know the statistics and don't fall for fearmongering.
It did! The Simulator in Bangkok already had the SB (service bulletin) applied. Usually when a Customer comes in they are given a list of functions that the aircraft can have, the customer then then selects or deselects the ones that applies to their configuration (Airbus is very customizable and each customer can select what they want or don’t want). This list also includes any AD’s (Airworthiness Directives) and SB’s that can be selected or deselected and then this data will be fed into the Simulator to recreate a Customers specific model. Sometimes checkmarks can be missed or incorrectly applied or some SB’s or AD’s can be permanently applied if it requires a Hardware change to the Simulator. In that case it is up to the Customer to select a SIM that fits their needs however, even that can be missed.
@@user-kb8gh5jv9tI agree. Sounds to me like the simulator in Thailand did what the upgraded aircraft does when its controls have been modified to accept “push hard down” inputs - disengage the “go around” computer logic. In other words, if China Airlines was not going to make the changes as recommended by Airbus, they should have bought their own simulators that simulated what THEIR aircraft would do, and not what other’s planes would do!
So the video title is incorrect? It wasn't a "mechanical fault", but a poorly designed system coupled with incorrect simulator training. Mechanical fault implies something mechanical either failed or malfunctioned. It appears everything worked as designed, but the pilots didn't have the information they needed to land the plane.
Sounds to me like the simulator in Thailand did what the upgraded aircraft does when its controls have been modified to accept “push hard down” inputs - disengage the “go around” computer logic. In other words, if China Airlines was not going to make the changes as recommended by Airbus, they should have bought their own simulators that simulated what THEIR aircraft would do, and not what other’s planes would do!
Airbus accidents are more interesting for me personally. Most of them are occur because of automation vs pilot . and automation is our future that means there are possible unnoticed software bugs sitting there and waiting for "right moment right time" to trigger .
Damn, another se of Man vs. Computer, where the computer wins yet again. In cockpits there should be quick manual overrides for ALL critical parts of flight that contributes to the safety of the aircraft such as pitch up/down, bank left/right, speed, etc.
The common theme in almost all recent air disasters is that if there weren’t a computer partially controlling the plane it wouldn’t have crashed, or if the maintenance guy hadn’t sneezed on the bolt everything would be fine
Most crash scenarios don't exist in a simulator. It's usually the first-time pilots are confronted with a new and confusing situation. As in this crash, no simulator training was required even though the service bulletin had not been applied yet.
I have never commented before on your channel but your portrayal of the pilots being at fault is a travesty. Regardless of any report details the pilots were not to blame. With sim training errors and a lack of upgrading the flight computer, the blame is clearly on China Airlines and Airbus. Very poor episode!
I love how they don't just chalk it up to pilot failure and they dig deep into why was there a plot failure... and you keep digging to find out what reasonings the pilots made those decisions... They were both set up to fail honestly...
I have often thought, the manufactureres of these airliners should have universal equipment and training and procedures standard for all airliners...basically they had two "rookies" in the cockpit....the blind leading the blind...and that's the fault of the airline training. I have a real problem about trusting my life to dozens of designers, constructors, trainers, Pilots, maintenance and ATC's who all need to do their job properly in order for me to live through it. Its amazing we don't see more disastors like this. My condolences to the families and friends of those lost, amazing anyone survived this crash.
The problem is when the machine fail alongside the humans. See, no machine is gonna be okay 100% at all times, because we made them. From what I can see, a lot of accidents and the likes that happen in modern day is due to over trusting the computers as well.
The fact that pushing forward on the yoke could have one effect in a Boeing and another in an Airbus is frightening. It reminds me of how car manufacturers just can't make up their mind about where to put a control and stick with it, even among different models from the same manufacturer. For example, in one car you pull a lever under the steering column to release the parking brake. In others, you step on the parking brake to both apply it and release it. If you switch back and forth between cars, you end up pulling a lever under the steering column and inadvertently pop the hood. Frustrating, but of course in a car the stakes are not as high as in an airplane where 200-some people could die, as happened here.
The training sim he used taught the pilot to do exactly what he was doing. Don't have to regress "to previous experience" - the pilot was doing exactly what the Sim taught him to do!
This was a serious problem when the then new systems of computer fly by systems came out. Each system was developed separately but not tested with other fly by programs. KIND OF LIKE ALL THIS AI crap being forced on us now.
add in poor communications, f/o didn't immediately inform captain that the yoke was not responsive to a push down so captain just said push harder... Common sense says all planes should share basic automation fundamentals. for example in all cars when you step on the brake the cruise control disengages. Imagine if one car manufacturer decided to deviate from that design...... Airbus design team messed up!
@@Zephyr_Phoenix76 Agreed. As I told my dad when sending him this episode, "Airbus's design philosophy is to eliminate pilot error by giving the computer the final say in all commands. And not necessarily telling the pilots when the computer is taking over. I think they should rethink their design philosophy. Either that, or stop with the half measures and make a pilotless plane."
They should have made the software update mandatory for all of the planes affected! And were all the pilots notified that there were 2 versions of the software that were active??
If the pilots were imputing commands in conflict with the computer mode, shouldn't the it have been programmed to loudly announce it was in TOGA mode OR the TOGA mode designed disengage flight control -- like the autopilot does when manual input is applied.
It’s the captain’s fault to allow first officer to land the plane alone making him nervous and putting the turn around switch on mistakenly. He should have done this on simulator with captain to avoid loss of 200+ lives and plane. That’s what simulations are meant for to understand the new technology
Sounds to me like the simulator in Bangkok Thailand did what the upgraded aircraft does when its controls have been modified to accept “push hard down” inputs - disengage the “go around” computer logic. In other words, if China Airlines was not going to make the changes as recommended by Airbus, they should have bought their own simulators that simulated what THEIR aircraft would do, and not what other’s planes would do!
why did the toga not disengage when they start inputting on the yolk and reducing throttle also why did the toga not level off the plane instead it held its pitch up and stalled aircraft if the toga would have disengaged when the pilot started pushing forward on the yolk then the plane would have landed and all those people would have been alive likewise the toga should have recognized that the plane was in a stall situation pitched down and full throttle level off see in the aviation World they like to blame the pilots if they have to blame something on the airplane then that gets expensive lots of red tape for all parties
Common sense if the pilots grabs control it should disengage the auto pilot poor guys and passengers kudos to the survivors hope they recovered and had a great life fucking big corporations who only cared about about they moneys
The electronics on the European cars are just as much fun. The engine light is famous for that. This seems like a industry-wide issue that started off of rudimentary electronic design and philosophy.
I feel like the reenactment was offensive to the pilot. There is no evidence he was just whistling away so nonchalantly in the cockpit as they show.. He did the best he could with what he knew at the time .
I thought in an Airbus the way that you trigger TOGA is full throttle forward only. I didn't know there was a "Go Around Switch" on the Airbus x# Throttle levers. I thought Boeing was the one that had a TOGA button...🤷♂️🤷♂️
37:42 That is the way should be, when the pilot pushes the column forward that should override the autopilot. The Boing system is right. The French is not. The French should just keep on making wine and cheese and pate foie gras. They are good with that, airplane is above their head.
Airbus was trying to show off --- they'll boast "watch how easy it is to go around"... just push this one little button and the computer does it for you! ..... Now that people died because of that... ok we'll change the design, so sorry !!
Controls like this have caused all kinds of issues from complete pilot override like here and on the MAX 7. It is always safer to have an override as soon as manual inputs are commanded through the yoke or other manual controls.
The most dangerous part of air travel is takeoff and landing. That is when the crews and passengers are at the most risk. The actual flight is fairly simple and very safe. If there was no autopilot... then the whole flight become dangerous... And the crews and the passengers will be at much more risk for the entirety of the flight and not just the brief moment of taking off and landing. Let not forget all the accidents that were avoided because of autopilots...
Why you do not want LOGIC of the computer to take full control, and NOT be able to easily be, overridden. Airbus to some extent will allow full manual control, similar to Boeing, BUT, it is only towards the end of a failure sequence, and you may be Air India 447 by then. Dead, pieces floating in ocean. Or the Airbus demo flight to show off how un-crash able it is, and then it crashed into a forest, while horrified onlookers and the top AB brass were there. ECU LOGIC
As soon as the pilots pushed down on that the computer should have shut up and turned off and let the pilots take over as soon as you touch the yoke of that plane the computer should shut down they did on the Russian plane which has caused the death of all those people when the kid accidentally pushed on the yolk it's just too technical they ought to just let pilots fly planes
That truly is a miracle that 7 survived! I definitely didn’t think anyone did before they said that.
That's unbelievable. And two small children at that!
@@meghanmisaliar I agree.
I watched that plane pancake and I actually said out loud, “The human body can’t take that kind of downward force. There can’t have been survivors.”
Seven survived.
WHAT?????
Two were children.
WHAT??????????
I’m really shocked. That’s mind boggling!
@@meghanmisaliarsmall children may have a slight better chance as they will be sheltered by their parents as a protective “bubble” during impact (at least I’d do that to protect my daughter) thus making the G forces act with much more force in the adult holding them , and also protecting from debris. In this case , large sections of the plane didn’t burn apart from the middle one , what killed the people was the free fall from the stall, causing their bodies to break up , and others also burned after dead . It’s like jumping from a high place . Had the plane crashed on a more shallow angle and not stalled , almost everyone would have survived it fire didn’t break up .
Right? That brought tears to my eyes for sure! I was so surprised!
Basically, the computer said "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
Hilarious! That’s exactly where we’re at now.
Great reference! (And on--point.)
They will never have “fully automated” aircraft and it’s a dangerous pipe dream to think so
There will always be a pilot but full automation is largely here. The L1011 was capable of Cat3 auto landings even in the 70s.
If the bank computer can screw up my account, think what they'll do to an aircraft.
@@jameswest8280 literally every commercial flight you’ve ever been on was controlled by a computer for the majority of flight phases.
@@Zach-td5mb I was thinking more of autonomous control, absent any human oversite.
@@jameswest8280 I can’t imagine any world in which that happens. Automated takeoffs and landings will likely become more common, but I highly doubt there will ever not be 2 pilots onboard.
When the pilot said it's over then took he's hands off the control's sad.
Imagine the passengers in the planes landing right next to the crash site. Looking out the window and seeing the spot where 200+ people died just days before.
I'd think, well, that just raises my odds...as it's not common, and it's never that close to the last crash.
That would be a fallacy. Your odds of crashing are the exactly the same even if a plane crashed at the same airport the day before.
I’ve done similar, but it wasn’t a crash. I flew out of SFO and taxied within sight of a 747 that was heavily damaged from turbulence over the ocean. It had managed to land, minus a few parts.
@johnathanstephens7015 how do you figure it would be a fallacy? The odds of two airplanes crashing at the same airport on back to back days IS less likely.
That’s the fallacy. It isn’t less likely. The odds of any plane crashing is independent of the origin or destination airport or what happened on any other plane previously. The plane has just as likely a chance to crash going to an airport that just had a crash. Look it up if you don’t believe me. It’s called the gambler’s fallacy.
Am I the only one that caught Tom Brokaw reporting on the details of the accident completely incorrectly?
Thanks for keeping an eye out for misinformation.
Corporate mainstream media has been putting out misinformation forever.
Incorrect after the investigation, but not as reported/known at the time.
@@Krspy2difference between what they were told at the tine and what the investigation found later. Not misinformation.
They said the engines could shoot flames when surging so some might say they “exploded” into flames. Meanwhile, the title of this video says this whole thing was “due to a mechanical fault.” I think Tom was more correct than this misleading episode title. ;)
What a terrible system design. That’s like installing cruise control in a car that doesn’t disengage with the brake pedal, but just fights you and accelerates more the harder you try to stop.
Also, I thought AIRBUS’ were programmed to prevent pilots from putting them into a stall? So did one of their idiotic pre-programmed “safety systems” override the other in this case? 🤦♂️
Um, news flash, that actually DID happen, btw!
A320 onward had the stall protection A300 was more of a "conventional" plane no stall protect fancy avionics etc. And yokes instead of sidesticks.
It's Airbus' version of the MCAS.
A go around is automatic once you flip the toga switches. This pilot added throttle power to a plane in go around mode and stalled the aircraft. If both pilots' would have gone hands-off, the plane would have climbed out normally.
@@morganmccarthur1633 I understand, but given that most automated systems disengage when you take control, and their own simulator was even configured to do just that, it seems like a really poor design and not intuitive at all for it to basically lock itself on and fight the pilot.
The Airbus crew didn't know the override sequence was: UP, UP, DOWN, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, LEFT, RIGHT, B, A
Alright I feel bad for laughing..
First, press Control-Alt-Delete...
* Why was it designed so that a push forward on the yoke would not deactivate TOGA.
* Why was the service bulletin not attached to an airworthiness directive.
This isn't the 1st time they didn't tell pilots something important
Airbus operates from the assumption that the computer is in control of the plane and the pilot only makes "requests". Boeing started doing it this way too after they morphed into a clone of McDonnell Douglas.
I don’t and never will trust Airbus automation . The same apply to modern Boeings . For me the last generation of Boeing I trusted was made more than a decade ago . 777, 767, 747-8, 737 before the max , those were good and reliable . Even Airbus from the A320-200 generation are good per se , like the older A330s, have crossed the Atlantic many times on those and are good plane , but won’t beat the 777-300.
@@thematrixwillfindyou i'm planning to travel this summer and i'm losing my mind trying to find a flight that doesn't have at least one leg on an airbus... i'm just not confident in them at all
@@crowboy0666 Airbus planes have a good safety record. So do Boing planes. That is, the older Boing models do. The new ones, not so much.
The realization at 37:00 makes me so mad. 260 people died because the pilot did what he was trained to do!
For the old air bus not the new one
It still feels like a design failure to have ANY situation that could potentially lock the pilot out, what if the machine has a system fail and it decides to push the nose down without the pilot being able to override because of false information?
Go drive a car with a computer in total control of your breaks if you think this design is fine.
It looks like air bus is responsible for the crash not the pilots
Excellent presentation, but the title is inaccurate. It wasn't a mechanical fault but a design flaw.
That's even worse, relying on Airbus computer LOGIC, over a seasoned pilot's inputs! The FSD fiasco of airliners.
FO’s mistake to activate the go around switch
I dont see how anyone has the intestinal fortitude to become a pilot. They must have nerves of steel.
Riding a bike, walking or driving are all way more dangerous
@@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823 Yes, but mistakes are way more spectacular and affect way more people.
@@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823And so is flying an airplane. I don't understand for the life of me WHY you flying enthusiasts DON'T GET THIS.
@@katesharon47 Because flying is by far the safest mode of transportation. Aviation enthusiasts and people in the industry say it because we know the statistics and don't fall for fearmongering.
@@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823 I crashed my bike into a mailbox when I was a little kid. Luckily, my bike didn't burst into flames! 😂
What is the point of Airbus A300 simulation training if it doesn't help you correctly pilot an actual Airbus A300?
It did! The Simulator in Bangkok already had the SB (service bulletin) applied. Usually when a Customer comes in they are given a list of functions that the aircraft can have, the customer then then selects or deselects the ones that applies to their configuration (Airbus is very customizable and each customer can select what they want or don’t want). This list also includes any AD’s (Airworthiness Directives) and SB’s that can be selected or deselected and then this data will be fed into the Simulator to recreate a Customers specific model. Sometimes checkmarks can be missed or incorrectly applied or some SB’s or AD’s can be permanently applied if it requires a Hardware change to the Simulator. In that case it is up to the Customer to select a SIM that fits their needs however, even that can be missed.
@@user-kb8gh5jv9tI agree. Sounds to me like the simulator in Thailand did what the upgraded aircraft does when its controls have been modified to accept “push hard down” inputs - disengage the “go around” computer logic. In other words, if China Airlines was not going to make the changes as recommended by Airbus, they should have bought their own simulators that simulated what THEIR aircraft would do, and not what other’s planes would do!
So the video title is incorrect? It wasn't a "mechanical fault", but a poorly designed system coupled with incorrect simulator training. Mechanical fault implies something mechanical either failed or malfunctioned. It appears everything worked as designed, but the pilots didn't have the information they needed to land the plane.
Sounds to me like the simulator in Thailand did what the upgraded aircraft does when its controls have been modified to accept “push hard down” inputs - disengage the “go around” computer logic. In other words, if China Airlines was not going to make the changes as recommended by Airbus, they should have bought their own simulators that simulated what THEIR aircraft would do, and not what other’s planes would do!
Airbus accidents are more interesting for me personally. Most of them are occur because of automation vs pilot . and automation is our future that means there are possible unnoticed software bugs sitting there and waiting for "right moment right time" to trigger .
When it's a fault of training and mechanics there is nothing they could have done....and that's such a shame....another lesson written in blood
Lots and lots of blood. Very sad.
Never buy a car its first year out, never buy a plane its first year out.
Damn, another se of Man vs. Computer, where the computer wins yet again. In cockpits there should be quick manual overrides for ALL critical parts of flight that contributes to the safety of the aircraft such as pitch up/down, bank left/right, speed, etc.
While the pilots did play a role. In the end it was design flaw that was the real cause.
The common theme in almost all recent air disasters is that if there weren’t a computer partially controlling the plane it wouldn’t have crashed, or if the maintenance guy hadn’t sneezed on the bolt everything would be fine
Everyone likes to beat up Boeing and Airbus is building a trap for pilots by using automation that can't be countermanded easily. It's a mess.
Yeah, Boeing just makes crappy planes, Airbus makes crappy AI.
Most crash scenarios don't exist in a simulator. It's usually the first-time pilots are confronted with a new and confusing situation. As in this crash, no simulator training was required even though the service bulletin had not been applied yet.
I have never commented before on your channel but your portrayal of the pilots being at fault is a travesty. Regardless of any report details the pilots were not to blame. With sim training errors and a lack of upgrading the flight computer, the blame is clearly on China Airlines and Airbus. Very poor episode!
I love how they don't just chalk it up to pilot failure and they dig deep into why was there a plot failure... and you keep digging to find out what reasonings the pilots made those decisions... They were both set up to fail honestly...
Also, the plane manufacturers should make the "Go Around" indicator a flashing one, to help catch the eye.
It sounds like that MCAS system problem Boeing had on the 737 Max.
Shut up the max is a safe plane
I have often thought, the manufactureres of these airliners should have universal equipment and training and procedures standard for all airliners...basically they had two "rookies" in the cockpit....the blind leading the blind...and that's the fault of the airline training. I have a real problem about trusting my life to dozens of designers, constructors, trainers, Pilots, maintenance and ATC's who all need to do their job properly in order for me to live through it. Its amazing we don't see more disastors like this. My condolences to the families and friends of those lost, amazing anyone survived this crash.
This show is 🔥 good god I ❤️ this show
one of the best productions I’ve ever seen
A episode I never seen. Glad they are finally making new content
The problem is when the machine fail alongside the humans. See, no machine is gonna be okay 100% at all times, because we made them. From what I can see, a lot of accidents and the likes that happen in modern day is due to over trusting the computers as well.
“Skye” what a great word! Let’s give these guys a good clap for inventing a new word!
I know of a couple of people named Skye. So far as I know, none have had airplanes fall out of them yet.
@@MGower4465 i lol'd
I love the graphics, spot on. 👍
The fact that pushing forward on the yoke could have one effect in a Boeing and another in an Airbus is frightening. It reminds me of how car manufacturers just can't make up their mind about where to put a control and stick with it, even among different models from the same manufacturer. For example, in one car you pull a lever under the steering column to release the parking brake. In others, you step on the parking brake to both apply it and release it. If you switch back and forth between cars, you end up pulling a lever under the steering column and inadvertently pop the hood. Frustrating, but of course in a car the stakes are not as high as in an airplane where 200-some people could die, as happened here.
A NEW ONE FINALLY🎉🎉🎉🎉
Wow! Sure makes you think, as you board the plane!
As an expert on media bias and public opinion, the cause will be ascribed to “corporate greed.”
"Skye"?!?!? Wow
Reminder, 737-Max is what you got when Boeing tried to copy Airbus's homework.
Both pilot and FO new on Airbus?? That's such poor CRM it's crazy.
The training sim he used taught the pilot to do exactly what he was doing. Don't have to regress "to previous experience" - the pilot was doing exactly what the Sim taught him to do!
plane engineer designers just take dozen steps forward and a few steps backwards with these blunder cockpit designs
This was a serious problem when the then new systems of computer fly by systems came out. Each system was developed separately but not tested with other fly by programs. KIND OF LIKE ALL THIS AI crap being forced on us now.
the older pilot dude was an ass...... not helping at all
add in poor communications, f/o didn't immediately inform captain that the yoke was not responsive to a push down so captain just said push harder... Common sense says all planes should share basic automation fundamentals. for example in all cars when you step on the brake the cruise control disengages. Imagine if one car manufacturer decided to deviate from that design...... Airbus design team messed up!
Is it me or is Airbus the beginning of machines wanting to take over and terminate everyone
I feel the same.
As long as it's not Boeing...
@@windsofmarchjourneyperrytr2823Boeing at least has a human in the cockpit, Airbus gives the computer too much power
@@Zephyr_Phoenix76 Agreed. As I told my dad when sending him this episode, "Airbus's design philosophy is to eliminate pilot error by giving the computer the final say in all commands. And not necessarily telling the pilots when the computer is taking over. I think they should rethink their design philosophy. Either that, or stop with the half measures and make a pilotless plane."
@@brigidtheirish idk this is the 4th plane on this show with a rogue AI
Best way to not be in a plane crash is don’t ride one
Thank God that the Airline companies got rid of it. Airplanes are back to being controlled by pilots.
I saw the title and thought it was talking about TAROM Flight 371
"Skye"
lol, here before it’s fixed
@@mr.pancake7960same
@@mr.pancake7960 they typically don't fix it anyways lel
i like the videos, very educational and informative
They should have made the software update mandatory for all of the planes affected!
And were all the pilots notified that there were 2 versions of the software that were active??
its crazy how people have to die before critical changes are made 🤦🏾♂
I learned something from this vidroy and others.
If the pilots were imputing commands in conflict with the computer mode, shouldn't the it have been programmed to loudly announce it was in TOGA mode OR the TOGA mode designed disengage flight control -- like the autopilot does when manual input is applied.
SEVEN SURVIVORS???!!!! WOW!!!!
Total chaos
It’s the captain’s fault to allow first officer to land the plane alone making him nervous and putting the turn around switch on mistakenly. He should have done this on simulator with captain to avoid loss of 200+ lives and plane. That’s what simulations are meant for to understand the new technology
38:59 “whatever that means 🙄 “
*The previous statement has been removed for undisclosed reasons*
Marked for Termination
@@Zephyr_Phoenix76...
What..?
@@ElectricoGamez You said Skye
@@Zephyr_Phoenix76 ...
I don't get why I'm marked for a death sentence by saying that, but...
*Well, sh%t.*
@@ElectricoGamez Skye-Net
Season Finale, Continental 1713, arriving Wednesday!
Gee, with all the press lately I thought only Boeing planes crashed....
It seems the fault was more the design of the aircraft than the pilots.
I hate stories like these, where it wasn't even the pilot's fault,, but bad circumstances.
"The pilot has absolute power in the cockpit. The copilot can't say a thing." What? CRM wasn't a thing in the 90's? That statement is assinine
I think the speaker was indicating in THIS situation the captain was in charge and not collaborating with his co-pilot.
Sounds to me like the simulator in Bangkok Thailand did what the upgraded aircraft does when its controls have been modified to accept “push hard down” inputs - disengage the “go around” computer logic. In other words, if China Airlines was not going to make the changes as recommended by Airbus, they should have bought their own simulators that simulated what THEIR aircraft would do, and not what other’s planes would do!
I don’t even think the co pilot even bumped the go around thing, when he was asked to disengage it he ended up engaging it and that’s what did them in
why did the toga not disengage when they start inputting on the yolk and reducing throttle also why did the toga not level off the plane instead it held its pitch up and stalled aircraft if the toga would have disengaged when the pilot started pushing forward on the yolk then the plane would have landed and all those people would have been alive likewise the toga should have recognized that the plane was in a stall situation pitched down and full throttle level off see in the aviation World they like to blame the pilots if they have to blame something on the airplane then that gets expensive lots of red tape for all parties
what is wring with youtube commenting
Common sense if the pilots grabs control it should disengage the auto pilot poor guys and passengers kudos to the survivors hope they recovered and had a great life fucking big corporations who only cared about about they moneys
Agree, but I'd check it, anyways.
There's no such thing as an A-300. You'd think a major studio or television series could get the very basic facts right. It's an A300, no hyphen.
The electronics on the European cars are just as much fun. The engine light is famous for that. This seems like a industry-wide issue that started off of rudimentary electronic design and philosophy.
Sort of like the no hands driving on a Telsa EV Car! And we know what been happening!
I feel like the reenactment was offensive to the pilot. There is no evidence he was just whistling away so nonchalantly in the cockpit as they show.. He did the best he could with what he knew at the time .
It's just a statistic until you put a face to it.
The fruits of automation
I thought in an Airbus the way that you trigger TOGA is full throttle forward only. I didn't know there was a "Go Around Switch" on the Airbus x# Throttle levers.
I thought Boeing was the one that had a TOGA button...🤷♂️🤷♂️
All commercial aircraft have go around switches. The go around mode configures the aircraft for a smooth controlled climb out, not a moon shot.
Brilliant: an Airbus with a control column!
I think that Airbus's rely TOO much on computers. When all else fails, you gotta fly by the seat of your pants.
Skye is a formal name, not what's above us.
If they only knew to let go of the controls and let the computer take over....
Damn I at 29.26 I wish they would have just pressed the damn auto-pilot button … you can do that, right?
RIP
More proof that Buses were never meant to fly. Dude, is this plane Bussin'? (crashing, by computer)
I would never ever fly China air anything
Pilots should be called Flight Supervisors nowadays.
AI TAKING OVER SKYNET: TERMINATOR
37:42 That is the way should be, when the pilot pushes the column forward that should override the autopilot. The Boing system is right. The French is not. The French should just keep on making wine and cheese and pate foie gras. They are good with that, airplane is above their head.
Airbus was trying to show off --- they'll boast "watch how easy it is to go around"... just push this one little button and the computer does it for you! ..... Now that people died because of that... ok we'll change the design, so sorry !!
Agent Sandoval, EARTH FINAL CONFLICT
What’s so dangerous now?
I’ve been living in Japan since 2017 I’ve jrver heard about such incident
Why does the title say skye when it should say sky ??
It’s done on purpose to increase comments and engagement
Controls like this have caused all kinds of issues from complete pilot override like here and on the MAX 7. It is always safer to have an override as soon as manual inputs are commanded through the yoke or other manual controls.
dude: autopilot will make planes safer
autopilot: bet...
narrator: this is the 23984383 accident where autopilot played a big part.
The most dangerous part of air travel is takeoff and landing. That is when the crews and passengers are at the most risk. The actual flight is fairly simple and very safe.
If there was no autopilot... then the whole flight become dangerous... And the crews and the passengers will be at much more risk for the entirety of the flight and not just the brief moment of taking off and landing.
Let not forget all the accidents that were avoided because of autopilots...
If there were that many accidents no one would fly 😭
Gee, maybe they should put Boing autopilot systems into Airbus airframes - maybe there would be fewer accidents.
40:00 Airbus Beluga!
Why you do not want LOGIC of the computer to take full control, and NOT be able to easily be, overridden. Airbus to some extent will allow full manual control, similar to Boeing, BUT, it is only towards the end of a failure sequence, and you may be Air India 447 by then. Dead, pieces floating in ocean. Or the Airbus demo flight to show off how un-crash able it is, and then it crashed into a forest, while horrified onlookers and the top AB brass were there. ECU LOGIC
🩷 this show
40:00
I want to fly on that Beluga😃
They should been train in simulator air bus 40 hours or more before allowing pilots to fly the real thing
Its another case of where changes should be mandatory, NOT JUST RECOMMENDATIONS....Its a loophole to save the airline industry MONEY
I blame the flight attendants.
As soon as the pilots pushed down on that the computer should have shut up and turned off and let the pilots take over as soon as you touch the yoke of that plane the computer should shut down they did on the Russian plane which has caused the death of all those people when the kid accidentally pushed on the yolk it's just too technical they ought to just let pilots fly planes
6:04 I love the view of the undercarriage.