The Pilot Who Controlled The Uncontrollable Jet | Passenger Jet Does The Opposite Of What It Should
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июн 2024
- Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
BFU File Code: 5X004-0/01
A320 Image: Pedro Aragão - Gallery page www.jetphotos.com/photo/7617615 Photo cdn.jetphotos.com/full/4/4055...
This is the story of an Airbus a320. Well i'd love to tell you more about the plane and the operator but the german investigators are surprisingly tight lipped about the who the operator was, I mean ive read a few reports of theirs. It's how they do things, I'm just glad that they publish the reports and that its in english. No complaints here. We do know that this occurred on the 21st of march 2001 and the a320 was flying from Frankfurt to Paris with 115 passengers.
The pilots arrived at the airport a bit early as they had some extra preflight checklists to do today. The captain had 9300 hours of experience and even had an acrobatics rating on his license. The first officer had about 2000 hours of experience. That day the airplane that they'd be flying had been in maintenance for the past few days and so they'd need to conduct a few extra checks to make sure that the plane was fit to fly. Once the engines were started the and before they started taxing the pilots conducted a flight control check to make sure that everything was working as intended. They noted no irregularities and so they started to taxi to runway 18. The plane lined up with the runway and the pilots added power. The takeoff was normal and once they hit the rotate speed the captain pulled back taking the a320 into the sky. Right after takeoff the captain noticed that something was wrong. The plane was banking to the left just a tiny bit. He tried to correct it, but that only seemed to make the problem worse. As the captain tried to stabilize his plane the bank to the left grew. Eventually they were banking to the left by about 22 degrees. Just feet off the ground. The captain said “ I cant do anything any more!” indicating that the plane was not responding to his inputs in the way that he expected the plane to. The first officer said I have control and pushed the takeover button, from the right hand seat he was able to control the plane much better. The crew took the plane upto 12000 feet to try and troubleshoot the problem. The captain tried to control the plane from the left seat, but to their dismay the plane did the opposite of what the captain was commanding. If the captain commanded a left turn the plane would go right. But that problem did not exist on the other sidesidstick. With such peculiar behavior the pilots had no idea what else could go wrong with this plane and decided that landing back at Frankfurt was the best thing to do. The first officer then took control and landed the a320 back at Frankfurt with no further issues.
Now this incident does not sound like it was that bad, but looking at the flight data showed how close they came to disaster. This graph shows that their maximum bank was 21.42 degrees now that's not too extreme. But right below that they show you the readout from the radio altimeter. They were banking to the left at almost 22 degrees when they were barely 10 feet off the ground. The slightest mistake then would have sent this plane crashing back down. The only reason it wasn't worse than it was was because the first officer had been instinctively commanding a right bank before he took over from the captain. Had it not been for his moderating inputs this would have been bad. Once the plane was on the ground they handed the plane over to the ground staff who did a flight control check. When they did that they found that the ailerons initially moved in the right direction but then for some reason moved in the opposite direction something was very wrong with this plane. 
Наука
Had to pull the other video cause of audio issues but enjoy this one!
Great video though!
Can you do a video on the Aer Lingus "tuskar rock" crash?
Thank you for the explanation, was disappointed thinking that we wouldn't get our dose of Mini Air Craft Investigation. 👍
Lucky me - getting to watch two MACI videos within a few hours!! My weekend got 100x better 🙂
So that's why I couldn't access the first one I had been notified of... All good, this one was excellent as always!
Kudos to the FO for having his head in the game!
Necessity is the mother of invention. He realized his "head" would soon be on the ground if he didn't do something! 🤣
The red to blue wiring schematic is unbelievable! This was bound to happen.
Ironically, it was just the opposite of what happened with the Air France triple seven. The FO continued to pull back on the stick, keeping the plane in a stall, while the captain (who didn't realize the info hadn't relinquished all control) struggled to get out of it, resulting in a big SPLASH!
@@carlwilliams6977 Yup. The CRM on AF447 was terrible.
Literally..
@@jiefeng4249 ???
It's actually kind of cool that German investigators don't call out the operator. If the goal is make flying safer, what matters most is learning the lessons so everyone can improve.
It's kind of normal do to so in Germany, I wasn't surprised ^^
The UK doesn't name the operator either. They do list the registration code of the aircraft so finding out the operator is a 2 second google search.
@@gdwnet Who cares, it's a lesson, and everybody is save.
@@pascalcoole2725 Just a comment. Keep your hair on. Bloody hell.
Probably Lufthansa , the flag/government carrier , such a screwup would be serious damage to the reputation. If it had been another airline they would not care. True story, I was on a Lufthansa 737 rolling toward takeoff when the pilot aborted the takeoff slamming on the brakes hard for a long time! He came on the PA and told the passengers that everything was OK, thst he had tried to take off with the COCKPIT WINDOW NOT LATCHED, and the the window had flown open so he had to abort, sorry for the inconvenience
These near-misses are often more interesting to hear about than the full-on disasters, and it is great to see and hear how earlier lessons have been learned.
Agreed, in terms of aviation safety these near misses are just as important as actual crashes.
"Connect blue to red and red to blue" is a bafflingly stupid design decision. Might as well not use color coded wires
Its not normal wires, its a shielded twisted pair which has the number on the cable not on the 2 individual wires, so you need the colorcoding.
Just as a side note in case anyone ever wondered: the first officer is always qualified to completely control the plane. It’s not like the captain must do certain things. Sometimes that can be the case, but 99.9% of the time, it’s not. If something incapacitates the captain, or in this instance, captain side flight controls are faulty, then the first officer is qualified and authorised to make the decision to take full control of the aircraft.
Basically any first officer you fly with, is qualified to fly that plane entirely by themselves. They are trained for this. Part of regular training is incapacitation checks and takeover. Generally the first officer will summon a cabin crew member to the flight deck, even if only for moral support. I guess sometimes it could feel weird being the only one in that cockpit who is flying this thing, so even though the cabin crew has limited or no flight training, just having someone there can help mentally; it’ll make you feel less alone and possibly relieve some stress.
However one thing they may do, is if the captain is unconscious, the cabin crew will remove them from their seat and lay them on the floor behind the seats, so they cannot inadvertently touch or change any controls while the FO is flying. This also makes CPR possible should it be needed.
Any pilots can chime in on this, but I’ve seen videos talking about captain (or first officer) incapacitation. Flying the entire thing by yourself is routinely trained and practiced.
P.S. In case of either pilot incapacitation, this is a mandatory mayday call. The reason why is because the aircraft has lost one of its system redundancies-the second pilot. As you would declare a mayday for an engine failure, you would declare mayday for a crew failure (incapacitation). In either case, you want to land ASAP so (more) medical staff can board the plane and remove and treat the incapacitated pilot.
This sort of stuff is precisely why it’s unlikely to see large single pilot planes any time soon. One of the reasons you have two people in the flight deck is that if one of them becomes incapable of flying the aircraft, then the redundant pilot takes over. This is why we have two people on the flight deck. You don’t need a flight engineer anymore, but you will always need a backup pilot.
Also, a computer cannot think for itself. Computers are actually pretty dumb. Even in AI or whatnot, they are ultimately still being fed instructions from someone, somewhere. They are told what to do, by us, as programmers, and the computer will do precisely what we tell them to do, no more, no less, with bugs, or without. Artificial intelligence is pretty much a myth, and I can’t see that ever changing, but I’m not a software engineer, so eh, what do I know.
In any case, I hope this massive diatribe was interesting to one or two of you!
Also if you are wondering; yes, pilots can sleep in their seat! In some parts of the world, and it is strictly regulated, and only permissible in longer flights and the like. Generally the pilot will request up to 45 minutes, they will put their seat all the way back, and have a nap, while the remaining pilot flies. They may have a cabin crew member up there as well, I’m not sure. But after your 45 minutes is up and you are woken up, you are not allowed to touch anything within the 20 minutes of you waking up. This is so you can wake up, get your situational awareness, that sort of thing. You also must be in cruise, so when you have the autopilot on, not much is happening, etc. There are minimum flight times where this practice is allowed, because you want a decent amount of cruise flight either side of the map. Also, if you are requesting too many naps, the airline may ask if you’re doing ok health-wise, and may have a chat to you about your flight hours and whatnot.
But yeah, in some parts of the world, pilots can literally be asleep at the wheel.
Mentour pilot has great videos on both these things.
Mostly correct - I just want to add/clarify a few points:
- In dual-pilot operations there are two different distinctions. One is Captain (left seat) and First Officer (right seat), and yeah that's about seniority and responsibility. Those roles are fixed. The other distinction is between "pilot flying" and "pilot monitoring", and those roles do pass back and forth freely. We just have to clearly communicate the change - that's exactly why the FO said "I have control", and why the procedure that I'm used to is "controls are yours" replied with "controls are mine". But yes it's completely normal for the FO to do half or more of the actual flying - the FO absolutely is qualified to fly the plane, and honestly you need a whole lot of skill and experience before you can become an airline FO.
- Above a certain number of passengers (about a dozen I think), it's illegal to fly with only one pilot. Plus I believe that basically all airliners mandate two pilots anyway.
- In a modern airliner, the pilot flying is never allowed to be alone on the flight deck while airborne. If the pilot monitoring has to leave the flight deck, then a member of the cabin crew will stay on the flight deck while they're away. This is precisely because of pilot incapacitation, as you say.
- Pilots do sleep on long flights, but not in the control seats - you don't want an unconscious person within reach of the controls. On large planes designed for long-haul flights, like the Boeing 747, there are sleeping areas for this and the flight crew will consist of more than two pilots to allow for rest. Generally four pilots, I believe. Kelsey on 74 Gear talks about this.
- I don't believe there's any such thing as a mandatory mayday declaration - that's a decision for the pilot/s. Though in practice yeah, that is an example of a situation where it's basically inconceivable that the remaining pilot wouldn't declare an emergency.
- Computers do indeed just do exactly what we tell them, no more and no less (and all non-trivial software has bugs). Expert systems (aka domain-specific AIs) have become very useful in some applications, but for sure there's no way that airliners are going to be piloted by non-human pilots any time soon. I am a software engineer by profession, and hell no I'm not setting foot on any aircraft commanded by a computer.
Moral or morale?
Just a little addition. I don't think that pilots are required to declare an emergency when one of their engines fails. There was an ATC video somewhere, I think by VAS Aviation, where a Lufthansa A380 had a single engine failure and explicitly refused to declare an emergency.
Great crew and as stated the First Officer had confidence to take control and save the airplane, that also means that its relation with the Captain was sane and oriented toward flight safety before any hierarchical consideration.
So both of them saved the planes, and that began when they meet. Flight Safety first.
So true. This accident was prevented long before it actually (almost) happened.
Love this comment
I'm an electronics tech, and the very first thing that came to mind when I heard 'the more the captain tried to correct the roll, the worse it got', was a switched joystick wire.
Any maintenance procedure that requires a shift change in the middle of it should require the full array of tests and checks at the end. That should be a no-brainer, but given how often this comes up, it's clear a lot of places are pretty lax about that part.
Given the complexity of what they’re doing, it’s an obvious cause of potential problems. Shift changes really shouldn’t be an issue but if they weren’t, we wouldn’t have the term “human error”.
I have used paper checklists while doing similar long remapping tasks for software. As I knew that after break I'm not sure which changes have been done and which haven't. And next person can continue just by taking next item from list. That will take a bit more time in the beginning but doing it again is even slower.
The operater of the plane was actually Lufthansa and the registration at the time was D-AIPW
Thank you sir/broette. Before I get too far in the video (currently at 2:57 ), my hypothesis is that the captain's fly-by-wire system had opposite polarity, therefore causing an input to perform an opposite maneuver. ツ
Edit: I was kinda close. It was a wiring issue, made by maintenance. They should have done better, and checked the diagrams, and not have switched shifts. Do you have the name of the maintenance company?
@@thatguyalex2835 Should be Lufthansa Technik. Frankfurt is the main base I guess.
@@scorpion1349 I thought the Germans are supposedly competent at engineering, and keeping mechanical things in top shape. :) Guess I was wrong.
broken arrow video: has audio problems
MACI: Welp, A320 incident, you're up!
Broken arrow incident will be back next week 👀
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation yeah, I know
Amazing, it's literally the fly-by-wire version of the Air Astana flight 1388 incident. In that one, maintenance inadvertently flipped a pair of *mechanical* aileron cables; in this one, they flipped a pair of *digital* aileron controls. The more things change, the more they stay the same, huh?
This could have been like the incident of the Air Astana flight with the crossed controls.. Luckily the FO took over quickly
I'VE SAID FOR A LONG TIME THEY NEED AN OFF PLANE PERSON TO HELP WITH CHECKLIST AND THE SORT DURING TAKE OFF LANDINGS AND EMERGENCY.
THEY HAVE A WAY TO LIVE STREAM.
@@ronniewall1481 And keep saying it, so that everyone knows you know nothing. Your idea is clownish.
And quit shouting!!!
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
@@sludge4125 IF CHILDISH WHY DID THE AIRLINES ALL HAVE FLEETS PUT CAMERAS ON PLANES TO DO EXACTLY WHAT I SAID? YOU WANT TO ATTACK JUST TO BE A JERK.
NOT ONLY DID THE INSTALL CAMERAS THAT ALLOW PILOTS TO MONITOR INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF PLANE. MANY PLANES ARE NOW ADDING A CAMERA OPERATOR IN THE CABIN.
PROBLEM IS PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW WANT TO ATTACK THOSE WHO DO AND CAPS ARE AN AID WHEN TYPING ON PHONE.
@@sludge4125 FOR THE RECORD I HAVE BEEN IN DESIGN MOST OF MY LIFE. AT AGE SIX I MADE A RANDOM NUMBER GENERATOR OUT OF AN OLD MUSIC BOX. BUILT A SOLAR STEAM ENGINE AT AGE TEN.
JUST BECAUSE YOU LACK THE ABILITY TO DO THINGS IS NO REASON TO BRAG.
OH BY THE WAY I WAS A NATION WIDE SERVICE TECH I HAD ABOUT 150 COMPANIES THAT I CONTRACTED TO.
@@sludge4125 P.S. IF YOU THINK CAPS YELL THAT'S BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE YOU THAT A DELUSION IS REAL.
CAPS DON'T MAKE NOISE. FREE YOUR MIND QUIT BEING A SLAVE.
11,300 hours in the front. That is a truely impressive number.
That is 1.29 years cumulative experience. Imagine two people sitting in a seat for 14 months, nonstop. Thankfully this flying proficiency time is spread out over a dozen or so years to a few decades. :)
The incident aircraft was an Airbus A320-211, D-AIPW, operated by Lufthansa.
Just what I had guessed.
It was pretty obvious that they don’t want to tarnish Lufthansa’s reputation.
Thank you for your confirmation!
Thanks for the info.
Excelent CRM. Great job from the FO for catching the issue so fast
Great to hear how quickly, calmly and smoothly the FO took over - a real pro! Doesnt it also feel gratifying too, that the existing procedures worked and that no updated or new ones were necessary? We can all appreciate once again, in the context of ongoing debate on automation vs pilots, this once again demonstrates how essential it is for there to be humans available to monitor and react to any issues...
I managed to watched the previous video before it was pulled... also intriguing to see you have other videos lined up.
Control surface direction should always be part of a control check. I only did flying for a relatively short time for fun, but a control check was part of the checklist before every flight. "Flight controls: Full, free and CORRECT". I made a habit of vocalizing which aileron should be down as I moved the yoke, BEFORE looking at them to make sure I would notice if they were backwards. If you look at them first, and then think about which direction they should be, you can easily be tricked by confirmation bias.
I don't know when the first "crossed controls after maintenance" accident occurred, (likely in WWI), and I'm sure the last one hasn't occurred yet. The first flight after any but the most trivial maintenance should be preceded by an extra-careful "full and free movement in the correct sense" check, especially when the manufacturer has written the problem into the books.
The fact the sidesticks are not directly connected is a built in redundancy but also a new vulnerability. Having designed in a new risk they did not take account of that in their test procedures. It is basic error proofing to check the "sense" on both because we all know "what can happen will happen". Sooner or later.
There was similar crossed wire case with A320 while doing after maintenance check flight (in Spain if I remember correctly). But they were flying inside cloud, so added difficulty factor. ATC audio of that flight is on another channel.
Eventually with the mechanical systems the manufacturers designed the connections so that you could not connect them in reverse, or put other moving components together in the wrong order, but it took longer than it should and now that everything is 'digital' the possibilities for inverted control are endless. Not that it was impossible to defeat the mechanical safeguards against missasembly. I know of one case where a plane crashed due to control issues. When it was investigated it was found that one aileron had been put together in such a way that aerodynamic forces instead of working with the pilot worked against the pilot. However it was also known that the aileron had been designed so that it could not be assembled in that way. Examination of the aileron showed that not only had it been assembled 'backwards' but that the 'interference pin' built into the mechanism to prevent such assembly had been removed with a hacksaw. That lead to questioning of the maintenence personnel who had last worked on the plane and it was found (I think due to fatigue) that one of them had become confused over what part he was working on, and when he could not put it together the way he thought it should had removed the 'excess length' preventing assembly and signed it off as 'job completed'. At that point the crash was inevitable.
@@Graham-ce2yk Did you ever see the video of a Proton rocket flipping over and exploding a few seconds after launch? It happened because someone installed an accelerometer upside down. It had arrows on it, and it was specifically made not to fit upside down, but Russian technicians have hammers.
@@TonboIV No, but I'm aware of a crash in the UK that was caused by someone who fitted a non-return valve the wrong way in a fuel system. It was also clearly marked with arrows, but had identical threads at both ends.
5:00 - Seeing that mess of cables, I'm not amazed mistakes happen.
As a hardware/firmware engineer I never understood why industrial applications lag behind be almost a century.
Just use a digital communication buss, so wires can't be swapped around and maintenance becomes easier.
Safe flight is not about egos, it's better to get there in one piece than to not in many pieces. Great save by the FO. Another great video.
This is an excellent example of CRM: Crew Resource Management. That first officer knew there was a CONTROL problem, took over without ANY time to spare. The pilot "didn't kill" everyone with his ego. Kudos to the entire flight crew! 👍👏👏👏
Thanks for getting this one up. I really enjoy all your vids and especially appreciate all the homework you do on them. Always put in a way that non-aviators, like myself, can understand. Thanks again, 👍
Bravo! If I were sitting left seat, I'd want an FO just like that guy!
No shame to the captain, it was a fault. The FO quickly assessed a hardware issue, called control and turned the captains control off. I wouldn't be mad, I'd buy him a drink!
I don't know whether that has happened, but that FO would have to be commended for his actions and proposed for a promotion! That was an outstanding reaction.
I wouldn’t have expected them to know this at the time but as the report mentions it was just ELAC 1 then I’m guessing if they turned off ELAC 1 then aileron control would have gone to ELAC 2 and all would have been relatively normal
I don't know if I can trust my eyes but the white plane with no tailnumber other than SUBSCRIBE....is a very nice touch in the video. Awesome content and an interesting watch as always.
It is pretty interesting how someone could do such mistake, if it weren’t for the first officer, the plane would have gone! Great video and explanation!!
yeah crazy
Mistakes happen, but they should be corrected prior to the accident. Thankfully the first officer did just that, but technicians should have done a thorough array of tests, as Christina T said.
*One might be able to survive a 150 mph plane crash, but is highly unlikely, especially seated in the front (cockpit area).
I like the plane registration. Real subtle. Love it :D
Wow, that FO really saved the day! There have been accidents where one pilot was inputting on a yoke or side stick when they weren't supposed to be pilot flying. This time an accident was avoided. Thank God! They must have been so thankful the FO was trying to help the captain!
Awesome job on the video! Your channel is great!! Thank you for your hard work!!
I fly gliders, and we were told of a story how some controls were mixed up during maintenance, causing a near accident. This is why during every pre-flight I make sure not only that the controls are moving, but whether they deflect to the correct direction.
Outstanding VIDEO! i'am flying Airbus since 2004, never believe it can happens in an Airbus!!!
Why on earth would they have two sets of instructions especially with how catastrophic the impact could be?
Depended on the MSN. Some aircraft had the new setups and some had old setups
@@tomstravels520 again: why? I mean, I can guess: In the first PCB revision the signal was flipped and they fixed it by crossing the wires? And then they fixed the PCB and then uncrossed the wires to follow the systematic they initially planed?
In the company I used to work for I would totally do that, but... we did not build airplanes, we used to build "robots" with zero to three motors. When we invert signals once, the robot stops, because driver direction and feedback disagree. Inverted twice mean driving backwards, meaning hitting the e-stop, disassemble - no big deal.
I'm no test engineer, but when testing, I test every input/output individually.
Good on the FO! After all if the Captain didn't have control the only thing he could do was take over and try. He had no way of knowing he'd get a better result but thank goodness he did.
Time is money. If some engineer is doing something correctly, but slower - then is fired. This is almost everywhere.
So what’s your point?
If the engineer can’t make the standards, he’s incompetent and needs to be fired.
@@sludge4125 nope. Most companies are targeted in making money. I already have experience in working at two airports (one of biggest and one of smallest) and Im perfectly sure about it.
You will not know how bad it is, unless You start working in aviation.
@@norbert.kiszka - Right!
People often fantasize about aviation, they think that everything is perfectly handled. But unfortunately that isn’t the case.
Integrity and character made the difference here. This world needs more of that stuff.
That is some good CRM and a good thing the captain relinquished control to his FO when he called " I have control "
Very well explained! Thanks!
Similar thing almost led to a crash of Bombardier BD-700-1A11 Global 5000 used by the German government(!) in 2019. Aircraft was written off afterwards, the report might be classified though.
It's amazing how many ways aircraft maintenance can go wrong.
Indeed it could, but almost all maintenance goes on without you knowing and works fine. I've known a couple of aircraft maintenance engineers and they were both most concise. As such they were the guys I trust my life to. Me, I was an engineer in broadcast TV, if I did something wrong the worst you get is a blank screen. Give these guys their due.
Reminds me of your video on Air Astana Flight 1388 where maintenance cabled the ailerons with inverted operation. The pilots didn't notice the inverted operation on the ground. Unfortunately, unlike this flight, neither side had correct controls. They did eventually land safely, but it was an epic 2 hour rollercoaster ride.
I'm truly surprised that things this important can even be plugged in backwards. I've been working on cars, motorcycles and computers for 10+ years now and have not seen crucial things that can be plugged in anywhere except where they should. Unless you go crazy and disassemble the plug itself for who knows what reason you can't plug it in elsewhere, either the wire is too short or the connection doesn't match.
It's actually pretty common to be disassembling plugs in aviation. The alternative would be to replace the whole wire bundle, a few levels of magnitude more complex. Imagine the 420 wires going to maybe a hundred different places throughout the aircraft, each of which are also connected to other things. It also allows us to upgrade the aircraft systems by adding or removing a few wires instead of hundreds.
In this case, the mechanics were swapping out the plug itself by transferring the individual wires, thus the crossed wires.
The plugs themselves are designed to be mated only to the matching socket by use of a set of keyways or by size. In case there are two similar plugs being used in the same area, the wire terminations themselves will be different to stop the plugs from fitting. One set would have pins on the end of the wires, the other would have sockets.
Which is indeed what happened here; they were repinning the entire connector. Incidentally, I recall a few times on cars where I've run into matching plugs can be inserted in the wrong places. Mostly GM from what I can remember; its been a few years but I'm thinking 3.1 or 3.8, in the area of the throttle body. Maybe coolant temp and something like TPS, but I mainly remember being confused about why sensor readouts were crazy wrong.
Amazing work, thank you!
Thanks for the video!
6:40
Mando: put the red wire where the blue one goes, and put the blue wire where the red one goes
Grogu: confused baby noises
You would think that connectors for near-identical, yet separate, control systems would be 'keyed' differently so one couldn't inadvertently swap them.
The connectors are; the issue is that they were repinning all the wires into a replacement connector. I've done it on cars, with a lot fewer wires, a few dozen at most, and its a nasty, tedious job where it's really easy to make an error.
@@jdmillar86 Thanks for the clarification.
9:55 I hope that FO got a real thicc bonus!
Great story! I’ve never heard this one before!
When this incident happened, the procedure for the flight control check had been revised and flight control check had now to been performed right after pushback or before taxi from both sides.
4:07 "...there are no physical linkages..." - not completely true. Rudder and THS (horizontal stabilizer trim) is mechanically connected. Only elevator, ailerons, flaps, slats and spoilers are managed electronically with some help from hydraulic systems. Rudder and THS can help to steer the plane on temporary electrical power outage in case of both engines failure.
Modern A320 have a FBW rudder now
“With some help from hydraulic systems”. Incorrect. The flight controls are entirely moved by hydraulics (for A320 aircraft). It is just that the computers command the hydraulic actuators to deflect the controls as per the pilot demand. There is no electricity involved in actual physical movement of the controls.
awsome respons man!! love youre work...
Great video as always...great narration. Fly by wire is a blessing and a curse.
I mean, you can also reverse the flight control if you have physical wires connecting the yoke to the control surfaces. see Air Astana 1388. They were flying a more traditional E190 and still got the roll authority inverted due to a bad linkage of the flight control wires.
thank god for better CRM and that first officer
I loved this video, thank you!!
Great job guys.
Great channel. Just thought you should know you on screen links at the end of the videos do not work. I click/touch them and they don't seem to be embedded.
MACI makes such great videos
Thank you!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation np! You really do!
I wrote incident reports for my course in polytechnic. My lecturer talked about the ethics of including the name of the operator in the incident/crash reports.
Generally, we only include the name of the operator if we found unsafe procedures (Eg. Rules that encourage automated flying even in clear weather)/cultures (Eg. Strict hierarchy) that exist in the organisation.
In this case, there’s nothing wrong with the operator’s procedures/culture, however there may be something wrong with the auditing system of the operator when deciding which maintenance company to choose.
Again to each country his own, it’s entirely up to us whether we want to include the name of the operator or not.
Why in hell would Airbus use a wiring system that could and would be confusing and lead to potential crashes? I’ve assembled and designed wiring bundles with hundreds of wires at NASA/JSC and not once did I have a red wire destined to be attached to a blue wire, and vice versa. And continuity checks for each wire would be mandatory after the completion of any job.
Airbus described it as a ‘transition’ wiring system. What the hell! I’m glad the first officer was able to save this aircraft from crashing. Without his inputs this plane would’ve ended up nose down in the ground probably killing everyone on board.
Bravo bravo bravo First officer!! Definitely agree that a catastrophe was averted by his alertness and understanding of the situation, and prompt remedial action.
When the video started with the brief description of the incident, I was in disbelief. NO, such a thing should not be happening with this system, were my thoughts. I work on the fly-by-wire system on a modern fighter jet since 30 years, and though the hardware and control surfaces differ, the basic underlying architecture remains the same for any fly-by-wire aircraft.
The technicians should not have just stuck to the basic checks. Sometimes, we have to think out of the box, and do checks and examinations, even if they are not stipulated in the work cards. On Airbus' part, I feel they are to be blamed for not stipulating the control surface checks to be carried out from both the side sticks. I mean, in a system where there are no mechanical interconnection between the sidesticks, it would be only prudent to check from both the sides whenever any job is carried out on the control surfaces. All the more so if the electrical wiring has been worked on. I just cannot believe Airbus missed it out on this part. It is just like Boeing ignoring the need to introduce redundancy with the MCAS system initially, which led to those two horrific crashes.
Great work by the First Officer.
ah yes, but it is all very easy to say after the event. we are always smarter after an event.
@@ursodermatt8809 Entirely depends on how you want to be. Follow the book, and become smarter after the incident.
Or follow the book, try to identify the grey area, then act accordingly and be smarter to avoid an incident. Of course, the latter comes with lots of experience in the bag.
I have never felt comfortable in the 320.
Flight control surfaces checks pre-flight are a basic necessity. Not only that the surface moves to its full limit (in both directions) it should be checked for direction of operation. This one was fly by wire, but the Embraer rollercoaster wasn't - it used traditional mechanical control cables - and in that case, it was two of them that was crossed. Another 'near miss' with no loss of life but the wrote off the aircraft in the air without hitting anything before landing reasonably well.
Amazing video!😸
It's interesting that, the FO counteracted the captains input by instinct, which saved the day, but it's not always the case, take AF447 for instance. Sometimes it's a good deal of luck.
Very Great Video!!! :D
If he had an acrobatics rating, that means he can do tumbling and back flips. In order to fly crazy loops and stuff, you need to learn aerobatics.
I haven't flown SUBSCRIBE in a while. Glad they didn't crash their plane.
"One crossed wire, one wayward pinch of potassium chlorate, one errant twitch! And *kablooie!"*
- Demoman TF2
Good crew training and good work culture is so important👍🏻👍🏻
The operator was Lufthansa btw . However I have to say.. the pilots did amazingly well
Interesting that, because of the outcome, the first officer's actions were considered praiseworthy. In other circumstances, making unplanned and unannounced inputs would have been a black mark, maybe even a contributing factor.
Please do a video on the crash of Alliance Air Flight 7412. There are too many controversies around it.
; This occurred on the Wednesday, March 21, 2001 and the A320
; was flying from Frankfurt to Paris with 115 passengers.
superb
I always love your vids, but one small thing bothered on this one... The winglets you have in this video are closer to what is on a B737, and not much like an A320 at all! 😀
1:19 That is the best sneakiest plug I've ever seen..
Is that the first time or have I always missed it in the past? lol
What I can't fully understand is why there is not encoder feedback to the computer controlling the flight surfaces that confirm the correct direction of movement and can post an alarm that there is a control problem during pre flight checks.
Audio on this is fine.
Yeah there’s something off with the audio on the other one
So I've been watching many videos lately and I could find only one accident of TAP Portugal Airlines? Really? Back in 1977, and that's it? Awesome safety record!
Can't believe a major wire change but only checked the first officers side, no one though of checking the captain side, unbelievable
According to the ASN it was a Lufthansa A320-211 D-AIPW
yep but i couldnt back that up with a third source. Didnt want to point any fingers without concrete proof lol
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation I’m surprised the report doesn’t even mention the tail number because then you can just Google that and find who it belonged to on that date
@@tomstravels520 are they accurate?
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation ASN? Well it is a wiki system but as there was a safety recommendation issued to Lufthansa on 19th May 2003 by the BFU. Also the report linked there is the German one.
I think the operator is Lufthansa. Great Detailing though! :)
Can you ’unpull’ the other one? There’s nothing like a good comparison, especially since we have something concrete to compare it to. ✈️
Keep making content!
8:48 Should be RAISES (not begs) the question ...
This is how it should be done every time in the cockpit!
4:08 I’d say there’s indeed a physical connection between the flight controls and surfaces, but there’s no mechanical connection 🤔☺️
This was a Lufthansa flight.
it would be easy to figure out given the date
@@jamescollier3 There is a BFU report on this but it is all in German.
Red to blue??? 420??? Yup... Whoever designed this plane was sky high 🤣🤣
I really hate when someone takes over MY work, then fu(ks it up when I'm not there.
I once built a contactor box to switch on 600 volts, but some IDIOT opened it up, causing a terminal to short circuit. Then the idiots had the nerve to blame ME for their OWN fu(kup.
That's why I just TAKE CHARGE of the projects that I work on, like I were Captain Bligh: I don't SHARE the work because people don't like to share the BLAME. 🙄
Maintenance only checked the right side stick, and what about the pilots?
Everyone is praising them and I’m not quite sure if they did a good job.
The thing that I didn’t get is... the flight control check gave erroneous indications in the SD ECAM page?
Both pilots must do flight control check before take off, both MUST be confirmed in the ECAM page.
* insert generic obviously untrue comment about how I vaguely knew someone in the accident *
Have you ever covered world airways flight 30?
Please do the Polish PLL LOT 767 gear up landing Warsaw.
What animation software are you using?
MSFS2020
Does having an acrobatic licence mean he can perform in the circus when he is not flying? (I'll leave now, I know where the door is...) 😂🤣
What I am wondering is why did the pilots not notice it during their flight control check?
Yay! Two vids in one day! I
I'm happy the NSA didn't come for you
What?! Another one?!! And they tried to tell me Super Bowl Sunday isn’t a holiday…