These Pilots Did Not Know How To Fly This Brand New Jet | South African Flight 228
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- Help Support The Channel!: / miniaci
Join My Discord: / discord
This is the story of south african airways flight 228. On the 20th of april 1968 a boeing 707 was to fly to london from johannesburg with a nunch of stops in between. The plane was to stop at windhoek, luanda, las palmas and frankfurt. If you know why planes stopped so much backin the day do let me know in the comments below. I mean most of these hops are well under the maximum range of the 707 so why stop so much? Well the flight to windhoek was uneventful sure the landing there was a bit forceful but nothing to write home about. At windhoek some people got off some people got on and the plane was refueled, the plane now had 116 passengers onboard and 12 crewmembers. At 6:09 pm the controllers were in contact with the pilots of flight 228 and they were giving the crew the information that they'd need for takeoff. Like altimeter settings, external temperature, that sort of thing. The controllers assigned runway 08 for the takeoff and the crew could just get on push the engines to max power, takeoff and then make a left turn and then climb all the way to their cruising altitude of 35000 feet in one go. As far as takeoff clearances go this one was as simple as it got. There was no lining up and waiting there was no noise abatement procedure, no traffic avoidance maneuvers, just a simple straight out departure.
As the jet turned onto the runway the pilots held short for a few final checks everything checked out and so the engines were pushed to max power and they were off. They lifted off with no issues whatsoever into the dark night over windhoek. As the jet climbed away the pilots retracted the gear and the flaps as the jet picked up speed. People on the ground watched as the jet climbed away, the dark night made it hard for them to make out what was happening to the plane but unknown to them the plane now had started to descend. It had not even reached a thousand feet in altitude but it was dropping. In the cabin of the plane all; seemed to be normal. Mr Thomas taylor who was a part of the Us state department diplomatic courier was seated in seat 1F up in first class and as far as he could tell there was nothing out of the ordinary for this flight but he was wrong. The plane was headed for some hilly terrain and no one knew about it. Then impact. The 4 engines were the first thing to make contact with the ground as they dug into the ground the rest of the plane disintegrated around it. In the control tower the only sign of tower were two small clicks were recorded on the tower recorder on the frequency that flight 228 was using at the time. Unfortunately only two people survived the crash. Even though the crash site was only 5 kilometers or thress miles from the airport it took rescuers 40 minutes to reach the crash site due to the rough terrain. That delay contributed to the toll of this crash.
The investigators of flight 288 would have their work cut out for them as this 707 was not equipped with a flight data recorder or a cockpit voice recorder. South africa had made CVRs and FDRs mandatory for most planes but there werent enough recorders to go around and that means that some planes were still flying around without FDRs and CVRs and unfortunately the accident aircraft was one of them. Thus they would have to rely on all other forms of evidence to figure this one out.
The first thing that they did was to make sure that all of the plane was at the crash site, right after the accident happened they started a search all the way from runway 08 along the flight path to see if something had come off of the plane while it was climbing out of windhoek. They found nothing. All of this plane was at the crash site. I mean this plane had no reason to fall apart it was brand new. Like it had only been flown into Seattle on the first of march 1968, a month and 20 days before the accident. Thus the investigators started looking at other reasons why this plane might have flown into the ground.The first thing that they looked at was engine failure. But the instruments showed that the engines were generating climb power for the takeoff and the components of the engine showed tell tale signs of being at a high power setting, 
Наука
![Chance The Rapper, DJ Premier - Together (2024) | [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZVwTX6WP-MM/mqdefault.jpg)
Such pebble-throwing was popular since it made possible for the airline to combine multiple routes into one (A-B-C-D instead of A-B, A-C, A-D, B-C...) especially for underbooked routes - 1 aircraft was easier to fill when it combined passengers for multiple destinations plus, this made it possible to fly really long routes (London to Melbourne - far beyond the range of any a/c of the era). It was extremely popular in the 60s and 70s, then when the A300 and B767/757 hit the market and the flying model changed, single-route flights became common.
Well said, and it should be added that this more linear way of flying was largely over with following airline deregulation and the popularity of the much-more-efficient hub and spoke model of airline route systems.
So if you were a passenger going from A to D you would be so screwed flying and hopping for days in a 8 hour one way trip. wow
@@XerxesGammon200 With hub and spoke you would make a connection at B, the hub, and catch a nonstop to D--one stop instead of three.
Also, gas was 33 cents a gallon.
Well said, OP. I remember hearing my grandfather complaining about what it used to be like back then. He explained the reason much the same as you did.
He said it was like taking the bus, not flying, because of all the stops.
Tucking the flaps away too soon for that model of 707, would cause a gentle nose over and dive as the now clean airframe sought more speed. Those inside would feel the acceleration and that, with the roar of jet engines at climb power, would lead all on board to feel as though they were climbing and that all was well. They just flew into the ground level and slightly nose down, as the wreckage shows. We now have terrain proximity warnings to prevent this sort of accident.
somatogravic illusion
The cause was found to be non deployment of the leading edge flaps.
Something that might not be obvious from the video is that the surroundings of Windhoek airport are totally devoid of lights. The land around is a scrubby farmland area and almost flat, although lower than the airport. There was no moon that night so the crew had no external reference available. Also Windhoek airport is fairly high up - some 5,600 ft (1,700 metres) ASL, so the air supplies less lift than at lower airports, so the climb out is rarely spectacular!
I definitely believe that the crew went with the A and B model routine in flap retraction. The pilot set the elevator trim incorrectly which put the aeroplane into a descent mode and then probably misread the altimeter which many pilots misread by 1,000 ft.
Back in 1968 on the night just hours before the crash, my Folks, my Gran and I were at Jan Smuts (Johannesburg) to see Gran’s sister, Aunt Hope, off to London. This was her first trip overseas and her first in an aeroplane! She had wanted to go to England as Britain had played a big part in South African history - as well as being where some of our ancestors had come from in 1820. She was very patriotic and had really wanted to take the SAA flight, but my Mom (who worked for Pan Am) advised her that the equivalent BOAC flight would be a more prudent choice since Aunt Hope suffered from poor leg circulation and swollen feet and the SAA flight time was hours longer since they had to fly “around the bulge” due to the anti-Apartheid campaign.
We stood on the airport balcony and I watched the ill-fated SAA flight taxi out. ZS-EUW was a brand new 300C version (707-344C - “44” being the SAA designator) so I was quite excited to see it. Shortly after, we watched the BA VC10 with my great aunt head out and take off - also to London.
Next morning we were woken at 5am with our phone ringing repeatedly as relatives wanted to know if Aunt Hope was on the crashed London flight!
SAA did a deal with the private SA airline, Trek, and took Trek’s order for a 300C in return for handing over their older 707 ZS-CKE plus cash to replace ZS-EUW.
Respect the night!
Yup. "Black Hole."
I flew to Windhoek from Johannesburg a few days after that accident. One could clearly see where the plane hit the ground. All passengers on our flight became silent. It was awful.
I drove past the crash site of PanAm 103 in Lockerbie a week after the crash in 1988. You could smell the aviation fuel. I still think of it after 45 years. It was sickening and sobering.
My understanding is that, back in the 60s, airlines operated their routes like a stopping train service with each airport being a "station" where some passengers would leave the aircraft and others join it. I can remember some long haul flights in the eighties operating this way with Dubai and India being popular way points.
Wasn't dubai a cheap place to refuel?
@@roymackenzie-jy4lr I would imagine so. It was also the "go to" destination of choice for broken down British Caledonian DC-10s. In two consecutive trips I was stranded there whilst flying from Hong Kong to the UK.
Seventeen hours the first time while a replacement engine was flown out from the UK. The second one was worse: 36 hours. We were bussed to a hotel from Dubai airport and were driven past our aircraft, which had been stripped of every single exterior panel. It was literally an aeroplane skeleton.
On the first occasion, the airline representative in Dubai was a Pakistani guy. He could not have been more helpful, taking all our questions and finding the right people to answer them for us. We got back on that aircraft without a single qualm.
On the second occasion, the representative was a dour Scot who clearly hated humanity. He told us nothing and was very brusque. Several of us subsequently put in complaints (for all the good it did). When we reboarded THAT aircraft, it was the most tense and quiet cabin I have ever experienced. It took about 3 hours before people were convinced the aircraft wasn't going to fall out of the sky.
That flight was worse than a truly horrific one (also British Caledonian) to Hong Kong on which we endured 14 straight hours of combined standing wave and clear air turbulence, I saw my first green person (a young Chinese girl who had just qualified as a flight attendant and was doing her first duty back to Hong Kong so she could celebrate with her family) and we made 3 abortive attempts to land at Kai Tak before diverting to Manila. When a DC-10 can be blown into the middle of the harbour by hurricane winds, you KNOW you're in trouble!
I liked British Caledonian though. They were always warm and friendly and human in a way that British Airways staff really weren't back in the eighties. With Caledonian, they gave the impression that they felt honoured you had chosen them. With Brtish Airways, they made it very clear that I was honoured they had even allowed me on board.
@@roymackenzie-jy4lr Dubai was 1, non existent then, 2 not on the route!
@Ben Wilson it was with british caledonian to hong Kong from Gatwick, China Airlines from taipei to Amsterdam, and for Lufthansa to Australia and Air india flew 747s and British airways/boac flew with tristars and vc10s also if your complaining about the fact that dubai isn't mentioned in the video, just look at the ops comment
@thomasm1964 thanks for telling me this story. I'm sorry I didn't see it sooner. Also, can you please describe what dubai was like at the time, like what airlines flew there and what the terminal was like
My dad was scheduled to be on this flight but decided last minute not to get back on during the layover before the crash. This video was so interesting to watch as I’ve heard the story from his personal account as well. Thank you for making this.
Hi - thanks for the video - great as always! Just letting you know the correct pronunciation of Windhoek. I'm South African with Afrikaans as a home language. A W is always pronounced like the English V - no exceptions. The D is pronounced like a T, and you don't split the last two vowels into ho-ek.
It's far simpler than it looks. The correct anglicised pronunciation is *Vinthook*. Cheers!
Bra, i almost going to say that. It irks me when i hear Americans butchering Afrikaans words lol
@@suid211 Totally, lol!
Americans butcher every language.. it's insulting that so many of them are too lazy to check on such basic matters.
It kind of surprises me that he makes these videos without even googling how to pronounce cities correctly. It would only take a second
That pronunciation is typical of an AI voice generator. He's probably using a text to speech app.
"Wind-hook".
about to write that:) It's a Dutch spelling where 'oe' is pronounced like 'oo' in English
Or "Vind-hook"
Vind hook beer
@@georgeross9834 Yes, that's how I first heard of the city!
The Afrikaans/Dutch W is *always* pronounced like the English V. So the only correct pronunciation in English, as a native South African, is Vinthook. There is no W sound in Afrikaans and the D is pronounced as a T.
LOVE when I can be out in the back pasture with my dogs, enjoying a new episode! Thanks so much, for all you do. I know it’s time consuming, tedious and not easy. Your passion very appreciated.
I remember old mechanics telling me they found pressurization leaks by looking for nicotine oozing between the skins. I saw it later on a 707 from Saudi Arabia. They smoke powerful stogies. It even stops the leaks up sometimes.
A good presentation again. A couple of comments. "Windhoek" is generally pronounced like "wind hook." There are variations, of course. Some say it with the "W" pronounced like a "V", and sometimes the last syllable is nearly "huck" instead of 'hook." As far as the many stops are concerned, it's a good questions. Usually it came down to economics of passenger loads. Sometimes there just weren't enough passengers all wanting to go to the final destination. So maybe 30 pax wanted to go on the first leg or two. Pick up new passengers there, continue and drop some more off. It seems awful compared to today's nonstop flights that get us to where we want to go without all those intermediate stops.
This is just an anecdote based on my limited experience of intracontinental flight in Africa, but it wasn't uncommon to have one or two stops on the way without refueling, that was in this century too. As for Windhoek, I've always pronounced it "Vind-hook". I'm British.
my understanding is, that though the nominal max range is far greater, a lot of the smaller airports had a max takeoff weight limitation due to shorter runways... still the case with smaller carriers flying such planes as the ATR on regional routes... also, just needing the stops to pick up passengers/cargo, since not that many people flew in the day, as to get a flight into each city.
I am a South African by birth. The answer is actually political. South African planes landed where they were welcome (due to the then Apartheid policies) but were forbidden to fly over territories who did not support their political views.
Back then the ATR wasn't in use I don't think, think it was founded in 1981 and first flew around 1984, so back then u til the early 2000's you'd see the HS748, that became the ATP ( that looked like a Saab 2000) , the Excellent, Vickers Viscount Turboprop , Handley page Herald , Fokker F28 , in Beech1900, Shorts 360 for very short runways , and in jets it was like the Bac 1/11 and trident . Very small by today's standards , similar lengths to Embraer and small 737 size .
Also the 737-200 a great design, carried its own air stairs, could land on unpaved runways ( with gravel kits)- hence used up until a few months ago in northern Canada ( in truth no doubt the odd ones still flying people ) .
But aircraft like cars have grown in size . The ATR has however had some bad safety issues, so not a personal favourite.
The Dash 8 is a far cry from those older aircraft , Bigger, quieter and far more range and higher cruise altitude.
The next Embraer prop looks to be a real game changer !.
@@jonathanroberts1328 I meant, that some ATR flights today sometimes have similar restrictions
Back in 1977, when our family flew to South East Asia, after having departed from Schiphol Amsterdam, we landed once or twice in other European airports, one was Zurich in Switzerland. I guess that was just to pick up more passengers.
The following stop was at Dubai, which was also tiny at the time, in the middle of the desert.
From then on we flew to our next stop Colombo in Sri Lanka, which was a tiny airport that was literally in the middle of nowhere (at the time).
In all instances, we never got off of the plane and after a brief stop the plane would take off again and continue the journey.
Next airport was Singapore, followed by Jakarta.
The airplane did not "fall out of the sky," layman talk for an aerodynamic stall. This was controlled flight into terrain.
Anther very well written and researched video! Very well explained.
Thanks for time you put into these
This is mu favorite channel of aviation accident analysis in youtube. Your story-telling and video-pacing, is extremely well-balanced, and I really appreciate first telling the story as it was experienced when it happened and then explaining it, little by little, how the final picture looks like by uncovering the evidence, one piece at a time.
If my understanding is correct, it was in the 1960s and on that pressurization of cabins was improving, so often they had to fly at lower altitudes. Additionally, the take-off/landings were quite noisy and "hard" - a lot of what we might consider a "pedal to the metal" action. This would use up more fuel. Additionally they weren't always flying at higher altitudes (similar to driving, fuel usage/conservation is a bell curve), and frankly, a lot of stops would happen not just for fuelling reasons but also because there just weren't many airlines servicing places, so stopping at many locations would make sense. (Not to mention I expect especially in less populous areas there weren't as many radar/radio capabilities and staying in contact is pretty vital to not getting lost or crashing. I'm sure there are other reasons which I'd be glad to hear!
Actually before 1994 most African nations place sanctions to South Africa because of apartheid, & South African Airways was not allowed to fly over the nations placing sanctions to South Africa. So South African flights fly around most of Africa at the time.
No sanctions on the other apartheid country. In fact quite the opposite.
@@naughtiusmaximus830
Which is "the other" Apartheid country?
Thanks in advance
@@Rotebuehl1 The one that had a joint nuclear weapons program with Apartheid South Africa or did we forget this?
Thank you! Lot's of armchair economists in the comments with their "picking up people, gathering fuel, demand" etc nonsense talk. It appears none of these people picked up a history book. Apartheid is the reason why this route was the way it was. By the 60's, many African countries had blocked South African from flying over their airspace. By the 80's there was a near total ban.
@@naughtiusmaximus830 they can do no wrong!
As I recall, the planes ran like trains in some cases. I can remember (Washington National) the Stewardess announcing "stopovers in" at least 2 places before a final in Orlando. A few people got off, more got on, just keeping money in the seats. The plane (727) was more full at Orlando.
Non-stop flights were a big deal ( at least the grownups acted like they were when we did Washington to KansasCity)
Is my recollection wrong or were nonstop flights more expensive then?
I personally had known one of the lead investigator in the Windhoek accident, firstly a I am aware he was the first aircraft engineer to get his A&P licence in South Africa on the 707A&B series, Tom Ward. We had the honour working with him. Anyway way he told us how they proved the accident had unfolded. Tom had asked the chief pilot of SAA at the time for verious pilots with different flying hrs. It was discovered on huge percentage had configured the B modle like the A modle for take off. Flaps and slats were set incorrectly, further more the AH was in a different position and the VSI also had put in another position on the instrument panel. I could go on and on about the accident. These suttle differences caused pilots to be disoriented.
I think Boeing did put in safety measures because of this accident.
I like your reporting. Very easy listening. Clear and concise. Thank you.
As others have said, picking up passengers, serving multiple cities, plus it was the default model that people knew from early post-war aviation and from ships. Planning a route with stops was the natural thing to do.
Of whatever relevance (if any) to flap positions/transitions and this crash, the airport is a high one, 5,640 ft AMSL.
Boeing not providing clean information about crucial differences between models of aircraft? Wow they seem to have a history of that.
No, you are wrong, Mr. Join the Rabble to get attention. Boeing provided the necessary information. SAA failed to fully train pilots. So shut up.
I saw that crash site.
Windhoek is 1650 meters above sea level, the aircraft is weight restricted due to the altitude. Stopping in Luanda Angola allowed them to take on fuel at sea level.
I don't recall stopping between Luanda and a European destination.
We did have a number of residents that originated from the Canary Islands and Madera, this was a connection for them.
I think the flap retraction was the most likely scenario. It's easy to see that without visual clues outside how the pilots could have missed what was happening.
Glad to have good volume (signal) on this episode!
Back in those times, the range was not like a modern jet, due to much higher fuel consumption, load factors, with fewer paying pax , so extra sectors would be added , this route was perhaps , a joint flight with Lufthansa , refueling in las palmas , the other stops sadly perhaps had tondo with Apartheid, and may have simply been down to political reasons, and dropping dark skinned South Africans first, not to Joberg , But Laspalmas was definitely a likely fuel stop. I recall even in 1986 , on a 747 200, we had to stop for fuel.at an airport in the Caribbean, called Freeport , and that was a flight from Heathrow. I'm not sure why but that routing was SW over Cornwall then most of that flight was over the ocean , today , a look at FR24 shoes flight tracks, that always seem to route flights from London say heading to Orlando , up over Scotland, turning toward Iceland 150 miles or so north or Stornoway, then from Iceland , turning over NE Canada down the eastern seaboard of the US down to for example Orlando .
Also we now have things like ETOPs , runways tend to be longer , aircraft are a heck of a lot bigger , and twin engine . They fly higher usually at cruise .
Hence Shannon used to be a regular stop over, just as it was when BA operated the A318 to New York from London city , outbound it landed there for fuel , owing to take off runway length , plus preclearing security.
So different eras different reasons for stops . One airport in the modern era until recently with the neo type airbus, where a refuel if flying to Manchester or Scotland, was Skiathos Greece . It has a pretty short runway , 758's ( not many used now for pax operations ), and A321,/A320 and I think the 737-800 many would refuel enroute , either the former Yugoslavia, or Perhaps Austria .
Another thing of note , the 707 was much smaller than modern long haul aircraft , in length it's not far short on the E195 (E2) or A321. Finally now you have what used to be short to medium haul aircraft able to fly non stop on 7 hour flights.
The most notable of this, is Air Baltic using their A220-300 to fly down from Riga to Dubai , a testimony to the efficiency of lightweight manufacturing and fuel efficiency, I gather it is a bit over 7 hours .
Oh and one other notable thing as you previously mentioned 737's on your Alitalia crash video , the original 737 was very short and much smaller , than the modern incarnation.
And when it's big brother the 747 was first launched it was parked next to a 707 to demonstrate, just how small in comparison the 707 was , to the 747. So with short runways, flying a luxury , a lot more weight in baggage, and Duty free plus , more meals than today's lesser service standards , much has changed in the industry.
This answer gets my vote.
That 1st sentence summarizes the main points well. Back in the day, there were much fewer paying passengers. Many of these aircraft were hybrids that carried passengers & cargo. Airfreight had an excellent secure niche with many guaranteed postal shipments, & no real competition to speak of.
Flying in S.A. only really became affordable to middle-class income earners during the '80s, & other airlines began servicing many of the routes when SAA started to go downhill.
Very simple for the stopovers when fuel not required. You can market 5 routes on one plane on company leg.
If I was mixing you on a P.A. I would say your noise gate needs to be a tad softer trigger and longer. I can tell you are upgrading 😊
You answered your own question about 10 seconds later. Why did it have so many stops? Because "some passengers got off, some passengers got on". There was enough demand for it to have more stops.
I used to fly from Zambia in africa to london in 1968 to 1973 about 3 times a year, back and forth about 6 trips in one year ,i remember it was on the vc10 most of the times , we would fly to Uganda then to Rome and then london ,it was mainly to pick up more passenger's from each stop maybe they added fuel as well at Rome ,not sure if the vc10 had that range to fly that distance plus we could be sat on the runway in Uganda for hours
VC-10s were used on transatlantic flights, and had a range of over 5,500 miles. So, Zambia to London was likely within range for a direct flight.
@@cflyin8 thanks it must have been to pick passenger's up in Uganda and Rome was only 11 so dont remember a lot just stopping at these places
@@trevmacc In 1966 I flew from London to Lagos, Nigeria in a VC10. We had stops in Rome and Accra , Ghana. For the return journey the stops were Kano, in northern Nigeria, and Rome.
@@davidcronan4072 we might have stopped at other places but Uganda and Rome stand out to me as a few things happened in those countries , i only remember the vc10 as i have a log book the captain filled in when we went up to the cockpit to look around some thing we can not do now,fun times to fly in those days
Windhoek = Wind-hook is how the yanks pronounce it. Others, with a v. Vind-hoek.
Yes, both pronounciations are used.
@@dodahspeak WHile both are used, the only correct pronunciation is Vinthook (anglicised). In the Afrikaans language in South Africa, where I'm from, the W is always pronounced as V. There are no exceptions :) There is no equivalent of the English W in Afrikaans. The D is pronounced as a T. Also, calling it "ho-ek" made me laugh out loud too :) In Afrikaans that would be spelled as hoëk, to indicate that the vowels are split.
Windhoek, which means "windy corner" is pronounced Vindhook, I remember the crash very well, I lived in Jo'burg at the time. Thanks for the video.
It's pronounced "Windhook". Windhoek means "wind-corner", hoek being a corner in Flemish/Dutch/Afrikaans.
It is one of the best parts of You-Tube, when someone takes the trouble to educate people from other parts of the world.
All too often, all we see is rude insulting comments.
The takeoff in the early 707s was almost violent. The plane would careen around the turn into the runway and throttle up full before coming to a stop. The engines would roar like crazy and the plane vibrated and shook. After it took off, there were a few minutes where it got peaceful by comparison. The pilots were probably fooled by this and weren't watching their altitude or artificial horizon.
Have you ever been in a 707? All of my experiences were quite normal during takeoff. I think you might have seen the film Skyjacked and watched the plane make a wild turn onto the runway and thought that's how it was.
@@Springbok295 I flew several missions on an AWACS E3-B (Boeing 720) and they were all smooth. Sat in the observer seat for a night landing once too - amazing!
B pkn
The 707 needed a LOT of runway. I remember timing a takeoff run on a TWA 707-120 out of STL; 46 seconds from throttle up to airborne.
At associated air we did a heavy D-check on a 707-340C I believe, it's been since about 93. Never have I seen an aircraft tore apart that far . New control cables all windows doors horizontal and vertical stabilizer removed all control surfaces. Leading edges which were riveted on . Just a tube with wings. It had one extra bladder in the center tank and some of them had 1957 mfg date. Turkish airforce.
Good to see something involving the 707.
The pilots were used to the JT4 powered A model and when to raise the flaps during climbout. The C model they were operating was different. Couple that with a night takeoff and no ground lights or visible horizon induced a bit of spatial disorientation.
There used to be more stops because many routes didn't have enough demand to fill an aircraft, So you have one big aircraft with multiple stops means you can take the demand on many flights.
For example, stopping in Las Palmas on a flight to Frankfurt will be quite a good route to stop on.
As you said in the video, People will get on and people will get off.
Nowadays travel is cheaper and aircraft are full a lot more meaning there's no point stopping for more passengers even if you wanted to.
Airlines still do it like BA, Virgin, KLM, Air France, etc when going to the Caribbean may stop at a couple of islands because there's not enough demand to do a flight to each island.
Was just about to mention that Caribbean flight services will often still use this model as opposed to the now more common spoke and wheel. London Nassau Kingston instead of two separate flights still happens.
I'm firmly in the flaps category, I thought as soon as you mentioned retracting the gear and flaps that it seemed way too early.
I think back in the day, there weren't that many planes, the tickets were expensive and normally they weren't full so they were used more like a bus, so they could cover more cities/countries/routes with one airplane.
Flew in the 60's and 70's as a Passenger on a VC10 and that always Stopped Twice as far as i Remember, (Luanda and i think Las Palmas) but going South once we were Held at Gunpoint with our Hands Held above our Heads and Leaning against the Fuselage at one of the African States we Stopped at. We were informed that the Stops were for Fuel and Dropping and Collecting Passengers.
As always great vid, thank you!
By the way: Windhoek is spoken "windhook", much easier that the spelling looks like. It's Afrikaans for "windy corner".
Consider how with busses u can take the express bus from point A to point B, usually over a longer distance. Or u can take the "bumble" bus (usually at a lower price) starting at point A and ending at point B, but stopping at points C, D, E, F etc on a longer more zig-zaggy route to drop off passengers and pick up new passengers.
Back in the 50s-60s-70s the planes were run like the busses. There were extremely few direct, single destination routes, coz not a lot of ppl flew, so it just wasnt feasable. Instead, the planes operated like the busses with several stops on the way. It wasnt until the 70s and new plane models, that it changed to, what we know today.
As to your question at min. 00:16, I guess it was largely for commercial reasons - to pick up and get off passengers that would be interested in only a segment of that route. The point-to-point concept was still far away (as it was the hub-and-spoke one, actually). It was more of a hop-hop-hop one, I’d say (the latter definition being my invention of course)
It is called a "milk-run". It was very common for airlines to schedule flights like this back in the early days of flight to the early 1980's. Remember, flight schedules were highly regulated back in the day. Also, airlines like the one discussed in this video were state owned. They were heavily subsidized eto offer air services to the out of the way and small cities. I myself in 1976 flew Southern Airlines from Homestead, to Miami, to Fort Lauderdale, to Melbourne, to Orlando, to Tampa, to Pensacola on the same plane. A DC-9-10. Up, down, up down up down. It was normal. The first few hops we didn't even crack 5000 ft altitude. The 2 longest legs were Fort Lauderdale to Melbourne, then Tampa to Pensacola. All the rest were 15 to 20 minute flights max.
Xp11 or 12?
Human error, or medical emergency? Either way, it's a miracle that 2 survived. Great video. Thank You.
Actually 5 survived - I have the accident report and all the photos. A disturbing fact was that 44 passengers had already unfastened their seat belts before impact. It is believed the first officer may have survived had he been wearing his shoulder harness rather than just a lap belt.
@@27degrees Thank you for the information. I don't take my belt off, until I'm told to.
Just a little note from the nitty-bitty-itsy-bitsy-department: Windhoek is pronounced as Windhook 🤓 .
Thanks for a once more very informative and very well made accident report! Much appreciated!
If you don't know how something is supposed to be pronounced in a foreign language, may I suggest leveraging the speak-button in Google's translate site. It does a good job if you set the language correctly. Doesn't take long, easy to do and it yields better results than trying to come up with something that sounds fancy by yourself.
When you try to say Windhoek, do not say Windo-eck. Just say Wind-hook. Two English words concatenated. Easy.
RUclips also has useful "how to pronounce" videos.
i think it had to do with fuel range.
since this flight flew from south africa at
that time was under embargo due to the arpatid regeme.
thats the reason to the stops along the route to frankfurt.
👍👍👍👍🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪🇸🇪
So you mean they couldn't refuel in South Africa due to sanctions? Seems odd for the national carrier of South Africa.
It's also a classic case of a "Black Hole" departure. This continues to kill pilots even up to today. Departing, in the darkness, into an environment where the horizon isn't easily visible and few other ground lights to provide reference can cause spatial disorientation and, if the plane was in a subtle descent, the pilots...outside of their instruments...would not be able to catch it. If you're "flying instruments" then you have a better chance at keeping the situation, but if you're departing VFR into the darkness, you're more susceptible...even for "instrument rated pilots"...to lose spatial and situational awareness.
In the US, airlines were regulated, and had to service certain towns
MINI!!!!
What were the physical/mechanical differences between the A and C models that changed the flap setting specifications?
The wing design; larger surface area of the wing ,improved aerodynamics.
@@markbradley2367
Thank you
I was told by an SAA pilot that Johannesburg is problematical. It is high altitude and has high temperatures. The air is therefore less dense, and engine performance and lift are both impacted. For this reason flights out of Jo'burg cannot take off with a full load of fuel. Also, the roundabout flights to Las Palmas were to avoid certain African countries denying SAA fly-overs due to sanctions against South Africa due to it's racist government policies at that time.
BTW, Windhoek in Namibia (then called South West Africa) is pronounced "Vind-hook"
Also remember that Windhoek sits about 2000m above sea level in a hot climate so this should have a great effect on performance.
However JHB is at 2000m above and managed to take off fine.
The A model retracts earlier but still is 20 versus the C which is supposed to be 14 going to zero. That would mean more lift and I would think would help climb.
Great vlog as always! I think why SA had to fly via LPA was political back in the day. Some nations would not allow SA to fly over their borders. This sounds like old habits die hard. You also have the accident with L-188 AA into LGA in 1959 with FC DeWitt who had less than three months to fly. Keep up the good work. Be safe!
Air France and Air Inter dropped a couple of A320s in the early days of using that aircraft. The accidents were attributed to crews not being fully aware of the different control modes available.
I was on this flight. Definitely one of the more memorable flights I’ve been on.
Now you weren't. What a horrible thing to claim. Get some help.
New plane with an inexperienced crew (for that version) at night, that's what I call 'shit' was going to or bound to happen simply waiting for the recipe and sadly it was that moment for those aboard to perish, aviation was a kid back then and only now it has grown to young man.
In fact the pilots knew perfectly well how to fly the B707!
The most likely cause was that the flight instruments were arranged differently to the rest of the fleet and their normal scan could have missed the vertical speed indicator.
After this crash SAA mandated a standard instrument layout for their entire fleet.
Do you have any technical information on the flap retraction sequence as well as the instrument layout?
As soon as you say a plane could not gain altitude, my first reaction is that either the flaps were not extended, or they were on the wrong setting. Almost every take-off air crash I have seen on Mayday or any other accident investigation TV show or RUclips channel has been found to be related to the flaps. Most of the time the pilots forget to extend them and for some reason there is no warning. That would be the very first thing I would check if I were investigating an accident like this.
There are a lot more aircraft flying today than back then, since more are produced and they generally become obsolete less quickly. With fewer aircraft available in the 1960s they could not serve as many routes, so multi stop flights were the norm. Also modern aircraft with more efficient engines have greater range, allowing more direct flights.
The concept of hub and spoke was not conceived yet. This concept generated enough origin and destination passengers for nonstop flights..
It was at this moment the pilots knew, they f***ed up!
If I had to guess why planes made so many stops in the past, it will have to be a combination of a few factors:
1. Fuel prices are low at that time
2. Passenger numbers are low
Which is kinda wierd but let my try to explain. Take offs and landings will burn more fuel than cruising, which is true. Since the number of passengers flying between London and Johannesburg are low even today, let alone in 1968 when flying was mostly left to the wealthy, it would've been impossible to fill a jet and cover the cost of flying that long route. As crazy as it sounds to make multiple stops on a journey such as this, the number of passengers who is flying from London to Johannesburg is always the minority on flights like this. Since fuel prices are low, the airlines treat this as a "shuttle service" like what you see in modern public transportation system, not many people travel from one end of the line to another. Nowadays, these flights are rare as planes today are more efficient and smaller planes can easily fly such routes. Besides, each take-off and landing adds more wear and tear to the aircraft.
Fuel efficiency
Maybe short hops are due to fewer routes, less service. Might also be capacity of airports back then. Tickets were relatively more expensive.
The reason is simply to pick up more passengers. Back in those days, flying is a big event, and is mostly for the rich (especially in Africa). Still remember the days that friends and relatives go to airport to meet people arriving and say good bye to people leaving? Flights are rarely full, in fact typical load factor is probably less than 70%, and more stops means more passengers to fill up the flight. Also it is migrating from propeller to jet airplanes, so even with several stops, it should still be fast compare to the past.
There is probably another reason: South Africa should be one of the few (if not the only one) that had modern jet liners in Africa, so those stops are to serve other countries in Africa.
There isn't a professional pilot or controller that puts a zero before a runway designation.
I love your break-downs of incidents, let me give you some insight on flying.
The whole world outside of North America puts a zero before a runway designation 😂
They did know how to fly the plane but there were no leading edge flap warnings. The plane was configured incorrectly and the LE flaps were not deployed. Modern aircraft would provide a warning.
What is the "707 A-model"? There was a -100, -200, -300 and -400 model. There were differences in length weight and flaps. 400 was just with different engines. The A was at the end, originally with turbojet engines, with the 707-100s B came turbofan engines. The most built wqs the 320B although the exact number after the 707 was the airline code, like 707-138 for Australian 707-100. The C at the end denotes freighter / combi.
The coffins were brought back to Jan Smuts airport. All technical staff were instructed to walk through the hangar.
"Loss of situational awareness
The crew had no visual reference in the dark, leading to spatial disorientation.
The crew used a flap retraction sequence from the 707-B series which removed flaps in larger increments than desirable for that stage of the flight, leading to a loss of lift at 600 ft (180 m) above ground level.
Temporary confusion on the part of the pilots when reading the vertical speed indicator, which was different from the A and B series of the aircraft to which they were accustomed."
Wikipedia 😶🌫️
A refueling stop was done at Sol island in Cape Verde. During the bad old days when SA was sanctioned and could not overfly many African countries.
Firstly, there is absolutely no such place as “Window-wek”… there is, however, the capital city of Namibia called WINDHOEK (pronounced “Vind-Hook”).
The reason for all the stops is that South Africa is not a rich country…we don’t have hundreds of aircraft to fly to all destinations!! Thus the few planes we had…had to cover many destinations! Thus, if we’re flying up the African continent up to London, it makes sense to stop in “Windyho, hooka” or however you pronounced it…from there people in Windhoek may want to fly to Angola, where SAA could pick up more passengers wanting to fly to London, thus keeping the plane full!!
Can't help but feel like aircraft manufacturers should be pressured to account for potential human error, and not make subtle differences between similar models that can have catastrophic effects like this.
A Nighttime microburst would have necessitated increasing thrust for more speed to catch the sink rate
This was not possible as the aircraft at that density altit 10:00 ude and in takeoff attitude was on borderline power settings so pilot might have pulled flaps slightly early to increase and clean up the aircraft speed so preventing a stall lowering nose slightly The four engine trenches from impact showed aircraft collided at increasing with slightly rising ground This coupled with an unseen and then unknown microburst is consistent with sinking air in the centre of a large microburst over desert terrain ground affect which can affect in night flying conditions Check the ground contours around the airport and where the aircraft crashed as well as the numerous photographs rather than suggesting it was a medical condition that caused this accident In my view the pilot probably did all in his power to save the situation
Kindly pronounce Windhoek correctly it is Wind hook not windho ek!
*They do many stops to fly at full capacity.*
They stopped so frequently because they didn't yet have the hub-and-spoke network setup.
Very concerning how this appeared on my fyp, I literally have a flight tomorrow 😂
Windhoek pronounced Vindhook the W is sounded as a V and the ook is the short vowel sound and pronounced like 'look' or 'hook'. Also the d would be pronounced like t. So the word would be pronounced as Vinthook.
You should do LAPA 3142. On of the worst avoidable accidents in history.
Let’s go for the full whammy: medical emergency going unnoticed leading to mistakes that didn’t get caught…
I think it was like a train because like if you wanted to fly from Delhi to karachi, no indian or Pakistani airline flew that route but Lufthansa or alitalia did, also it was because of range
Great video. Just one small remark. You said Windho-ek, but Windhoek is a Dutch name meaning wind corner or wind angle. Anyway the Dutch word hoek (corner / angle) is pronounced as hook as in Captain Hook. But that was not important for this story. I do not see a variometer (speed of climb/descend) in the sim model, but 2 different types of altimeters next to each other. However thee are more crashes that were the result of pilots flying another make of type of airplane than they were used to.
Amazing someone could be allowed to take control of a plane with such little experience.
Based on the information you presented, I think the likely cause is premature flap retraction combined with pretty much non-existent training on the differences in the new model B707.
Might have been an illusion due to high acceleration being felt as a pitch up, which the pilot would counter by pushing down.
If they climbed out into a black sky then they may not have had visual references other than the attitude indicator.
I think it was probably a case of many factors coming together at the worst possible time.
Probably spacial disorientation and unfamiliarity on the 707-300C model of aircraft.
Windowek? Windhoek is pronounced vint-hook. Windhoek means "Windy corner" in Afrikaans!
I flew on an SAA flight from Johannesburg to London in February 1968. We flew via Salisbury Rhodesia (now Harare, Zimbabwe), rather than Windhoek, but otherwise the stops were the same. I always understood that the tortuous route (18 hours flight time, rather than 12 hours for BOAC, which stopped only at Nairobi and Zurich) was because many African countries refused to let SAA aircraft use their airspace because of the South African governments then policy of "Apartheid".
Poor flap settings + spatial disorientation due to total absence of ground lights on a moonless night + inattention to the lack of positive climb rate..
Plus, it was at a high altitude airport which would have required more push to gain altitude.
Quite a few large passenger liners have crashed under similar conditions.
GPWS systems now blare warnings at pilots but not back then.
God rest these poor Souls 🙏 their deaths showed the need for safer systems.
BTW, Windhoek is pronounced vernt-hook. Its an afrikaans word, and directly translates to Windy Corner.
I watched a video about rhodesia. Malawi was pronounced malwee. And that was only one offence of many against place names in Africa.
@@yuglesstube yeah. I don’t expect people to pronounce cities in other countries perfectly, but I feel like if you’re doing a video on a specific place, you’d at least give it a quick Google first. For the first minute I couldn’t figure out what dude was saying. Thought maybe the airfield was window-EK.
I think the cause of crash is what is known as ( acceleration illusion)
Its very likely to happen when you take off in dark night and the pilot has little experience in the aircraft
Maybe cover 2007 midair collision of 2 news helecopters in Phoenix?