Ignoring The One Man That Can Save You | The Crash Of Alitalia Flight 404
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 23 апр 2020
- Disclaimer: All videos are used for representational purposes only and the content of the narration do not in any way reflect on any entities shown in the video.
Donations are appreciated but never expected: miniaircrashinvestigation@gmail.com (Paypal) Don Van Valkenburg: / steinfiller
This is the story of Alitalia flight 404. On the 14th of november 1990 Flight 404 was a flight from Linate airport in Milan to Zurich. They were flying a DC-9 and they had 40 passengers and 6 crew members on board. At 6:36 pm alitalia flight 404 took off from runway 36R from linate bound for Zurich with the first officer at the controls. The Dc 9 left Italy behind and climbed to its cruising altitude of 20000 feet. As they reached their cruising altitude they listened to the automated weather broadcasts from Zurich.
The surface wind at Zurich was at 240 degrees and 8 knots. The pilots discussed among themselves about the best possible runway for a landing. The first officer is of the opinion that a landing on runway 28 would be best given the current wind conditions but the active runway right now is runway 14. But they still discuss a left hand circling approach to land on runway 28.
As they descended they talked about the approach procedure for runway 14, they also talked about what they should do in the event of a communications failure or a go around. The crew were given radar vectors to perform an ILS approach onto runway 14. At 7 pm the copilot says “We perform a CAT II(approach)". As all of this happened they descended through 9000 feet and passed abeam of the zurich airport they were to the south west of the airport. The captain noted, "We are by KLOTEN, FL 90. He is bringing us in high", From the radar plots in the report that puts them approximately here.
So lets see the approach that they were trying to execute. From the point that they were at they'd fly to EKRON or near it and then turn right to a heading of 070 degrees.theyd maintain 070 degrees till they reached D-10, then they'd turn right to the runway heading all the while maintaining 4000 feet till they intercepted the glideslope at DME 8. From then its just a matter of following the ILS glideslope to the foot of the runway and then landing on runway 14. Now that we know what they were planning to do lets get back to the cockpit to see how they executed this approach.
After the captain commented that they were abeam of zurich airport they were cleared to descend to 6000 feet and they were asked to fly 325 degrees. With a heading of 325 they'd arrive at or near ekron. Once near EKRON they set the heading to 068 which took the plane in a right turn and they were following the approach chart correctly up to this point. At 7:05 pm they identified ILS runway 14. At 7:06 pm they got the approach clearance to the ILS runway 14. As we talked about before now they had to maintain 4000 feet and intercept the extended centerline of the runway. To do this they were given a heading of 110 and 4000 feet. This took the plane in another right turn. But the captain read the heading back as 120 degrees this caused a bit of confusion for the first officer. Should he fly 110 or 120? The first officer selected 110 degrees and They flew on.
Soon afterward the copilot said “Radio approach”. They were about to intercept the localizer and they were about to make their final course correction to line up with the runway. The copilot set radio1 as the receiver for this landing. At this point they had made their final turn to line up with the runway but they were slightly east of the localizer. That's the little curve that you see here on 
Наука
As soon as anyone calls for a go around, you need to take that seriously and go around. You can ask questions or challenge the call later; all you've lost is time. 1,000 ft. over the ground is not the time to figure out who's flight instruments are correct.
Agreed. If someone is calling a go around there’s usually very little time to discuss.
A go round is a go round. Once it's called max thrust and climb, gear up. You can argue about it later. This was a cluster fuck. PIC called a go round but fell to Captains Disease: #1 Captain is always right. #See rule #1. Many years ago I had declared a go round and as I was pouring in the coal Captain said No and reached for the throttles. Backhanded him with everything I had. He was unemployed when the Board came in.
@@itsjohndell That was a good call you made.
@@itsjohndell that’s awesome! Good job staying with your better judgement. I like how you handled it. I bet he took you seriously from then on. This is the whole basis of CRM, RIGHT? Sounds like he wasn’t willing to step up to the times.
@@itsjohndell Never argue about a go around. Just do it!
“If it don’t look right... go around! It’s better you should have to tell someone why you did it, than for someone to have to find out why you didn’t.”
"You can always go around, if it don't look right coming down, don't wait until your sideways sliding on the ground, you can always go around. I know that when I learnt to fly, my instructor was yellin' in my ear, power in, carb heat cold, climb-out pitch, flaps to go, take it 'round the patch one more time again. But I know now, that he was showing me, that just because the nose is pointing down, if it doesn't look right, give it one more try, you can always, go around. You can always go around, if it don't look right coming down, don't wait until your sideways sliding on the ground, you can always go around. You're comin' in, you see you're high and fast, but your mind somehow set on getting down, the runway leads into grass, which leads into trees, little beads of sweat drippin' from your brow. You still have time, simply change your mind, would sure be nice to fly this plane again, with the wings still strait, this ain't no place to hesitate, pitch and power, gear and flaps, HEY GO AROUND! You can always go around, if it don't look right coming down, don't wait until your sideways sliding on the ground, you can always, you can always go around, if it don't look right coming down, don't wait until your sideways sliding on the ground, you can always go around.
(yes I just typed out the entire lyrics of the "you can always go around" song)
Few weeks ago I watched the TV show Air crash investigation about this exact crash. If only the captain would have left the first officer alone when he wanted to go around, they would have all survived. I watched few episodes on Air crash investigation where the first officer tells the captain to go around but stubborn captains don't listen and fly into the ground. Sometimes pilots with more experience are more dangerous then the new pilots because new pilots always want to do everything by the book and experienced pilots sometimes think that they're so good that they don't need to do everything by the book, complacency has killed a lot of very experienced pilots.
Wait this is an ACI episode? An ACI episode I haven’t watched? Time to go find it!
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation
Here is also a clip on RUclips from the episode, but if you want the full episode click the previous link I posted in a comment above:
ruclips.net/video/wrDq5V3DZAU/видео.html
Great thanks! Will check it out :)
You know what they say: "pride always comes before a fall". This is a prime example. 🤥
I liked this video. You talking and explaining things is easier to understand than trying to read huge paragraphs of important info in the 3 seconds they give you on these other crash sites.
I look forward to more videos from you!! This is the first time I've watched your channel and I like it!
Thank you!
I think first officers probably are more cautious. And captains usually have egos that they think they're always right.
The pilots were arguing about where the plane was positioned, so that's an unstable approach even without the hill.
Very true! As Mentour Pilot would say "this is when you know something's seriously wrong".
Massimo was my friend. I will never forget that night watching the breaking news about the flight crash. I was sitting in my friend's living room in Milan and when I saw the flight number, I looked at them and could only utter: that's Massimo's flight. He was supposed to come back to Milan that night ......... instead he met his destiny!
5:39 "hold on, let's try to"
You can say that only if you're sure you can have more attempts later or else should be rephrased to "hold on, let's risk it".
You have missed some of the main points of the accident and accident investigation:
1) It was the captains Glide Slope display that was wrong, it displayed zero deviaition from the center of the 3° glide slope while the aircraft was anywhere above or below the actual glide slope. The co-pilot had an indipendent, second ILS receiver that was indicating the correct deviation from the glideslope initially. The captain thought that he was flying the aircraft exactly on the glide slope when it was leaving 4000 ft too early. The co-pilot noticed the difference between the captain's Glide-Slope indication and his own (#2 receiver). He told the captain that there was a difference. The captain told him that his (the captain's) instruments were correct and that he (the co-pilot) should switch his display to the captain's (#1) receiver. It was a "non-standard" possibility in Alitalia's fleet to allow switching both sides to ONE SINGLE receiver and by this make it impossible to check if both receivers are indicating the same glide-slope deviation. The captain had the mind-set that his receiver and indicator was correct and that the centered deviation needle meant that the aircraft was at the center of the 3° glide-slope. When the crew realized that they were too low and had not yet crossed the Outer Marker, they did NOT misread the altimeter. Yes, the drum-type altimeter was a factor in many accidents - but it was NOT a factor in this accident. It was, a) the problem of Alitalia's internal communication struture that the warning of this dangerous failure mode of the Glide-Slope receiver without a failure warning was not communicated to the pilots. b) it was the installation of this dangerous switch in the cockpit to allow both sides at the same time to display the output of one single receiver. c) It was mainly the error of the captain and his mindset that he (personally in his competence) was right and the (less experienced) co-pilot was not right. We still find this culture today in many Asian countries. This is a lack of CRM (Crew Resource Management) - Why having two independent receivers when only one is used to indicate on both sides? Why having two pilots when only the captain's authority can allow a Go Around?
No, you racist, you missed the fact that Western countries from Russia to Poland and Hungary to U.S. and U.K. have swung decidedly to the Dear Leader's model of governance. To put in a racist remark at the end of your post is cowardly.
@@Raison_d-etre I did NOT post a racist remark. To call me a racist is showing that you are not someone that should be taken seriously.
@@sorgfaeltig You post it everywhere, lol. I watch aviation videos on RUclips too.
@@Raison_d-etre But you still do not seem to understand the main factors of airline aircraft accidents: The lack of Crew Resource Management. I pointed to that FACT at some of the accidents that were a consequence of non-existing cooperation in the cockpit. Telling this is NOT racism. You seem to be totally misguided in your remaks.
@@sorgfaeltig You don't know what you're talking about, including what I do or don't know. You're awfully presumptuous and judgemental when you're so ignorant.
Very beautiful footage of DC-9 production, roll-out and test flying. A DC-9 air refueling? A DC-9 with a parachute? And finally a DC-9 with a Hud!
Saw a video where it only said the pilot was to blame for this due to his "anger management" issues. He seems to have physically disciplined one of his colleagues in his career and failed at numerous tests than one could in the program. I think your video is alot more elaborate and true to the point though. Nice!
You are referring to flight 5719. The Alitalia captain was never observed hitting a subordinate (apparently).
@@TheBoeingE i see
Enjoyed this very much! A nice touch by showing archival footage of the dc-9
Glad you enjoyed it!
Right?? That was REALLY cool 😎!! 👍👍
@@dodoubleg2356 Very good channel
Hey, I only just recently discovered your channel and wanted to say thanks for your work. My father is originally from the area and my family had often told me about the accident and how it was apparently well audible from their home. Although constantly seeing aircraft pass overhead was a factor that led to me studying Aerospace Engineering now, I had never looked up specific information on that accident. As I was just browsing the internet to find more I noticed that even in German there isn't a lot of information to go on, which makes your research all the more impressive. Best wishes and keep up the good work!
Too many pilots have caused crashes because they wanted to avoid doing a go-around in order to 'save face' and to save themselves from lots of paperwork and 'splainin'. For that one moment in time, these particular pilots forgot that they have the lives of so many innocent people in their hands.
It certainly saved them for doing paperwork
@@SomeRUclipsGuy CUZ THEY DEAD NOW N I G G A
And this is why practically every airline implemented no-questions-asked go-arounds, meaning no explanations needed. I honestly doubt that pride was ever a primary driver behind avoiding go-arounds.
@@tookitogo Makes you wonder what exactly goes through their heads when this happens that keeps them from doing what they know is the right and the smart thing.
@@hehhehhuhhuh7014 Absolutely!!! I can’t imagine it, either.
Nice videos. Btw the mountain is called Stadlerberg not Stradlerberg. It's about 200m above ground there. So 404 must have been flying really low.
Thanks for the feedback!
It was this crash (and some others) that led to a change in policy for all airlines, and a change in culture away from the idea that a go around meant the pilot did something wrong.
This crew knew something was wrong here, but they didn't have the time to figure out what, exactly was wrong.
These days, if the pilot has any doubt at all about the approach they will move away from the ground to a safe altitude and try to figure it out up there.
Love your channel! Subscribed. Great DC-9 test footage!
Thank you so much!!
In my line of work, we have a universal 'stop' rule. Meaning anyone on the project involved its movement has the right to say stop at any time for any reason and drivers and operators have to comply. I believe toga should be the same. As someone who is considering flight school, captains like this scare me more than anything else, and are my main holdback.
Most airlines implemented no-questions-asked go-arounds ages ago precisely for this reason.
@@tookitogo I would love to know which airlines have not implemented this rule so I can make sure to never fly with them lol
@@LunaticTheCat Indeed, I don’t know exactly. I’ve just heard over and over from pilots (on shows) that most airlines made that change. So I think it’s probably rare now.
Great video. Very detailed. You've got me a new subscriber. Keep up the good work.
You do a great job with these.
Love this channel. Please keep it coming!!
Very good use of video, as well as your excellent analysis. Well done!
I learned elsewhere that false glideslopes is a thing in general, and it's a radiology thing, not a short circuit in the receiver...
(Of course the mentioned models may have had some short circuit problem too, but false glideslopes exist independently from that.)
4:01 Damn that's one scary tail drag.
Unacceptable! Being cognizant of the unique terrain, not to mention the glide slope marker inconsistencies, was more than enough to preclude such a foolish mistake.
You would think.
Good video. I enjoyed all the DC-9/MD-80 videos. My favorite commercial A/C.
Excellent video! I just started to inform myself about this particular crash because my father told me an anecdote about it today. He was a military police soldier on active duty when it happened. Right after it happened his unit was sent to secure the crash site from trophy hunters and the press while the firefighters were trying to put out the fire. The way he described the scene was literally hell; darkness, rain, fire, debris and mangled corpses everywhere accompanied by a wicked smell consisting of kerosene and burnt flesh. He didn't eat grilled meat and fly airliners for over a year after this.
Very informative video. Thanks.
I am watching this video just after your latest one, and I must say that you have improved a lot! Not that this video is bad, but that you are getting better and better on each video.
Asking if we all wonder "if a 'go around' would have been successful?" And giving the answer, "Yes."....I had a physical reaction. Very well done video, as always!
keep up the good work bro!
Great work man
Great video. So many crashes are caused by a loose nut behind the wheel. The archival footage was cool.
I worked on so may of the older airliners seen in your video footage, brings back memories.
Before the days of the Maintenance Data Control Unit, that will tell you what's wrong, or get you really close. Our MCDU was between your ears.
For the ILS transmitter, there are actually 3 "beams". The intended beam, the actualy glide slope, and a ghost beams one above and one below.
The pilot needs to make sure they aren't one one of the ghost signals by knowing how far out they are, and their altitude.
Without knowing their actual altitude, they had no way to tell they were on a ghost signal.
loved it thanks
I like the speakers narration of the tragic circumstances while at the same time,watching random planes land on some of his videos
Such a beautyful vintage shots on background :)
Great video bro!
Glad you liked it!
Excellent explination!
Good vid. Well explained. No extra chit chat, just facts.
Great video man!! Keep em coming!:)
Thanks a ton for your continued support
great video!
Thank you for your positive feedback it really means a lot!
You did a nice job, hope you're successful
Thank you so much for your support pat!
The problem with reading that altimeter has to do with the fact that part of it is digital, the other part of it is analog. Flying an aircraft is a right brain function. Reading an analog instrument is also a right brain function. But when you read digital, that is a left brain functions. The information can get lost trying to cross the corpus callosum in the brain and make sense when you're reading two different types of instrument rolled into one. I learned this in the 1970s when we started to merge digital instruments into combat aircraft and the combat Pilots were actually slowing down their reaction time due to the mixture of right left brain function in reading the instruments.
Now that's very interesting.
The irony of this being flight 404
Ground services: Error 404 - Plane not found.
There is no irony at all in that observation. That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.
@@davesaunders3334 coincidence
can you do Aeroflot 7425 as a bonus episode? there is almost no information that I can find on it.
Hey just as a recommendation, you're quite good at the voice over, but I can't help but think it's held back a bit by your equipment. You probably could get a better cleaner sounding mic for less than $100
A captain relying on his instruments is better than a first officer trusting his gut it seems
Alright, now I've got the "you can always go arround" song stuck in my head.
Loving the DC-9 Footage, by the way. Great visual inclusion.
Thank don valkenburg he got this footage from his dad and he digitized it and uploaded it to RUclips
I have only flown light planes, so I am not an expert, but I remember learning about false glide slopes that can sometimes occur on ILS approaches, and the importance of situational awareness. .
Nice one !👍
OOops! Made the comment below, went back to vid just in time to catch the bit about the drum altimeter! What a bodge it was! Wonder how many planes got flown into terrain b4
they changed?
Even at the glidepath it is advised to check altitudes at DME's. At specific atmospheric conditions you can catch a false signal. Special in a mountainous environments.
What video did you use here?! I'd really like to watch it with sound.
Hey, thanks for the video! Thanks for the hard work and passion you put on this.
A small piece of feedback on your Alitalia. pronunciation. It's not Al-Italia, it's more like "aleetalea" :)
The hubris of the captain doomed them all
Captain and FO should always concur on matters when safety is involved, always giving benefit of a doubt to whichever is less comfortable with a situation. No captain should ever overrule his FO when such doubts arise until a matter is thoroughly reviewed and discussed in the cockpit. An FO serves as insurance in the form of a second opinion and that opinion will always be respected by a responsible captain.
Speaking as a retired Captain [29.5 year Airline Pilot, 26.5 years as Captain]: Captains are raked over the coals by many managements for their 'on time' performance. This leads some Captains to have a 'complete the mission' mindset rather than a 'do it as safely as possible' mindset in day to day line ops! With this mindset and the other equipment issues you outlined, the Captain was more likely to rationalize the conflicting information and override the FO's impulse to go around so as to be 'on time'. This is just my OPINION, BUT I have seen this kind of setup cause at the very least damage and some near fatal incidents many times in the 34 years that I was a Pro Pilot.
Greg, I don’t doubt your experience as I know corporate cultures are different, but I’ve been at my airline for 30 years now and have never once been questioned about being late or executing a go around. Hopefully that reflects more and more companies today.
I do agree that the “target fixation” to get on the ground and make everything work out has always been and still is a threat. Best regards.
The pilots should have known about the hill near the airport , the pilot thought he could level off ! The danger near the outer mark should have been emphasised that . The pilot had skimmed the ground to reach airports many times before ... the levels are just for reducing noise annoyances and reducing chance of collision with emergency helicopters or harrison ford. He didnt know it was absolutely vital to not go below "minimum" altitudes..
This has been made into an ACI episode, like 3 of the accidents discussed on this channel.)
Really? Which episode is it?
@@TheLukaszpg Season 18, Episode 8.
Thank you
Even though your videos from a year ago are good. Your latest videos have really come along way with the simulations. Great job and Thank You!
Have you thought about redoing some of these older vids for us newer subscribers? I'm finding quickly i'ts way easier to get the mental picture when you show it so accurately now
There was a Crossair flight from Germany that crashed trying to land on runway 28 at Zurich in bad weather too. This is not the first time.
"Broken instruments, a misread altimeter, and a captain who just did not see the danger in front of him....." Exactly why I will not fly.
do you drive? do you walk? do you climb on ladders?
A false on-glideslope display is very dangerous. Also, sometimes there is no indication when flying over an Outer Marker Beacon. So not hearing or seeing any indication when descending through the glideslope's Outer Marker crossing altitude would not be entirely unusual; it is not known right away what is at fault--the beacon, the receiver, or the annunciator. But the whole thing was a set-up for disaster. The FO was cluing in.
The instrument approach procedure chart shows "ILS/DME" by the localiser frequency. It might be that the copilot saw that they were too far out to be at their low altitude.
So very sad for the victims families. This plane crashes into a mountain, after the crash, “let’s put lights on the mountain.”
Aaaaaand... adding the lights is bad _how?_
Wonder why he didn't go through his flight plan as he surely would of realized the terrain and the need to be on alert especially with pre landing check list being done before entering the circuit. Sad that people died in this! Preventable loss!
whoahh do you have any more information about what's going on in the footage at 4:05? is that like a test or some thing?
As far as I could see, all clips shows some form of tests. E.g tail strike, build up of ice to distort aerodynamics on the surfaces and how (maybe) the deicing makes the ice behave mid flight, ingestion of water / ice or slush of the engines during take off and landing as well as sharp roll, yaw and rudder inputs to name a few.
It's the MD-87 on that particular one, and I can't find much about it other than this clip ruclips.net/video/X7daNgAVtzc/видео.html
Watching this again after the Air France incident at JFK yesterday where Alitalia took off and flew to Rome after a minor collision with AF on the ground.
I drive a lorry for a living.. Some maneuvers involve reversing.... I was told of an acronym called "GOAL" which means Get Out And Look, if you can't see what's behind you etc....... I was just wandering if I might be classed as "incompetent" because I had to get out and look? It is ridiculous that if a pilot decides to perform a "go around", he might be seen as an incompetent pilot! That he might feel like a failure for doing a "go around" etc....... No Joke, this is a joke!
How much (in%) have engineers improved in emissions and efficiency since then?
I remember early 1970"s we wouldn't have white laundry drying outside when runway 27 was in use on EHAM 😅.
Quite a lot is the answer
The per seat fuel burn of the 737 family has decreased by about one third
@@gamma_dablam ⅓ less so ⅔ remaining?
Sounds great, but over 50 years actually not that much in comparison with cars, which reduces by 50% or more.
With larger bypass engines, more efficient wing profile including larger variance with slats & flaps, winglets, lightweight composite materials etc I'd expect more like ⅔ reduction.
I had a 1967 Mercedes diesel with a drum tachomter. Also a glow plug.
3:59 What do I search to find that footage?
Another strange fact is, to me, that in the visibility conditions they were in, the runway lights should have been visible already when they approached the LOC. Apparently none of the two ever looked out of the cockpit, or else they would have seen runway lights that did not behave normally.
I vividly remember when this happened. There was a pretty famous up-and-coming young actor onboard...
Brilliant again Sir. But dont get bigheaded.
Sounds like the Captain was suffering from GET-THERE-itis.
Not to sound morbid, but I genuinely hope there's an afterlife just so the FO could look at the captain and say I told you so. Infuriating when people die because of one man's ego. Once someone says go around, you go around and talk about it later, bid avoid (in most airlines, you can ask to not fly with someone again, not guaranteed but if there's a lot of pilots you probably won't see them again) the FO if you think he's that stupid, but go around and figure it out later.
Have anybody out there ever been on jet and have an engine blow out-i was on a Airbus 300 continental airlines in 1993 taking off in Houston tx-and the right engine blew out-two loud thumps-we had one engine left-we had just pulled up from the runway-we had a very good captain-he kept the jet straight till we leveled out-and then started turning around too go back to the terninal-took about 15 minutes-the fire trucks and all the rescue personal we're waiting for us on the right side of the runway-thats the most Erie 15 minutes I've ever experienced in my life-you start thinking about what it's gonna be like to hit the ground and burn up-if you will feel anything or not-they say you die in your head in a situation like that
I fly for one of the US majors and I also conduct training and checking sessions in the simulator. We practice situations like you went through every year so the guys and gals out there know what to do. Granted that out there flying day in and day out they never know if they’re going to have an engine fail on them(they do know in the sim), but we drill this into them to the point that they should recognize and be able to react correctly if they ever encounter that. On the ground it’s easier to deal with, but if this had happened in flight, I guarantee that you would have had a successful outcome.
if three pilots knew about a possible problem, there’s no way they wouldn’t share it with colleagues. maybe not officially, but they would certainly warn them.and they probably did. Man said;’go arround’! Not doing it was..it.
8:57 What is that?? Honestly it looks like something (or someone!!) got squashed in the wheel well as the gear retracted.......
00 is not hard to mistake and the needle was on the opposite side. No excuse for misreading it.
404: NOT FOUND
Literally the first thing I thought of when I saw the thumbnail.
The tail planes are huge
So basically airplane altitude measuring hardware/sensors were inaccurate, right?
So captain murdered everyone? Great job!
Controlled flight into terrain gives me fits, see?
What's the connection between the story and the images? 👀
"Captain?"
"Yeah?"
"Are you sure we're high enough?"
"Yeah, why?"
"Well, I may be dumb, but it doesn't seem like there should be goats in the clouds."
While this is ultimately the pilot's error, the DC-9 seems to be pretty bad planes at the time. It's only after many crashes and hundreds of deaths did they ironed out all the design flaws.
Liked. You read the accident report of SUST, fine! I live 700 Meters from the crash site away. The last words are so sad...
19:10:55 Cap: che non me torna... - it makes no sense
19:10:55 F/O: no neanche a me - no, me neither
19:10:57 Cap: tira su, tira su, tira su, tira su! - pull up, pull up, pull up, pull up!
CLACK (disconnecting AP)
19:10:59 F/O: go around
19:11:00 Cap: no, no, no, no. Fattidi il glide - no no no no, do the glide
19:11:11 Cap: ce la fai a reggerlo? - can you hold it?
19:11:13 F/O: Si - Yes
19:11:14 RADIO ALT MIN WARNING: PIP-PIP-PIP-PIP-PIP-PIP-PIP-PIP
19:11:16 Cap: Aspetta proviamo a rim... - wait, let's try to st... (maybe "stay")
19:11.18 CRASH
---- END OF CVR ---
Are there still pieces of wreckage on the hill?
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation you won't find anything at this place anymore i think. 2 years ago a farmer found a small piece of the dc9 on a tree, for more than 25 years it was hanging up there. according to the police, the piece is no longer needed, as the investigations are been completet since years. the piece was given to the local museum of the village "weiach".
the crash site is very clean, you can see young trees everywhere where crash lane was. And a memorial stone with crosses.
@@creist11 Good to know!
Awesome translation. This is really scary, poor passengers and crew
I forgot how smoky the DC9s were!
all engines of that generations were smokers. The worst were the aft-fan types used on the CV-990A
Oh No!!(My reaction, soon as I heard -for the-second-time!!- that ".. the pilots did not know..."!!
Well-researched and narrated, but the visuals are just a collection of stock footage largely unrelated to the story
Pilots don't have to report go-rounds to the company. There is no paperwork.
Currently, but the standards were probably different back then.
It's the cold equations fallacy. The cold equations was a Sci-Fi story about a shuttlecraft delivering vaccines to a planet with an almost zero margin of error, when a stowaway is discovered, and the captain of the spacecraft shoots the stowaway because the stowaway will cause the spacecraft to run out of air and fuel and crash.
The fallacy is creating a space shuttle that operates on a near zero margin of error under any circumstances.
In this case, it was the paperwork required to explain a go-around to penny pinching bureaucratic idiots who don't consider that the fail state of an airplane that doesn't go around is a crash and death.
Which is why the standard is now no reporting or paperwork for go-arounds.
Notification patrol, checking in.
Ahhh my first notification viewer!
Well done flight 404 WOW JESUS WHY
May I add,.....I am a great-advocate, of the Captain's authority on any vessel, but, the navigator - when one is present and called for by rules - must be heeded carefully, and over-ruled, very cautiously. To always be remembered, an aircraft, does NOT, have the margin-of-error, of a nautical-vessel! Thank you, for allowing me the 'disclaimer.
The captain still trying to catch the glideslope after a go around call has been made....big mistake. Pride goes before a fall.....
That altimeter is idiotic. Who thought that was a good idea?
Excellent video. I can see how some of these tragic crashes occurred back in those days but it is really difficult to take the crashes in the last decade as "part of the industry". Pilots ignoring warnings, shutting off the wrong engines, not going around due to paperwork. There is still waaaay too much that can go wrong. Sitting here in 2020, it seems that the lessons from these tragedies are simply not being learned. Flying seems like a safe mode of transportation if there are no issues, but the moment an issue arises, your chances of survival are in the low single digits.
Flying has never been safer than now. I get that watching stuff like this, and the statistic that 95 percent of crashes are due to pilot error can give the idea that the pilots are messing up big time all the time. However, you have to remember that we only see the times that they got it wrong. Planes are often decades old, and they and even new planes have failures quite regularly. In most cases, this is professionally handled by the pilots, and it becomes a non-event. In many cases the passengers don't even realise that there was a problem. These statistics and general impressions can be misleading in that regard. Because while 95 percent of the crashes might be due to pilot error, 99 percent of incidents are correctly handled by the pilots and don't result in a crash!
@@crazymonkeyVII I agree 100% My point is that with the newer plane models there are still situations that put the pilots in a lose/lose situation. And this is unacceptable in 2020.
@@macioluko9484 Yes, and due to the increasing complexity of aircraft, the statistics only gets skewed more. We are living in an age where anything can be put on the pilots. Did some component break that had consequences down the line for other (complex) systems that the pilot failed to realize? Pilot error. Did the pilot miss a warning light about a failure or recognize the failure a bit late? Pilot error. Did the pilot make a small mistake and the automatic safeguards and warnings fail? Pilot error. Was the pilot preoccupied with doing all the steps of a complicated checklist and did he not fly the airplane because the autopilot was supposed to do that? Pilot error. Did weather turn out to be more severe than anticipated and cause the plane to crash? Pilot error because they should have deviated to an alternate. Did the pilot land a crippled plane without any incident? --Dead silence--...
@@crazymonkeyVII Right on. The bottom line is: pilots are underappreciated and ought to have more say in safety protocols.
So sad knowing completing the go around fully would have saved them