@@ausjen I imagine life is getting busy for the creator. Churning out a new one of these weekly is very time consuming. I used to watch what I thought was the best restoration channel on YT, "Rescue and Restore". Well over a million subscribers and videos with 75 million views. Incredible restorations of 150 year old junk to full function and pristine cosmetic condition. Then...gone...nothing new for over 2 years now. You wonder how it happens but the financial reward for this hard work isn't always worth the effort.
@@MrCrystalcranium Yes to what you say. But sometimes it's just that they got new priorities: got married, or got a baby, or they found another hobby and moved on. There's a channel called "Airspace", really really good, over 100 videos, but he stopped last December.
First incident: When a pilot gets a "tip,", it's best to try it out on a simulator a few times before you do it on a real airplane with real people aboard because you might not know exactly what that tip is going to do when you try it. Maybe conditions weren't the same when its originator came up with it. The A340-300 is a particularly bad airplane to try something like this, because it is underpowered and sluggish compared with the -500. The -300 was supposed to receive a geared turbofan being developed by Rolls-Royce (years before Pratt and Whitney started selling its GTF). The engine's development was prolonged (and, ultimately, it was a failure; Rolls is now developing the Ultrafan GTF, which should be a lot better). But that engine was not available, so Airbus put GE-SAFRAN CFM-56 engines on it (the same that power the 737NG). The Airbus A300 is not an airplane that you want to put into a situation where you have to quickly get out of trouble through high thrust, especially if the A340-300 is fully loaded, at or near MTW.
About reuploads-I have seen a lot of comments about that and insulting this channel. Though I have been subscribed to this channel for years I still have not seen all of the content. So like this one here I have never seen before. I still think this is the best channel. Until I catch up maybe I will complain too I don’t
there are actually two melbourne airports, one is melbourne tullamarine and one is melbourne avalon. the one in the video is melbourne tullamarine so that should have been noted.
Also @14:24 of the video showing the landing at Tullamarine (Melbourne) airport it shows the city of Melbourne in the background, however the airport and city are no where near that close. You would not even be able see the Melbourne Star (Melbourne's giant ferris wheel) from that perspective.
On a previous video (a few weeks ago) someone claimed that this TFC channel was SOLD lock, stock & barrel to a new entity, and that this new one was not making any NEW videos but simply recycling through the "set" they had bought. This claim was made to the channel as well, but got zero response. Makes me think the claim although still not proven, is nevertheless true. 🤔
262.9 or 362.9 tons - that's a huge difference! If the A340 burns 6 tons per hr, is 262.9 even possible, unless it's a very short flight with no passenger/cargo? Inputting that value should trigger a pop-up warning like "Value is low. Are you sure?" on the computer.
@@akiko009 it doesn't and shouldn't do that. The computer only gives you back what you input in it. The A340 also operate some short flights with low payloads. You are commenting on this like this because you're not in the situation. I have seen people where I work assume a particular number to be correct because they have seen that number there for hundreds of time. The pilots assuming that 262.9 is their number is totally understandable, not cross-verifying the numbers individually is the problem.
@@zephyr_00 "The computer only gives you back what you input in it." As a programmer this is where differentiate us the master, from a grasshopper. We can put trap logic of something like error checking, parameter validation and input sanitization. You're commenting like this because you don't understand on how to developing a proper computer flight management system.
@@zephyr_00 The number was entered incorrectly into the EFB with correct data in the FMGS. Considering that the empty weight of that aircraft is around 220 tons, I'd be surprised if the EFB software hasn't been upgraded to question inputs that claim the aircraft TOW to only be 40 tons above that. As it happens, one of the recommendations of the ATSB was for aircraft makers to make software changes that call out abnormal values. PS. Do you fly armchairs or airplanes?
@@akiko009 Agree with you. There may be short repositioning flights (no pax, no cargo, low fuel) but these would not be common. I'm an engineer and done lots of programming - validating user input is routinely done.
smcdonald it's common, not only with aircraft, but with other modes of transport to turn off AC when maximum engine power AND/OR reduced engine load to prevent engine overheating are desired. When climbing major grades with my big truck in California, I ALWAYS shut off AC, even in extremely hot weather.
I was away for a while... at what point in time did the reuploads happen? I want to go back and watch all that i missed, but I wasn't sure when they started the duplication thing. Did this happen within the last year? Do you guys remember when he tried narrating, and there was a little bit of opinion he should not, and kept it quiet? Man it sucks to hear the channel changed.
The A-340 is the one aircraft that should ALWAYS take off under full under-power. Now you know why they call it the 4 engine hair dryer. I have seen many of them take off and they all look like they are huffing and puffing to get off the runway. Luckily, no lives were lost in the making of this report.
@@tomstravels520 Twice the thrust but they still take off with less than optimum thrust. I saw one in LAX that took 20 seconds longer to take off than an A380.
@@TheGospelQuartetParadise well yeah, RR Trent 500 has a maximum thrust of about 61,900 lbf, Trent 900 has about 84,100 lbf so obviously A380 is going to have more thrust and may have been similar MTOW as A340, depends where it was going. Still better than the 34,000 lbf from the CFM56 on the -200/-300
@@tomstravels520 There is no way in the world the A340 and A380 would have a similar MTOW when the A340 has that at 380 tons, and the A380 is 560 tons. The A340 out of LAX would go to Germany, while the A380 is headed to Dubai.
If I had a nickel for each time Emirates messed up a tale-off in an Airbus, I'd have two nickels. Not much but should I be concerned it's happened twice?
Why did Airbus make this underpowered turkey of a plane? You would think a plane with 4 modern engines would be a fighter jet and not a 1983 Camaro with the base 4 cylinder in it. My guess is they pushed the performance/economy line too far in the direction of low fuel use to make it more attractive to potential customers. There was a threshold out there somewhere and they went over the edge with it. I'd be terrified getting on one of these for a long duration flight, full of gas and passengers...unless we were taking off from a dry lakebed.
The engines that were originally planned to be used for this airplane werent available, in the end this engines were never produced, so they used different, but available engines. However as you wrote, without pushing too much towards low fuel consumption by the airline! this would not have happened, the engines do produce enough trust. Otherwise pushing the Toga-button would not have worked. Both incidents in this video would not have happened if the airline would take off with the available power. Its not Airbus fault if the airline takes off with an insufficient power setting.
Several articles mention runway overruns resulting in collisions with lights, antennae, etc Perhaps these auxiliary pieces could be positioned on both sides of the ends of the runways instead of directly ahead, so airplanes having issues with extended take-offs or extended landings don't wipe them out with their need for extended runway length? Just a thought. Here's another: Why would any production airplane be susceptible to tail-strikes? It wouldn't seem that small increases in "economy" would warrant the extra precision or precautions needed to avoid such a problem.
Ive been watching this channel for 2 years, its honestly sad to see how every time this channel uploaded i didnt miss a single video but now i do because its always a reupload.(Can yall stop saying hate on this comment💀)
Bro you're not smart💀 No I don't want more accidents to happen, it's not because there aren't any accidents it's because he isn't covering other accidents that are interesting
@@InternationalUSA Yeah dude, just contribute! Make your own videos and do all the work for the channel and give it to him, that way you can watch a new video! Totally makes sense
Flight channel, if you see this, return with videos has fast you can,i dont know how is going your life, but i need all of good for you, Huggy's from Brazil!
Has this channel done the crash of Pan American World Airways Flight 759? My father’s friend’s cousin was the baby that survived the plane crash. Just would like to know because the plane crashed near my future neighborhood.
Start covering GA crashes if you need new material for these videos. Msfs GA visuals are second to none. All we see now are reuploads. Been subbed for years, but not seeing the point for awhile since all we get are reuploads..
I enjoy the channel regardless of whether it’s a second replay or not. If y’all don’t like the channel anymore, unsubscribe…don’t bash the guy. ✈️✈️✈️💺💺😎🌻🌴
I was hoping with the Brit Air CRJ-200 incident video we would be past any re-uploads. It looks like I got my hopes up too much, but would be fine if a week or 2 needed to be skipped to work on completely new videos.
Pilots are also human beings and not machines. Instead of 360 the pilot by mistake entered 260. What is extremely alarming about Aviation is that such a small oversight could well have resulted in total catastrophe. Thankfully there was a happy ending.
Uhh, a hundred tons does not seem like a small oversight when you are talking about the takeoff weight...which determines the takeoff speed. Yes, thankfully a happy ending.
I drive a truck . A big truck 44 tons in the UK. I know how much weight I'm carrying and total weight. It's all on my dashboard. In general, these are accurate to within a couple of pounds or kilos . If they can be fitted on a road truck, why not an aircraft?
Does your truck weight account for fuel burn? A pilot needs to know the weight of the aircraft empty, the weight of the payload, weight of the fuel added to make a gross weight and this is all entered separately. Weight sensors were trialled in the 70’s but quickly became unreliable because of constant landings compressing the gear and resulting in inaccuracies. And no quick way to test if they’re still reading accurately. And besides this would have made zero difference because the weight of the aircraft was calculated correctly and entered correctly into the FMS. The error was entering the details into the laptop.
Lessons of the day: Get an accelerometer. If it shows very low G-force, it means that the aircraft is not gonna make it. Second lesson: The A340-200 and 300 had low performance, so the only safe take-off was the TOGA! take off thrust setting.
Not quite right. You are right that pilots enter the ZFW into the FMGC and that is what gives you the TOW. However the error was the entry made into the EFB which is a separate device to the FMGC. The FMGC data was all entered correctly and gave a green dot speed of 265 knots. But when 100 tonnes was missed in the EFB it gave a green dot speed of 225 knots. This should have been checked and the pilots would have realised their error
This channel got sold to someone, which is why these are all reuploads with different thumbnails. I remember when people would degrade Alec Joshua Ibay over this channel. 😆 Who won in the end? Alec. He might now have had a new flight simulator, but I would take him all day over any one who sells a channel and then the person constantly reuploads.
I see evidence all the time on the Internet that people don't read back what they typed before they enter it. This is a case where that bad habit resulted in a much worse result than a mere stupid-looking typo.
The narrative having to do with SSOI is hopelessly confusing because TFC skips over the phenomenon (specific to Airbus side stick control) of *pitch stability.* If the side stick is returned to the neutral position, _the aircraft maintains the last pitch commanded._ The habit of assuming pitch stability has led to the near-loss of a Boeing 777 piloted by 2 former Airbus drivers, and two close calls (777/787). ruclips.net/video/2YzR8ZUs9Ys/видео.html
I see. Emirates is known for taking off too late. Also, as I said many times in the past, it’s getting repetitive seeing these kinds of videos. Your channel is only gonna go downhill if you keep making these.
he has some older videos of him talking and really he doesnt have a "narrators voice", I mean he sounds totally normal and fine but a lot of ppl complained in the comments because he did it like he is now and so he listened to his subs and started narrating the videos but he got crucified for that too,so what can a man do? And now a lot are complaining hes recycling content,but idk,just been subbed for a year or 2
If you do re-uploads maybe consider putting that in the title so those that have seen it already can keep moving
but then he doesnt get paid, its more important than your experiance
Used to be the best flight channel, now its the best re-upload channel. 😥
Agree, very disappointing
i thought i had seen it before!
@@ausjen I imagine life is getting busy for the creator. Churning out a new one of these weekly is very time consuming. I used to watch what I thought was the best restoration channel on YT, "Rescue and Restore". Well over a million subscribers and videos with 75 million views. Incredible restorations of 150 year old junk to full function and pristine cosmetic condition. Then...gone...nothing new for over 2 years now. You wonder how it happens but the financial reward for this hard work isn't always worth the effort.
@@MrCrystalcranium Yes to what you say. But sometimes it's just that they got new priorities: got married, or got a baby, or they found another hobby and moved on.
There's a channel called "Airspace", really really good, over 100 videos, but he stopped last December.
Stop your crying
First incident: When a pilot gets a "tip,", it's best to try it out on a simulator a few times before you do it on a real airplane with real people aboard because you might not know exactly what that tip is going to do when you try it. Maybe conditions weren't the same when its originator came up with it. The A340-300 is a particularly bad airplane to try something like this, because it is underpowered and sluggish compared with the -500. The -300 was supposed to receive a geared turbofan being developed by Rolls-Royce (years before Pratt and Whitney started selling its GTF). The engine's development was prolonged (and, ultimately, it was a failure; Rolls is now developing the Ultrafan GTF, which should be a lot better). But that engine was not available, so Airbus put GE-SAFRAN CFM-56 engines on it (the same that power the 737NG). The Airbus A300 is not an airplane that you want to put into a situation where you have to quickly get out of trouble through high thrust, especially if the A340-300 is fully loaded, at or near MTW.
About reuploads-I have seen a lot of comments about that and insulting this channel. Though I have been subscribed to this channel for years I still have not seen all of the content. So like this one here I have never seen before.
I still think this is the best channel.
Until I catch up maybe I will complain too I don’t
there are actually two melbourne airports, one is melbourne tullamarine and one is melbourne avalon. the one in the video is melbourne tullamarine so that should have been noted.
No big international haulers land at avalon, it’s more of a domestic airport
Melbourne Avalon is in Geelong anyway. A completely different city.
OK Boomer.
@@rgarlinyc What a ridiculous comment. Do better.
Also @14:24 of the video showing the landing at Tullamarine (Melbourne) airport it shows the city of Melbourne in the background, however the airport and city are no where near that close. You would not even be able see the Melbourne Star (Melbourne's giant ferris wheel) from that perspective.
I enjoy your work but it seems to me that I have seen this before.
On a previous video (a few weeks ago) someone claimed that this TFC channel was SOLD lock, stock & barrel to a new entity, and that this new one was not making any NEW videos but simply recycling through the "set" they had bought.
This claim was made to the channel as well, but got zero response. Makes me think the claim although still not proven, is nevertheless true. 🤔
😮
262.9 or 362.9 tons - that's a huge difference!
If the A340 burns 6 tons per hr, is 262.9 even possible, unless it's a very short flight with no passenger/cargo? Inputting that value should trigger a pop-up warning like "Value is low. Are you sure?" on the computer.
I'm sure it does that now...
@@akiko009 it doesn't and shouldn't do that.
The computer only gives you back what you input in it.
The A340 also operate some short flights with low payloads.
You are commenting on this like this because you're not in the situation.
I have seen people where I work assume a particular number to be correct because they have seen that number there for hundreds of time.
The pilots assuming that 262.9 is their number is totally understandable, not cross-verifying the numbers individually is the problem.
@@zephyr_00
"The computer only gives you back what you input in it."
As a programmer this is where differentiate us the master, from a grasshopper.
We can put trap logic of something like error checking, parameter validation and input sanitization.
You're commenting like this because you don't understand on how to developing a proper computer flight management system.
@@zephyr_00 The number was entered incorrectly into the EFB with correct data in the FMGS. Considering that the empty weight of that aircraft is around 220 tons, I'd be surprised if the EFB software hasn't been upgraded to question inputs that claim the aircraft TOW to only be 40 tons above that. As it happens, one of the recommendations of the ATSB was for aircraft makers to make software changes that call out abnormal values. PS. Do you fly armchairs or airplanes?
@@akiko009 Agree with you. There may be short repositioning flights (no pax, no cargo, low fuel) but these would not be common. I'm an engineer and done lots of programming - validating user input is routinely done.
02:33 Wow having to turn off air con for better engine performance...
Not that uncommon actually
This is a standard procedure AFAIK, along with turning off cabin lights
@@gorohoroh Turning the lights off at take off is not done to save power.
Used to do that in my car too lol
smcdonald it's common, not only with aircraft, but with other modes of transport to turn off AC when maximum engine power AND/OR reduced engine load to prevent engine overheating are desired. When climbing major grades with my big truck in California, I ALWAYS shut off AC, even in extremely hot weather.
Greetings from Houston TX, United States 🇺🇲 ❤
I was away for a while... at what point in time did the reuploads happen? I want to go back and watch all that i missed, but I wasn't sure when they started the duplication thing. Did this happen within the last year?
Do you guys remember when he tried narrating, and there was a little bit of opinion he should not, and kept it quiet?
Man it sucks to hear the channel changed.
It has been several months since a new video has appeared on this channel.
@@tpajay thank you
The
A-340 is the one aircraft that should ALWAYS take off under full under-power. Now you know why they call it the 4 engine hair dryer. I have seen many of them take off and they all look like they are huffing and puffing to get off the runway. Luckily, no lives were lost in the making of this report.
The -200/-300 are the severely underpowered ones. The -500/-600 have about twice the thrust output
@@tomstravels520 Twice the thrust but they still take off with less than optimum thrust. I saw one in LAX that took 20 seconds longer to take off than an A380.
@@TheGospelQuartetParadise well yeah, RR Trent 500 has a maximum thrust of about 61,900 lbf, Trent 900 has about 84,100 lbf so obviously A380 is going to have more thrust and may have been similar MTOW as A340, depends where it was going. Still better than the 34,000 lbf from the CFM56 on the -200/-300
@@tomstravels520 There is no way in the world the A340 and A380 would have a similar MTOW when the A340 has that at 380 tons, and the A380 is 560 tons. The A340 out of LAX would go to Germany, while the A380 is headed to Dubai.
@@TheGospelQuartetParadise i meant just TOW
Even if you repeat the videos: I love to even watch the repetitions!
Pls make chakri dadri air collision 🙏
If I had a nickel for each time Emirates messed up a tale-off in an Airbus, I'd have two nickels. Not much but should I be concerned it's happened twice?
Why did Airbus make this underpowered turkey of a plane? You would think a plane with 4 modern engines would be a fighter jet and not a 1983 Camaro with the base 4 cylinder in it. My guess is they pushed the performance/economy line too far in the direction of low fuel use to make it more attractive to potential customers. There was a threshold out there somewhere and they went over the edge with it. I'd be terrified getting on one of these for a long duration flight, full of gas and passengers...unless we were taking off from a dry lakebed.
The engines that were originally planned to be used for this airplane werent available, in the end this engines were never produced, so they used different, but available engines. However as you wrote, without pushing too much towards low fuel consumption by the airline! this would not have happened, the engines do produce enough trust. Otherwise pushing the Toga-button would not have worked. Both incidents in this video would not have happened if the airline would take off with the available power. Its not Airbus fault if the airline takes off with an insufficient power setting.
The old days when emirates operated the a340😢
Several articles mention runway overruns resulting in collisions with lights, antennae, etc Perhaps these auxiliary pieces could be positioned on both sides of the ends of the runways instead of directly ahead, so airplanes having issues with extended take-offs or extended landings don't wipe them out with their need for extended runway length? Just a thought.
Here's another: Why would any production airplane be susceptible to tail-strikes? It wouldn't seem that small increases in "economy" would warrant the extra precision or precautions needed to avoid such a problem.
Bro, why show me this. I have a flight today with Emirates 😅
Avoid, if not be careful. 🙏
Ironically, this is one of the safest airlines in the whole world and they have only had one hall loss crash in their whole 39 year history.
Ive been watching this channel for 2 years, its honestly sad to see how every time this channel uploaded i didnt miss a single video but now i do because its always a reupload.(Can yall stop saying hate on this comment💀)
@@magdalaasyou're not smart
Bro you're not smart💀 No I don't want more accidents to happen, it's not because there aren't any accidents it's because he isn't covering other accidents that are interesting
Then contribute to the channel's author so he can produce more new videos.
If you don't contribute, then you have no right to complain !
@@InternationalUSA - Such as?
@@InternationalUSA Yeah dude, just contribute! Make your own videos and do all the work for the channel and give it to him, that way you can watch a new video! Totally makes sense
Can't blame the plane or the design.
Full Thrust to the rescue
12:53 can you do London to Dubai
My theory about the reuploads is that the owner of the channel probably could not find any new crashes to report on
Then why don’t they just just not upload??
what sim did u use
Flight channel, if you see this, return with videos has fast you can,i dont know how is going your life, but i need all of good for you, Huggy's from Brazil!
How you can put as a company two pilots that have never flown a plane before just in a simulation?
I can't believe that TOGA Power is selected half way through the Take Off roll down the Runway rather than at the beginning.b
Because the results they were given said they wouldn’t need TOGA. They were unaware it was wrong
Has this channel done the crash of Pan American World Airways Flight 759? My father’s friend’s cousin was the baby that survived the plane crash. Just would like to know because the plane crashed near my future neighborhood.
Start covering GA crashes if you need new material for these videos. Msfs GA visuals are second to none. All we see now are reuploads. Been subbed for years, but not seeing the point for awhile since all we get are reuploads..
Why is this channel re-uploading videos?
I enjoy the channel regardless of whether it’s a second replay or not. If y’all don’t like the channel anymore, unsubscribe…don’t bash the guy. ✈️✈️✈️💺💺😎🌻🌴
It’s not just the reuploads that got worse. EVERYTHING feels different now! And it was actually great before!
I was hoping with the Brit Air CRJ-200 incident video we would be past any re-uploads. It looks like I got my hopes up too much, but would be fine if a week or 2 needed to be skipped to work on completely new videos.
Pilots are also human beings and not machines. Instead of 360 the pilot by mistake entered 260. What is extremely alarming about Aviation is that such a small oversight could well have resulted in total catastrophe. Thankfully there was a happy ending.
Uhh, a hundred tons does not seem like a small oversight when you are talking about the takeoff weight...which determines the takeoff speed. Yes, thankfully a happy ending.
The A-340-300 in particular is notorious for being very under-powered.
Damm didnt know about this
Both incidents smack of sheer incompetence by both crews.
Agree 👍
Already covered by Green Dot Aviation
The Flight Channel originally did EK407 over 2 years ago and GD only did it 5 months ago
Can you do Citilink 970
Can you do the crash of mexicana flight 840 please?
i thought it was the same then but no its two video edited to each other
I drive a truck . A big truck 44 tons in the UK. I know how much weight I'm carrying and total weight. It's all on my dashboard. In general, these are accurate to within a couple of pounds or kilos . If they can be fitted on a road truck, why not an aircraft?
Does your truck weight account for fuel burn? A pilot needs to know the weight of the aircraft empty, the weight of the payload, weight of the fuel added to make a gross weight and this is all entered separately. Weight sensors were trialled in the 70’s but quickly became unreliable because of constant landings compressing the gear and resulting in inaccuracies. And no quick way to test if they’re still reading accurately.
And besides this would have made zero difference because the weight of the aircraft was calculated correctly and entered correctly into the FMS. The error was entering the details into the laptop.
Lessons of the day: Get an accelerometer. If it shows very low G-force, it means that the aircraft is not gonna make it. Second lesson: The A340-200 and 300 had low performance, so the only safe take-off was the TOGA! take off thrust setting.
Maybe the A340 needs a tailwheel.
Do we know what happened to the pilots of both aircraft? If so, why wasn't that mentioned??
The person who made this video compiled the previous video he made and sloppily cut the info
Please stop foing useless re-uploads, do re-uploads that need it.
Another repeat!
Come on, New Episode already. Don't recreated the Same Episode
The A340 is a nice plane but sluggish at takeoff. I m working at schiphol and saw a takeoff and it is indeed not fast in climbing.
A computer is only as good as the data it has input into it, Why pilots not gadgets should fly planes.
The wrong entry was not T/O Weight, but the ZFW - 100 t. Then the FMC calculates the T/O Weight adding the fuel on board.
Ok that makes way more sense. Thank you for explaining.
Not quite right. You are right that pilots enter the ZFW into the FMGC and that is what gives you the TOW. However the error was the entry made into the EFB which is a separate device to the FMGC. The FMGC data was all entered correctly and gave a green dot speed of 265 knots. But when 100 tonnes was missed in the EFB it gave a green dot speed of 225 knots. This should have been checked and the pilots would have realised their error
Alguém brasileiro aqui
UNRELATED
this is what happens when pilots are hired because they are relatives of the royal family, instead of being actually competent
Is it not a reupload for once in a long time?
It is reupload
It's not the world's best airline at all, as they like to call themselves. It's pretty safe, but no on time performance at all
How is it not really the best airline???
I am convinced that there is bad luck/bad karma associated with Emirates A340 jets
Click bait, this was 20 years ago
And?
This channel got sold to someone, which is why these are all reuploads with different thumbnails.
I remember when people would degrade Alec Joshua Ibay over this channel. 😆 Who won in the end? Alec. He might now have had a new flight simulator, but I would take him all day over any one who sells a channel and then the person constantly reuploads.
I see evidence all the time on the Internet that people don't read back what they typed before they enter it. This is a case where that bad habit resulted in a much worse result than a mere stupid-looking typo.
Thanks to this, I'll never fly Emirates again.
Has the person who originally made this channel sold it? Now it’s just recycling old videos.
This channel used to be great, but now it doesn’t seem that way. I wonder what has happened to The Flight Channel, it is not the same. 😡🤬
People say that this channel got sold
The narrative having to do with SSOI is hopelessly confusing because TFC skips over the phenomenon (specific to Airbus side stick control) of *pitch stability.* If the side stick is returned to the neutral position, _the aircraft maintains the last pitch commanded._
The habit of assuming pitch stability has led to the near-loss of a Boeing 777 piloted by 2 former Airbus drivers, and two close calls (777/787). ruclips.net/video/2YzR8ZUs9Ys/видео.html
Seen them!
No CC. Don't watch anymore
Hello
Oopsie!
The second video is a repeat. Lots of this now.
Actually, both are. This was a great channel that I looked for to each week but it's been repeats for months now.
zero human casualties...so WTF are those deadly mistakes?
Why Video are re-upload:There No Have News About Plane Accident,Crash In Today
A340, the plane with all the engine power of a Spad XIII
The lesson here being: don't fly Emirates?
I see. Emirates is known for taking off too late.
Also, as I said many times in the past, it’s getting repetitive seeing these kinds of videos. Your channel is only gonna go downhill if you keep making these.
It's taking forever
Arggg. this irritates me. Quit being a systems manager and be a damn pilot. FLY THE PLANE.
A340 is all you need to know
most underpowered plane ever
@@BGTech1 yes they werent so bad when they changed to bigger engines
Another remake....
I already guessed
0:51
Do you have any videos that dont have spelling errors? Youd think a channel with over a million subscribers could be bothered to do a better job....
It got the million subscribers at the time when it was great…
It got worse when the original owner allegedly sold the channel.
NOTE TO SELF: don't fly Emirates.....
Reup sucks
Get tired of making New videos?
First
Second.
First grade? Why are you here?
@Rudy
Congratulations on your incredible achievement and accomplishment as you should be nominated for the Oscars.
Typical drive by pick me I want some attention comment. Doesn't watch the video doesn't reply. Nobody likes an adult child.
I cant speak for others but having to read the subtitles is a drawback. It would be more sufficient to have the words spoken out loud.
So we have to read through out the videos 👎 good content but I can’t read all of that
A book must be a nightmare then.
Thing is, if he switched to narrated episodes, people would also hate that.
he has some older videos of him talking and really he doesnt have a "narrators voice", I mean he sounds totally normal and fine but a lot of ppl complained in the comments because he did it like he is now and so he listened to his subs and started narrating the videos but he got crucified for that too,so what can a man do? And now a lot are complaining hes recycling content,but idk,just been subbed for a year or 2
A very enjoyable video. Thank you.
@@peter-radiantpipes2800
I really enjoyed reading books but not this tiny letter moving fast ,
Doesn't sound like the pilots for Emirates are the cream of the crop. Probably a good idea to not fly this airline.