How A Flat Tyre Killed 51 People | The Crash Of Spantax Flight 995
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 09. 2021
- Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
DC10 Image: Eduard Marmet - www.airliners.net/photo/Spanta...
This is the story of Spantax airlines flight 995. On the 13th of september 1982 a DC 10 started its day flying from palma de mallorca to madrid's barajas airport with a stop over in malaga. At malaga Later that day the plane was boarded by 381 passengers and 13 crew members As the passengers boarded and settled in for the flight the pilots were configuring the plane for takeoff, they set the flaps and calculated important speed information for this takeoff, including the V speeds. Today their V1 speed, or the highest speed at which they could reject the takeoff and have sufficient runway to stop was 162 knots. The plane left the gate and started to taxi towards the runway.All the while the crew carried out checks and checklists making sure that the plane was all set for takeoff.
As the plane lined up with the runway the pilots got their takeoff clearance from ATC, in the cockpit the pilots pushed all three of the DC-10s giant engines to maximum power. The huge plane barreled down the runway, it went through 80 knots, the engine parameters were all in the green, as the plane passed through 160 knots something was wrong, a strange vibration could be felt in the cockpit. This was anything but normal. The plane was picking up speed and the pilots had no idea what was causing these vibrations. The plane kept accelerating and the vibrations grew worse and worse, the pilots had no idea what was wrong with the plane, would it be able to stay in the air? They didnt know. Pilots had been taught to reject takeoffs at or below their V1 speed in this case 162 knots because that would given them more than enough time to stop the plane safely on the runway but in this case stopping on the runway would be hard as they were going so fast.
The captain couldnt fall back on his training. This was totally new, they had been trained for things like engine failures on takeoff but not this, whatever this was. Knowing that they had too little runway to stop the pilots deciding to take off, they raised the nose of the plane. But suddenly as flight 995 strained to get airborne the vibration increased, the pilots felt that it was coming from the back of the plane. The captain could feel the plane vibrating through his control columns. He had no idea what was wrong with his plane, he had no idea if the DC10 would be able to sustain flight, he knew that the plane was going too fast to stop in time but he decided to reject the takeoff anyway. Even as the pilots brought the nose wheel back onto the runway the plane was accelerating.
The captain engaged the reversers and the spoilers but the plane was just going way too fast, in the cockpit window the captain saw that they were headed for the building that housed the ILS equipment and he struggled to control his plane. When it became clear that they would hit the runway the captain ordered an engine shut off. As he did so the plane began crashing into the approach lights of runway 32, The dc 10 traveled another 290 meters after it overran the runway and it slammed into the ILS building destroying it , but the DC 10 still carried quite a bit of speed. It broke through the airport fence and went through a busy highway, damaging three vehicles, eventually the dc10 crashed into some farming equipment. Unfortunately 50 people on the plane and 1 person on the ground did not make it.
When compared to cruise takeoffs and landings are absolutely chaotic, theres so much going on. More importantly margins are razor thin, if you lose an engine at 35000 feet you have a few seconds to react, if you lose an engine on takeoff you literally have split seconds to make that decision. (Link to 737 crash), if you make the wrong choice at those speeds it wont take long for you to crash into something. After all the saying does go a pilots job is 99% boredom followed by a percent of sheer terror. - Věda a technologie
For us non-pilots, it's easy to forget that a 9 minute video is analyzing a decision made during an event with a duration of seconds. Not a criticism of the video, as this very short decision interval is mentioned several times.
That's hard to say the first thing I thought of when I heard vibrations was was tires and your already well past the minimum speed to stop I would've taken off and I only hold a private certificate and not enough flying hours to brag about. The pilot also isn't fully to blame either.
As a former military mechanic I have a bit of knowledge about aviation but I don’t understand how a pilot who’s crash kills 51 people can be exonerated while a pilot who’s crash kills no one can be held at fault.
I am not picking on the Pilot on this one, but the whole system; should be least huge sand barriers at end, in front of buildings and highways... Even emergency light on the highway in line with airport, least cars can make a stop.
Same on planes there should be emergency lights and siren underneath to warn below if crashlanding.
@@marcleblanc3602 the siren would be useless as the plane is going at almost 300km/h and it couldn't be heard by those ahead of it very far at all
@@preperforated??? Funny I can hear motorcyles going at 200kmh comming towards me. Same as planes not going at sonic speeds. Wonder where you live? Least the Emergency Service get a warning.
It isn't just that the pilot wasn't trained for the situation. It's that he had no idea what was wrong. Had he known it was just a bad tire, he'd have gone ahead with the takeoff, regardless of training.
How would he have landed at a higher speed without a nose tyre??
@@MP-lb1bv Keep the nose up as long as you can while slowing. Have the emergency crews ready. Also, there is more than one tire there. The blown tire may disintegrate, but the others will pick up the load.
There are only 2 tires in the front both were gone and even at slowest speed when the front axle would come in contact with tarmac we don't know how bad cud it be
@@MP-lb1bv That's why you muster the emergency crews and keep the nose gear up as late as possible. Or fly around until you run out of fuel and crash.
I can’t believe that a retread is allowed on nose gear. In the US commercial trucks are Not ALLOWED to use retreads on steer tires.
The thing that caused the captain to reject takeoff is not that the vibrations existed, it's that they got worse when they rotated. Had the vibrations not increased he most likely would have taken off and returned instead of risking a rejected takeoff above V1.
They made it worse then.
@@lcfflc3887 Technically yes. If they had continued takeoff this wouldn't have happened.
yes, that's one thing that doesn't make sense. If the vibration was being caused by the nose wheel tire blowing up, then why didn't the vibrations stop completely after the nose wheel lifted off the ground?
@@titan4110 correct... however, they’d have had to land on same wheels causing them problems in the first place...
After flying a plane that’s seen however much damage from whatever failure it was having at takeoff (which yes, we know what it was, but the pilots didn’t).
There are instances where a plane suffers a failure during landing and goes around... but having suffered so much damage during the first attempted landing that a second attempt isn’t possible. That I recall, the instance I’m thinking of the plane lost 1-2 engines (they fell off) during a landing attempt, before getting back into the air, but had suffered too much damage to be flyable, turning a horrible landing that may have injured many and even killed some, into a crash that killed everyone).
Takeoffs are much the same in the respect that rejecting one late can kill/injure many on the plane, but if you can’t get your damaged plane back on the ground, going airborne can kill everyone.
Whatever you do, it’s high stakes, and as the pilot, you’re at the front of the plane, in a seat of honor where you are allowed to meet any obstacles ahead of the passengers.
@@Relkond I'd like the name of the flight where the engine fell off.
me: “why are they just ignoring the plane vibrating instead of finding the source!?”
also me: turns up the radio in my car so i can’t hear my engine squealing
The difference between your car and an airplane is that it's a bit hard to pull over and pop the hood at 30000 feet.
lol
Yeah right, you got 5 seconds to do that, idiot
lol right? It's gotta be different behind the yoke with hundreds of people behind you eh. I love that they weren't crucified for what was obviously the best decision they could make with available knowledge and training, given that their own lives were on the line too.
Don't ignore it get it fixed
It’s bad enough being on the plane or a relative to those that sadly passed away, but reading the comments of these videos and seeing personal accounts from people who have lost others in aircraft accidents… that hurts my heart a lot man…
RIP to all lives lost.❤️
At the time flight training concentrated on rejecting takeoffs for engine failures only. Rejecting for other reasons, even a "this isn't right" gut feeling, just wasn't a thing. It is now. You hear takeoff briefings along the lines of rejecting for any reason up to 80 knots, only rejecting for major calamities (fire, engine failure, aircraft uncontrollable) between 80 knots and V1.
I've only rejected a takeoff for real once. It wasn't that exciting since it only took about three plane lengths for it to be obvious something was wrong.
What was the issue that caused you to reject on that one occasion? Always like hearing/learning about GA incidents since I hope to get my PPL one day. "The more you know" and all that.
@@sixstringedthing A dragging brake. The plane pulled a lot harder to the left than usual, couldn’t hold the centreline, REJECT.
Have you been trained on twin engine planes too? I can imagine losing only one of two engines during take-off is about the worst thing that can happen to a GA plane.
@@YourSkyliner The bulk of multi-engine training is handling engine failures: takeoff, cruise, landing. Takeoff is indeed the most critical and requires immediate action. I went for a flight in a Piper Seneca once to see what it’s like but haven’t done a multi rating. Made me feel like a real pilot calling things like “V1...rotate!” and “Positive rate...gear up!”
"Not that exciting" is how I wish all failures in any plane I'm in can be described. ;)
This one is special to me because I'm from Málaga and I've heard stories of this accident all the time. People that were driving on the road when it happened, people hearing firefighters and ambulances going crazy, my brother going to school and everyone talking about it... Very good one! Only one thing... At some point in the animation you're landing on runway 12 but that runway was opened just a few years ago. In 1982 there was only one runway: 13/31 😁
I've travelled from the UK to Málaga many times and didn't know about this, scary stuff! My dad would always point out the San Miguel brewery on our way into Torremolinos back in the late 90s. He only lived a five minute walk from the Carihuela.
runway 12 and 13 are the same runway but due to shift in the magnetic north they re-designate them
@@briancarno8837 No, no... In AGP there are two runways since 2012, almost parallel but not quite. The old one is 13/31 and the new one is 12/30, although 30 is not used because of a natural reserve at the end of the runway. It's a matter of checking google maps 🙈
@@javiTests And runway 13/31 used to be 14/32.
@@fjp3305 What airport are you taking about? At 6:55 you can see he's landing at AGP on the second runway, 12/30, the new one, that was finished in 2012.
It seems to me that the pilot only had a choice of crash sites, either on the ground where he was already at or from the air at a much higher speed someplace unknown, maybe in the water. Reality is a gamble sometimes.
👍
In retrospect, it seems like taking off, declaring an emergency, then landing again would have saved those passengers lives. But we can only say that in retrospect, since we know the cause of the problem. Training is better now to help pilots deal with these unexpected situations near to v1.
Contrast this with the Concorde crash, where it really was just a choice of venues for impact with the terrain.
Sometimes rejecting is the best decision regardless. The DC-10 was a plane with many issues, and if I was flying a plane with a history of losing entire pylons, I would reject especially if the vibration increased as I rotated. You don't know if it's a door that's come open, damage to a control surface, or if your going to be able to maintain lift if the problem continues to worsen. Especially in a DC-10.
He had two choices. One that didn't guarantee any life. Second, the one he chose definitely meant there's going to be some survivors.
In both cases he must be almost sure that he won't be among the survivors. That was a courageous call and we should respect it. Sometimes we can't call a thing right or wrong.
not really. if he had taken off he could of landed with no loss of life
@@dincerekin He didnt know that. Easy to say when you know the problem!
@@dincerekin how could he have landed safely without a front tyre??
Landing speed is even higher than take off
@@dincerekin but there is so much examples of taking off with ''strange noises-vibrations'' because of V1 threshold, and cannot bring the plane back again.. So this was very understandable decision even if ended bad. For example if this was a engine problem, rejecting take off might save back seat passengers or everyone at different airport.
Tires are essentially several layers of synthetic fabric bound together with a tar that is cured to be firm. Also, tar bonds tread to the tire face, which is why retreading is possible. Retreading REQUIRES heat and pressure to quickly cure the tar, to ensure high quality. On this flight, the heat cycles caused the tar to delaminate.
They obviously haven't quite mastered it yet, - you can't drive 20 yards down a British motorway without seeing great chunks of delaminated lorry tyre.
Whilst I love these vids (not the people dying), I can’t believe how many plane crashes there are you don’t hear about. Great video. RIP all.
The first time I discovered this channel I was like, he playing.
Hey Google, what happened to flight #...
oh, he knows what he's talking.
Now I'm addicted to this channel. And I'm researching crashes that interest me, or if I want more information on the crash/investigation.
The same could be said about traffic collisions, people dying on mountaintops or out in the wilderness, drowning in floods etc.
The world is a big place, there is always something tragic happening somewhere, each and every day. Sorry to get a bit dark. By way of consolation, we also don't hear about the thousands of uneventful flights that occur every single week.
If it makes me you feel better, while we dont hear about a few dozen of fatal air crashes we also dont hear about the thousands of uneventful and safe flights everyday
@@DrSabot-A true.
By the time this had happened, Spantax had probably the worst reputation of all airlines in Europe already. I remember flying to Ibiza with Spantax for summer vacation with my parents as a kid in 1975 or '76 and my parents were asked if they have suicidal tendencies. It's been a joke but it tells a lot about what people thought about this airline.
Spantax was a great airline with a decent safety record like many airlines of that time.
Retreaded plane tyres? I had no idea they did that. I find that a little concerning
Edit: I also think planes might benefit from an external camera or two. Quick look at the camera/s might have given them confidence in lifting off as there were no obvious signs of structural damage or engine issues.
Maybe
The A380 has such now. And it helped the Crew of that Qantas flight were the engine exploded. But in this case there wouldn't have been enough time to watch camera screens. Especially if you do not know where to start.
FYI, in the States regarding commercial airlines,,according to the FFA you can recap an aircraft tire up to 10 times so long as there is no damage to the first cord.
Still, retreated tyres sounds super sketchy
@@theraizor3574 Agreed! On a huge jet airplane and with the enormous forces the tires have to withstand….sketchy
No need for external cameras 99.9999% of the time. Besides, at that speed the tires would be just blurs anyway.
He definetly did the wrong thing. But we all know this AFTER days and weeks of investigations. Doing the wrong thing is not always a mistake....unless you can see the future.
Trans International Airlines Flight 863
Exact opposite scenario. Control issue on the runway, dragged the tail, took off anyway, stalled, crashed, everyone died. (Ferry flight, so only crew this time.)
He did the right thing. Only other right thing was to have aborted Sooner.
@@Userxyz-z2d Of course he should have aborted sooner , as soon as he was feeling vibrations. There was ample time then to abort the takeoff safely. Instead he persisted with the takeoff despite the vibrations. Only when the vibrations got worse he decided to abort which @ that time was too late because of the speed. It was the pilots fault period. I'm flabbergasted he was exonerated considering ppl died because of his incompetence.
@@westnblu welcome to Hindsight Airline, captain Should Have, copilot Would Have, and flight attendant Could Have will be serving you today
@@mizuki4002 well everything is hindsight if u think about it. Its all in the past this does in no way somehow exonerate the pilots for their bad decision making which caused the accident.
As a long haul B747-400 pilot, I can say that your channel is one of the best that I have found period. I am a former DC-10F and MD-11F captain, your explanations are to the point and well presented. I do recommend your channel to every crewmember that I fly with.
Thank you for making and uploading your videos.
Congratulations on reaching 100,000 subscribers. Absolutely love your channel!
I find it hard to blame the captain for rejecting the takeoff past V1.
Considering his situation at the time, he was under a lot of stress. Even if you peel that away, his choices were to either abort (in which case he may be able to save most of the souls on board, but may lose some), or take off (in which case the aircraft could easily come crashing back down, and that wouldn't leave many survivors). He took the pragmatic choice, if you ask me. As regretful as the passing of 51 people was, it was the least evil, so to speak.
You have to remember the reasons V₁ is established. He didn't have choices. Above V₁ is go.
Hello. I have a suggestion. One of the joys of watching air crash investigations is the explanation of the actual cause of the accident. When you put the cause of the accident in the title itself, I feel like it takes away some of the fun, sort of like a spoiler.
Have been a subscriber to your channel from the very beginning and its been a pleasure (although not a surprise) to watch you grow to 100K subscribers. Congratulations!!
Good analysis of the Spantax accident. Having worked as a flight ops manager for Pan Am’s Pilot Training, I had the chance to ride jump seat on several 707 training flights back in the late 60s.. “Judgement” is always on the bottom of the training syllabus sheet…the pilot instructors for Pan Am always said that was the ultimate factor whether a pilot passed his training. V1 IS THE DECISION SPEED…GO…NO GO. “Abort the takeoff…Spoilers….Thrust reversers !!! “ Ultimately this falls back on the captain in the left seat.
I’d never EVER run a re-tread on my car, I had no idea they’d actually do that on a plane.
You can't retread a car tire. Semi tires and some heavy duty tires.
@@SetsunaTheAngel Yes you can? Google search is your friend
@@kingssuck06 Show me a reputable retread shop that will do it. Able to? yes. Safe? hell no.
@@SetsunaTheAngel Semi-trucks retread all the time.
@@LunaticTheCat I wasn't clear enough. You can't retread a car tire..... only semi tires and some heavy duty tires.
Congrats on 100K
Your one of my favourite aviation channels since you do accidents we never heard of
Keep on making awesome videos!
100k is a huge milestone, congratulations!!! I really appreciate the way in which you discuss these incidents - keep up the good work!
I started listening you last year. I love your voice and i listen to your stories when i want to relax. Best regards, Madonna from Finland✌️
I love your videos! You deserve so much more! For a long time I loved TheFlight Channel, that was my favorite but now this is my favorite channel! THANNKK YOOUU FOR THESE VIDEOS!
Thank you so much
Thank you for this content!
They are both great and each offer something unique
The graphics are always good for this channel.
Congratulations on reaching 100K subscribers. The word that jumped out at me from your narration was "retread". I'm not a pilot, but I do drive a motor car and I would /never/ depend on retread tyres. It's been years, if not decades, since I've seen any retreads for sale at any reputable store in here in the USA.
@J S Thank you for your interesting reply. I happen to be someone who dates from "decades ago".
Commercial trucks and trailers use retreads frequently. However, I believe they are not allowed as steering (front) tires, or at least not recommended as such.
@J S Well thank you very much. Just what I was wondering about. Cheers mate.
commercial retreating is a lot more strict than general consumers, especially aviation. Upon inspections during service tyres would be removed and sent for retreading once it meets certain criterias way before the actually inner tyre itself suffers any damages which will deem it unsafe. Where in a typical car for example it’s hard to regulate and most consumers would use to tire until it’s past the point of being safe for a proper retread
Welllll..... if the pilots had known (which they did not) that it was a blown tyre then for sure they would have been very surprised to learn the vibrations became WORSE when lifting the nose!
Yeah, carrying weird vibrations up in the air with you is equally bad. Under these circumstances it is better to alert ground crew than parking in a 10m deep hole. Pilots get my vote of confidence.
Did the pilots died?
@@jorldan5440 Nope, they're fine.They didnt hit a large building like depicted in this video, most died due to smoke&fire on impact of a concrete wall at the rear section of the plane. 3 crew were trying to open 2 rear doors for 47 ppl but those were too twisted...:(
@@surf2257 I don’t know if your being sarcastic about them being just fine lol 😅
Not-a-pilot (or anywhere near it) but was wondering why the vibration would continue / increase after the offending wheel was off the ground. Is it because it's still spinning and off balance?
What I like most is that you TALK. I find it really difficult to read text over pictures. Keep doing what you are doing.
Congratulations on reaching this milestone..Well done love this channel
Congratulations on the 100K subscribers. Your channel got recommended to me two years ago after I was watching the Flight Channel and I subscribed back then. You work is excellent. Keep doing what you are doing.
Was it a split-second decision, though? I mean, they were past V1 which should have meant the decision has already been made. V > V1? take off!
Is there a chance that everybody dies after taking off past V1? Well, yes. The in the video mentioned crash of the Concorde shows that a plane might come down and everybody dies. Would some people onboard the Concorde have been able to survived if they had rejected the take-off? Maybe, nobody knows. Does that make it right to reject take offs past V1? I don't think so.
There are probably more incidents when a plane experience a malfunction past V1, took off and landed safely where everyone walked away than there are examples of RTOs past V1 where everybody walked away.
Statistically it is better and thus the right decision to take off and return.
Congrats on 100k! Your channel is great! You should expect it to grow in the millions! Keep up your great work!
Congrats on passing 100k!
I love the channel. You do a great job.
"In aviation there is no problem so great or so complex that it can't be blamed on the pilot." Good presentation, and I agree with the investigators that the captain made the best call he could without knowing the cause. If it had been a control issue and he continued the takeoff, it might have crashed at a higher speed, killing everyone. Then of course, the statement would be: "the foolish captain continued the takeoff even though everyone on the flight deck felt the vibrations. If only he had rejected the takeoff even at high speed, lives could have been saved." It's easy to blame pilots for everything when they have just a second or two to make a multi-million-dollar decision. Later, teams of federal investigators, insurance companies, and lawyers can spend weeks examining all the factors, comfortably taking time to analyze them, and then declare, "pilot error."
Well said, sir.
Most are arm chair pilot that make comment with hindsight in mind. They should be aware that pilot don't have that as a tool.
@@789know So true. "The pilots should have known it was a tire re-tread coming off. We can all see it." Easy to say after the fact.
I was waiting for this sooo long! Great video!
Congratulations on 100k! I've been a sub for a few and I really enjoy your work!
I'm always amazed at the number of different and sometimes inconsequential or supposedly redundant broken bits that have downed aircraft over the years. Is there a "broken tray table downs flight xxx" video anywhere yet?
It sounds "surprising" that the vibrations increased when rotating, with a destroyed front tire, I'd expect vibrations to abate instead. Anyway, the rear view mirror clearly shows how it would have worked best to follow the standard procedure of rejecting when unexplained vibrations started, or go through with the takeoff. While the pilots could not know what had happened, the video explains how the reject takeoff decision process was deliberately cut short due to the low time available for problem analysis. Trying to stop *much* too late was highly dangerous, while taking off with an unknown issue would on average only be risky.
When on the ground, the ground would 'deal' with the 'eccentric' tyre. In the air, the whole eccentricity was on the axle and the the plane would have to absorb all the vibes. Pity they felt the vibes in the yoke - without that, they may well have gone on with the T/O - which in hindsight would be the better option.
there have been cases where a tire goes flat and then catches fire. The plane takes off, the burning tire gets retracted, the fire spreads to the rest of the plane and everybody dies. That was the case on Nationair flight 2120. If they'd rejected the takeoff when their tire blew, the crash wouldn't have happened. So you're right, if something doesn't feel right, abort the takeoff when you still can.
@@adotintheshark4848 I've recently seen a video on that - stowing a burning tyre!
@@millomweb yes, and the plane burned in the air. People were falling out of the plane.
1970 Trans International out of JFK. Opposite story. The nose lifted early, dragged the tail for 1200 feet while they tried to get the nose down, took off any way, pitched up, stalled, made a Crater.
A rock for caught in the elevator and jammed it all the way up. Everybody died. (Only 11 crew on that one.)
Stumbled upon your channel awhile ago. Love the content keep it coming
Great video as usual. Congratulations on 100,000 subscribers. I'm not surprised.
I love your work. Always so interesting!
congrats on 100k dude!
Love your videos, please keep them coming!
Subscribers come with good consistent content. You run the best investigation/explanation channel out there by far. I compared your Reversed Ailerons program with that of another show, which spent 45 minutes not explaining it as well as you with less information and way too much irrelevant talk. You deserve every single sub sir. Congratulations.
Me: "It's funny how there's always ILS equipment at the end of the runway, isn't it? They should put it somewhere else instead"
Well done on reaching your milestone subscribers! I really enjoy the channel and wish you all the best in the future!
I'm making LSD in a shady trailer in the middle of the woods. this is what i need to listen to.
That’s hot.
Don't incriminate yourself online!
The government is very good at tracing posts like yours.
@@paulleakeii6388you're so real for this
I am a survivor of Spantax flight 995 on the 13 September 1982. I am returning to Malaga this year, 41 years later on the anniversary. I will be having a celebration of life with some friends, and will say a prayer for everyone who was on board. I am truly lucky to be alive.
My father had exatly the same problem in the late 70`s when he took off from Oslo enroute to Las Palmas in a 737. A big bang at V1, vibrations so strong he couldn`t read any instruments, but he continued the takeoff! Several seconds later the vibrations disapered , but he had his suspicions even if there was no warnings in the cockpit. Next plane to land, a SAS DC 9 had to abort due to a lot of fragments on the runway. They soon found out that the fragments was one of the nosegear tires on the 737. He continued to Sola(Stavanger) airport for holding for several hours to burn fuel before an successful emercency landing was made. I remember the following Christmas with a lot of flowers and thank you cards from the passengers.
Why did the vibrations increase after rotation? That shouldn't make sense. The nose landing gear was off the ground so where did the vibrations come from?
That's what I'm wondering, too.
Rapidly spinning unbalanced wheel.
I love watching and your content is really informative. Keep up the great work! (I've never been this early, awesome 😏)
The fact that the pilot didn’t know what was wrong is why I say that he made the right call. We have the benefit of hindsight now, but he did the best he could with what he had.
Congratulations on hitting 100,000 subscribers!! IMO you deserve a lot more, but with time I'm sure you'll double or triple that amount & then some. What I like about your videos is that you take a situation that normally would take 30 to 60 mins to tell & condense it down to 10 or 15 mins. It takes a real talent to accomplish & still tell the full, factual story.
I watch avaition videos while Im doing other things for the most part. This limits me to only a few channels as some are strictly a non-verbal narrative. With your channel I can learn about several aviation situations in half the time without sacrificing the quality of the content. Thank you for sharing your creativity, knowledge & talents with the rest of us!! I really look forward to your future posts!!💜
It's pretty hard to argue with the captains decision to reject the takeoff. He had no idea what was causing the vibrations and when they rotated the aircraft, the vibrations were made worse, which might have implied that if they got into the air the vibration ls could get worse and worse and bring down the plane
@@colinm6714 Imagine being in that situation. What you you think could be the cause of increasing vibrations when you rotate? If i didn‘t knew the exact reason the first thing i‘d think of is a structural failure of the wing or the horizontal stabilizer which would indeed render that aircraft unable to fly.
@@dominic3606 The whole point is you should not "think" anything at all. V1 == GO!
Unless the aircraft really does not get off the ground after rotating (weight/cg issue? wrong configuration? wrong speed set for weight?) OR your wing literally falls off you don't think too much and you go. For failures during take off you really have only a split second to make a decision and if you start thinking under this amount of stress you're going to do stupid things.
@@Stanniemania That vibration may have cause the wing to fall off after take off in the eyes of the pilot. No one know what cause the vibration. Split second decision here that in the pilot seat no one knows whether it is ultimately a good or bad choice.
If it is ultimately a problem that may doom them in the air after take off, knowing the vibration and rejecting after V1 may have save more lives and the ultimate best call in the end.
Guidelines are for normal/general failure. When facing more extraordinary situation, you need to make split second decision that may not usually be on the rulebook/guideline.
@@789know I wonder what the commenters above would have said had the plane taken off and it turns into air france 4590
we would have 400 casualties instead of 51
but hey, he followed the guidelines so who the fuck cares about everyone's lives right
@@Stanniemania go watch some investigations bro. there is so many examples, pilots decided follow the V1 rule and left no survivors. if you have any chance to save maybe half of passengers by staying ground you have to take it. V1 means, if you try to stop, plane will take damage. Not necessarily means everyone going to die. if runvay perimeter is smooth enough, you can save people even after V2 speed.
Given that V1 is determined based on the amount of available runway, rejecting the takeoff above that speed was a dumb idea since it guaranteed a subsequent collision with ground infrastructure.
Congratulations on 100k dude , i remember the early days and you posting about how many views your channel had
100 years of aviation and advancements have said don’t reject after V1 as you won’t stop on the runway. The pilot made a decision against that knowledge
Congratz on the 100k subs! It is fully deserved, Ive been a sub, since u were going for the 10k mark, and u just keep getting better and better at this. Thanks again for all ur great vids!
you do a super good job, thats why you have the subscribers, good job keep it going!!
grats for the 100K, 101K now! Well deserved!!
its easy to look back and think he could have continued and gone around.. but given the circumstances you can't fault him.. I take it the flight crew perished.. so sad.. rip for all those that died.
Congratulations was here before 5k subscribers💕💕
Split second decision. That's what pilots are trained for and well-paid too. 160 Knots = 270 ft/sec. Every fraction of a second is crucial. And moreover it depends on the braking system and length of the remaining runway available to stop. And it's worth mentioning that Weather plays a major role in this kind of scenarios.
Hi i am a regular viewer of your videos... Awesome and congrats on 101k subscribers
Congrats on the 100k, well deserved
Congratz on 100k!
Congrats on 100K!!!
Congratulations on the 100k subs! Keep up the great work
Congratulations on 100,000! :)
Congrats on the 100K! Well met dude!
Congrats on 100k!
Given that the vibration increased when the nose wheel came off of the ground, it's a pretty easy jump to "this problem will get worse in the air," even though that was the wrong diagnosis. There was nothing available pointing to where specifically the vibration was coming from. I'm guessing the vibration increased because the tire was now spinning freely rather than being dampened by contact with the ground. I think the pilot made the best call possible based on the information available at that moment.
Sad 😞. Great video friend. Rip Amen 🙏.
All of these videos are very interesting. In this case, some additional information would be helpful. 1. Do airlines still retread tires and if yes, what is done to insure quality? 2. How often are tires inspected? Once every 6 months? 3. Do modern planes have sensors to show when a tire fails?
1: Most likely still standard procedure, meaning nearly every aircraft you'll see will be using retreaded tires at some point.
2: Prior to every flight crew boarding it the pilot will do a walk-around, impending tire failure due to the layers internally separating is likely not visible from the outside. Beyond that it will depend on age, flight hours, flight types (many short flights or fewer long flights meaning many/few compression cycles on the aircraft), flight location (salty air or inland) and type of aircraft and so on.
3: Partially, they might have a tire pressure sensor meaning they might detect a blown or flat tire but no sensor would be able to detect layers detaching.
This is basically a freak accident that luckily 'never' happens, but in case it does, pilots are now trained to deal with it (thanks to this accident this is included in training).
Congrats on 100K!
When pilots make the wrong decision, or when things just go wrong, it only takes 5-10 minutes for the whole world to know.
I think much sound analysis can be voiced in a nine minute video. I like this channel. 💛🙏🏽
If it was the nose gear tire that cause the vibration, why did the vibrations got worse when the pilots lifted the nose? Shouldn't the vibrations have stopped when the tire left contact with the ground?
exactly
When the wheel was in contact with the runway, the weight of the aircraft would have damped the vibrations. Once the nose lifted, the free spinning unbalanced wheel would have transmitted the vibrations to the aircraft at greater frequency.
@@johngrantham8024 I was going to say that but you beat me to it. The tire just doesn't stop spinning when it lifts off the ground
@@johngrantham8024 ok I get that.thanks
Kenneth Freeman - Or DOES it - Wouldn't the centrifugal force of a spinning wheel pull the nose down? A bit?
Love this channel. It doesn't assume stupidity on the part of the viewer.
Congratulations guys on reaching a 1,00,000. Very well done an analysed. I think that if the tyres had pressure sensor dust caps like we have these days even on cars that would have been signalled to the pilots, but then that was 1981 when electronics was not even in its infancy.
You didn't say something important: 3 years before this incident, American Airlines 191, another DC-10, had its left engine ripped off during takeoff in an accident which killed everyone on board. Some people say the pilot had this in mind, and as he didn't know what the vibration that, he may have thought that the plane had lost an engine, so he rejected inmediately to not die. This is still just a theory, but it's interesting.
congratulations on 100k
CONGRATULATIONS, Sir!!!🙏🛩👌
This episode is interesting for me because last night I changed a nose wheel on A320 which was in the same condition.
Reading the Final Report for this flight is sad. The deaths on the plane were caused by fire at the rear of the plane, and the evacuation at the front of the plane was delayed due to people collecting their personal belongings before evacuating…
My great parents lived in Malaga in 1982. We talked a lot about this accident the following summer when I visited them.
I make no judgement of the crew's action but i have some additional information. @1.03 minutes, takeoff power is most times a reduced power setting and not max power. Pilots have to be aware of vibration types, engine vibrations are normally very high speed and frequency, so are APU auxiliary Power Unit vibrations. wheel vibrations have a much lower frequency because wheel speed rotation are hundreds of times slower than engine rotation. NOSE WHEEL vibrations will persist after rotation and lifting the nose upwards of the ground, Nose wheel assembly has no brakes and the wheel will stop rotating only because of friction when airborne, the fact that the vibration existed after rotation speed is not an unusual event, you will hear a decrease in frequency as time passes until the nosewheel stops. Main wheels are afforded a blast of brakes to slow rotation when the landing gear lever is selected to up. The problems with the conclusions reached in this event is the many airports where there are a lot of HARD TARGETS at the end of the runway that will completely destroy the airframe. putting an airplane back on the runway after V1 have in many occasions caused destruction of the aircraft and at V1 the aircraft is well above the speed to keep the airframe flying.
The wrong call made with the right intent. In that split second, the pilot could not have known 51 people *would* die, nor could he have known if *all* souls onboard may have died should he have decided to fly, and came crashing down again. With what was presented before him, he made a decision - not one that I think anyone can fault him for.
What goes up, must come down. Sometimes it's more appealing to chance it on the ground, than risk it in the air. We can look back now and suck our teeth at the loss of life for a simple burst-tyre, but they had no idea what was happening at the time. What a horrible situation all-round.
Tell more near miss stories like training flight where they had to wrestle the plane, and they landed. That was an unforgettable story
Trust your instincts. Rejecting takeoff past v1 guarantees an overshoot, the results of which are a game of chance. If your instruments tell you nothing is wrong and you’re past v1, you’re committed so push through. You can always try to diagnose when you’re in the air, either by rechecking your instruments or contacting the technical staff. This at least buys you time - as long as the engines are turning and have no control issues, you can simply do a fuel burn then try to land. You will at least have emergency services alerted by then.
Think about how many lives it could have saved if all runways were lengthen to double or triple of their respective actual lengths.
And then think how many lives would be lost due to the longer runways when an aircraft would make an emergency landing, survive, catch fire and have people burn to death while the fire brigade takes three times as long to get there.
In aviation, nearly everything has a reason and they're all safety related, sadly a lot of those reasons are written in blood.
"A tyre should not being down an aeroplane... Air France flight 4590 not withstanding.". Ouch. I felt that.
Passengers assume the pilots are completely aware of what's going on with the plane, but in reality it seems they have almost no way to see what's going on behind the cockpit unless they have a system warning. With the advent of inexpensive and small cameras, wouldn't it make sense to mount some cameras to allow pilots to see critical systems and control surfaces?
I wondered this myself, so had a looksie. Hope this explains a bit.👍
Objectively "did the captain make the right call?" is a firm no, but, the more important question is, "given the training, could the pilot be _expected_ to make the right call?" and that too, is no
99% boredom and 1% terror also applies to anaesthesia professionals 😆
Just subbed to say thank you.
The explanation of the damaged nose-wheel does not account for why the vibrations increased after the nose-wheel left the ground.
Also, a chartered flight in Jeddah had taken off with one of the rear tyres deflated -- unknown to the pilots, it was on fire, and once the landing gear had been retracted, this fire spread to involve the control circuits and hydraulics, crashing the aircraft, killing everyone on board.
I've only rejected a take-off once and it was due to an asymmetric thrust due to one engine not coming up to full power. It happened immediately after advancing the throttles, which is when it's most pronounced and hard to control due to minimal rudder authority.
I agree that pilots should not be blamed for rejecting takeoffs after v1 if something is wrong because they need to be free to make this choice if needed. in some cases taking off caused the whole plane to crash because it was not able to fly, in other cases rejecting after v1 saved a whole plane load of passengers from a certain death. There is nothing sacred about v1 and it should stay this way.
I stand with the Captain. He made the right decision. He could not know what was wrong. And the vibrations getting worse after lift-off were clearly what made the man decide to abort...Hard to argue with that. I remember this accident so well. Back then we all thought 'here we go again, with yet another DC-10 tragedy', instead it was just Spantax being a cheap outfit with poor maintenance practices....so sorry for those poor innocent souls who perished on that day. May they all rest in peace, and their families find somehow comfort..
He didn’t make the right decision. I can understand his decision, but, with the benefit of hindsight he clearly made the wrong decision.
You don’t need training to know to reject a takeoff if the plane starts to vibrate, you don’t wait to see if it gets worse before stopping, I’m amazed the pilot was cleared.
Do we know why the vibration worsened when the nose gear, which had the bad tire, lifted off in rotation? Was it still spinning, even though in a lopsided manner?
Hard to tell for sure, but most likely it was still spinning full speed, as the brakes usually don't activate until the wheels are retracted. If the wheel had become unbalanced, it's likely that the weight of the plane on it had a damping effect, which would've disappeared as soon as it left the ground.
@@AIRDRAC There are no brakes on the nose gear. And I think the vibrations increased because the unbalanced nose wheel caused the oleo to hammer on the extension stop. Like you said the compressed oleo was less affected.
@@glenwaldenhomestead8 Oleo? What does margarine have to do with aircraft landing gear? Do they use butter for lubricating the wheel bearings? 😂
Ohhhhh.....apparently, after a Google search, I learned that an oleo STRUT is a type of hydraulic shock absorber used in aviation.
No disrespect intended, but if I may make a suggestion, may I suggest that you use a more commonly-understood term like "shock absorber" than an aviation jargon term (and a shortened one, at that) that few people outside the industry would understand. 😊
When it's rolling along the runway the unbalanced wheel (it's not deflated, just lost some tread) is shaking in all directions. Fore and aft it's constrained by the rigid strut and vibration is transmitted to the fuselage. Up and down it can 'bounce' between the spring in the strut (the oleo) upwards and the tyre itself downwards, both 'soft impacts' so relatively little vibration transmitted.
When the nosewheel lifts the strut goes to full extension and the wheels are still spinning - fast. The up and down 'bounce' is now between the spring and the hard stop at the bottom of the travel. The latter will be like a hammer blow (because the wheel can lift up and then slam down on the stop with each rotation), so the transmitted vibration will increase, mostly in the vertical direction, and have a different quality. Since the pilots are pretty much sitting on top of this the perceived change in effect could be quite dramatic.
@@glenwaldenhomestead8 right you are! I thought that all planes had wheel brakes on the front wheels, to avoid damage from wheels spinning when retracted into the body, but apparently that is a more recent development! I had to look it up, and you're entirely correct. Only the rear wheels on the DC 10 has brakes!