Boeing 747 Crashes Just 35 Seconds After Landing in Canada (With Real Audio)
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- Find out why this Boeing 747 aircraft crashed after landing at Halifax Stanfield International Airport, Nova Scotia.
Get early access to future videos and support the channel here:
• / theflightchannel
Check out the Official Shop with merchandise here:
• teespring.com/stores/thefligh...
Follow TheFlightChannel
• Facebook: / theflightchannel
• Instagram: / tfc_aviation
Business Enquiries
• Email: contact.theflightchannel@gmail.com
This video has been recorded and edited in 4K resolution and 60FPS.
Chapters
0:00 Intro
0:22 Pre-flight Preparation
1:28 Departure from Chicago
2:15 ATIS Information Sierra
3:07 Descending into Halifax
3:55 ATIS Information Tango
4:26 Real Audio Communications
5:52 Final Approach
6:30 Landing
7:18 Landing Roll
10:00 Investigation - Zábava
This is similar to driving while tired. Most people think it’s not a big deal, but driving while tired has similar effects as drinking and driving. Your reflexes and decision making are impaired.
The reason why some states in the US have Driving While Tired laws, due to the rise in accidents in which alcohol/drugs were not a factor in the accident.....
Driving while tired leads to micro sleep. Happens to me almost everyday when driving to work.
I would never have a problem to pushing the braking pedal though.. I still know how to bring the car to a stop at any point before I run out of road... Unless I fall asleep.
@@Blueclues16 Yikes, everyday? Mate, might wanna get that sorted. Could kill someone or yourself (or seriously injury someone/yourself and be met with a lifetime of pain, believe me, chronic pain is hell). Probably see a doctor about insomnia or chronic fatigue, maybe get some sleeping meds (melatonin would be a good first try). I'm lucky and get meds for chronic fatigue too but most people don't have access, it's pretty routinely dismissed (but is getting more recognition now long-COVID is a thing).
I would be willing to be as many people have died due to fatigue as much as drinking...... when it comes to driving.
My brother-in-law drove trucks, he said tired long-distance drivers could become hypnotized while driving behind another vehicle. His story saved me while driving in New Mexico, when I felt it happening to me. I got off the road & stopped for coffee to refresh myself. When I got back on the road I was ok again.
I found that just stopping and closing your eyes for 5 or 10 minutes helps a lot. Not a substitute for proper rest, but you'll be way more alert.
Same here. A 10-minute stop and a coffee allow you to snap out of the dangerous "zone", but not for ever, maybe another hour or two max
I was a coach guide in Spain many years ago and we were en-route to Barcelona and about fifty minutes into our journey. I was in the jump seat just above the stairwell and in my peripheral vision I realised the verge of the motorway was rapidly moving towards us, ergo, we we about to leave the motorway. I shouted out to the driver, who had been awake, but was in a completely mesmeric state. Fortunately, he came to and yanked us back onto the motorway lane. Had I not been in that front seat, who knows what might have transpired.
glad im not the only one. I did a 1400km road trip once, one way. With a channel crossing, thats 24 hours on the road. I was an absolute idiot, and i did all of this basically without sleeping. Sure i slept for ten hours before, and i did a 30 minute nappy nap on the ferry, but i have felt that state. Youre going 100 on the highway for 200km at a time before any real input is required, like an exit. You suck yourself to a rear end of a semi truck that should be going 80 but doesnt give a damn and does 100 anyways, and you just follow. Your only train of thought is keeping the adequate distance to that truck and you cant really remember the last 50 kilometers. It is a bit like hypnosis. I slept on the ferry and half way home for 90 minutes each on the way back and it was a night and day difference
Back in the day it was called “White line fever.”
I love that your videos always cover multiple contributing factors, and never fall victim to the fallacy of there being a single "root cause". Safety is a wonderful area of study, and there's nothing more damaging to creating a culture of safety than the human tendency to assign blame to a single factor.
or in other words, in our western culture, nobody takes responsibility for anything anymore. For the last 20 years, every crash investigation either blames "lack of sleep", or "inadequate training", politically correct scapegoats.
@@marks6663 Bollocks. If it's accurate to say circadian rhythm issues were a primary contributor then just saying "lack of sleep" doesn't adequately explain anything. It has nothing to do with political correctness and plenty to do with the need for accuracy so that future events can potentially be mitigated against.
@@marks6663 yes, it is much more efficient when an accident occurs to find the person responsible, preferably the one holding the controls and as long as they are still breathing, punish them. No PC needed, blame the guy on scene. Once you have your scapegoat we can all feel superior and remind ourselves that we'd never do something so foolishly irresponsible.
@@marks6663 Ya got a problem with "Western culture"? Like everyone in other cultures takes responsibility for everything they do wrong? You're a westerncultureophobe.
@@annakeye why don't they ever say that the pilot was simply an idiot and he should no longer be a pilot because he's not cut out for the job. They always look for other excuses
I'm a former International Airline Captain, and it is so common to perform long hours of duty with very little rest with quality...The lack of sleep is the worst cenário in aviation environment. At the end of an ordinary journey, like 18 hours of flight, the crew member barely remember his/her name because of the fatigue, but the operators are normally concerned in profit. So...
😢😢😢😢😢😢🙈❤
It's terrible but true 😮
Luckily the crew survived, and 'only' was slightly injured. That is the most important fact.
I'm an air traffic controller at this airport. 29 years on the job. The Air Canada and MK B747 someone spoke of earlier was on runway 05/23 (24), not 14. Missing in this video are the weather conditions (low 500ft ceilings and rain = wet runway), the ILS 14 was the only one operational. Runway 23 only had the RNAV-LNAV approach available so the decent decision limits were higher due to construction activities (ILS 23 was U/S, as well as LPV and LNAV/VNAV). Add to this the approach lights on 23 were U/S due construction. ILS 14 afforded the lowest decision limits to the airport at the time (200 ft above ground) with a serviceable lighting system to ascertain the landing environment in IFR weather conditions. One Important point for all, when somone on the other end of the mic questions a decision you're making, stop and rethink whats going on around you. This applies to both pilots and controllers.
Yes, when a controller drops a hint always assume he/she see something you missed or you're doing something that no one before you ever wanted to do. The LNAV/VNAV is a 319 foot approach and would have worked and would have been preferable. Just hit 19-years flying the B744...landing on RW 14 with the stated conditions is nothing I'd mess with. The hard touchdown was likely caused by the faster groundspeed on final. Tailwinds increase groundspeed which means you are descending at a faster rate to maintain glideslope which means you have to start your round-out and flare earlier which likely didn't happen. ...talk to ya on the next lobster run.
Unfortunately, all vertical guidance to Rwy 23 was NOTAMed unusable because of the displaced threshold, so only the LNAV was available with step-down, would have been questionable with a 500 ft ceiling that night, with no approach lights!!!
look my friend. your videos are top class.. There is no need to put a big picture of flames on the thumbnail. There was no fire so why make us think there is going to be??? your better than that.
Thank you for being a source of my entertainment for 5 years mate. It means a lot to me.
People died for your entertainment
@@Cadence-qt2ux okay not like that, I mean I enjoy watching how it happened and what could be improved to prevent it from happening again.
I know what you meant.
FIND JESUS QUICK!
Sad life
I’m an airline mechanic at this airport. The public road that he stopped just short of is my route home. Twice since I’ve lived out there the road has been blocked by a 747 crash. The first one, an MK airlines freighter was worse, with seven killed.
For viewers who have no ! idea what a "deadheading Captain" is: The most common form of professional travel for a pilot is called deadheading - a term that encompasses a crew member, on duty, riding in the passenger cabin on his or her airline or another airline, to be re-positioned to an airport for the purposes of commanding another flight.
I did wonder about that. Thank you!
Wow, thanks for that. We are so stupid we thought it was a throwback Jerry Garcia fan wearing a nautical hat.
albeit not flying that aircraft they still get some payment.Lovely!
@@stephenmapeka7774 They are on duty, at work. Why should they not get paid ?
aka positioning sector or flight. Both crew and aircraft can be positioned.
It's amazing how that huge and heavy plane just snaps into 2 or 3 pieces. Glad everyone was OK.
because they are made of paper thin alloys to reduce weight and lower fuel requirements
I don't think this particular 747 had its fuselage break apart, although it looked damaged enough for a write-off. All the video mentioned was that the #2 & 3 *_engines_* (inner ones) ripped off, likely due to the landing gear failing.
@@williamparker1085 The metal can't be more paper-thin than your understanding of this video.
It was written-off, and broken up by heavy equipment where it lay.
@@williamparker1085 Your general point is correct, but it's not really about thickness, it's about expected stresses. The airframe is designed to withstand specific mechanical stresses - compression, expansion, torsion etc. These are calculated by looking at a probability graph of each type of stress, choosing a probability limit based on the expected life of the airframe and then adding a margin to the relevant stress. Airframes are usually highly resistant to compressive and expansive forces, but fare much less well under torsion.
I think I could hear the pilot yawning in the communication with ATC.
I know this is not the worst one you have shown but if I were in it, I would still have panic attacks the rest of my life.
A professional pilot would look at all the data, understand what went wrong and decide his/her degree of culpability. After that , some combination of pilot and chief pilot decide whether or not it is appropriate for the pilot to continue his/her career.
No one died...and no major injuries. That is the most important thing.
No it isn’t. This points out severe flaws in company procedures. Firing the crew would just allow it to happen again, next time with fatalities. No answer. Operating cheapskate is bad for aviation period.
@@winzaloft It is of course important to learn from collisions/accidents etc. But it is possible to learn from errors without a plane crash where people die or are seriously injured. I mean if I were in a plane going into an uncontrolled descent my thoughts would be primarily focused on 'Am I going to die' rather than 'I wonder what will be learnt and what changes will be made to stop this happening again.'
@@tom201090 I don't know why your comment needs any clarification or to be scrutinized just because the most important thing is no one was killed or injured. It's baffling people will pull non sequiturs just to distract from a simple statement of truth.
TheFlightChannel. You make good content, so why ruin it with that stupid click bait thumbnail with all of the flames? We both know this accident had no post crash fire. It’s misleading and takes away from what is generally really great work. Cheers
Great point, Terry. TFC, you're better than that!
As a training captain w/ 26K hrs in heavies, I hear all the YT opinions from line pilots. Its too bad this channel had credibility issues, why put in the effort and not get it right? The data is available.
There was indeed a post crash fire, small, but still a fire:
"As the plane skidded down the embankment, it hit a large localizer antenna, its landing gear collapsed, two of its four engines were torn off and there was a fire under the tail section, caused by a severed engine."
There is fire watch video again pics are shown
To attract users maybe.
I have no idea how you produce these videos, but they are incredible. Thanks!
I fly into and out of YHZ pretty routinely (was there 4 times last week) and I have never seen anything larger than a 737 MAX 8 use 14/32, even with a 15-20kt headwind component. I have seen a few larger aircraft accept a significant crosswind in favour of the longer TODA/LDA on 05/23 (10500' vs 7700'), 767F, 777F, A330 and so on. I'd be interested to know what the landing roll was for this particular flight, I don't fly the 747-400 but I imagine a 7700' runway is tight even in the best of conditions (we have a couple 737NG operators here in Canada and in their flight operations manual, a 7000' runway is the shortest they can operate onto). Unfortunate that the plane was lost but glad the crew escaped relatively unscathed.
I’m only a flight sim pilot have had few hours IRL and I thought the same why land that beast on that runway in those conditions? Along with having an experience pilot onboard who has been there many times. Yes glad they were alright 👍
As I understood the plane was still empty - the freight waited in Halifax to be picked up. So it should have been no big deal to land there underweight - even with tailwind. Take-off with freight would have been a different thing of course but would have been executed on the longer runway anyway.
An empty 747 does not have an approach speed of 164 kts. That is the approach speed of a 747 a max landing weight
@@nicopeursum8208 Yes, it also was too fast of course.
@@BtcSimmer The crew thought that they would be alright, but didn't bother to check. They also failed to pick the safest option available to them.
Get this man to 2 million subscribers
Another great video TFC! Ive been watching you for years and you havent let your fans down once! Keep up the good work!
Runway 14/32 at Halifax Stanfield International is 7,700 feet long. A pilot deciding to land a widebody jet there needs to seriously consider a go-around if the approach speed is higher than normal for any reason, and the height at the runway threshold is higher than normal. If you then add rain or snow to the mix, it makes that decision more urgent. Runway 05/23 is 10,500 feet long; clearly even with the first section of runway closed for work, the rest of it is longer than 14/32; on this night there would not have been a tailwind there. In summary, the pilots did not read the NOTAM, disregarded the tailwind they knew was affecting their airplane, and after touching down further along the runway than they should have, made bone-headed mistakes like advancing engine thrust, which canceled the spoilers, and delayed deploying friction brakes. I assume their errors also included not using reverse thrust. Instead, the pilot focused on keeping the airplane on the center line. This crew included a senior captain very familiar with Halifax. Why didn't he warn the others about the impending danger? Lastly, though, I don't want to absolve theair traffic controller. Given that the NOTAMS changed to advise the use of Runway 23, I would have liked the controller to mention it explicitly. Instead of "did you read Tango" and "Ids Runway 14 still acceptable" how about "Are you sure you want 14 instead of 23? You have a tailwind. Break off the approach and I'll line you up with Runway 23."
@ronaryel6445
Well said, horrible lack of communications here in this flight.
Another flight simmer with all the anwers . . .
@@buckmurdock2500 Another troll, trolling.
Bye bye.
The Flight Channel music now gives me a feeling of excitement and anticipation on its own, as I know I’m going to view a quality video and you never disappoint. This is the gold standard of aircraft mishap channels.
FJOR- WE - is the song used at the end for anybody wondering. Apple Music.
The good thing is no one died 😇. But the incident caused a 747 to be written off, which seems pretty expensive 💰.
Yes
When speaking to the tower, the Pilots voice sounded somewhat “weak” and tired.
I thought so too.
The deadheader had an interesting ride!
On the upside, no one died.
No matter what inventions come along, what new technology disrupts our lives or improves it, there's still nothing like a good night's sleep.
I bet they haven’t done before landing checklists when the ATIS changed from Sierra to Tango, that shows the auto brake was not armed. Moreover, they could’ve observed speed and runway centreline at short finals and could’ve opted to go around. Absolute pilot error.
I understood it as that the autobrake was armed, but disengaged when engine 1 thrust lever was (accidentally?) moved just after touchdown (7:30) causing the autobrake to disengage.
No TL #1 was accidentally knocked forward of idle somehow. That would have signaled a go around to power management, auto retract the speed brakes. The thrust producing engine would easily have overcome any auto brakes setting incl “max”. How much thrust was that engine making? Maybe 22,000 thrust pounds? That jet wasn’t stopping.
In this case 2 FO’s “#1 not in reverse, spd brakes down, auto brakes”reflected failure of basics.
That the landing calculation was done so cheaply/manually reflects very very poorly on management.
Never should have been attempted on a 7700’ strip.
Company should have lost their certificate.
@@khrenaud Captain had used engine number 1 thrust lever to use outer left wing asymmetrical thrust to maintain the centreline. This helped turned the aircraft from the left towards the right on the centreline. In the industry it is not allowed after touch down to use reverse thrusters pull back during braking, unless until an aircraft is fully under controllable speed. It is possible that auto braking was down during pulling back no 1 lever, but this whole incident could be avoided if they had proper landing performance calculations during landing checklists.
It is obviously pilot error, but the question is what were the errors and how significant was each one ? The answer takes a great deal of careful analysis.
So grateful all survived!! I was afraid the gas might explode or something else catastrophic. Looks like it was a whole cascade of errors in judgement going on. I wonder if they pilots were held accountable in some way for what happened, but there was also the miscommunication about the availability of the longer runway. Thank you for another great presentation.
The soundtrack for these are really excellent. Kudos to whomever does the sound design.
You can always go around to be on the safer side if you aren't sure of something, its gonna cost some fuel, but still worth it for your safety.
or deploy MAX brakes and MAX auto-reverse! Many times in these videos pilots fail to utilize the tool they have on hand to SLOW THE F DOWN! Smh
@@alexlindsey6446 NO. You do not undertake the landing unless you know the numbers and your margins of safety. In this case, the crew failed to do the necessary calculations. It *may* or *may not* be the case that maximum braking would have prevented the crash - you do not know which. BTW, if you apply maximum braking on every landing, you waste money wearing out brakes and tyres unnecessarily - that is one of the reasons why you do the numbers.
In the military we did things by the numbers. Easier for training “wet behind the ears recruits”. Finding one’s who can think outside of the box is a challenge.
Another excellent video!
Thanks for sharing this exciting video!!! 👍👍🙂
I'm surprised that the pilots didn't use thrust reversers immediately after touchdown. Why were they so surprised about being off the centerline and why did that stun them so much? They were off only slightly. I'm an amateur pilot and my landings are almost never dead center. As soon as I touch the ground I reach for the thrust reversers, which are the most reliable means of stopping, even on short runways. Steering and course correction as well as checking the spoilers and autobrakes are secondary at that stage.
Flight crew writes off a Boeing 747 due to incompetence. Nothing was wrong with the aircraft, only the quality of the people flying it.
That is one beautiful airplane.
... was...
i printed your comment....and will tape it to the fridge
I've been waiting for this
surprising, such an experienced flight crew not opting to abort landing & initiate a touch & go . . . as a result of the extended roll post touchdown . . . such complacency is appalling . . .
😂🤣😂🤣
YOU do not know whether a touch and go was possible, so why call for it ? Touch and go manoeuvres are MUCH more risky than a simple missed approach or go-round.
I've flown into Halifax airport a few times and you never know what the weather will be like. My first time flying in a big aircraft we circled over Halifax airport for about 45 minutes but couldn't land due to fog snd had to fly to Montreal Quebec, where Air Canada put us up for the night. Thankfully my next flight was able to land on Christmas Day; there was a winter storm and I actually prayed while we were landing because I kept thinking about my first flight there. I've been driving there now; 2 days and 1 night. It's worth my peace of mind, though it does get a bit scary driving through Montréal at times!
Yes, being an airline traveler can be sooooo stressful!
A bit scary? Try driving through Dallas sometime; it's a whole scary.
Is it my ears or do many of the ATC featured in your videos mumble? I know they're dealing with multiple flights all the time but I'd struggle to understand what some of them are saying. A pilot in another video asked the controller to speak louder and clearly. I empathise.
I'm not a pilot, but if I were a pilot and they asked me if 14 was still acceptable, I would have asked why they were asking.
Obviously, the controller has another runway available or is concerned that 14 is too short for you.
Always land on the best runway available. Landing on an acceptable runway is unacceptable. Multiple flight crew and no one acted professionally and they all were complacent. Safety should never be compromised regardless of degree.
The crew was thinking 23 was unavailable and the choice was 14 or divert to an alternate.
@John Roberts - i realize this, but the fact the controller would ask when the only other choice was another airport, would have caused me to ask why the controller asked. I would have wondered why the controller asked. I would have assumed the controller thought I was making a mistake or the controller was making a mistake.
Exactly. Runway 14 confirmed by ATC but it had been changed to runway 23. Why the lack of communication? Why was it deemed to be pilot error? Just asking?? Anyone??
@treedweezle - my guess is ATC was not required to spell out what the pilot was doing wrong, only to confirm the pilot had the updated info on the wind and the available runway. If the pilot wants to land on the shorter runway with the tailwind, it is the pilot's choice, not ATC's choice.
My point was that the pilot should have asked why ATC asked about the runway he wanted to land on.
Good lord, imagine coming to work in the morning and seeing that giant plane stuck in the dirt and missing two engines. How do you even begin to get that thing out of the way?
Technology and computers are good to a point, I am old school therefore I want to be in control of the plane.
I was curious what the four Chinese characters on the side of the aircraft said, so I opened google's photo-translate: "Fish every year" was the answer. I think it's broken! 😂
I love this channel
Please make a video on saudia flight 763 and kazakhstan flight 1907
I wonder whether the experience of the crew worked against them here- not enough adrenaline in a very dangerous phase of the flight. It sounds like they had difficulty assessing what the aircraft was doing on rollout, so maybe a longer runway would have helped, or maybe not.
After watching (great video, as always) I went back to see if the airframe was a total loss. Sure looked like it but was this plane written off? Did the pilots get penalized/fired? Thanks
Great video, thank you very much. 😊
outstanding job !!
Very good video
Thank God they survived!
Just one comment, if I may:
The NOTAM didn’t say that Rwy 23 are not authorized.
They did say that the arrival procedures (ILS and RNAV) are not authorized.
I get goosebumps chill when the sound track 10.38 starts playing, especially with "Angelic" chorus
The pilot monitoring was out to lunch. A whole chain of errors, inaction, and shortcomings went unnoticed.
Working around the clock is good money for the pilots and the company 😅
In other words, the crew was knackered.
THATS ALOT OF DAMAGE!
Just a bit of Flex Seal and she'll be good as new
Considering there was a 7 knot tailwind, I wonder if simply using runway 32 instead would have been a better idea.
*23. And yes, it would've been way smarter to use it.
Where from you get the video graphics, do you have your own team or it's outsourced? and what about the conversation between tower and flight crew?
Bro if you mean the whole scene he actually uses a flight simulator called "p3d" i think
Hold on. Tower sees him flying an approach to runway 14. Then Tower asks if 14 acceptable? Another pilot error..no ‘airspeed, feet remaking’ checks by the FO, who should just be monitoring speed, feet remaining? Go around!!
Have you ever initiated a go around in your recliner?
@@RLTtizME They probably haven't and neither have I, but a go around is a practiced procedure by pilots. It's better to go around than crash, or possibly die.
No mention of the use of reverse thrust.
Hi bro i really appreciate your great content but why you deleted the qatar airways video of 787 sudden descent please upload it again 😢😢😢
This should never off happened.The communication between all,was the Fault.
I do think the first mistake was the miscommunication that the longer runway was available.
I feel sorry for the AIRCRAFT!
Is it me,or do Cargos have more incidents then passenger aircraft per cap?
It would sort of make sense. Cargo carriers tend to use repurposed older planes that have already had a bit of service life.
@@grmpEqweer Well maintained planes are no less safe than new ones. Most cargo accidents happen since cargo is transported during night, often long haul fligths, which makes people work on the backside of circadian, and sitting idling for long periods of time.
@@avgeek-and-fashion
I can see that.
...I live near where the Amazon cargo jet came down at; that was a day flight. The pilot had lied his way into the job.😔
The maintenance was fine.
...I was also kind of thinking of Aerosucre, they're kind of renowned for stuffing planes to the gills and just about taking the runway fences with them on takeoff.
But that's South America. Not sure how high the standards for maintenance and flight are in various countries within South America.
@@grmpEqweer That's a great post, Boogeyman. I love your line about South American pilots being known for taking the fences with them on takeoff.
@@MrBsbotto definitely so I've said that on previous post I will never bored any aircraft in south or Central America
I'm glad to see a video of an airline crash with no deaths.
That end of the runway has has claimed at least 3 aircraft. This one, the Air Canada A320 that landed short in a snowstorm, and a 747 that crashed on takeoff with a load of lobster. The lobster crash claimed 4 lives if I recall. Halifax can be a tough airport in the fog.
Yup. Absolutely. I live in Halifax and anyone who has flown in there or driven from the airport into the city knows that there are several changes in elevation and as a result there are a lot of micro climates that exist in and around the airport. I think the only worse airport for fog on the Eastern seaboard is probably St. John's International in Newfoundland and Labrador. You're right, the 2004 crash claimed 4 lives after they hit the berm at the end of the runway.
Great job of telling the story as it unfolded - although certainly not a pilot, I too have experienced reduced decision making capabilities due to stress and lack of sleep (I often have to work through two days, no sleep) - so I can understand what happened here. Just lucjy no lives were lost.
During this entire sequence I never seen either pilot use reverse thrusters, you would think they would have applied them right after touch down, or at least after they realized that the end of the runway was rapidly approaching them. In fact the left seater pushed #1 engine up for directional steering, engines 2,3 & 4 were still at flight idle.
7:34 The animation shows reversers engaged
They did deploy them. Then accidentally moved #1 out of reverse. FO missed his part in this.
dumber tan a sack of hammers , pilots .
@@lebojay That puzzled me and made me wonder whether they appear automatically on the simulator. If they were set, why were they not used to slow the aircraft to a lower speed after landing, or reused when they realised that they were running out of runway.
If one engine was above idle afterwards, it would have affected the steering, but still slowed the aircraft and not removed the speed brake.
Something in the simulation was wrong.
Usually or most of the times landing accidents on the ground are due to pilots fatigue, this is so obvious from just watching this fabulous channel, thanks a lot for the upload
AI will be piloting our planes soon..... no human error.
@@danielkokal8819i honestly dont want that, there are tons of stories of human pilots overcoming strange faults in the computer systems, what happens when when there is noone to keep the computers in check?
@@forceawakens4449 not saying I want it.... only saying its gonna happen
@@danielkokal8819 I'll NEVER fly on a plane with AI handling ALL flight controls and no human pilot.
@@danielkokal8819 Errors from the people who programmed the AI, of course.
what game is this because your videos are so almost realistic and awesome
Arhhhh..... so thats why my Alibaba parcel never arrived.... also there was no mention towards the end of the above idle thrust of engine 1, resulting in retraction of the flaps and autobrake. Great video as always though
😂🤣
Hull loss??
Yes
In plain straight forward English, they made a right cock up of things.
Remember when u uploaded Turkish Airlines Flight 6491 crash? The intro song is VERY good and I love it so can u add it to ur next video?
How can it be so hard to just brake...
Exactly, just "slam the anchors on".
Very hard, due to the weight of the plane and the speed they were going for the amount of time, a plane takes a lot longer to brake than a car because it goes at a faster speed and has more weight
@@NessaCantAim Weight theoretically doesnt effect braking distance. If you have powerful enough brakes. Stopping distance for a car from 160mph is about 400m.
Plane can also reverse engines though.
We’ve had multiple 747 runways overruns in Halifax. Seems if you sit around here long enough you’ll probably see one.
Woo-hoo! Halifax represented!... lol
I remember this crash.
Hopefully that captain never flew again - incredible level of incompetence!
Que en paz descanse el avión
no WAY you did actuallly using msfs2020 now!
I so happy no one was seriously hurt.
I am struggling to understand where the co-pilot was in this event. He does not get a real mention as to what he was doing ?
In the end game the plots accepted the approach they briefed but the performance decrease of a 7 knot tailwind, and a crosswind on a runway that was 2800' shorter than the available into the wind runway 23 was worthy of a "let's talk about this" conversation, which did not occur. Any one of the pilots in the cockpit could have called this. A 7 knot tail wind is a big hit on landing distance and especially a 7700' runway for a 747. Lots to take away from this one, but this was the biggie.
Nothing worse than actually reaching your destination and then crashing 🙄
Zipping through the verbiage way, way to fast! Come on guys, you’ve got a great channel, don’t blow it! Give people time to read it!
Which flight simulator do you get this
Ouch - the list of contributory factors is horribly long, many of them the result of sub-optimal performance by the crew. I worked in the safety services division of an international airline for several years. One of the pieces of analysis we did for all safety incidents was to assign a range of plausible weights to each contributory factor and then calculate how many factors were necessary in order for the incident to occur. With only two or three contributory factors, the results are not particularly illuminating, but this crash would make for very interesting study.
Can anyone please tell me what it means when a pilot and the tower are communicating, what does “ Heavy” mean?
The term "heavy" refers to any of the wide-body jumbo jets, such as the Boeing 747 in this incident.
@@zygotezygotten6485 Thank you 🙏🏽
Did the cargo still get to the customers on time ?
This is amazing, thank god no one was killed during the incident. Those pilots did amazing, god bless them!
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing right?
Amazing when equipment functions as designed BUT the same can't be said for the crew....! !!
wow, what a scene that would be, cameraman did you take the shot 😅😮😊
Crazy
What I notice in the video is the thrust reversers not activating at touchdown. Much later.
Two flight crews got time off. And the difference from sierra to tango atis would have said landings on 23 and not 14. Somebody (copilot) doing radio affirmed they had information Tango
i like your videos however I wish you add audio or voice narration and not so much text narration.
ok
Seems that runway 32 would have been a lot better choice (same runway but with a headwind)