Bird Vs Jumbo Jet | Kalitta Air Flight 207
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 05. 2023
- Please support this channel by following me on Patreon
/ allecibay
Kalitta Air Flight 207 (K4207/CKS207) was a scheduled cargo flight between John F. Kennedy Airport to Bahrain International Airport with a technical stopover at Brussels. On May 25, 2008, the Boeing 747-200 overran Runway 20 during takeoff at Brussels Airport, causing the aircraft to split into 3 main pieces. The occupants sustained minor injuries.
Music: When The Lights Came On
Artist: Kai Engel
Listen to the entire music here:
• Kai Engel - When the L...
Follow me on:
/ allec.ibay
Kalitta Air was founded by Connie Kalitta who is a legend in NHRA Drag Racing. That is why Connie is their call-sign.
His son owns Kalitta Charters II….Their call-sign is "Dragster."😊
they were also instrumental in local and regional delivery of the remains of casualties of iraq and afghanistan. several very sad vids here on YT. god bless 'em.
Very cool, I didnt know. Thank you
Look up the story of Connie getting hijacked In the air, he took care of business! Bad dude.
Nephew Doug Kalitta Jr. currently drives a top fuel dragster in NHRA which has been sponsored by Kalitta Air
R.I.P Kestrel... still, for something whose prey is usually small mice, taking down a Jumbo is rather impressive.
of course it's not a matter of you eating it, but it eating you.
The bird did NOT bring down a Jumbo! The insane decision by the Captain to abort the take off AFTER V1 was a Critical, Basic and Catastrophic Mistake. I flew the 747-400 with Virgin Atlantic for fifteen years, and I knew: Anywhere near V1 in Any multi engine aeroplane with any failure….YOU GO! Simple as that. A Loud Bang is either going to be An Engine or a Tyre Failure! It’s always far safer to take the problem into the air, climb to Minimum Safe Altitude, sort the problem out, then decide what you are going to do. Only a Catastrophic Fire that won’t go out, or is uncontainable requires an immediate action. Landing immediately, just as that SwissAir MD-11, off the coast of Newfoundland should have done a few years back! Also, not deploying the Speed Brakes, nor using Available Full Reverse Thrust, nor using Maximum Available wheel braking, meant they sailed off the end. The First Officer Should have called out loudly ANY OMISSIONS or Actions Missed by the Captain. He Didn’t. Nor did the Flight Engineer! If that were a passenger 747, many people could have been killed by the Commander’s foolish decision. The Captain caused this accident, Not a Bird. Because only the Captain can call: “STOP” or “GO”. Had he called “GO”, this accident would never, and Should Never, have happened!!
@@pikachu6031 My comment wasn't exactly serious... but thanks for the explanation. I'd already worked out about the same thing, and my flying experience is limited to an F-16 Falcon on an AMIGA 600 in the late 1990's ;)
@@pikachu6031 Easy to talk about Swiss Air 111 when you're on the ground.
And his buddies discovering the big thing wasn't even edible. Quite the disappointment.
Decided not to take off on three engines, then forgot to apply reverse thrust for the rest of the tour of the airfield. Sad way to write off a 747. Thank you, Allec
It was repaired and leased to Spirit airlines.
Fun Fact: Connie Kalitta is no the only Kalitta to own a charter airline. Current NHRA Top Fuel Dragster driver Doug Kalitta, Connie's nephew is the owner of Kalitta Charters, the sole company with a contract with the US government to fly service members' remains to their final resting places.
When Connie reformed the airline after he bought the certificate back from Kitty Hawk the FAA told him he had to split the charter business from the main airline to operate under different certificates. Hence Kalitta Charters and Kalitta Charter II.
@@TheJakeUtube cool info, guys!
The only error I can see is the thrust reversers. Otherwise, he did what he thought best & nobody died.
From the video, it sounds like the plane could have successfully taken off on 3 engines if necessary, and the power drop in the bird strike engine was only momentary.
@@timonsolus The pilot only had a split second to make a decision, so he can't be faulted for the rejected takeoff, but the reverse thrusters should have been used. The first officer should have jumped in to help, but I wasn't there and don't know the exact circumstances.
When you hit V1 you are going flying. Otherwise you are going to lose the aircraft. They rejected after V1 and lost the aircraft. Had they played by the book the aircraft would have been saved and there would have been no injuries. V1 is there to let you know that your options are now closed. An abort means an overrun and likely a destroyed aircraft, severe injuries and likely deaths. The human reaction is to hit the brakes. It takes a lot of training to overcome that.
@@jamesthompson3099 This was my immediate thought as the facts were laid out. I don't know if my impression of a few seconds' passing was correct, but it seemed to me that the Captain rejected the take-off well after V1, which is just stupid when you've lost power in only one engine. As you said, V1 means you're taking off, absent a catastrophic failure. Loss of one engine's power is not catastrophic.
@@timonsolus Yes, but he didn't know any of that. Keep in mind that he had only seconds to react. He based his reaction off the info he had.
I've never heard of this accident before, nice to see something different.
I saw the plane, it was not far from my house.
Thanks Allec. I always look forward to your videos they never disappoint.
Thank you for giving us a great insight into this crash!
Good one! Thank you Allec!
This is gonna sound bizzare but thank you for making videos like this in 21:9 instead of 16:9. As an ultrawide user it really makes the video seem special.
That’s interesting -I’m not sure how your size affects your viewing situation ? I am probably just normal size ;not ultra wide but I don’t mind how he presents them ,maybe I am confused?😂
i love your videos young man. the shot of the 747200 going down the runway was impressive.
Thank you Allec , for still posting interesting videos , Be Well my Friend , Best wishes . 🙂👍
Very nice video. I'm not sure how to interpret the review board's report. IMHO, the captain did well. I know I wouldn't have rotated when the loud bang occurred either. Take off is optional... Landing is mandatory.
The aircraft was repaired with tape and returned to service. It had a 'tape replacement' service in 2017 and is currently flying with Atlas Air as of 2023.
As of Spring 2023 the repair was upgraded to the wide White Gorilla 🦍 Tape, which gives improved strength at high altitudes, and allows higher Cargo loading.
The Aircrew reports a better self image, vs the earlier silver duct tape, the Captain stated:
"This new white Gorilla tape is far less Ghetto vs the silver tape.
We used to get a lot of stares & thumbs down.
Plus now aerodynamic flutter at high AOA and above mach .9 is decreased.
Now we look better & fly better too, thanks to the new, improved color matching Gorilla 🦍 Tape".
Spirit is using duct tape on their wing repairs. This is not a joke. No known reply yet from the FAA.
😂😂😂😂
@@deepthinker999
Probably actually True.
I had to sit on the wing last time cause Spirit overbooked the leg to San Diego
@@psalm2forliberty577 You got to sit on the wing! I had to sit inside the engine and make noises and spin the blades because of some failed repair job or something.
NEVER HEARD OF THIS ONE TY!❤❤
May 25th 2008. Only 27 days later, Connie Kalitta lost his son Scott at Englishtown.
I was surprised not hear anything about thrust reversers.
15000 hours seems low for a 59 year old Captain
BirdTube loves this one. They play it endlessly. ;-)
Lovely recreation
Interesting.
Thank you.
We used the call sign "Chicken Killer" for Kalitta planes on our ramp. They were always in awful condition, rivalling some of the Eastern European carriers for lack of maintenance. The pilots were always overworked, we stopped using them a bit before this accident as they were an accident waiting to happen.
Really that bad?
Well it was also a Kalitta Charters plane that crashed at Gitmo due to fatigue and non working strobe light
@@shaunstrasser1 Seriously? A strobe light is going to cause a crash? 😂
@PDZ1122 there is a strobe light that is on the boundary of GITMO to show where the base is and where US planes can and cannot fly over that light wasn't working that day and with the pilots being tired they fixated on where the strobe light should have been
Kestrel is a bird of prey used to scare other birds off from airfields. The wiki page says the bird control unit at BRU was since ‘reinforced’.
With more kestrels? I hope not......
You might add that the runway used was considerably shorter than Zaventem's main runway, and that takeoffs were being rotated to spread out 'fairly' the noise that they created for local residents.
A local comment was that the pilot had 2 seconds to make a decision, while the accident investigators had 6 months.
As a former local resident I am glad that he didn't take off with an unknown engine failure.
Wasn't there another Kalitta crash where they did push through, and then crashed? (in S America...?)
Taking of with an engine failure is what the airplane is meant to do. Trying to stop after V1 is what it is not meant to do. Hundreds of investigations and studies have demonstrated that trying to stop is far more risky than simply continuing the takeoff, which is why that procedure drilled in training. Yet for some invalid reasons you are glad that the pilot made the incorrect choice and put everyone in danger. A 747 was destroyed and it was by pure luck that nobody was killed.
@@gort8203 I refer you to the crash by the same company a month later in Bogota.
@@kruiskop1 Not sure what your point is, but if you think that a plane that crashed because only one engine was operating normally just after takeoff invalidates the normal procedure for an engine failure after V1 you would be wrong. No heavily loaded 4-engine airplane is going to climb out on one engine, which is luckily a very unusual if not unique occurrence.
It’s easy to beat up on the man in the arena, but the Captain, like me, might have been thinking of what happened just a few years earlier, when American Airlines Flight 191 lost the left engine on takeoff (lost as in, the engine went for a walk on its own, leaving the airplane completely uncontrollable, just off the departure end of the runway). Better to abort the takeoff and risk breaking the airplane, than to go up in a uncontrollable Roman candle.
Like the wise man said, “better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, than in the air wishing you were on the ground.”.
Thurst Reversers would have saved the aircraft but to reject takeoff was a natural instinct & the correct one I feel.
1. I flew at that airline for three years. It wasn't a bad place to work. Their maintenance was fine, I never had a serious issue with any of their planes.
2. I flew that exact plane, it flew nice.
3. I knew the "captain" on the flight. He was a nice guy to talk to on the ground, but he was an asshole in the air! Very poor CRM skills, difficult to get along with.
4. The Boeing 747 flies beautifully. In fact, when flying it around, you really don't feel the size of the vehicle, it maneuvers quite well. It has quite a bit of inertia, but that is to be expected. It has but one vice: It uses a lot of runway on both takeoff and landing. As a freight airline, we often flew them at max gross weight, 833,000 pounds, so this explains it.
-This accident happened purely because the "captain" rejected takeoff 12 knots above V1 speed because one engine sucked in a kestrel and made a single BANG. Rejecting takeoff in a 747 beyond V1 is a serious serious NO NO! You WILL go off the end of the runway! And that is exactly what happened; He wound up hanging the nose of the broken plane over a drop off that led down to the railway line into the airport.
Back then we used our uniforms to go to and from the airplane, and wore street clothes in the cockpit. This is more comfortable and allowed us to have a fresh looking uniform for the whole of our 17 day trip. After this accident, this policy changed because said "captain" was walking around the wreckage in sweats and a black T-Shirt, and Belgian rescue crews didn't know who he was.....
...sitting in a sightseeing train called "The Flightseer" in 1960 at Idewild riding along the edge of a taxiway right next to a takeoff-ready American Airlines Astrojet, the then-new 707 . smelling the kerosene and feeling the roar of the engines...
one wonders who took that train on 2/14/61 and gawked at Sabena 548, which underwent UFIT on approach to Brussels with no survivors. it was the first major crash of a 707. among the dead were the entire US figure skating team.
I'm not going to second guess the pilot. With fractions of seconds to spare, you have to make a decision. The bang could have easily been something worse, there wasn't any time to verify.
I'm surprised to see a flight engineer in 2008.
Having spent two weeks at Kalitta I found that they were very professional and have a legitimate desire to do the job the right way. Having retired from DAL I spent my career around the best in the industry. Kalitta struggles only in their hiring because of the winters there.
Hindsight is 20/20, they had no idea what was wrong and had two seconds to make a decision. After seeing all the tragedies that occur when pilots continue takeoff after having an issue or hearing a bang at or around V1, I can’t blame them for leaving it on the ground considering the area around the runway was pretty flat, no water or cliffs. My first thought in this situation would be “99% chance of survival vs ??% chance”. All that leaves is dealing with the employer after you crash their airplane. As we say in America, “Sorry, take it outta my paycheck!”
The aircraft is insured. For my money and speaking as a former occasional freight dog, I am not risking anything to save somebody's airplane vs. my butt. In cases like these my attitude was always "If you don't like my decision making, hire somebody else." I have no regrets. The only scratch I ever put on an airplane was a broken left wing position light, while putting an airplane by hand into a hangar by myself and misjudging the door clearance on that side.
Right on. Everybody saying he shouldn't have aborted and everything would have been fine. Yes, very easy to say that after you have the facts and have been told it was a bird strike in one engine. He heard a bang, the plane didn't feel right. I'll take my chances on the ground vs. in the air with a possibly crippled airplane. Too many examples of planes crashing after continuing with takeoff after hearing a bang at V1.
Such decisions have to be made with split second timing and the fact that everyone survived and escaped serious injury ought to be the main point. Reversers should have been deployed, but otherwise I wouldn’t be blaming the crew too much. They took the action they genuinely thought was the safest in the circumstances. It would help if airports all used this arrester stuff at the end of a runway, particularly if an overrun would meant the aircraft would end up in the sea, down a cliff or onto a busy road.
Good video Alex 😊 as always!
Obviously plane written off. Wonder what happened with the crew. Kalitta Air still flying and fairly large. Have a friend flying for them as F/O.
My brother is a FO with Kalitta as well! 😀
It's quite amazing how such big planes are so vulnerable to small birds
more vulnerable to being driven off the runway
Did you watch the video? This is a pilot error, engines are strong enough to operate in extreme conditions
apparently they found no damage in the engine that ingested the bird
@@sunnyfon9065 yeah I commented a little too early
Allec Joshua Ibay
Is there any chance you could do a Video of the "Gorman Dogfight" which happened on October 1st, 1948 ?
(It was when a pilot named George Gorman was flying a P-51 Mustang over Fargo, North Dakota and he encountered a UFO)
it's kind of pulling teeth to get YT creators to cover air accidents/incidents before the 1960s. audiences are accustomed to modern high tech aircraft and investigations that get answers. back in the day that often wasn't possible.
there's also a problem getting decent sims of ancient aircraft that didn't fight in wars (not the P-51 obviously).
This may be what you are talking about: czcams.com/video/pPQtKT5NtR8/video.html
@@RatPfink66 Yeah, I know my request is a long shot but I just thought I would ask for it anyway just in case he could indeed do a Video about it. Also when it comes to air accidents and incidents before the 1960's, I think that Allec Joshua Ibay did do a Video about when that plane crashed into the Empire State Building back in 1945.
Allec, how are you?
Very nice presentation!
Great graphics and all around production quality.
Complements to the chef !
I saw this flight literally struggling to get altitude on takeoff from Newark as I was driving north on the Jersey turnpike. It didn’t surprise me at all to see it broken up on landing.
can you tell me where did you get your 737 200 and the 737 300-500?
I just wonder where tf did you get that livery xD
I'm guessing that airframe was a right off... :)
Kudos to the pilot for his reaction in the time allowed
Would the thrust reversers have stopped them short of overrun?
(I used to do airliner stopping performance analyses) Probably not, though the speed at runway departure wasn't stated. Maximum thrust available from reverse isn't nearly as high as for forward, and there's a lag of several seconds as the engine spools up before even that level is available.
Reverse thrust is mainly useful for helping out the brakes on a runway having compromised braking (wet, flooded, snow, ice). But for say an average landing stop on a dry runway, reversers only handle around 15% of the brakes-on kinetic energy. By the time the engines have spooled back up in reverse, it's not that long until speed will be down to 60 kt/time to stow them.
Edit: "mainly useful" above was speaking to the specific matter at hand: Stopping distance reduction/overrun avoidance. But reverse thrust also has the day-to-day role of reducing energy into the brakes (that "15%", though it will vary with aircraft type and assumed conditions) and thus extending brake life. Steel airliner brakes from the 1960s-1980s era were designed for a nominal 1000 stops between overhauls. For carbon brakes, introduced starting in the mid-1980s for many airliner types (e.g. 757), the warranty number became more like 3000 (though as usual with anything engineering-related... all depends). Those numbers assumed moderate reverse thrust was used during the defined "average" landing (sometimes called a "thousand-stop landing" when the subject was steel brakes).
Whether steel or carbon, the most useful thing about reverse thrust on a dry runway of more than adequate length is that the engines aren't pushing the aircraft forward with idle thrust even as the brakes are trying to slow it. Some airlines in fact specify "idle reverse" if conditions warrant. Less noisy for the neighbors too.
Final(?) edit: "Probably not, though the speed at runway departure wasn't stated." Looks like it was somewhat fast though, for the fuselage to have broken apart like that. The landing gear stripped as well, but that's by design so as to hopefully keep the fuel tanks from being torn open by excessive drag force if the gear digs into soft ground (yes, by FAA requirement there is a part of the structure which is NOT allowed to be made any stronger than a certain amount: the main landing gear's shear pin or "hinge").
In light of the above, let's reword your question to "Would use of thrust reversers have reduced speed at runway departure to low enough that it would become a "simple" recovery effort of a mostly-intact aircraft?" Still would have to call the insurance company and the crane company, but it's back in the air after a new set of landing gear and some very expensive "buffing out". My answer then changes from "probably not" to "quite possibly", even assuming only three reversing engines.
@@marcmcreynolds2827 thanks!
@@StevenBanks123 Hey Steven, I added a bunch. This one's like popcorn to me -- can't stop reaching for just a little bit more...
@@marcmcreynolds2827 and I,will add it to my new store of knowledge about thrust reversers.
The captain heard a loud bang during takeoff, performance appeared to be immediately affected, and he aborted takeoff. He did the right thing, except for not activating the thrust reversers. It appears that had he done this one thing, the aircraft would have stopped without runway overrun.
He did the wrong thing, fooled by a samatogravic illusion, but still the wrong thing. V1 had been called, and you have to believe the airplane is incapable of flight (not just accelerating more slowly), to abort after V1. The thrust reversers was another mistake but they don't make that much difference in the outcome on a dry runway.
You'd think there'd be an aircraft carrier-type net barrier at the ends of all runways that could be raised at the touch of a button in the control tower if a pilot radios "BARRIER BARRIER BARRIER" to alert them.
A clear reminder, that even though birds can be cute little creatures...they can also be modern aviations worst enemy.
I thought that was Ryan Air.
No reverse thrust. Your video didn't illustrate spoiler deployment, so I assume they didn't utilize those, either. Abort well past V1. Recipe for disaster.
No thrust reverser deployment?
Considering how the plane ended up breaking, it is pretty amazing no one was seriously injured.
It could be interesting to hear/read first class passengers perspective of the accident.
This was a cargo/freight flight. Try paying attention or actually watching the video 🤦🏼♂️
It was a cargo flight, the only persons on board were the pilots, you didn't watched the start of the video
Yes, remembering info from the beginning of the video would have been useful.
Thanks
@@paulu7751 maybe you should have payed attention......"4 crewmembers and a passenger". The fourth crewmember would have been the loadmaster and the pax was likely a Kallita employee.
wow AJI still uses FSX for his videos?
RIP birdie.
Ultimately, it was the B1 take off and the (forgetful) loss of the expected extra 300 metres that caused the overrun, along with not deploying reverse thrust and the rest.
At that point - V1 - I think (non pilot) aborting was still feasibly a better option. Grind it to a stop rather than risk it possibly being a fire or explosion. He made an instant decision and it could have been the better one. Who knows what scenarios the loud bang played out in his head.
Was it maxxed out, or pretty empty. (freighter, right?)
He forgot the up slope, and there were failures in slowing it down for whatever reason or thought process, but he possibly saved 4 lives on board and more on the ground.
I'm 50 - 50 on this one.
There is no 50-50. Aborting was the wrong option here. He endangered the lives of those on board and they were lucky no one was killed. Continuing the takeoff would have incurred no danger at all.
A very sad thing he lost another 747 a few months later and not to long after that he lost his son Scott in a Funnycar accident it was not a good year for Connie.
Better to write off an aircraft than to fall from the sky, killing all on board and potentially others on the ground...
See also El Al Flight 1862.
#709👍😤The crew was sloppy wasted 300 in runway and this captain was incompetent not knowing the 747 could and would fly on 3 out of 4 engines. Wrecked a perfectly good aircraft by poor decission making! I hope he lost his license!
ERAU 80 CFIA&I ret.
Because lately I never seen any names of pilots when in fact the accident reports are public and contain the names of the crew
The crew, did react late-ish, what was the reason for that? Did they had breakfast? Did they had enough sleep?
The ones who ordered their package from kallita:
It's been 2 months and my package is still not delivered, im never ordering Something from kallita ever again!
Game name?
Talk about damned if you do and damned if you don't. This is the gray area of maybe if. I hope the pilots didn't lose there jobs
IAH uses dogs for bird control. Since Houston is one big swamp, there’s a lot of birds. The dogs do a great job, as they are dealing with gulls, ducks, and geese
To bad its written off 😢
NExt Kalitta Air Flight 808
Pilot Error, one engine stall would not prevent the plane at that speed to takeoff !
Airliners have a photo of this plane post-crash with an ice train on the track in front
every 6 months pilots do a V1 engine failure in the sim checks, which has to be continued if the aircraft can still fly. Engine failure can be identified by the non handling pilot........ not really something that should be decided on by a sense from the handling pilot that the aircraft is not accelerating! Just imagine the outcome if there had been passengers!
At least 500 free miles in my account with that airline. Yeah baby!
Things didn't end all that badly, other than _breaking the damn plane in two._
planes can be replaced...breaking people in 2 is much tougher to repair
HERE IS AN IDEA: try to do more research and add their names (like you did in old previous videos)
Their names are not given even in the official accident report, I'm guessing due to privacy considerations since the crew survived with a good chance that they're still alive today. I don't think Allec ever gives the names when the crew survives anyway; have you never noticed that before? Not sure if that's by choice or if surviving crew are never named in accident reports.
This video was sent practically 15 years after the accident...
Practically.
21st century and we still can't fix this, why?
One bird equals 70 million dollars, flushed down the toilet.
Geez, I would have fired that captain on the spot…
I am not even a pilot and I immediately thought, “wtfluk, no reverse thruster??? Even after realizing that they would run over the runway?
Good grief!
What the hell is a “reverse thruster?” The term is thrust reverser.
@@mikefromflorida8357
Seems you have too much time in your hands…
🙄
It's said that the three most useless things in aviation are height above you, fuel in the bowser and runway behind you. This case certainly proves the latter.
A rich guy had to buy a new aircraft.
He didn't "have to", but how else is the crap you buy on the internet going to get to you?
Please don't line up with 300 meters of runway behind you and then reject **after** V1 for an engine failure. Neglecting to use reverse thrust probably didn't make that much difference in the final outcome, but there was no reason given for this lack of action. It should be muscle memory for a pilot with that much experience, so he would have to make a conscious decision to **not** apply reverse.
Big mistake for the Pilot.
rest in peace to those pilots
They survived….
They're not dead yet 😁
A complete write off just because someone forgot the other three functional engines...
I would guess they fired the Captain...didn't they?
Why would a 747 take off at all with just 1 passenger (plus a dead bird)? Waste of a fortune in fuel!
Are you joking or are you seriously asking? It was a cargo plane.
Why do you play such somber music if no one died and there were only minor injuries? It doesn't really fit the narrative!
i.e.
Pilot error plus stupid birds. Airports are like lunatic asylums.
Bird Vs Jumbo Jet | Kalitta Air Flight 207
Bird Vs Jumbo Jet | Kalitta Air Flight 207
Bird wins.
@@anandguruji83 When will you answer me? Dagnammit!
If the Kestrel had been African, the damage would have been worse.
Pilots should have mandatory retirement at age 55 or 14000 hours, whichever comes first.
There is a severe pilot shortage so we have to use the remaining ones for as long as possible.
Good one.
How old are you? Maybe 70 is a good retirement point, but not 55!!
@@chrisclermont456 Frank made a joke. How obtuse are you ??
I retired at 65. 33000 hours. 16000 hours in B747. No accident or incidents. Your a moroon.
Your channel would be better with narration. My guess that a 747 with one passenger is a cargo jet...