Please support this channel by following me on Patreon / allecibay Music: Mono Artist: Dalo Vian Listen to the entire music here: • MONO (Piano Music) Follow me on: / allec.ibay
The airport6s Winter Operation plan indicated that when conditions arise like they were on the day, it is too dangerous for the crews to travel to the airport to clear the runway. Why would you give Kudos to the Captain who was oblivious to the rules pertaining to Aerodrome Visual approach rules, and subsequently landed in low visibility to close to the edge of the runway where the snowbanks had built up.
@@ricbarker4829 Because the airport should ensure the runway is clear. Visibility had nothing to do with this. You cannot assess height of snow banks beside the runway from an airplane during approach. That is 100% the responsibilty of the airport. The pilot did his job, put the plane on the runway, on which no NOTAMs were issued AFIK.
"Current conditions: Can't see your hand in front of your face; wind is blowing around like we're in the middle of a tropical storm; runway might be plowed but we can't see it over the drifts by the sides that will make it feel like you're conducting a trench run on the Death Star." --"Sounds great...what could possibly go wrong?--Flight 666
Considering that they're in the middle of the Canadian Arctic nowhere, in snowy and windy conditions, I'm surprised and have mad respect for the captain for getting the plane down onto the runway safely and "only" running off the runway (I assume because of crosswind?) into a snowbank. The lead-up circumstances seemed to point to certain doom from all sorts of causes...icing, attitude disorientation, mistaking location, getthereitis, etc.
What about 44 or 13 or any other number associated with another tragedy ? This could (and does) go on and on. I'd put more stock in the pilots and procedures than stupidity.
Yes, I agree. An aeroplane must have operational redundances but an airstrip in a predominantly snowy place is allowed to operate with only 1 snowblower?
If you're about to board a plane and the flight number is 666, you should really reconsider going on that plane. Just a heads-up 👍 Edit: And also, if that flight happens to be operated by Spirit, run for the hills immediately. Even being at the same airport as a Spirit plane can spell your doom.
@@peggyl2849 The real question is "How big were the snow drifts on the runway?" Hit a line of those babies with one side of your main gear and it'll drag you to the weeds right quick. A 15kt crosswind component is relatively minor.
They would likely have been fueled enough to return to their airport of origin. In many cases of overwater flights, your alternate is the airport you departed from. Same applies over the remote wilderness.
It's really cool following you since your first aviation accident videos and now seeing you with your uniform and flying!! Great job young man.!! I can assure you that because of everything you have learned posting and reading about all these incidents you have a clear, conscious ,alert frame of mind when flying.stay safe,dmms ( tape mark on ASI) practise AQPs.If it happens (LOTOT) instantly push and no turns! Congratulations on your great journey!
I am not a pilot, but it seems odd that no blame was apportioned to poor maintenance by airport personnel/management. Allowing the accumulation of large snowbanks that close to the runways? If proper maintenance could not be done, the airport should have been closed (in my somewhat ignorant opinion) until safe landings could be made possible in such adverse weather conditions.
That's gotta be the unluckiest flight number in existence 😬😂 Glad the pilots made it out all right though. I imagine Buffalo Joe was pissed about it, and rightfully so
Chuck was heard grumbling and showed up with sheet metal, prop and rivets and had the plane likely flying after a day of nonstop cursing and banging on things with hammer and boot.
@@fastst1 But then he destroyed the plane again, when the bright orange hammer he left in the landing gear bay jammed the mechanism, forcing it to make a belly landing on the next flight. (yes that actually happened. RIP Electra)
Get paid extra working north of 60, in winter its all thick with snow, was a flight down lives lost couple months back and daughter went to cambridge bay, life in Canada and snow glad the pilots made it.
Man I thought Iron Maiden had copyrighted "Flight 666" back when they started doing world tours with ALL THE BAND/STAGE GEAR loaded into a cargo 757 with about 10 seats back in the early 00's.
Interesting note for you.. Bruce Dickinson (pilot & lead vocalist of Iron Maiden) is friends with the operations manager (Mikey McBryan) at Buffalo Airways (& probably has something to do with it 😉). Bruce has flown (by invitation) Buffalo Airways aircraft previously & Mikey is a big fan of the band. PS - Mikey McBryan (see his CZcams website..) documented the restoration of a derelict C-47 that was a D-Day veteran for anniversary of the event and was a great story!
If visibility was less than the aerodrome's minimum, why was the airport/aerodrome not shut down, causing the pilots to divert to a different airport or possibly return to their original location (fuel permitting, of course)?
It's not the aerodrome's minimum, the minimums are set by the type of operation and the equipment of the aircraft. Some airplane can legally land with less visibility than others. The airport operator is responsible for maintaining its approach aids and surfaces, the aircraft operator is responsible for determining if the weather is acceptable for landing.
I'm not familiar with Canadian regulations but generally you can shoot an approach even when the weather report is below minimums. Conditions can change rapidly and as long as you observe the published decision height you can safely attempt.
I've probably made 500 flights over those arctic territories since I was 5 years old....tempting fate the whole time. Lots of stories of bravery and determination. Plus the characters - strange things done in the midnight sun
Maybe I missed it but did the AC veer to the right before or after the wing hit the snowbank? I assumed he veered because of the crosswind and this is what put him too close to the snowbank, but after rewatching I'm not sure if the snowbank was actually breaching the side stripes?
So, the Capt. (pilot monitoring as they swapped a few times) takes control of the aircraft just before touchdown not knowing kinesthetic feel of how the aircraft is dealing with the crosswind and other senses you get from the planes feedback. Since he drifted right, the crosswind had something to do with going off the right side (we don't know how slippery the runway was). Just my opinion, but passing back and forth a few times (approach, then landing) is not conducive to a stable approach and landing. The visibility (in this instance) seems to be secondary.
It is a long established standard for flying a low-visibility approach. The need for visual refence outweighs any need for kinesthetic feel. The pilot flying the approach focuses completely on instruments so that the airplane arrives at decision height on course, glideslope, and airspeed. Near minimums the pilot that will be landing focuses outside the airplane to acquire visual references as early as possible so as to judge whether the airplane is properly position to land. Asking a pilot focusing on instruments to either split his crosscheck or look up at decision height gives insufficient time to establish adequate reference and judge the position of the aircraft. The pilot that acquires visual reference takes over control of an airplane that is stable and ready to land.
@@joez.2794 I my opinion it is the airports fault. They gave incorrect information to the pilots. It's very hard to see how deep the snow is in a white out.
There are some numbers which probably should never be used when any level of risk might be involved, such as why there is rarely a 13th floor, flight 666, or 13, or 1313, etc. Not wise to tempt fate.
I see that a lot is mentioned if the visibility was within approved limits. However they found and landed on the correct runway so although possibly illegal it should not be the cause of the accident. I believe the strong cross wind in combination with high snow banks is the likely cause as the snow banks will massively change the wind direction and strength while descending over the last 50ft towards the runway. This could have huge implications on the wind they have to deal with.
I’ve done pretty similar operations in a total whiteout. The lower your visability, the less time you have to survey the runway environment before landing. 100% a factor. He would have been able to do a low pass too… I’ve hit a snow drift on rollout in a similar situation that probably would have sucked the plane into the snowbank had it been near the touchdown zone. The drift stopped the plane in its tracks.
Excerpt from Munich Air Disaster: The 1958 PIane crash that killed Man Utd 'But by now the snow had caused the runway to be carpeted in a thick blanket of slush, which slowed the plane down so much that it could not reach a high enough speed to take off. As a result, the aircraft skidded at the end of the runway, crashing through a fence surrounding the airport and into a nearby house.'
I'll bet there is a big insurance dispute.. [can't cure stupid] The plane should have never landed there.. the place was 'below the minimums' in many ways and on visual observation they should have headed to the alternative instead of trying to beat the snow on the runway with such a high cross wind factor that would have had an enhanced turbulence factor due to the high snow banks.. Bloody airport should have been closed.
Yes flying in the sub arctic is challenging but the King Air driver could have used differential engine power to keep the plane on the runway, when it began squirreling due to unexpected cross winds. Why was the snow clearing equipment out of service ,leaving the runway in such a dangerous condition?.
If the airlines don’t fly below minimum why small operators try to do so. Ps. Personally I will skip flying on flight #666 for the reason that is not a lucky 🍀 number, just my 2 cents.
Seems like it was the airport at fault but yet pilots that were questioned. I think we’ll hear about another one of these again in the future since it doesn’t seem like action was taken to prevent the actual issue.
Half a Statute Mile ??? Who came up with this ? We have NauticMiles, we have Knots, we have Feets and in some cases even meters but Miles ??? No wonder pilots get confused
Kugaaruk: I said it was like being in Heaven. The Reverend rebukingly and rather pointedly advised me to make the most of it then. Apologies to Mark Twain.
Being Flight 666 the name Cold Hell sounds appropriate! 😈
I flew on a Delta 757 with the registration of N666DN. 😬
@@psa722 Yeah, what the hell is wrong with those pilots? Just say NO!
It certainly had a hell of a time landing.
When is he'll ever cold?when is he'll ever cold?
When it freezes over.@@allananderson949
That's a HELL worthy of a flight number!
Kudos to the captain for landing in those conditions, and fault to the airport for poor snow removal.
The airport6s Winter Operation plan indicated that when conditions arise like they were on the day, it is too dangerous for the crews to travel to the airport to clear the runway. Why would you give Kudos to the Captain who was oblivious to the rules pertaining to Aerodrome Visual approach rules, and subsequently landed in low visibility to close to the edge of the runway where the snowbanks had built up.
A bigger question is why didn't the airport close ? An airport that is open and clearing planes to land indicates arrivals are permitted
@@ricbarker4829 Because the airport should ensure the runway is clear. Visibility had nothing to do with this. You cannot assess height of snow banks beside the runway from an airplane during approach. That is 100% the responsibilty of the airport. The pilot did his job, put the plane on the runway, on which no NOTAMs were issued AFIK.
Wrecking an aircraft is not a landing to be applauded
@@alexandernev24 the aircraft may not have wrecked if the snow removal was handled. Everyone survived, right ??
"Current conditions: Can't see your hand in front of your face; wind is blowing around like we're in the middle of a tropical storm; runway might be plowed but we can't see it over the drifts by the sides that will make it feel like you're conducting a trench run on the Death Star." --"Sounds great...what could possibly go wrong?--Flight 666
Sir, me thinks thou hast a bright future as a writer. Indeed.😶🌫️
Considering that they're in the middle of the Canadian Arctic nowhere, in snowy and windy conditions, I'm surprised and have mad respect for the captain for getting the plane down onto the runway safely and "only" running off the runway (I assume because of crosswind?) into a snowbank. The lead-up circumstances seemed to point to certain doom from all sorts of causes...icing, attitude disorientation, mistaking location, getthereitis, etc.
You watched Ice Pilots? Great pilots but worked to the bone in a "that'll do" safety culture.
They have seen almost everything in terms of cold weather. Buffalo Airways just entered the jet age last year.
The wing hit the snowback on the side of the runway causing the plane to veer off.
"Only the two pilots are on board". So no passengers wanted to fly on flight 666? Shocking.
I would. It's just a number.
Buffalo only does freight so it would be odd if there were passengers
@@deeanna8448 We'll be sure to put that on your tombstone.
What about 44 or 13 or any other number associated with another tragedy ? This could (and does) go on and on. I'd put more stock in the pilots and procedures than stupidity.
An airport operating in this kind of climate should probably have more than ONE snow blower....
Yes, I agree. An aeroplane must have operational redundances but an airstrip in a predominantly snowy place is allowed to operate with only 1 snowblower?
If you're about to board a plane and the flight number is 666, you should really reconsider going on that plane. Just a heads-up 👍
Edit: And also, if that flight happens to be operated by Spirit, run for the hills immediately. Even being at the same airport as a Spirit plane can spell your doom.
Both pilots survived. Everything after that is smooth sailing. ✔️
The pilots got a little help from Satan
@@tommcglone2867, the one who comes to, "kill, steal and destroy"? Are you nuts? 👀 😂
That's the most important part. Any landing in which all hands walk away uninjured is the best possible landing.
The real cause of this accident/incident was the runway condition.
With that crosswind, they definitely needed a wider clear area to be safe.
@@peggyl2849 The real question is "How big were the snow drifts on the runway?"
Hit a line of those babies with one side of your main gear and it'll drag you to the weeds right quick. A 15kt crosswind component is relatively minor.
Looking at a map of Kugaaruk it appears that they may not have had many (or any) options to fly to another airport.
Where the conditions may be just as bad.
That's actually a very good point. What are you supposed to do?
Excellent point...Rock and a Hard Place for the Crew.
They would likely have been fueled enough to return to their airport of origin. In many cases of overwater flights, your alternate is the airport you departed from. Same applies over the remote wilderness.
So good that this channel produces new materials every week, unlike the rest of channels that recycle old ones
It's really cool following you since your first aviation accident videos and now seeing you with your uniform and flying!! Great job young man.!! I can assure you that because of everything you have learned posting and reading about all these incidents you have a clear, conscious ,alert frame of mind when flying.stay safe,dmms ( tape mark on ASI) practise AQPs.If it happens (LOTOT) instantly push and no turns! Congratulations on your great journey!
I am not a pilot, but it seems odd that no blame was apportioned to poor maintenance by airport personnel/management. Allowing the accumulation of large snowbanks that close to the runways? If proper maintenance could not be done, the airport should have been closed (in my somewhat ignorant opinion) until safe landings could be made possible in such adverse weather conditions.
It makes that this plane was crashing in cold hell, it’s the flight number
There's little chance I'd ever fly with a flight number of 666. It would have to be an extreme emergency.
That's gotta be the unluckiest flight number in existence 😬😂 Glad the pilots made it out all right though. I imagine Buffalo Joe was pissed about it, and rightfully so
191 is also unlucky
Not that unlucky if both pilots survived.
I’d say 191 is even less lucky.
Chuck was heard grumbling and showed up with sheet metal, prop and rivets and had the plane likely flying after a day of nonstop cursing and banging on things with hammer and boot.
@@fastst1 But then he destroyed the plane again, when the bright orange hammer he left in the landing gear bay jammed the mechanism, forcing it to make a belly landing on the next flight. (yes that actually happened. RIP Electra)
I wouldn’t get on a flight to anywhere with a triple 6 number EVER!😂
It's just a number, no need to freak out about it because it's in an old book.
What happened to the aircraft? Usually you mention that after everything else. Was it written off or repaired and returned to service?
I was waiting with bated breath. My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
I was wondering that as well.
I'm sure it was fixed . I doubt Joe would've written it off. I'm sure good Ole chuck fixed it with some short spouts of colorful language 😅
Well, someone posted that Buffalo Air just entered the jet age. Seems like they crashed all their prop planes to get there.
@@cindysavage265 what
I really respect those who fly under such conditions on a daily basis.
Flying is not for the faint of heart especially not in the frozen north
Of all the numbers in the entire world, why did they have to choose "666" for a flight number?
Get paid extra working north of 60, in winter its all thick with snow, was a flight down lives lost couple months back and daughter went to cambridge bay, life in Canada and snow glad the pilots made it.
Whether the plane was written off or returned to service after repairs?
Man I thought Iron Maiden had copyrighted "Flight 666" back when they started doing world tours with ALL THE BAND/STAGE GEAR loaded into a cargo 757 with about 10 seats back in the early 00's.
Interesting note for you.. Bruce Dickinson (pilot & lead vocalist of Iron Maiden) is friends with the operations manager (Mikey McBryan) at Buffalo Airways (& probably has something to do with it 😉). Bruce has flown (by invitation) Buffalo Airways aircraft previously & Mikey is a big fan of the band.
PS - Mikey McBryan (see his CZcams website..) documented the restoration of a derelict C-47 that was a D-Day veteran for anniversary of the event and was a great story!
If visibility was less than the aerodrome's minimum, why was the airport/aerodrome not shut down, causing the pilots to divert to a different airport or possibly return to their original location (fuel permitting, of course)?
It's not the aerodrome's minimum, the minimums are set by the type of operation and the equipment of the aircraft. Some airplane can legally land with less visibility than others. The airport operator is responsible for maintaining its approach aids and surfaces, the aircraft operator is responsible for determining if the weather is acceptable for landing.
I'll bet Joe was pissed. Great production Allec as usual. How is your aviation career doing??
Not sure this viddy earned the iconic "impact" sound, Allec😂😉Love the Channel
We've heard it on far less, come on now 🙂
Yes! That's the noisiest bent prop I've ever heard!🤣🤣
Nice piano music.
I'm not familiar with Canadian regulations but generally you can shoot an approach even when the weather report is below minimums. Conditions can change rapidly and as long as you observe the published decision height you can safely attempt.
I've probably made 500 flights over those arctic territories since I was 5 years old....tempting fate the whole time. Lots of stories of bravery and determination. Plus the characters - strange things done in the midnight sun
Learned something new. i didn't know Buffalo was flying small aircraft like this. They are known for flying old piston engine planes as freighters.
Got many small planes. Mostly see them moving pilots from one airport to another.
They have joined the jet age in the last year or so.
I'm wondering how I survived all the flights I've taken since the late 50s!!!
Flight 666?? There was a big problem right there!🤣🤣🤣
Strange fact that ice and snow are responsible for so many airline accidents yet one of the safest airlines in the world is Alaska Airlines.
As soon as I read "Cambridge Bay" I knew it was remote. No mountains or trees and snow blowing sideways. Takes a special kind to fly up there.
I had a hard time reading the captions on the lighter shaded backdrops. Good video thx
The repair bill on that plane 🥵
Would they repair a 37 year old plane with extensive damage? It pretty much hit a brick wall.
Maybe I missed it but did the AC veer to the right before or after the wing hit the snowbank? I assumed he veered because of the crosswind and this is what put him too close to the snowbank, but after rewatching I'm not sure if the snowbank was actually breaching the side stripes?
Interesting how the sound of a crash made by an A100 King Air is identical to the sound made by an A320, an MD-80, *and* a 747!
was the king air repaired and sent back into service?
schoringer plane
So, the Capt. (pilot monitoring as they swapped a few times) takes control of the aircraft just before touchdown not knowing kinesthetic feel of how the aircraft is dealing with the crosswind and other senses you get from the planes feedback. Since he drifted right, the crosswind had something to do with going off the right side (we don't know how slippery the runway was). Just my opinion, but passing back and forth a few times (approach, then landing) is not conducive to a stable approach and landing. The visibility (in this instance) seems to be secondary.
It is a long established standard for flying a low-visibility approach. The need for visual refence outweighs any need for kinesthetic feel.
The pilot flying the approach focuses completely on instruments so that the airplane arrives at decision height on course, glideslope, and airspeed. Near minimums the pilot that will be landing focuses outside the airplane to acquire visual references as early as possible so as to judge whether the airplane is properly position to land. Asking a pilot focusing on instruments to either split his crosscheck or look up at decision height gives insufficient time to establish adequate reference and judge the position of the aircraft. The pilot that acquires visual reference takes over control of an airplane that is stable and ready to land.
You have rules and then you have so many exceptions so you basically have no rules! A recipe for accidents just like this one. 🤔
Yeah I guess it was the pilots' fault for not being able to see the snowbanks which weren't supposed to be there, or something?
@@joez.2794 I my opinion it is the airports fault. They gave incorrect information to the pilots. It's very hard to see how deep the snow is in a white out.
Flight 666 to Hell would make a great Twilight Zone title.
There are some numbers which probably should never be used when any level of risk might be involved, such as why there is rarely a 13th floor, flight 666, or 13, or 1313, etc. Not wise to tempt fate.
Ain't no way I'm getting on flight 666🤔🤔
Great episode but hard to make out captions due to light background
I see that a lot is mentioned if the visibility was within approved limits. However they found and landed on the correct runway so although possibly illegal it should not be the cause of the accident. I believe the strong cross wind in combination with high snow banks is the likely cause as the snow banks will massively change the wind direction and strength while descending over the last 50ft towards the runway. This could have huge implications on the wind they have to deal with.
I don't think visibility was an issue. Snow banks close to the runway however was a problem.
I’ve done pretty similar operations in a total whiteout. The lower your visability, the less time you have to survey the runway environment before landing. 100% a factor. He would have been able to do a low pass too…
I’ve hit a snow drift on rollout in a similar situation that probably would have sucked the plane into the snowbank had it been near the touchdown zone. The drift stopped the plane in its tracks.
Excerpt from Munich Air Disaster: The 1958 PIane crash that killed Man Utd 'But by now the snow had caused the runway to be carpeted in a thick blanket of slush, which slowed the plane down so much that it could not reach a high enough speed to take off.
As a result, the aircraft skidded at the end of the runway, crashing through a fence surrounding the airport and into a nearby house.'
C'mon, flight 666? Who's shocked?
Coincidence with the number. This was weather related.
Fair few cowboy rules up in North Canada...
I would never get on a flight with that number!
I'm betting since it wasn't a passenger flight it was in inside joke with the pilots or airline or something?
What. Happened. to. the. AIRPLANE? (was it repaired & returned to service?)
The aircraft registration is still in Buffalo’s name, but the serial number is not listed as one of their fleet.
Molsons bought it and turned it into beer cans, eh?
It was an A2, so repairable.
Getting a great laugh from all the people commenting how they wouldn’t get on flight triple 6 as if they are a box of freight lol
Request please 🙏:
2019 Pipper Malibu N264DB Crash in English channel with Emiliano Sala.
Was there anyone working at the tower to warn the pilots?
Designating a flight number 666 is just asking for trouble
No it isn't. It's just a number. But one day it will be the mark of the beast.
Ya think the crew might have wanted to know that???
That’s one of the first things you learn in Flight School, avoid large piles of snow on both takeoff and landing.
OK so alternate landing strip where? Alternate airport? Paved road? Dirt field?
So the aircraft clips a snowbank on a runway, at an airport that gets snow seasonally, but does not have snow removal equipment.
NOTAMS ?
if your on a flight with the flight number “666,” you have two choices, trust the pilot or leave.
any landing you can walk away from... : )
Balls of steel to fly up there. I'll stick with Europe thanks.
can you do Cubana 455 if you haven't?
I'll bet there is a big insurance dispute.. [can't cure stupid] The plane should have never landed there.. the place was 'below the minimums' in many ways and on visual observation they should have headed to the alternative instead of trying to beat the snow on the runway with such a high cross wind factor that would have had an enhanced turbulence factor due to the high snow banks.. Bloody airport should have been closed.
Was the airplane written off?
Yes flying in the sub arctic is challenging but the King Air driver could have used differential engine power to keep the plane on the runway, when it began squirreling due to unexpected cross winds. Why was the snow clearing equipment out of service ,leaving the runway in such a dangerous condition?.
It seems like the approach could have been avoided if the crew were aware of the unusually high berm.
Fitting title for a flight number like that…
Very difficult to read white captions on light colored backgrounds.
In this case, seems like a "good accident", no injuries or fatalities and safety procedures and guidelines that will help save lives.
Flight 666 💀💀💀💀
Big wind from the left why did it go off the runway to the right?
Praise God they got out safely and walked away
Was the aircraft repaired and returned to service?
Was the aircraft returned to service or written off?
If the airlines don’t fly below minimum why small operators try to do so. Ps. Personally I will skip flying on flight #666 for the reason that is not a lucky 🍀 number, just my 2 cents.
Broooooooooooooooooo the flight number pretty much sealed the flight's fate 😆🤣😭😮😬
You made it sound like the pilots didn't survive. Good thing I watched the video lmao.
@@KyoushaPumpItUp NGL I had a very bad feeling about it at the beginning
Nah. It's just a number. It was the weather.
Despite all the legal hoopla, the pilots still used bad judgement as I expected after reading the accursed flight number.
Never fly a triple 6!
Why such focus on visibility minimums when the problem was the crosswind?
One thing that seems surprising is that Buffalo has a pilot with 13,500 hours.
Seems like it was the airport at fault but yet pilots that were questioned. I think we’ll hear about another one of these again in the future since it doesn’t seem like action was taken to prevent the actual issue.
No flight should ever be 666. However, both pilots survived so perhaps that number isn’t so bad after all.
I misspelled "benign" as beguine. My apologies. No puns intended.
I think I'd be a bit peeved if I were the pilot and caught a wing on a pile of snow because their snow removal equipment wasn't working.
It’s a good job you only sell ice cream, otherwise nothing would get done in this world
Is it FSX???
what a weird number for a flight
Half a Statute Mile ??? Who came up with this ? We have NauticMiles, we have Knots, we have Feets and in some cases even meters but Miles ??? No wonder pilots get confused
Flight 666…HOW SWAY!
Was Bruce Dickinson the pilot?
Kugaaruk: I said it was like being in Heaven. The Reverend rebukingly and rather pointedly advised me to make the most of it then.
Apologies to Mark Twain.
Name: unknown
Age: unknown
Flying time: approximate
666 cool number
Flight ⁶⁶⁶☠️
Not the cursed number...
When the plane veered right that looked like a coke machine they ran over.
Was Bruce Dickinson the Captain???