Plane Takeoff Failures Caught On Camera
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2024
- Plane Takeoff Failures Caught On Camera
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/3at7ljZ
► Music Licensed From SoundStripe/Envato Elements
For any and all copyright matters, please email me directly at UnderworldCopyright@gmail.com
Unless otherwise created by Most Dangerous, licenses have been obtained for images/footage in the video from the following sources; pastebin.com/2QefkSMq
Most Dangerous brings you some of the best Top 5's, Top 10's, Fails more right here on CZcams. Subscribe to Most Dangerous to never miss an upload!
Aerosucre didn't crash because of an outdated flight manual, they crashed because it's aerosucre
Exactly my thought: it's Aerosucre again!
They mentioned there were plenty of things that went wrong.
5km per hour did not cause the problem
Possibly overloaded with hidden illegal colombian “things”
it was also overweight
In addition to Sully's background as a military pilot, I believe it was his experience as a certified glider pilot that brought that plane down flawlessly in the Hudson.
Incredible man Capt Sully!
@@germanshepherdlover2613
Exactly 👍🏻
...or simply good pilot, a true aviator!
What makes you think flawlessly?. If he was flawless he would have used the outrageous glider skills and done left 270° when he knew both engines ingested all those birds and landed feet dry on RNY 13. Instead it took a precious 2.5 min trying to line up with 3 other airports that were further away, only to realize they ran out of altitude / energy. He didn't even get to the best glide speed for several minutes. I know it's not fashionable to detract from what the media created, but these are facts not in dispute. Ask him. He's humble enough to tell the truth, but they wouldn't let him. Regardless, I have set up the problem in a Level D sim and landed feet dry back at La Guardia every time, as have others. But he's the star, not us.
@@gendaminoru3195they never pushed the ditching switch either. Would have floated better.
In the RAF pilot's defense, 100 Million Pounds is awfully heavy for a carrier takeoff
Ho ho ho!
he didnt even get the pricetag close, but if a 100 million Lb fighter could fly, that 144 million Lb carrier would be flying too
he didnt even get the pricetag close, but if a 100 million Lb fighter could fly, that 144 million Lb carrier would be flying too
@@BrianDowd-vg1te And it's free folks.
yikes !
I always find it incredible how they manage to find the cause of a plane crash by examining the parts of the plane, even though they’ve been destroyed and burned up
The data recorders or black boxes, make the job much easier by monitoring engines, speed, angle, pilot inputs, and a thousand other things.
Wouldn’t be a problem if they made the whole plane out of the stuff they make the black box out of. Let’s see what kind of stupid rebuttal that generates.
@@justing42 Because black boxes are not immortal either, which is the perfect silly answer to your silly comment.
@@bigverybadtom They aren't black either, their orange!
@@justing42Well, apart from the fact that it's an old joke by a stand-up comedian, how do you know the "stuff" the "black box" is made of is airworthy and/or cost-effective?
Is that sufficiently "stupid" for you?
There is no such thing as the English Air force, it is the RAF. The Royal Air Force which includes all of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ❤
Absolutely correct. As a matter of interest, please see my comment.
It's a very lame, stupid commentary anyway! The dork clearly knows very little about aviation.
The way the brits spend on thier military i wouldnt even say it is not a thing
Who Cares!!!
@@fgrau7376 I care, I'm scottish and I pay my taxes which goes towards the armed services. If you don't care you don't have to comment
New drinking game. You must down a shot of Tequila every time the narrator says "thankfully."
And a swig of beer every time he says "hit the gas".
Can't unhear it now
😂
Or when he gets something wrong. The production team needs to do better research. "English Royal Navy", implying the cost of the jet is its weight, "hit the gas and aimed for the ramp", "English Royal Air Force", All multiengine aircraft are designed to fly on a single engine - dropping the fuel and payload was a precaution, RAF instead of RN, Setting speed higher would not cause a crash. Just terrible fact checking.
00:35 Pilot prepares to take off in "100 million pound F-35"? It's no wonder he couldn't take off: he was way over max gross take-off weight!
Agreed, the commentary was pretty stupid.
You beat me to it! I hope the commentary gets BETTER from here because I paused it to comment.
I think he meant 100 million tons
@@jimcrawford3185 considering that a fully loaded 747 might weigh 1.3 million pounds or 490 tons, that is even funnier!
I think he meant 100,000,000 £.
"never got out of the Hudson bay area" Hudson Bay is located in far north Canada. He landed in the Hudson River which runs along side Manhattan. Glitch
It’s the Hudson River, but most NYC residents also call it the Bay Area. Maybe that’s where the confusion came from, but you are technically correct.
@@Sniperboy5551 the Bay Area is where San Francisco is.
Also a common misconception is that it was a miracle. Incorrect. The flight had a safe outcome because of the safety culture in commercial aviation, the regulations the industry follows, the frequent and thorough training of pilots, air traffic controllers, maintenance technicians, airline dispatchers, and many other professionals. Safety wasn't uncommon or an accident or divine intervention. Also, the decision was the true key here. Landing in the water wasn't the thing that set this apart, it was that Sully recognized that returning to LGA, going to JFK, or diverting to TEB (with north/south runways while he was east of the airport) wasn't feasible without possibly losing too much energy, so he went with what some may not have thought about. (Fun fact: when Hanks, Sully, and Eastwood were preparing for the movie, they used my airline's Airbus simulator. Unfortunately I never met them during that time, but Sully was on one of my commute flights at some point later on.)
@@justing42😂😂😂 there's more than one bay in the world. The Hudson bay and the San Francisco Bay are thousands of miles apart
@@Aviator27J true dat, also that Sully intentionally put down near barges. But think back to that dark time-- there was nobody that wasn't convinced we weren't sliding fast into a great depression. All of the talk was about whether the programs that seemed to work in the 1930s would be viable options in 2009. We needed that "miracle."
You should speak about Robert Piché, a canadien civilian pilot, who landed his Airbus 330-200 before gliding for the 20 minutes because there was no more gas aboard on their way to Portugal. They changed course of fllight and landed on the Azores. He saved the lives of 293 passengers and 13 crew members. It is considered the greatest achieve feat of the last 50 years of civilian steering by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA).
Canada's national airlines has another pilot that made a splendid landing on a former military airstrip in Gimly...
also out of fuel he managed to make a landing that nobody could replicate in a flight simulator. search for the "Gimly glider".
@@ingeposch8091
Gimly glider is a good silver medal. Also
Chesley Sullenberger, the pilot in New-York who landed on the Hudson is a good bronze medal. But Piché was recognized by the international league of steering the broom and it's the gold medalist of the party. ✌🤪👍
@@carcajoupatient2982 where did i mention a ranking??
🤔
@@ingeposch8091
Well, everybody want to compare wieners, but in that case, Piché was over atlantic ocean, too far away to ever be able to land in Portugal. Glidind several tons of a flying castel, going down the slope with no breaks, digging the rims of the plane into the concrete of the airstrip is a prowess in the history. Portuguese peoples vow a cult to their savior. It's been a significant moment in steering but because he's a french-canadien, authorities in cacanada wanted to minimise the thing. Always the same with those british in cacanada. It takes talent to recognise talent... Just sayin'.
@@carcajoupatient2982 you get me wrong....
as for "comparing wieners", i don't have one! i happen to be a woman, dear.
et etez une femme des Pays-Bas, je parler les deux langues du Canada.
i really do not give a flying f**k if one is a Canadian of British or of French origin, all people are equal to me.
sorry dat ik mezelf toevallig mezelf in 4 talen uit kan drukken...
British, not English, my friend. There is a world of difference. By saying "English Royal Navy", or "English Royal Air force", you are leaving out the brave service men and women of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who all serve in the military arms of the United Kingdom. Beyond that, however, I really enjoy your well-created and interesting videos. Keep em up 👍
You’re right shipmate 🫡
Did we have a QE2 in 2021?
If you insist on referring to Wales and NI and Scotland and England as "countries," you should expect this. No sympathy. Who is the head of state of Scotland? Does England have a currency unique to their "country?" Do Northern Islanders have a unique passport from the other "countries?" Most Brittle numpties are flummoxed at these simple questions.
@@MyBelch What are you waffling on about 😂😂😂 300 characters of shite
Yeah I just got that straight: England then Great Britian then United Kingdom (in that order)
Captain Sullivan did not hit a flock of Canadian geese as is described in the video. He hit a flock of Canada geese. The species is called a Canada goose. The plural of that is Canada geese, not Canadian geese.
While we are making corrections we should note that Sullenberger ingested "Canada Geese", not "Canadian Geese". I know I'm being picky here as your videos are great! Just thought you might want to be even better than great.
Those damn Canadian terrorists geese!!!🦆🦆🦆🦆
💥🦆💨 LOL!!
Should have checked the passport.
"Miracle that the plane hasn't fallen appart"... If those turbines hadn't sheared off when touching the water, the landing wouldn't have had a happy ending. So no miracle, just the beauty of the mpunt fail safe system, and the heroic reaction of one man.
😂 I was going to argue with you about the F-35 weighing 100 million pounds. Then it clicked….
Chesley B. Sullenberger was a flight instructor, an airline accident investigator, an F-4 pilot in the United States Air Force, and, maybe most relevant to the landing in the Hudson River, a GLIDER PILOT.
So he knows how to fly a glider. How does that help you fly a jet as a glider? Gliders are designed to glide, jets aren't. His training on military and commercial aircraft was a lot more useful than his experience as a glider pilot. Gliders fly like any aircraft, the special techniques you learn involve using thermals to sustain flight. And they are really good at sustaining flight, being very light and with lightly loaded, high aspect ratio wings. Other aircraft fly exactly the same way, just not as far. You just trade altitude for speed. If he was just a glider pilot he would have thought he could glide it all the way back to the airport. As a jet pilot, the knew he could sustain flight for a very short time, since he only has a small amount of attitude to trade. It's not like he is the only pilot to ever land a jet with dead engines.
@@justforever96 I guess you are not a glider pilot. As a glider pilot managing altitude and speed and watching out for potential landing areas is your concern during the entire flight. With powered aircraft it's not. And as a glider pilot you are constantly handling kinetic energy and aerodynamics of a non powered aircraft. And that mental background might have helped Sully to intuitively make the right decisions. And BTW aerodynamics of an airliner on idle thrust or with engines shut down are not that much different from a glider.
Managing the complex system of the airliner (doing the necessary emergency procedures) is the other part of the workload in that situation. And that's the part where being a glider pilot didn't help him.
that's one big sob glider
The Gimli glider hero was also a big glider man and no question saved the day. I think 767 that ran out of fuel and landed on a disused runway that had become a dragway, in use as he landed - insane story@@hxpx6906
I don't see flipping burgers on that resume..?
The Royal Air Morocco incident at Frankfurt was an incidence of great airmanship and professionalism. A wingtip vortex from a plane landing on another runway robbed the Moroccan plane of lift. The pilot lowered the nose, picked up more speed, and successfully rotated the aircraft.
After the incident, clearance and departure procedures at Frankfurt were changed.
Captain Sully was first treated like a damn criminal at first, even though he is an absolute LEGEND and literal life saver.
The last one didn't set flaps, it's clear to see. They didn't do they're checklist correctly. They finally achieved enough air speed to get airborne. Lucky.
I caught that one too. Their official statement was a load of bull
Taking off without flaps is technically possible, given the correct speed and length of runway, but ill advised and not smart aviation.
Last one was actually caused by wake turbulence. There was a Turkish airline that landed on the intersecting runway. The footage shown here, cuts that.
The flaps and slats are set as you can see clearly at 10:06 on the video. In addition, read the report and the pilot rotated prior to reaching Rotation Speed. It had nothing to do with the turbulence from the A330 but simply pilot error on rotation.
Same, flaps were not extended on the last one.
Aerosucre is notorious for seat-of-the-pants "aaaaaaalmost!" takeoffs & landings, most accomplished with overloaded aircraft. I feel sorry for the aircrew & their families, but it's an absolute miracle that airline doesn't lose a lot more planes & people a lot more frequently.
L
Aerosucre is to aviation what Swift is to trucking!
@@joeyjamison5772don't die as a disbeliever
@@grahammcdougall557will you not fear Allah
pilots have such quick thinking/reactin, always fun to watch
I don't think AeroSucre chose a too fast take off speed. It looked over weight as well as not fast enough, not too fast.
I was looking for this comment. AeroSucre have long been renowned for ignoring MTOW limits and overloading their aircraft, forcing pilots to sign off on it, and constantly pushing it to extremely dangerous levels.
Then read the final report.
@@lbowsk Just did and what do you know? I'm not sure about incorrectly calculating a higher rotation speed. If the end of the runway is coming up a pilot will try and drag the plane off the ground. The tailwind is significant. From the report:
"The crew incorrectly calculated a rotation speed that was 5 knots (9 km/h; 6 mph) higher than necessary.
The chosen takeoff runway was subject to a 4-knot (7 km/h; 5 mph) tailwind.
The pilot rotated the aircraft too slowly, at about 1°/sec instead of 2 to 3°/sec.
Furthermore, although initial calculations suggested the aircraft was operating within its weight limits, the investigators believe, based on the takeoff speeds used by the crew, that the aircraft was actually almost a tonne above its maximum permissible takeoff weight of 74.7 t (74,700 kg; 165,000 lb)..."
1) Incorrect V-Speeds. Too high.
2) Tailwind.
3) Incorrect rate of rotation. Too slow.
4) Incorrect pitch attitude attained. Too low.
These four factors account for this accident far more than the plane being slightly over MTOW. A ton in that plane is essentially meaningless. Leaving the airplane on the short runway for too long (tailwind plus bad V-Speeds) and then not pulling hard and fast enough (too slow and too low pitch change) to get them off the ground killed them. @@stephenskinner3851
It takes longer for an overweight plane to accelerate. If they had rotated sooner as their lower takeoff speed allowed, they might have cleared the obstacles. Then again that wasn't the only issue with their takeoff run, they had a slight tailwind and the rotation was not conducted quickly enough nor steeply enough. It speaks volumes that they could have got off the ground safely, even with an overweight plane, had they done everything else properly.
@13.000 feet and still couldn't get it up? I had to laugh at this one. You know us dirty old men... lol
I cackled myself 😂😂😂😂
I thought the video had become a Viagra commercial! 😂
Since when has the area administered by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey ever been referred to as "...the Hudson Bay area...???
That's in Canada, the last time I checked!
🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦
Seriously! This dumb@$$ doesn't know the difference between the Hudson river and the Hudson Bay!
8:25 It's Canada geese, not Canadian geese. The geese may or may not be from Canada, but that's beside the point.
Are they subject to imigration checks upon entering Canada😂
When you see videos like this it does make you incredibly thankful to live in the western world where safety is so prevalent
All incidents shown in the video are from places like the UK, USA, Germany, and Columbia except for one. What 'Western world' are you talking about? Valinor?
Seriously. Because alot of other places aren't so strict and safety keen elsewhere.
The only amazing thing about Sully was his incredible luck that day. How many pilots with a failing plane have a smooth Hudson to ditch in????
I watch way too many of these...
WonderDocs!? Dude I love your videos!
I hop around between different types of videos but definitely spend too much time watching video, overall. The healthy eating videos have been a good influence on me though, and CZcams is a part of the reason for my success in that area.
Don't you post them ?
Gave up watching after the mention of the ‘English Air Force’ can’t see how RAF fits that?
On the last one, the problem wasn't all because of rotating too early - the pilot forgot to extend the flaps as well. They were fortunate that they had enough runway to get more airspeed. Otherwise, this would have been a crash.
You don’t take off with the flaps down
@@justing42large airplanes do, 727, 737, a320, etc use flaps and slats for TAKEOFF and landing
looks like Flap 1 set. You can see the leading edge slats were out. Perfectly good in the 737 but you need higher speed of course. As you said and looks like they had speeds set for a normal Flap 5 take off
@@justing42 yes you. do. you have take off flap settings
@@WMUDrew you don’t have the FLAPS DOWN ALL TNE WAY FOR TAKEOFF. I am a mechanic for Delta…you want to start splitting hairs?
"The airport runway was too short for the Boeing 727." That must be a short runway. The 727 was designed for use by Boeing per Eastern Air Lines request for an aircraft that could take off from shorter runways in the Caribbean but had to have three engines. This combined with specs from other airlines resulted in the 727.
It obviously wasn't too short, they wouldn't be flying from a runway that they couldn't take off from. Im sure it means that it didn't have the large safety margin specified by most western authorities. You need to have room not just to take off, but to abort any takeoff up to the rated safe speed. In any case, it is still a large jet. It still needs a large runway, just less than the contemporary jets like the DC8 or 707. Doesn't make it an STOL bush plane.
Also I can't imagine how any plane would fail to take off because they were going _too fast_ . That doesn't make any sense. I could see if they modified it to take off slower (also don't see how that's a fuel savings) in order to allow it to use shorter runways like this one, and the pilots weren't made aware of this and ran out of runway before they managed to reach the speed they thought they needed. But you would think that when they saw the end of the runway coming they would try anyway, and if it was able to take off slower it would have been fine. More likely they didn't "modify" it (not even sure how they would do that), but rather created new takeoff procedure to allow a slower takeoff from a short runway like this one.
Only someone failed to tell the pilots about this, and they were still trying to take off the normal way, and in that configuration they were not able to take off at the speed they were able to achieve.
But no, he said they already lost an engine and hydraulics and a landing gear. So they were probably screwed anyway. Kind of curious now to know what happened. If that's the case I don't see what the modifications had to do with the crash. That's just incidental stuff they discovered while investigating.
The 727 had remarkably good short-field performance for its day. Now? Not so much. Few know that the plane was originally equipped with NOSE gear brakes. That plane could land in under 4000 feet.
I think that operator also restricted the amount of Thurst on the 727 was able to produce by the engines for fuel saving and didn't tell the pilots
Aerosucre is a shit show. That is all you need to know.
@@okedoke1234don't die as a disbeliever
Even then world's best vet couldn't save that bird.
That Royal Air Maroc flight looks like they didn't have flaps set for takeoff! I'm no pilot, but isn't that an essential element?
Nope, they got a sudden wind change due to wake turbulence from a departing plane on a perpendicular runway.
I thought exactly the same thing. I’m pretty sure the flaps were retracted 🤓
They have got their flaps set, as you can clearly see that they aren't fully retracted. It's a long time since I fired up a flight simulator, but that looks like maybe flaps 5 to me. It's certainly not flaps 0.
The general consensus at the time from armchair experts (nobody, besides the people on the plane and the cameraman, knew anything had happened until the video went viral months afterwards so there was no official investigation) was that the pilot rotated too early and simply didn't have enough forward speed to get off the ground, though a few did blame (as Georges said) wake turbulence. The problem with the wake turbulence theory was that it would have occurred right near the start of their takeoff roll and they would have been well clear of it by the time they did their speed check at 80 knots, never mind hitting V2 (the point of rotation), although there was an accident in New York where a plane crashed because the pilots were fighting wake turbulence they'd long since cleared (they were slamming the rudder left and right, which caused them to think they were still in the turbulent air, and they tore the vertical stabiliser clean off the airplane), so it can't be discounted completely.
You can takeoff with no flaps, you just need a lot more speed (vR is quite a bit higher). That becomes a major problem on a shorter runway, but it looks like those pilots had enough runway to overcome whatever problems they were facing.
@@hostrauer I'm not sure Fankfurt Airport has short runways.
2:05 “ The pilot was an inch shorter” was confirmed by his girlfriend that night
OMG...LMAO....!!!
English Air Force?? Ah yes, the famous EAF.
PRO TIP: This video is much better with the sound off😂
Let's just take a moment to pray for all the lives lost, human or bird.
@10:08 That airliner did not have its flaps deployed...you can see that in the video clip - that's why it took so long to achieve proper lift. Usually when that happens, the plane either goes off of the end of the runway, or, crashes shortly after takeoff. They got VERY lucky!
They are clearly extended. And btw you can't forget flaps. When you start your takeoff and go over a certain thrust limit you get a TO Warning from the plane and this shit is loud. You cannot overhear it. They would have immediately stopped if they heard it
How crazy would be to see a passenger airplane flying with about 5 miles of fence hanging from it
😂😂
Because when you've got Tom Hanks in an airplane in a movie, you know it's going down!🤣🤣🤣
So the pilots read the manual everytime before setting up the take off speed 😂
3:09 "Nobody was injured"... ok but there was a bird right?...
My thoughts exactly!
It wasn't injured it was atomised instantly.
7:55 _"Unfortunately, it never made it out of the Hudson Bay area."_
Ummm, it was never within 800 miles of the Hudson Bay area.
At least they got Sully’s name right
@@robertdragoff6909 It wasn´t Scully? I hought he sullied his name, but I suppose not.
@@teppo9585
Oh good one!
3:07 "nobody was injured" except the birds
Well look on the bright side birds where around long before us and will be afterwards.
@@philipmcdonagh1094 umm *possible* after us
1:18 "Something went wrong with the engine..." Yeah, the damn thing fell out.
0:35 he is talking about the planes price tag people. This is British, the money is in pounds not dollars.
The last case, (B-737 Royal Air Moroc), if you look closer you'll see that they didn't setup the flaps for take-off, requiring a faster speed to get airborne... Oooopppsss !!! 👈😲
Thank you for FINALLY seeing it from the bird's POV 2:16
Everybody gangsta until you point the nose up but the plane doesn't leave the ground
The Intruders engines were working perfectly. The catapult was cold. He could have saved the airplane if he wouldn't have tried to gain altitude. Back stick caused the stall.
Yes, cold cat (either not enough steam pressure or a malfunction of the catapult) and he also appears to be too late pickling (Dropping) his drop tank. On the Abraham Lincoln we had an A-6 blow a front tire on the cat stroke. The aircraft ingested the tire and instantly lost thrust. He dropped his external fuel tanks so fast they almost hit the bow. Even with both engines having lower thrust, he saved the aircraft. The one in this video seems to have not acted as quickly as the one I witnessed.
I spent 20 years as a Navy ATC and have seen too many of these to remember.
Fear Allah @@Kumacho1957
Don't die as a disbeliever
@@Kumacho1957 That must have been something to see! Must have been some career!
FYI Hudson Bay area is in Canada not near New York. Hudson River is where Sully landed his plane.
Don't die as a disbeliever
That first clip...
100,000,000 lbs? Surprised the pilot got it to move at all!
Took the British pilot exactly 10 seconds between bird strike and bomb dump. It’s incredible how fast these hero’s are trained to think! ❤
It was a fuel tank. One button…gone.
@@justing42 Amazing how in just 10 seconds, the pilot knew there was a problem, what is was, what to do to save pilot and plane, at such a low altitude!! Especially when it’s all not anticipated to happen.
You are clueless
@@brianwilson8983 Come on, it’s ok to give credit to the pilot, you wouldn’t lose a tooth 😂
He dropped those bombs or whatever over residential area. Just lucky there was no one home at the time. It takes a cabbie 0.5 seconds to realize his fare is about to barf and about 2 to 3 more seconds to park safely without risking killing anyone in the process.
A 100 million pound airplane?? That's ridiculous. No airplane has ever been that heavy.
Sarcasm? The British Pound is a currency, much like U.S. DOLLARS.
@JimJurena So British currency weighs a pound? Wow, that is a lot of paper.
@@LucidDreamer54321Yeah man it’s heavy AF…I was travelling to UK and had thousand pounds. I literally needed 10 suite cases to carry it 😂😂😂
0:38 100 million pounds is the cost not the weight 🤣🤣 I figured it out 🤣
Great video indeed. Loved your channel intro, colors and animations, I mean the presentation itself
Aerosucre is also notorious for overloading its cargo planes
Gotta get that coke out pronto!
Incident number 7, which is first in your upload (the fighter plane tumbling off the end of an aircraft carrier) was simply caused by an engine cover being carelessly left in position. Glad the pilot survived but he and the engineering crew must share the blame as pilots are required to do a walk-round their plane before take off.
There are about 4 walk arounds done prior.
Around 50 Yemeni children might have been saved by this oversight, so it was God who made them overlook that fact I believe. They sing in his praise in heavens for this oversight, I can hear it.
@@teppo9585 There is no God.
@@teppo9585 Not only god doesn't exist, but who gives a fuck about those ?
In small piston engine civil aviation aircraft, we do a "run up" to test the mags and such, before starting the take off roll. Wouldn't the pilot of that F-35 have had some indication of trouble when starting the engines or taxiing the aircraft? Seem to me he ignored some obvious signs of trouble. Wonder if he ever got back to a cockpit after that, probably swabbing the decks aboard some RN garbage scow.
We've been flying commercially for (I think) over 100 years by now ... and I can't help but wonder why we've never found a solution to the "bird in the engine" problem. Ideas?
I’m an aircraft mechanic. Adding something to cover the engine to reduce the chance of FOD lowers the engines efficiency. Even if it’s by a little bit. You also risk the chance of that part being dislodged and sucked into the engine itself. Then there is the matter of potential ice build up etc. Which is worse than a bird strike. It's impractical in that birds can't fly near as high as most commercial or private pressurized aircraft. Engines are built to withstand certain things being sucked into them within reason. There are many more factors to consider but these are the most likely scenarios. I hope this helps.
10:06 is one of the first I saw in the internet.. that little 737 really didn’t want to climb😂
Something went wrong with the engine?? I’ll say that engine fell out of the darn plane!
8:26 "...Canadian Geese ..." It's Canada Geese.
The Canada Geese got turned into Canadian Sausage.
Not gonna lie.... I've always heard them called Canadian geese. Southern US.
@@perryrush6563 Thanks for not lying. That's quite noble of you. But they're Canada geese. Your honesty is a virtue, and a beacon of integrity that shines brightly on your soul. You are a man of honor.
C A N A D A goose.
If they're geese, and have Canadian passports... 😂
Well it's no wonder the British plane couldn't become airborne.
It was 100 million pounds!
"He hit the gas" lol!
He landed an Apollo mission, an airplane in the Hudson, and survived sumalian pirates. Is there anything Tom Hanks can't do?😅
He can't stay married to his first wife.
If a plane takes off then lands safely I would argue its not a take off failure.
I have had the privelidge to speak with four or five pilots that had to eject. Each and every one of them say that it was the most violent thing they've ever experienced.
AeroSucre: cowboys of the skies 🤪
It is heart-wrenching to hear about "Birds" getting killed by Planes.
well, humans Are the most destructive species on this planet... ugh
yeah I think they should GET,, OUTTA.. THE.. WAY.. lol noits not theyre fault, but we do need some sorta earlier warning for em..... you know any sound frquency we cant hear the would alert them, they'de just naturally move outta the trajectory.... like.. the signal to open you car door :-) you cant hear it put the car can... interesting... I'ma see if its possible being electronis savvy and a pctech 30+ tears....
@@harleyme3163 Planes should have horns, so the pilot can honk at the birds that are in the way.
Should have a windfarm around every airport so no birds would make it into the path of an aeroplane on a normal day.
5 EXTRA knots on takeoff cannot be a bad thing😂
Although not on camera until after the crash, the worst failure I'll remember is the Aug 16, 1987 crash of NW flight 255.
I flew on that SAME plane the night before. I saw the news footage when I was in Chicago the next morning. Talking about raising the hairs on the back of one's neck. We weren't supposed to land in Detroit, but did for an emergency. They tooled around with the plane for about 3 hours, boarded us back on, taxied to the runway, aborted the takeoff, turned around back to the gate. They put us all on another plane to continue on to Chicago. Landed in Chicago in the wee hours of the following morning, in the middle of torrential rains. Got to a hotel to rest up and went out a few hours later and observed that the streets a few blocks away became raging rivers, caring cars and whatnot in its destructive action. I turned on the TV to see the airline crash in Detroit, and recognized the wreckage. EEP! They say, "Getting there is half the fun." um.....yeah. The little girl who is the sole survivor is now a grown woman. I hope that she is living a good life.
@@superboats2 Cecilia turned 40 this year and last I hear has remained in contact with the families of those who perished.
2:24 You would think with the high threat of bird strikes aircraft companies would design some sort of lightweight grate to fit over the engine intakes?
Its an overstated problem.
@@Swaggerlot But still, having such wide open an unprotected intakes is asking for trouble.
@@redbaron474 Even if you put a screen in front of the engine where will the bits end up anyway? Make the screen too fine and it impedes the air. The reality is that in a 30+ year career in ATC the only major bird strike I had to deal with was a military single seater that took a bird through the canopy.
@@redbaron474 naturally as with almost all laymen ideas, it's already been thought of, experimented with and dismissed. It's very disruptive and has a big negative effect on efficiency. If it were practical to have a grate that could protect the engine at low altitude without completely screwing the performance and efficiency in cruise it would already have been done.
Number one requirement for turbofan operation is smooth, clean airflow into the inlet, any type of cover or mesh will disturb and restrict this laminar airflow causing all kinds of rough running. Think smooth flowing river vs turbulent rapids.
On number 1, my questions is: why were the flaps not set for take off? Usually they are lowered to some extent which will increase lift at lower speeds. Every flight I have been on, had the flaps lowered on take off.
When their pilots screwed up the take off, the company decided to LIE and insult all our intelligence as well as try to say we're blind... I guess. ;o)
wouldnt help with no thrust and no airspeed, flaps dont help that much, when your at speed the will increase lift... but at the cost of speed and they will destabalize the controls surfaces a bit :-(
@@harleyme3163 No disrespect intended, but why do pilots use full flaps to land and flaps 2 to take off if they do not help with these circumstances? Flaps increase lift, which you need for takeoff, by the way, to which rotate speed is calculated. Even single engine aircraft use flaps.
What are the white stuff on top of the cockpit? Doesn't look like something that should be there.
I had the same question on a flight out of Frankfurt Germany in a 727 with no flaps extended. The flight crew said they could not use them because we were near maximum takeoff weight and needed to use the entire length of the runway to gain the speed needed to create the lift. Using the flaps would have increased the drag on the wings slowing them down too much.
#4 at 4:35 . It seems like this video is missing a lot of critical info. They start by saying that the plane had already lost its number 3 engine and all hydraulics before it even attempted to lift off. But the video places the blame on the airline making changes to allow the plane to take off at slower speeds, and then say that the pilots tried to take off at 5 knots OVER the needed speed. So faster was worse? Is that said because the runway was too short for the plane to begin with? Seems like the engine and hydraulics issues would be more important to the explanation. Especially the dead engine issue.🤔🤷🏼♂️
hold onto your hats, folks, because this video is a wild ride through the world of questionable driving decisions. its like a reality show right on the road!
Interesting thing about the A-6 Intruder is that the canapy doesn't eject with the pilot, rather the pilot and bombadeir are ejected THROUGH the canopy. That is probably the reason for the spinal compression!
Damn, I never knew that. Aren’t the seats ejected alongside the pilots? I’d assume that the top of the seat would take the majority of the impact, but I could be wrong. The G forces involved in those ejection seats are pretty ridiculous to begin with.
That sounds like instant headache to me. 😖
The spine probably suffered most from hitting the water without a fully deployed parachute
Some canopies have a det cord inlaid so that in the first part of the ejection process the canopy shatters, just before the seat leaves the aircraft. As for the spinal compression, most, if not all crew will suffer injuries due to the huge acceleration (12 to 15 G).
Yes spinal compression from ejecting is a common problem and it would be the end of your military flying career as your spine couldn't take another high g ejection.
The A-6 Intruder was a twin engine, twin seat aircraft. In this particular incident, the plane lost it's right engine during catapult launch, forcing both crew, Pilot and B/N (Bombardier/Navigator) to eject. A little more research would have produced a far more interesting video. Also, the narrator's tone and colorful graphics do not match the seriousness of the subject...
E models have 4 crew
@@justing42 Incorrect. The A-6E Intruder had a 2 person crew. The only model that had a 4 person crew was the EA-6B Prowler, a specialized electronic warfare version.
How do they know he was an inch shorter. Did they check him with a tape measure prior to helping him 😂
HEY, I know that voice. It's the VO for Underworld! Always appreciate your calm and straightforward tone.
I feel like that British pilot should've stuck with their plane a lot longer to see if they could save it, after seeing the Intruder crew's response.
That last one kinda looked like its flaps and slats werent extended
That's what I thought too. And they aren't.
I was thinking that also, now way were they extended to takeoff configuration
@@grahamjpjones they were !
@@longbowshooter5291 yes they are. The leading edges are CLEARLY extended and the trailing edges are clearly not up all the way. It’s called standard takeoff configuration.
The Admiral probably said if you crash that airplane don't come back
Sully's landing & passenger survival was also very lucky, cos that particular plane was equipped for flights over water, i.e. extra buoyancy.
The plane came within 900 feet of the George Washington Bridge. Had the plane hit it then it would have been a 9-11 disaster with all that traffic and likely no survivors on the plane. The bridge is also old (completed in 1931) & would likely had been destroyed. What a traffic nightmare if that bridge were gone for three years or so.
I think the 100 million pounds might be a little high. Could sink the ship with that kind of weight in the wrong place.😊
He meant Pounds as in the British Pound Stirling. It was £100,000,000 not 100,000,000lbs. Around $123,750,000
@@thetransportationguy7930 ok, sounds good to me
@thetransportationguy7930 mainly, I was making a joke. To an American, when someone refers to a 100,000,000 pound airplane, our first thought is a very heavy plane, not a very expensive plane. If he had said 100,000,000 quid, I might have had a better idea.
Ah, sorry. I am just used to people who are oblivious to European things. I once met someone who thought Germany was a state. (I am serious, they were *THAT* dumb.)
Doesnt look like that British carrier has a catapult. Could have a lot of trouble getting up to speed without one
2:53 good thing it wasn't sucked into the wrong engine. 😅
No bird was harmed during the making of this video !
Did that bird that got sucked into that engine survive? Was it alright, or did it need taking to the vets?
It had one wing in a cast for a couple of weeks and it still has a limp to this day.
bit ruffled
be alreet
me Duck
'sucked into the engine'
and
all right
don't generally go together 😂
It needed a beak replacement
I think if the Air Moroc pilot had configured his plane for takeoff, it appears the flaps weren’t extended, it would’ve been easier to gain lift at rotation speed.
Yeah, for me it also looks as if the flaps are not out at all?!
4:25 That explosion behind the plane flying away looked cool
7:07 American Football
10:05 Pilot and Co-pilot: Off to a good start (10 sec ltr) K time to take off (10 sec ltr) Take off! (5 second ltr) We might crash TAKE OFF!!! (5 sec ltr) We're in formation so take off!!!!!
10:40 Pilot and Co-pilot: O thank the Lord we didn't crash
Why is this satisfying, am I really that psychotic?
Depends. If you found the last one funny that's fine. If you found Aerosucre entertaining then yes, psychopath, sorry. 6 died and they knew for 2 minutes they would die. They did their best to crash in an empty area.
Right at 7:07 you can see a bird get ingested. The engine already looked like it was out of balance before that.
I've had people ask me about red bird figurines and I know they mean cardinals. It's not their official name, but it's colloquial. So I'm not going to stop calling them Canadian Geese when everyone knows exactly which goose I mean.
It's the CANADA Geese (Branta canadensis)!
Just as the American Robin (Turdus migratorius) is just as Canadian 🇨🇦 as it is American 🇺🇸, the Canada Goose is just as American 🇺🇸 as it is Canadian 🇨🇦!
Perhaps it really should be named the Ameri-Canadian Goose! 😅 Many golfers and park users might also find the scientific name TURDUS 💩 migratorius 💩 more appropriate for that well-known Goose rather than for that other ubiquitous avian denizen of our lawns!
I've never heard about anyone complaining about Robin poop 💩!
In fact, in northwestern Canada and Alaska, Robins are a tundra bird during summer, and occur widely as far north as the coast of the Arctic Ocean! ('Right, along with at least one subspecies of Canada Goose!)
🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦 🍁 🇨🇦
Just watching a pilot use an ejector aggravates my herniated disc.
I cant believe the Indian pilot dumped those fuel bombs in a residential area 🤯
Just discovered your channel. Love it! Reminds me of the days i used to binge Spike Tv and watch World's Deadliest or something like that
Plainly obvious why the pilots in the last clip No1 had trouble getting off the ground.....they did not have their flaps set for takeoff. You will note wing flaps are in cruising mode
Flaps were set for takeoff. Flaps are retracted for cruise. Look at the video again. Leading edges and trailing edges were deployed. Pilot simply rotated too early.
Plainly obvious you don’t know what you are talking about. They are set for takeoff.
#1 The pilot had zero degrees of flaps set for takeoff. Normally, you do not go to zero flaps until you achieve 230-250 knots, well into the climb stages of the flight. If the flaps are set correctly for takeoff, the takeoff speed for a B737-700 is between 130-150 knots. So with zero flaps, he was at least 100 knots less than the wings needed for lift. That is why he had so much trouble even though he had 13,000 feet of runway. Takeoff checklist was not followed properly, as setting the flaps is a standard part of the procedure. (BTW, the still photo just before the video clip was of a different aircraft. A B737-800. The one in the video is a 737 NG aka B737-700, which has slightly different limitations.)
thanks,, after watching and hearing the explanations ~ they really sounded suspicious
737-800 is NG. Or New generation. If you're talking about the Air Moroc 737 it did have flaps deployed. Leading edges are clearly shown deployed as are the trailing edges in the TO position. . He simply rotated too early.
Yet they are set in the video…leading edges are extended, therefore the flaps are at 5. That is standard configuration for takeoff. CLEARLY seen in the video as the planes passes by. Sorry, but your comment is complete BS.
Case closed
@@petemd11fear Allah
It's been Great Britain since 1707, so older that the USA. I know America struggles with history but at least now you know
The best flying in history was and still is, the pilot who landed his plane in the Hudson River.
English navy? English air force? Spoils an otherwise interesting film.
Repeat after me: England does not have, nor has England *ever* had an air force. England signed an Act of Union forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain TWO CENTURIES before the first manned powered flight.
Not a whole lot of research done on this video. So.... Yeah.