The Out Of Practice Pilot Who Almost Flew A Jumbo Jet Into A Mountain | United Airlines Flight 863
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
747 image: Grahame Hutchison - Gallery page www.airliners.n... Photo cdn-www.airline...
This is the story of united airlines flight 863. On the 28th of june 1998 a united airlines boeing 747-400 was flying from sanfranciso international airport to sydney international airport with 307 people on board. The 747 was very heavy for the long flight to sydney. That day it would be the first officer who would be piloting the plane. A bit past 10 30 pm local time the 747 lined up with runway 28R. The night was a bit foggy but visibility was good and so the pilots saw no reason to cancel the takeoff. The pilots advanced the throttes and the 747 was going down the runway picking up speed. Soon the first officer pulled back on yoke taking the jumbo jet into the sky. As the 747 entered a fog bank at the end of the runway the pilots felt the plane rumble as a loud thump rocked the airplane. At first they thought that a tyre had exploded but as they retracted the gear, exhaust temperatures on engine number three started rising.
They had lost an engine. Now that sucks but it isnt a massive emergency. The captain got on the radio and said “"United 863 heavy, we've lost an engine, we'll be proceeding out the 295 and returning to the airport.". As the seconds ticked by the vibration increased and the pilots worked on shutting engine number three down. As they did that the vibrations went down and the exhaust temperatures on engine number three went down. The cockpit had 4 pilots and so the non flying pilots handled the checklists for the engine shut down. The captain turned his attention back to the first officer who was flying the plane and as he did, the stick shakers came on. The stick shakers were an indication that the 747 was very close to a stall. In simple terms if they didnt do something the 747 would just fall out of the sky. But they shouldnt be in this position in the first place the 747 could very easily climb out with just three engines. This made no sense. All the other pilots in the cockpit were asking the first officer to watch his speed as the 747 was dangerously slow. But now they had a new problem. The terrain warning came on the 747 was headed right for the San bruno mountain, which rose to an elevation of 1300 feet. Somehow the 747 had drifted to the right of the prescribed path and was now headed right for a mountain. The jet was so low that it set off car alarms and sent people running for cover. Seeing that the ground was coming up the first officer pulled back on the yoke in an attempt to climb, but this just put the plane in an even more precarious position. The captain immediately took over from the first officer. He had a tough job ahead of him. He needed to avert a stall. The best way to do that was to drop the nose so that the plane could pick up some speed. But doing that might send the jet right into the mountain. In the tower the plane was so low that the controllers could no longer see the plane on radar for a short while . A controller said “ ..Is United 863 still ….Oh there he is, he scared me, we lost radar, I didn't want to give you another airplane if we had a problem." the captain carefully put the plane into a climb, trying not to stall the plane out. The plane cleared the mountain, by the smallest of margins. Some reports say that the jumbo jet missed the peak by about 100 feet. Once the jumbo jet was clear of the mountain the captain took it upto 5000 feet and the controllers gave the crew vectors to dump their fuel. The jumbo jet was fueled up for a 14 hour flight and so was too heavy to land right away. Over the next 30 minutes the pilots dumped about 187000 pounds or 84 tons of fuel. After the plane had shed quite a bit of weight the controllers cleared flight 863 for an ILS approach to runway 28R. After a while the 747 made an overweight but safe landing on runway 28R and I suspect that none of the 288 passengers even knew how close they came to disaster.
I can only imagine the suspense and the relief the ATC felt when the plane with an engine failure disappeared from the radar over the mountainous terrain and then reappeared.
This near miss has been really relevant in the recent years, given that many pilots have been laid off for months on end.
It was miracle ATC was in panic mode this very heavy plane lost one engine and went of radar with terrain ahead . Even than it appeared on radar again it was way to low ...
Repetition is needed to practice & hone ones skills. If you don't do that you tend to forget.
You seriously need a playlist for all your close calls.
Mini air didn't-quite-crash investigation
@@Ellie-rx3jt
Bingo!
This emphasizes once again, how the practice of transparency, which happens because they don't aim to punish pilots for mistakes, but rather learn from the experience, shows the value of this practice.
Works with children too.😁
Btw: you are AWESOME at your presentation of these stories. I LOVE THEM!
I'm sorry, but you can never quit!
"A good pilot can fly anything that flies - and, with some difficulty, even things never meant to fly."
Yes, especially *AIRPLANES.* I say that because of the notion that an airplane flies because it wants to fly. A helicopter flies because *the pilot makes it fly.*
"things never meant to fly" - the space shuttle springs to mind.
@@sarowie Reminds me of the adage that you can make a *brick* fly if you supply enough thrust!
-Fly
@@sarowie You know in orbit all things fall...all the time
I think the reason for not having a full investigation was bcs no one was hurt and the first officer himself said what happened, hence taking responsibility for the incident. Actually that's really remarkable and very honest from his side. So they probably made things easier as it's hard enough for anyone to be held responsibility for 300 souls. Plane was not broke, or he'd have said something wouldn't work. I wish there was more ppl like this guy, who can openly declare he was not in shape and more actions like United took, like providing more actual take offs and landings to their pilots. Nothing replaces actual practice.
In most jurisdictions, there's an emphasis on safety over blame. In the US, not only are NTSB investigations explicitly non-criminal, their results can't even be used as evidence in civil suits, for one side or the other. NTSB investigates to figure out how to change things--equipment, training--and gives FAA recommendations on how to regulate to create that change. In this case, the cause was transparently lack of training/recent experience, which was freely acknowledged by the first officer. There was no loss of life. Investigations are expensive and messy, as different sides try to frame the narrative in the best light for them. No need to spend that kind of money or make that kind of impact on the man's career. NTSB probably just added it to their pool of statistics and moved on.
Actually, the NTSB is legally required to conduct at least a cursory investigation of every incident that involves an aircraft, regardless of whether there is damage, injury, or loss of life or not. This requirement was written into the law establishing the NTSB in the 1960s. However, as you point out, not every accident warrants a full-blown investigation.
@@sct913 Oh? Neat!
@@Amanda-C. Most lesser investigation results, especially those involving GA aircraft, are filed as a docket rather than a full report or a brief.
Yeah but they still usually do an investigation under these circumstances, so the entire aviation world learns from the experience, for one reason.
Regarding flying smaller aircraft, as I recall in the case of the Gimli Glider the pilot’s experience flying gliders proved incredibly valuable for landing the plane.
Too bad his math skills were not quite up to par on converting imperial gallons to liters to pounds ...
Practice is practice...
It is called "stick handling" ability. Nowadays pilots don't relate to the airplane, they relate to the software.
Yep, Gimli Glider was saved by the pilot’s experience flying gliders.
The miracle on the Hudson is another example where Sully’s previous experience of hand flying gave him an instinctive feel for what the plane could (and importantly could not!) do.
Flying gliders is where he learned to side slip.
I know this accident. The First Officer was the flying pilot and She usually flew as a "Bunkie" (Relief Pilot - only flys enroute at cruise altitude, no take off or landings). The airplane suffered a compressor stall (loud popping sound usually followed by high EGT's (Exaust Gas Temp) and a yawing moment into the side of the dead engine. The procedure for engine failure at SFO was to fly a VOR radial of 295 to miss Mt San Bruno. Obviously, the First Officer forgot how to fly an engine out procedure. The FAA went nuts and hammered UAL. A new training syllabus was developed for Proficiency Training (every 9 months) .
I know this too because I watched the video.
@Life as we know it Zero.
@Life as we know it Better question: why do we keep hiring men, when they’re responsible for the OVERWHELMING majority of errors and acts of malice in aviation-nearly 100% in the commercial world-and in every other walk of life?
@@IdliAmin_TheLastKingofSambar If most pilots are men, most errors will be made by men. There’s no reason to look at gender when the skills as a pilot can be objectively measured through simulator training anyways
@@user-cz9ss4yq4x Thank you, Dr. Obvious. The point is that nobody points to gender when a man screws up (or complexion, when…oh, forget it, I’m not going there, don’t want to trigger the red-hatted snowflakes).
8:27 RIP that other airplane.
wat
@@8o86 look under the left wing of the 747
November 3 4 8 foxtrot exit runway when able
United 863 go around
United 863 did you receive last transmission? Please acknowledge?
Hahaha!
LMAO 🤣🤣🤣
Takeoffs from SFO are typically exciting because of the sweep up needed to avoid terrain on a good day. Residents in the area received new windows to help reduce the noise from low flying aircraft. Residents of the area claim you can almost shake hands with the pilots because they fly so low. Losing an engine on such a heavy jet at such a critical time there is just scary on a good day. Thankfully they made it by less than the wing span of the aircraft. What a save by the senior pilot.
London City is a fun one!
You've given a good accounting of what happened to this flight. I learned to fly in taildraggers. Later, I flew night cargo out of SFO in Beech D-18s and DC-3s in the1970s. I know the Runway 28R Gap Departure well. Not only didn't the "Bunkie" First Officer on Flight 863 not use Rudder, he didn't watch his localizer needle which would have kept the plane on the 28R extended centerline through the Gap between the Coast mountains and Mt. San Bruno. If the Departure Clearance specified course 295 degrees, the SFO VOR is on the middle of the field at the runway junctions. I knew the United Captain who ran United's investigation into this incident. He kept his Boeing Stearman PT-17 Biplane at Schellville Airport in Sonoma, CA North of San Francisco where I based my Helio Courier H-295. John told me that the F/O was just being upgraded to Senior First Officer. He hadn't made any real takeoffs or landings in years. Compounding the problem was the fact that the Captain was considered to be a weak pilot. Seniority put him in the left seat of the 747. He obviously do not monitor the situation and let it get out of control. This incident sent chills through the UAL community. All pilots were sent for retraining with emphasis on use of Rudder. United also rethought their rigid seniority basis for upgrade. Aptitude and flight review scores are now taken into account for promotions and upgrades.
I also flew Breech 18s for about 800 hours in freight service. They are very short coupled, requiring a very aggressive rudder dance, especially on landing. That erased any shyness I ever possibly had regarding engine out rudder use. Also, on the advice of a wise old pilot, my first airplane was a tail dragger. If you learn that first, you don't realize it's more demanding, you just learn it and fly it. In later years I flew a number of large and heavy airliners for one of the big US carriers.
@@lifetimedreamvideos985 I flew D-18s for Arabesco Airlines out of SFO for a bit over two years. Then I got into DC-3s with Zoom Zoom which became Air Charter West and, finally, Transwest Air Express. The DC-3 was a very tame airplane after so much time in the D-18. The DC-3 has a very nasty stall though, and that can bite the unwary.
@@robertcampbell1280 Hey Bob, how is retirement going for you. I recognize your name from SFOFO 747 list
@@tedd1091 It's going well, but I think you have me mixed up with another Campbell. I never flew 747s.
Must have. Your name is familiar for some reason. I flew out of SFO for 31 years
I follow Blancoliro who is on UA-cam. He's a Boeing 777 pilot and he flies on his off time a Luscombe Silverair, a Husky, and a Cessna 310. His stick and rudder skills are honed to a high degree and he's probably one of the finest Commercial Pilots flying. Stick and rudder skills are still very much important even if you are a senior Captain on a 777 or flying light Turboprops for a small commuter airline. The problem we have today is that so many pilots have forgotten how to actually fly an airplane, or never really learned properly in the first place. Being comfortable flying unusual attitudes and aerobatics just makes you that much better a pilot no matter what you are flying. It seems that a lot of commercial airline pilots have started to just be computer operators and not real aviators.
You nailed it!
I have been flying for 40 or so years, all light aircraft and I have spent many hours trying to land in cross winds and rudder is vital. Great fun doing cross control.
Yes, I agree that all pilots should learn first in light aircraft, then in small jets, and should also get some time in gliders. Glider training has proven especially useful in the famous cases of full engine flameout, particularly the Gimli Glider and Miracle on the Hudson incidents. Practice with manual flying is essential for dealing with many types of emergencies in large jets.
Agreed. I'v found having to control gliders both more educational as well as fun compared to motor training. I would recommend it to all pilots.
I'd assumed that everyone learned in light aircraft. Certainly the one commercial pilot I knew did. Has that changed in the last decade or two?
Useless in this case. A glider has no engines. Any multi engine aircraft will have a yaw associated with an engine failure. You don’t have any understanding of the normal progression for an airline pilot.
@@oscarb9139 You have been contradicted by several other experienced pilots. Glider training provides a feel for how an aircraft of any size can be flown without engines. And some pilots have fun flying them. Perhaps you should give them a try too!
@@mikekeenan8450 I knew an Air Force KC-135 pilot who had never flown a piston airplane. He started his training in jets; probably common for military pilots.
I would add that us jet pilots tend to forget about the rudder because we always have yaw dampers. However the yaw dampers don't compensate for a failed engine. The pilot must use rudder pressure to keep the airplane coordinated. It's likely that flying uncoordinated caused increased drag, further hampering the airplane's performance during this incident.
Best flight channel on youtube. Goes straight to the point unlike others.
You mean he doesn’t start with an excruciating several minutes of text on screen displaying the day the aircraft was built, the total flight hours, a chain of custody, the pilot’s total hours, schooling, and what he ate for breakfast? *cough* TFC *cough*
@@Syclone0044 Yes that one which is a copycat of another channel that started that exact method 5 years prior.
been watching your vids for a while now, and I still love your stuff. Keep it up. You're one of my fave presenters. Thanks. :)
Thank you!!
This is kinda like that Greek incident you covered a while back.
Similarities:
-both B747s
-both suffered a number 3 engine failure at takeoff
-both were forced to fly extremely low over populated areas
-both were on the verge of stalling
-both had to make a difficult climb over terrain
Engine Failure on a 747: Check.
Coincidence: I think not.
Verdict: Boeing sucks*.
Hotel: Trivago
*In all seriousness, I feel that pilots should get trained on how to fly in high terrain areas, and perform engine out takeoffs in a simulator at least once every season. Also pilots should be trained to fly small planes in poor weather, to adapt to rapidly changing scenarios/conditions. Thankfully, United Airlines changed their rules after this 1998 incident of Flight 863. And honestly, Boeing doesn't suck (only a little bit cos of the 737 Max). I do prefer Airbus over the 737, but I love the 747 infinitely more than the A380. I like the 777 more than the A330, but the A320 over the B737 and 717. So, I like both airplane companies equally.
The difference was the Greek could not dump fuel. But he flew low over homes .
Mad respect to that pilot for admitting he was at fault, more people need to learn how to do that. Amazing video!😸
yes .however .their legal advice is often not to admit guilt.
Mad respect to the engineers who designed such an incredible plane that did not crash despite the elementary mistake of the first officer. This is basic flying 101 guys.
As for light aircraft training, a good example is the Gimli (sp?) glider. The pilot did a manoeuvre to bring the speed down before landing that is usually only done in gliders. As he was proficient in glider flying, he was (somewhat) confident in pulling this off in a jumbo jet.
I was flying the 400 for UAL when this happened and your video was quite accurate ... if we did not meet the 3 T/O and landings in 90 days we had to go back to the sim and there they typically did additional training such as engine out, etc ... so yes, being the flying pilot was very coveted but people still had the sim so not really sure why the F/O had such a challenge and did not notice or call out that he was not on the "T" procedure/engine out profile laterally.
UAL overall really emphasized if something is not right speak up.
Ahhh, always nice when a new video comes up.
Surely all pilots start on light aircraft? When I did my CPL, we also had a group of young guys from the middle east, with no prior flying experience, who were sent by an airline to do their basic training in Australia. So these guys were speciufically trained to be airline pilots (lucky pricks) and still had to do their training in light aircraft (Cessna 172). We all also did a little bit of time in a tail dragger stunt plane because the school felt it was good to experience odd orientations in the plane, although I dont think that's a standard thing with all training schools.
I read once that the AF-447 accident would have been avoided had the young A-330 pilots had a minimum of practical flying experience with small airplanes or gliders.
yes, looking into ATP training small (and complex) airplanes are used to begin with training. BUT even these airplanes are very much used in procedural flying only. I a sense, that it is more important to work the checklists in an absolut perfect manner than flying these planes in different scenarios, slow speed, stalls, crosswinds and unusual attitudes. Beginning in the 90s until mid 2000s pilots were trained as "automation managers" instead of having a fundamental abilitiy to handfly any type of aircrafts.
@@adventureairinc7355 hmmm, I don't know but I trained in 2011 and I am hardly an authority on international flight training procedures, but they drove home the importance of hand flying. The first time I ever did a training flight, we mostly did stall recoveries and other scary fun stuff.
It's true that as the training progresses and you get into instrument flight and navigation, you tend to focus on procedures. And of course doing your checklists is paramount, with good reason. But flying the plane was always the most important thing and everyone I know took every opportunity to fly the plane by hand whenever out and about.
@@danilon3121 glad to hear. Keep flying small planes and have fun. :). Luckily the training schedules have changed in the western world in the right direction.
It’s unintuitive because in a se you actually want the ball in the middle. You don’t need rudder to keep the ball centered in the jet. But in engine failure you want the ball out, not centered.
As far as pilots flying smaller aircraft there is some of that but a large portion of it is that new pilots aren't taught to fly their GA's in anything but good weather. Most major training institutions are in areas that have perfect weather for a good portion of the year.
Larger planes have higher tolerances but typically are harder to manage at that tolerance. But because the tolerance is so high it is rare to have to fly it.
Smaller planes have lower tolerences that are normally easier to fly at but they are met much more often thus testing the pilot more.
8:27 jesus, that Cessna Caravan!
"Glitch in the Matrix"
LOL, I guess it's an Easter egg for the folks who actually watch instead of just putting the video on a background tab to listen...
Kudos on the first officer for writing that self-declaration. That's true professionalism - and may just save lives in the future. Way to go.
thank you for the explanation, maps and rudder animation
I just rewatched this vid. This is the best account of UAL 863 on youtube.
Mini, you did it again in finding a near-miss incident that maybe made the news because of how close it came, but wasn't investigated by the NTSB. It did create changes in training that influence today. The F/O either was on too many long hauls due to seniority or had come back from leave. He knew he was rusty which is why he admitted it in the internal report.
This ought to give pause to those who believe the airlines can teach you how to avigate from scratch and let the computers do most of the work. Even though this was a 747, the F/O was not 100% there in aviating and certainly not in navigating. God Bless The Captain and the Lord for the 747 not only avoiding the mountain, but also the antennas on it! Thank you once again Mini for your work on this!
Kudos to the FO for taking the action to self declare this incident. It certainly led to the change in the training requirements👍
Yep. This is professionalism as well as a sense of responsibility for his actions. This is how this industry should work.
Great video, they just keep getting better. The sim of the SFO approach was nostalgic, my company has an office down the bay from there and we'd watch plane after plane coming down the slope all day. Thanks for the memories.
Every time one of my friends is going to buy a big street bike I always suggest they buy or borrow a little XR100 then go ride it for hours and learn all the little things you can do and get a really good feeling for what a motorcycle does. I tell them to throw the little XR100 around and master it.
Then go ride your roadking
I lived in South San Francisco, directly in front of San Bruno Mountain when this event occurred. One could hear how low that jet was and it was very scary. Had it hit the mountain the wreckage would have landed on any number of homes that are literally ON the mountain just below where the plane would have hit. Very scary indeed.
Do u live on the mountain
Wow, as a former UAL employee and a TWA historian, I really admire your aviation expertise. My uncle retired as one of UAL's top pilots. Thanks for the overview.
Here are some comments that should clarify your video:
The Faa did investigate this incident. It was in fact the Faa that mandated changes to our takeoff and landing currency. How do I know that? At that time I was a 747 pilot for another company. We were briefed extensively on this incident and also had to comply with the new requirements.
Secondly: for that pilot to make the takeoff with their feet on the floor and not on the rudder pedals shows a complete lack of normal flying skill. A heavy 747 makes it very obvious when you lose thrust out of one engine and where that loss came from. It’s also obvious that not one of the four pilots in the cockpit paid even the slightest attention to the instruments. It should have been clear to all of them that the flying pilot was not using rudder along with aileron to fly the engine out profile and heading. What were the two non-flying pilots doing even worrying about shutting down the affected engine at their low altitude…..a shaking but flying aircraft is much better than a smoking hole on a hillside. If they wanted to really help they would have started the fuel dump and watched the instruments (which are clearly visible to all four seats). Just a few thoughts….
I was a United employee at SFO at the time this happened and had never heard about this incident until now.
Ah yes, engine num-🍺 3
Always my favorite engine
You caught that too
Explain please? I must know what this means 😁
I'll take a engine 3 please
@@Thundersnowy @1:07 it says numbeer 3, pointing out engine number 3
Well that was too close for comfort! Great explanation, thank you
✈️ 💜 ✈️
First Officer done fucked up.
Good work. Here’s a factor I might add: pitch. Although I am long since out of the business (early retire 1981) by the described time, the training process for the Heavies of my experience at Continental Airlines (B-747 S/O and F/O + DC-10 F/O and Captain), the FAA emphasis and method taught seemed too fixed on holding the HSI deck-angle as at a picture posed. Your description doesn’t include that control factor. All too often, from the antiquity of my view, the emphasis taken was more mechanical, like driving a huge bus, rather than flying the airplane as with any airplane, which means getting the nose down for airspeed and for control, despite a natural urge otherwise. At Continental, we emphasized an airspeed approach, as with any airplane, big or small. You know, as your mother might well have urged how to place your nose: “Don’t be stuck-up.” Thanks, /romain
4 pilots and nobody noticed that they had gone off their heading?
Yes. What's the confusion?
Nose-high climb off 28 leaves a dark ocean in front of you.
Tunnel vision and target fixation, nobody watching the heading bug. That was the PF's job. Let the other three work the engine problem; Aviate, Navigate, let the PNF communicate. As PiC, he needed to be monitoring the PF as well as communicating and supervising the engine problem. He wasn't. Thats the problem with these "back side of the clock" schedules; people are just not at peak efficiency with all the time zone juggling.
Very poor SA on the Captain’s part, especially as PM
@@markwood9755, you're right about the SA, but your SA just isn't at peak efficiency in the wee smalls, no matter how "officially" well rested you are. Been there done that. Add to that jet lag and multiple time zone jumps making up a multi day/night trip sequence, and your body clock is perpetually screwed up and your fatigue is perpetual.
That FO for reporting it should be commended. It’s self reporting issues that make everything safer.
well: It is his duty to self report.
So in some sense, he did what any responsible pilot would have done and in an other sense: He made his profession both safer and more professional, by being him self professional.
There is also the "risk" that ATC reports loose of radar contact or engine out, leading to an investigation.
Also, company can report the engine out (relevant for maintenance), leading to an investigation.
There is also where FAA culture kicks in: Report all major facts timely and in agreement with the facts and thus all parties involved and nothing "scary" happens.
The FAA does not explain a pilot of dangerous that was, when the pilot himself in details the incident.
There are many interresting stories where for e.g. the captain claimed responsibility for a landing without clearance and again: Nothing much happend: The FAA had an ATC report of landing with clearance and a captains report detailing that he as radio operator, pilot monitoring and captain is in error and fully responsible. That gets rubber stamped and filled. Note that this is not even a black mark: The captain lost his spotless record, but in exchange he got on record that he takes responsibly and fully cooperates with the FAA.
thanx maci!!! Love ur near miss vids... specially in the morn... late night, before bed... yeah ok gimmie Sioux City- but start the day, California dreamin... SF/LAX/SAC "almost" is (almost) always better, for (my) low, slow movin gears... some day, when I'm full of coffee, like you to tell us what (in the hell) happens to tons of fuel planes dump before unexpected landings (not right now though)!
Agreed on flying small planes.
As a private pilot, I was surprised when I heard accounts of the _"Gimli Glider"_ and how most ATPs didn't know how to do a simple _side slip!_
Even if they did know, they might well have forgotten because they have never side-slipped a passenger aircraft.
Engine failure on a multi-engine plane means asymmetric thrust. Asymmetric thrust means rudder, period. No amount of non-flying should be used as an excuse, every multi-engine pilot should know.
I suspect that somewhere along the line the decision was made to train pilots OUT OF using the rudder. Corporate doesn't want pilots doing anything short of turning a few knobs.
@@princeofcupspoc9073 I suppose the 2001 incident made airlines afraid of rudder use in climb out
Even i knew that.
And i'm just a random youtube watcher..
Many practicing jumbo jet pilots have long forgotten how to fly an airplane.
/Oh Irony! -you always do show up!
To your question; and Im a pilot that has only flown airliners the last 25 years but, YES, flying small (basic) aircraft also, will DEFINITELY help especially longhaul pilots who get very little ‘sticktime’. This FO was lacking (currency in)the basics, and the basics is what you do in small aircraft.
Basic aerodynamics, learnt it from day one coordinated turn or using the rudder to stop the yaw,which takes me back to AF 447 over the south atlantic, first officer not aware of the stall warning and holding the stick back doing the exact opposite of what he should have done to recover the aircraft.This incident was due to lack of experience, with the least experience pilot flying in thunderstorm which could have been avoided,luckily the captain asessed the situation and took corrective action to save the airplane unlike Af 447.
It is basic aerodynamics, but 747's coordinate turns automatically. 747 pilots only need to use the rudder for decrabbing prior to touchdown or during engine outs. The 777 even has a system which inputs rudder for the pilot during engine failure (as there is a bigger yaw on a 777).
AF 447 killed off a bunch of folks simply due to the Captain not realizing his joystick was NOT functional due to being locked out by the FO using his. Nowadays the captain can recover control by pressing a button for 40 seconds. Was that feature on 447? Would 40 seconds been too long anyway? Could the Captain have hung on to it that long in such a situation? 40 seconds would have seemed a lifetime in that situation!
Starting the flying experience in a sailplane is even better !
I like your videos, you are super accurate in your descriptives, i.e. "Shown 747-8" and your voice is easy to hear and at a good cadence. Well Done. I learned to fly in 1970 in a Cessna 180 and a Cherokee D. Hooked the first time I felt the craft break the bonds of earth!!! Landing would give me the whim-whams now, flaring and all, but overall I imagine the dynamics would feel the same but the sheer size would be over-whelming at least for me. Me flying an A-380 the world isn't ready for believing!!!
All my airline engine failure training was on the actual airplanes, so I knew exactly how it felt. One thing we avoided was using bank for the very reason stated in this video - aileron and spoiler drag. On the B737 with an engine failure at V1, rudder was the essential control. Once airborne, you knew how much rudder to put in by centering the ailerons with the rudder. That way, no bank and no spoilers. The ball should then be in the middle. On the DC8s even our emergency descents were real life. Simulators were not sophisticated enough in the sixties so our stick handling was always sharp.
Wonderful
I would say flying a "rudder ship" as my instructor called the S 22 and S 33 gliders helped me later in transitioning to airplanes. The single engine Cessnas did not take but about 10% of the rudder deflection of the Schweizer gliders. Later, taking multi engine instruction in C 310 and Piper Aztec, much rudder was needed when operating on one engine. Any multi engine plane with engines off the centerline would have a lot of thrust asymmetry, therefore a lot of rudder. In effect, the first officer was flying the 747 in a slip, which is used by pilots of small planes not having flaps, to lose altitude if too high in the landing pattern. The saying is "step on the ball", that is apply rudder on the side the ball of the inclinometer is displaced to and make the ball center. Centering the ball using ailerons causes more drag, rudder causes lessening of drag due to thrust asymmetry. .
I studied for a private pilot's license but stopped flying just prior to getting licensed. A busy life and costs became too great. I agree that flying small aircraft is BEST for keeping your airmanship sharp. You have to fly a light plane with all of your senses all of the time. There is no substitute for being able to do that.
definitely agree there! I flew a mini-max 5 times, 1st time was only supposed to be a runway run, but it took flight, and I just went with it. the constant corrections were mind boggling, never expected it, nor did I get over 100ft off the ground, but somehow managed to land it after about 10 minutes of getting the feel of it, doing 2 low passes. never had any actual training, only bookwork on the basics. Yes, it was a slow little plane, and I have ridden bicycles faster, but i was a bit scared once i was airborne but had the wits to stick it out. I will leave the flying up to the pros, my 5 flights were back in 2001
The failed engine caused a turn to the RIGHT, not the left.
Thank you, I couldn't understand why he keeps saying to the left
It was a compressor stall not a failed engine.
@@tedd1091 excuse my layman terms, Mr. Expert, but the result is the same. Smarty pants.
@@furzkram Actually it is not the same thing. Compressor stalls cause large swings in EGT temps and the engine backfires but it is still running. In most cases, the checklists direct the pilot to reduce the stalled engine throttle and slowly bring power up. If EGT limits are not exceeded and all other engine values are in the NORMAL range the captain MAY continue to their destination; many don't and instead return to the airport. I'm not an expert by any means but I was a Captain on the 747-400
@@tedd1091 yes Mr smart. A loss of thrust is the result, that's all what matters here. Please go elsewhere and dump your wisdom there.
I always appreciate seeing an older pilot flying commercial jets, because they probably have a much better experience level with stick & rudder, compared to a young pilot that wasn't around fly stick & rudder planes. Probably not always true, but an older pilot just makes feel safer.
Thank you
Plus older or higher time pilots have all had some experiences that "seasoned" them. In my case, I also subscribed to and read Aviation Safety Report (or a name something like that). I probably read over 200 accident reports in a couple of years. Most were general aviation. It enlightened me to a lot of pitfalls that I didn't have to learn the hard way. I still did some bone headed things early on, but was lucky the times I was ignorant or stupid. The hardest, for me, was single pilot solid IFR at night, no autopilot, no flight director. I didn't actually do it that much before getting hired by a commuter airline. Still no autopilot or flight director until I was hired by a major airline. I thought if died and gone to heaven when I had all that at my disposal. My first 3600 hours were all no autopilot and raw data approaches. What's available now is simply astounding. General aviation has better glass cockpits than the 757s, 767s, and MD-11s I flew. I retired 19 years ago.
I was on this flight. I remember being intrigued that none of the other passenger seemed to notice the loud machine-gun-like reports coming from the starboard side of the aircraft. I guess it became clear that something was wrong when one of the flight attendants ran up the aisle shortly after the takeoff. Finally the captain announced we were going to dump fuel for a while or so and then return to SFO. I’m very glad it was night time as I would not like to have seen that mountain come into view. As it was, we were all blissfully unaware of the near miss, at least those of us sitting downstairs. Those sitting upstairs could hear someone in the cockpit shouting to someone else to get the plane up (as one of them told me later). I’m also glad I didn’t hear that commotion.
I believe airlines should make watching these types of videos mandatory for all their pilots. Even with pilots who think they know it all they can learn so much more. Imagine the lack of resources available to pilots in the past. All they could do is read about crashes and near misses. Videos like from this content producer and all the others are an invaluable tool to educate pilots and hopefully reduce the number of accidents.
The main focus of the UK multi engine instrument rating is the engine failure after takeoff or single engine go around scenario, I’m sure it’s the same in the US. The standard procedure is to counter yaw, counter roll and pitch for best performance on one engine. A little reminder is ball, bug, blue line. The remaining procedures are manufacturer specific. It’s a little surprising that the fo made such a fundamental error, even considering his lack of proficiency. That’s easy to say though, things happen pretty fast in a big jet and I’m sure the pressure of the situation played a big part in the incident and happening at night didn’t help.
We use the saying “raise the dead” in multi training in the US.
They should have follow the Engine Out Procedure for Runway 28R to avoid the terrain and fly out to the west (Ocean).
Never miss your presentations. One trivia: So as per 8:28, a 747-400 _did_ run over a small twin engined aircraft? Sturdy aircraft the 747: went about its landing as if it had swatted a fly or small plane…
I am not a pilot, and I have never flown an aircraft. I was the guest at a simulator session of Cathay Pacific in their L1011 simulator at Kai Tak many years ago. In the left hand seat on a takeoff on runway 13, I asked my host what would happen if an engine failed on takeoff. He said hard rudder, and reduce the angle of attack from 25 degrees to 17 degrees. At the critical point he idled one of the under wing engines, and I went full rudder, and eased the nose down to reduce the angle of attack. We crashed into Lyemun Hill. I was a bit shaken, but my host assured me that Cathay Pilots practice the situation frequently, and pick up the loss of an engine very quickly and counteract it. I'm therefore somewhat surprised that this sort of thing ever occurred at United. The same airport that their 747 took out a light post on takeoff in the summer of 1971.
The best pilots I know fly small aircraft during their time off.
A few fly aerobatic planes like the Pitts Special. Others fly sailplanes, as do I. Those kinds of planes really keep you on your game!
Exactly. All airline pilots should fly small planes when not working on the big ones just to keep their skills sharp. I also found it really valuable that I did the aerobatic course, it thought me so much about the full flight envelope, the effects of full control surface movements on the plane, stalls etc...
Wow. What a story.
There's a small plane at 8:27 lol, great vid, it's just something that I found funny
How scary is it that someone with such little basic flight knowledge was in charge of so many people's well being?
I was on this flight, Im saw the engine flame out- was very scary !!!
The real danger was the mountain.
Did you see the terrain?
Did you notice the mountain ⛰ or was it foggy? Donna?
Good graphics. Kudos
I just know that it took me some time before building up the coordination to use the stick and rudder together. But that's in a sailplane where you always use the rudder. Maybe the training to not use the rudder at cruising speeds got into the pilot's way? If I remember correctly, at least Airbus is saying that the rudder should only be used in low speed maneuvering. Could be the pilot was in the mode for "cruising flight, no or little rudder usage" vs "navigating at low speeds, rudder usage"? There certainly have been incidents you covered on the channel that involved the pilot stomping the rudder to full deflection at cruising speed.
You also had the AA flight that crashed out of JFK over the Rockaways because the pilot was over ruddering to counter wind disturbance.
I grew up in the southern end of SF in the Crocker-Amazon neighborhood, which is pretty much the lower part of the north slope of San Bruno Mountain. Although the plane would have been more likely to crash somewhere in the southeastern part of the mountain (which is mostly undeveloped parkland), that still would have been really terrifying and dangerous. Besides the impact itself, it also would have been a horrible urban wildfire disaster, maybe something like the deadly Oakland Fire of 1991. South City would have been in major trouble.
Military pilot trainees only get 20ish hours in light piston aircraft before they transition to high-performance turboprops. But for the civilian route, the 250 hours needed for a commercial pilot certificate are still predominantly done in light piston aircraft because of cost. Sure, you could train in a sophisticated aircraft with a yaw damper, like a TBM or a Citation, but not many people have the money for that. So most of us start out in Cessnas and listen to our instructors say "right rudder" a lot.
not sure this happened but during the T/O briefing the pf should include the iro and brief the engine out procedure. That way you have a third set of eyes involved in the procedure rather than a spectator. I flew the older B747 with a FE. They were great at spotting developing deviations as they kind of had a Gods eye view of the forward panel.
I do think that "Stick and rudder" knowledge is needed and flying smaller planes does help you understand what is going on.
And keep up the good work.
That UA Battleship 747-8i looks gorgeous! Imagen if UA had the 747-8 currently and had gone for this retro paint scheme...🤔👍👍
Yes, I do believe that flying lighter and slower aircraft would give these young officers a much better understanding of flight characteristics. Whenever one learns a trade or a profession, skipping the basics always leads to a poorer craftsman, pilot or, whatever you are training on. The basics may one day save your life and that of your passengers, for whom you are solely responsible.
Good explanation.
The engine out method taught at the airline I work for is maintain heading initially with aileron then gently squeeze in rudder to centralise yoke. Not hard at all and in modern fly by wire planes like Airbus and B777 and 787 it is even easier. I haven’t flown a light airplane in over 30 years and would be a menace in one. Accidents and incidents often come down to training. After the Air France A330 fell out of the sky into the Atlantic from cruise altitude, both Boeing and Airbus changed the stall recovery technique and it is a little different from what I was taught in a light airplane.
Really nerve wracking to know that they came close to impacting the mountains. Thank goodness that they came back to SFO safe and sound.
As someone who has only flown small prop planes, the idea of not using the rudder is just kind of unimaginable. Especially with a prop plane, you need to be very active with the rudder. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone with that sort of experience would fail to step on the rudder, or even worse, fly the plane into a forward slip by accident!
Also, even if this guy was out of practice, how did he fail to notice the change in heading and the failure to gain altitude? No matter how bad his stick and rudder skills, as an experienced airline pilot, surely monitoring those things should be pretty basic to him?
Agree with everything AF447 yr 2009 one off the worst air disaster due to lack of proper training also the joysticks not connected. Stall warning went off 75 times and still no corrective action was taken.
RIP that little commuter plane at 08:28 - squished by a Jumbo jet!
1 - Yes, practice on small airplanes should be mandatory. It is the only way to actually feel the flight. 2 - Not really important at this point but what happened to engine Nr.3? We're talking about a long flight with a massive heavy airplane so if it was an unforeseeable problem well that was that otherwise it should have had consequences. 3 - Just out of curiosity (and probably impossible to answer 24 years after) how much was the departure of this flight delayed?
Thanks as always for these videos, concise and to the point.
Wooo that was a close!
Jeez, this is crazy. I recently climbed San Bruno, I had no idea there was a near miss
Me neither. SB Mountain has some great hikes. Storm Ranger (Mobile Doppler) is usually parked there too!
We truly enjoy the dedication and thorough description that you put in your videos MACI. Always looking forward to the next. Thank you.
Flying any type of craft that you actually do more flying is great practice to fly a craft that is much more automated 👍
B 777 Sim Recurrent at Qatar .
Finally the Instructor shuts down both engines at about 15 miles and +/- 6000 feet ...this is the end of the session. Having flown other Heavy Jets , I delay extending the landing gear ...
Suddenly I'm high ...I sideslip the acft. dumping my excess altitude and speed ...we land OK , with runway to spare .
Got " Efficient " in All Items !
That was my last Sim , then came retirement at 65 .
B 747 400 , B 777 , B 767 , B 707 , DC 8 71 , B 727 , A 320 , Citation II , King Air , Twin Otter , Beech 99 A ...
De Havilland Vampire
A 37 Dragonfly
T 37 Tweet
T 34 Mentor.
Cheers !
ANY AND ALL PRACTICE MAKES ALL BETTER.
Absolutely light aircraft experience is valuable in airline flying. It certainly helps keep me sharp.
I love your videos
Regarding flying light aircraft, there are a number of incidents where the pilot's skill from a light aircraft helped out significantly in the incident (the Gimli Glider comes to mind immediately).
My experience at a PIT based airline as an IRO was the CO and FO would ask if you needed a landing for currency and let you do the approach and landing. Real professionals!
All survived
I absolutely agree that pilots should fly taildraggers often. They are inexpensive and bring you back to the basics of flying.There is no autopilot so you have to hand fly the plane. It is smaller and lighter and is pushed around by gusts which keeps you busy. You can practise stalls and spins which you could never do in a full-size airplane. In particular, you get a better sense of how the plane flies close to the stall. The controls get mushy and slower to react. You also spend more time looking at the wet compass. In these days of automated flight, pilots get divorced from actually flying the plane and their skills get rusty, as illustrated here. They should get out on the weekends and grab a Piper or Aeronca. These require use of the rudder on takeoff, or you will end up in the weeds due to torque.
When i was a teenager, i was on a flight in 2005 going from San Francisco to Tokyo. The flight had been going on for at least 2 hrs and they were serving dinner when the pilot announced that a hydraulic line was leaking and we had lost an engine. Though we were closer to Seattle, the pilots elected to fly all the way back to San Francisco to land. It was unclear if the landing gear would hold. Firetrucks came out and foamed the runway. Ultimately we were fine but in the middle of the night while engineers looked at the plane, the landing gear finally collapsed.
As a kid, i didnt think much of it, but as an adult who watches these kind of videos I have come to understand how serious of an incident it was.
It frustrates me to no end that i can't find any sort of report about the flight. Theres a news article about the flight collapsing during the night and that's literally it. I would love to know why the pilots flew back the 2 hrs instead of landing asap.
I love the SFO videos! I can see my house in them!
Pilots definitely learn good stick and rudder skills in light aircraft. Airliners may be bigger and hugely more complex but they are in the end just an aeroplane with ailerons, rudders and elevators to control them
Wow! I live directly under the flight path of runway 28. Always love seeing the planes. Also, have also wondered about if we've ever come close to a disaster. If he had to crash San Bruno mountain wouldn't have been a bad choice. Would have been bad for him but worse for us. Anywhere else is highly populated. Seems that I remember that there was a loud explosion that was contributed to an airplane. I wonder if that was when the engine shut down and the compressor stalled or however you call it. I've lived here for over 50 years and it seems to me that planes used to fly lower whereas you could almost count the rivets especially doing foul weather when they come in from the west. Very low then. I enjoy your site immensely. I play them over and over again. You do a great job thanks!
I'm sure they changed the routes to reduce noise over the Peninsula. When they used to come in that low, they were LOUD.
Drifting so far off their course it’s also a happy miracle there was no mid air collision!
Fred, there's no no other air traffic near the path they flew. They were IFR (Instrument Flight Rules), so they owned the airspace around their departure path.
Looking back at many years of aviation mishaps with good endings one common element is the Pilots all flew gliders. True airmanship comes from gliding. NO GO AROUNDS.
Hi Arun,
Been enjoying your channel since there were less than 20k subscribers on your channel and i still watch every video you post.
By the way, I am curious, are you a pilot? Thanks again for a great channel.
I agree with the small plane practice views - with 4 pilots on deck, the checklists being handled and the captain taking care of communications the first officer's only job was to keep the airplane in the air. Airspeed, altitude/climb rate and heading. Same as any airplane. Without the distractions of the larger airplane's systems its a comparatively simple flight model (even if the working parts are complex), and the hazardous terrain should be known by any properly briefed pilot.
Fall in airspeed should have been instinctively noted well before the stick shaker, drift in heading by that much should have been noticed well before pointing at the mountain. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say the FO was distracted trying to figure out things that others were already working on, and didn't prioritise first principles. When you're the only one in charge of a light aircraft that doesn't do much to correct human mistakes, priorities in habits are somewhat more crystallised.
Thanks for your report on this occurrence.
I have seen other reports on it and I appreciate yours more. 😀
Also, San Francisco is my home town and I lived in the city and surrounding area for 37 years.
I have hiked San Bruno mountain also.
I think the reason there was no NTSB accident investigation might have something to do with the fact that there was no accident to investigate.
Notwithstanding the near CFIT, this incident was an otherwise ordinary "multi-engine aircraft loses an engine during takeoff and returns to the airport" incident. Everything about the emergency flight (after clearing the mountain and returning to ATC radar) was unremarkable.
I was on that flight. I know just enough about flying to be dangerous, as the saying goes. It was quite exciting.
I have heard if you turn your self so to speak, you will not lose your job. I am not a pilot. I think that these reports is like «What can we as pilots learn from this, and that it may not happend again» Great vlog as always!
"Does flying smaller planes help pilots to fly bigger planes?" I think answer is same as with cars. More you drive and with wider range of vehicles, more experience you get and learn subconsciously to take into account differences in characteristics of each type of vehicle. That experience helps when driving other vehicles and helps you to adapt to that new vehicle faster. Each car it is its own thing, even if its same make and model, slight differences like condition of brakes etc effect how its driven. Put top of that environmental things like icy road, specially complicated surface like ice surface that has fresh snow on top of it and it effects how car behaves. For this driver should try to learn in safe conditions to put the vehicle in unnatural situations and try to get out from those, learning in process how to act in emergency situations instead of allowing cars automation to do it for you, since with that you dont learn a thing. With this you dont have to learn with in few seconds you have time to take control back if lost in icy corner etc. Also as mentioned one should drive primarily manual car with little as possible computer assists like like traction control only exception maybe being ABS brakes. Remember its you who is the driver, not the computer and all the blame will be upon you even if the computer tilts and does wrong things.
I think this also applies to aviation, so yes flying other planes does give one better training than flying just one aircraft type or model. We see this from several air crash investigations like "the Atlantic glider" where pilots glider flying experience saved the day.