Great job! I'm glad one of the channels I like does short videos. As much as I love the deeper dives that other channels do, I don't always have 30 minutes or longer to watch in one sitting.
Hey Man, Sorry Interrupt You But Can You Make A Vídeo Of The *Streamline Aviation Short 330 Crash G-SSWN?* And The *2000 Marsa Braga Short 360 Crash?* Thanks Have A Good Day..................
@ratmemer no, but "a couple" is 4 at most and that's pushing it imo considering the word literally means only 2. Obviously it can be used for more but 2 versus 13 is waayyy different than 2 versus 5. I think this is a small potatoes issue though, no doubt, lol
@@cherriberri8373 At least in German, "Paar" (two, a pair, or couple as in married) and "paar" (some, a few, a couple, not restricted to two) are capitalized differently.
@@cherriberri8373I don’t think my girlfriend would be too happy about me telling her we’re a couple so there can be another two and that all of us can be a couple. “A couple” has only ever meant two as far as I’m concerned. 3-5 is “a few, 6+ would be “several”. That’s just the English language I grew up with though and I’m sure that others like yourself take it to mean something slightly different. After all, language is forever evolving.
This is what happens when pilots allow themselves to be pressured to complete a flight as scheduled. Thunderstorms in the area? Wait it out. Ironically, when management pressures the pilots to go, if the pilots tell the pax that it's not safe to go yet, they all say, "That's fine, we'll wait." Passengers care about safety, management cares about money.
I play around in flight Sims and other flying games and indecision has the be the number one reason I end up crashing. I'm great at flying until the moment I second guess myself, then I take too long to make decisions and the plane overtakes my train of thought and I fall behind. And after that, it's ridiculously hard to catch up without being able to immediately slow it down by going around, etc
Very interesting and a harrowing experience for all concerned . I would suggest Bangkok would possibly have been the safest choice as they were heading south and the Terminal conditions were unclear .
A very good, concise video, thank you. I was left wondering how the radio frequency selection in the plane went so wrong, getting onto short final they spoke to the approach controller instead of the tower. Pure sudden onset task saturation perhaps?
How is it possible that an aircraft on a transcontinental flight takes off without taking on sufficient fuel for a diversion or a rather long holding pattern when the pilots should have known the unpredictable weather conditions that surround their destination? And why did they not contact the tower at the alternative airport directly? I don't believe that it was more than just indecision that was the problem, I think that the crew were simply reckless, voluntarily or not. They knew they were low on fuel but they chose to stay in a holding pattern instead of immediately informing their destination airport that they were low on fuel and declared an emergency to make their situation clear to ATC. They managed to land at Batam airport in spite of the difficulties they encountered there, so there was no reason why they could not have made a landing at Changi, even if they had to go around several times. This particular problem began at Heathrow, not over the South China Sea.
They had enough fuel. Policy would have dictated that they carry more than enough reserve fuel to hold and divert. The hold was just too long that is why they had insufficient fuel.
They were waiting for approval prior to declaring an emergency due to the weather and heavy traffic flow from other diverted traffic. Of course, once the mayday was declared the approval became irrelevant.
"Not on the same page" - fixated only on following the process and procedures, forgetting the entire purpose of the ATC saving lives, and to that end, you are responsible to break as many rules and procedures as you need to.
It really is. Try looking up the dictionary definition of the noun. Only in the loosest vernacular is it used to mean "a few". That casual use of the word is common but - strictly speaking ' incorrect.
@@FameyFamous Then that's a systemic problem rather than a pilot one. There should be rules saying "if you get THIS low, YOU DIVERT, no choice to be made for you here", where "this low" means enough reserves for any eventuality, not simply "just enough to not fall out of the sky if everything goes absolutely perfectly".
@@AttilaAsztalosThere is a "reserve fuel" meant only for diversions, and they chose to divert before they hit that level The issue mostly came after they failed to land 3 times at the diversion airport (due to bad weather and botched attempts), which was what caused the fuel emergency since going around does use a not insignificant amount of fuel Mentour pilot covers this incident, and goes through a lot of the details about how Fuel is managed in Commercial Aviation
Its a devil whrn they hsve to declare msy day to override ATC and land atc wers dillying dsllying crew but if thed been a accident crew would hsve been blamed
Constructive criticism: we can hear your mic pops/bangs and they are quite distracting. You might want to filter them in post, especially very low frequencies.
Місяць тому
Can't say I've ever noticed so I don't think they can be bad.
It depends on where you listen. On mobile, sure, won't notice. If you have a 2.1 system or bigger, it becomes distracting since you hear more of the spectrum.
Dunno what your problem is. Absolutely FINE for me at half volume with AirPods.
Місяць тому
@@FutureSystem738 So many people moaning about his bad audio but it's clear and also has plenty of volume. I think they just need better phones or headphones😂
Perhaps I am wrong or oblivious to other mitigating factors, but to hand a plane off from area controller to tower controller when there is so much workload during landing and after take off does not make much sense from a safety perspective. This incident amplifies the need to maintain a single controller closer to the destination airport.
Still a great airline but since that flight that kept pax on a burning plane for too long, a few years ago, lost confidence in them. Luckily outcome was ok
@nigelbond4056 and there was never bad weather before the industrial revolution! Climate change is mostly a natural phenomenon, the man made element is the noise on top.
Місяць тому
@@garthcox4307 Mmmmm well now garth, that's not true at all.
To bring climate change into this when the specific issues involved incompetence on the part of ATC and some poor decision making is like the re-arranging of deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.
There is no such thing as climate change or emergency. There are dozens of scientists who will tell you that but they all get cancelled......just like doctors that told you the COVID vaccine was bullshit....
@@cooperised Gest what, I am a scientist. Climate hysteria is based on modeling, i.e. computer games, the polar bear, and the Pacific islands are still there and well, despite modeling and fear-mongering. no increase of tropical storms, or tornadoes, ... on the contrary, Earth has become greener.
@@AJ-qv9yo I don't believe you. If you were a scientist, you'd understand that modelling is absolutely not "computer games". Prediction is always difficult but models can be calibrated and verified using existing data. Worth noting that most models don't predict an increase in the number of tropical storms, but they _do_ predict an increase in rates of rainfall and maximum wind speeds associated with those storms, leading to increased risk of deluge and coastal flooding. They also predict more frequent and deeper droughts.
Don't make claims about climate change that you cannot substantiate. Long-term data and proxy data shows that the planet is operating well within its historical norms - which is why activists cheery pick their data and which of many thousands of climate models (very fast guesswork based on challengeable assumptions) they choose to promote.
@@thedemolitionmuniciple no it means more skill. This all was avoidable. The team in the cockpit didn’t do their best and landed with 800lbs of fuel. Facts hurt the unprepared.
It’s actually in the report and all it impacted was the more intense weather patterns. The speculation is that such intense weather will continue to impact flights. Nothing of personal opinion was mentioned.
@@Julian-xs8nc Choosing to trust the consensus of over 99% of the scientific community - people who devote their lives to trying to understand their chosen aspect of the world as accurately and comprehensively as possible - doesn't make me a sheep, it makes me _normal_. Deciding to reject that consensus without evidence (or by cherry-picking only those
@@cooperised if you think that 99% of the scientific community has consensus over climate change then you are a sheep, as you clearly just watch billionaire owned mainstream sources instead of doing your own research 🐑
Ah, thanks for the upload. I was hoping for an upload on this event.
The plane is going to land, one way or another.
Love your videos
Really glad that you cover this kind of situation
Great job! I'm glad one of the channels I like does short videos. As much as I love the deeper dives that other channels do, I don't always have 30 minutes or longer to watch in one sitting.
Love your videos! Your content and delivery are fantastic!
I have no problem with the audio...sounds good. Interesting video...
A plane has got to land, either controlled or uncontrolled, at some point. They only carry an hour to an hour and a half of extra fuel.
Hii, love your vids, but could you increase the volume of your voice? (It sounds so low to me) Thanks!!
WTF are vids?
Absolutely fine for me- AirPods at about half volume.
@@FutureSystem738A
Apple ears are very sensitive.
Androids Are Abysmal!
@@Capecodham
Are you from the far past?
I am from the future and looked back to 2024 and there is not such word as vids.
At 14:21 - "It will really help the channel grow!"
My favorite airplane doc channel
doc?
@@Capecodham documentary
@@jlmarc01 What did you do with the time you saved not typing umentary?
@@Capecodham thought about who would not get it.
@@Capecodham
You are a sad little individual. How much time did you waste being tiresomely pedantic?
i once thought Jet airways multiple attempts was a disaster - this comes really close to it...
Hey Man, Sorry Interrupt You But Can You Make A Vídeo Of The *Streamline Aviation Short 330 Crash G-SSWN?* And The *2000 Marsa Braga Short 360 Crash?* Thanks Have A Good Day..................
Welcome back!
Very nice video, great narration
‘A couple of hours later’. Dude, this is not a Concorde. It takes more than ‘a couple of hours’ to reach Singapore from the UK.
Wow, you're such a big brain.
I think something's wrong with the audio. I'm on max volume and can barely hear a thing..
Yep, very quiet.
With headphones no problem
-24 dB. Way too low.
Sounds good to me. UA-cam app on iPhone. Or maybe it has been fixed by now.
I've had this issue with most (if not all) Mini air crash investigation videos. Try enabling "Stable volume."
Heathrow to Kuala Lumpur in a couple of hours? Not even Concorde could go that fast
is he supposed to say "exactly 13.2421942391283 hours later"?
@ratmemer no, but "a couple" is 4 at most and that's pushing it imo considering the word literally means only 2. Obviously it can be used for more but 2 versus 13 is waayyy different than 2 versus 5.
I think this is a small potatoes issue though, no doubt, lol
@@cherriberri8373 At least in German, "Paar" (two, a pair, or couple as in married) and "paar" (some, a few, a couple, not restricted to two) are capitalized differently.
@@cherriberri8373I don’t think my girlfriend would be too happy about me telling her we’re a couple so there can be another two and that all of us can be a couple. “A couple” has only ever meant two as far as I’m concerned. 3-5 is “a few, 6+ would be “several”. That’s just the English language I grew up with though and I’m sure that others like yourself take it to mean something slightly different. After all, language is forever evolving.
13 hours is not a "couple". That's just over half a day.
This is what happens when pilots allow themselves to be pressured to complete a flight as scheduled. Thunderstorms in the area? Wait it out. Ironically, when management pressures the pilots to go, if the pilots tell the pax that it's not safe to go yet, they all say, "That's fine, we'll wait." Passengers care about safety, management cares about money.
I play around in flight Sims and other flying games and indecision has the be the number one reason I end up crashing.
I'm great at flying until the moment I second guess myself, then I take too long to make decisions and the plane overtakes my train of thought and I fall behind. And after that, it's ridiculously hard to catch up without being able to immediately slow it down by going around, etc
Very interesting and a harrowing experience for all concerned . I would suggest Bangkok would possibly have been the safest choice as they were heading south and the Terminal conditions were unclear .
Hello, what is the software used for this channel ?
Probably msfs or xplane.
A very good, concise video, thank you. I was left wondering how the radio frequency selection in the plane went so wrong, getting onto short final they spoke to the approach controller instead of the tower. Pure sudden onset task saturation perhaps?
@@mattilindstrom 3rd world lack of skill would be my guess. Approach never corrected them either. Comedy of errors.
This was one occasion where clapping on landing was definitely the thing to do
“The plane crashed because airline regulation didn’t allow a landing” 😀
I would want to know pilot training had been thoroughly revised before I choose to fly SIA again.
What are reasons for placing a localizer offset to a runway? And why can’t this be fed into the flight computer to take it into account?
How is it possible that an aircraft on a transcontinental flight takes off without taking on sufficient fuel for a diversion or a rather long holding pattern when the pilots should have known the unpredictable weather conditions that surround their destination? And why did they not contact the tower at the alternative airport directly? I don't believe that it was more than just indecision that was the problem, I think that the crew were simply reckless, voluntarily or not. They knew they were low on fuel but they chose to stay in a holding pattern instead of immediately informing their destination airport that they were low on fuel and declared an emergency to make their situation clear to ATC. They managed to land at Batam airport in spite of the difficulties they encountered there, so there was no reason why they could not have made a landing at Changi, even if they had to go around several times. This particular problem began at Heathrow, not over the South China Sea.
They had enough fuel. Policy would have dictated that they carry more than enough reserve fuel to hold and divert. The hold was just too long that is why they had insufficient fuel.
Diversion had not been approved ? Not been approved by whom?! The captain is the one to make that call and doesnt need anyone’s approval
They were waiting for approval prior to declaring an emergency due to the weather and heavy traffic flow from other diverted traffic. Of course, once the mayday was declared the approval became irrelevant.
What reason would make people misaline a localizer when building it?
Geography...maybe the localizer was an afterthought and installed many years after the airport was built?
Maybe they were cross eyed contractors who weren't tech savy?
Maybe the instructions were in a foreign language?
Clearly pilot error was at issue here
i dont think it is pilot error
I hope someone ordered an investigation in the pilots’ decision making.
Climate change making flying more unpredictable yet more flights means greater climate change.
"Not on the same page" - fixated only on following the process and procedures, forgetting the entire purpose of the ATC saving lives, and to that end, you are responsible to break as many rules and procedures as you need to.
Takeoff is optional, landing is mandatory
Oh they knew how close they were. That's why the pilot made that illegal landing. He knew they'd crash if he didn't.
4:20 “Plane made its way ALL the way to Batam” or 18 miles or 29km from WSSS (Changi)
I want to know how they reached the Kuala Lumpur air traffic region two hours after taking off from Heathrow.
I want to fly that fast!
This is Singapore Airlines.😂
@@conned yes, they train in Brisbane Australia
A couple is not strictly two or even 3 or 4 or more.
It really is. Try looking up the dictionary definition of the noun.
Only in the loosest vernacular is it used to mean "a few". That casual use of the word is common but - strictly speaking ' incorrect.
What was an "indecision"? More like an chain o unfortunate events and some wrong decisions.
They failed to decide to divert earlier.
@@FameyFamous Then that's a systemic problem rather than a pilot one. There should be rules saying "if you get THIS low, YOU DIVERT, no choice to be made for you here", where "this low" means enough reserves for any eventuality, not simply "just enough to not fall out of the sky if everything goes absolutely perfectly".
Yes
@@AttilaAsztalos It's called good airmanship
@@AttilaAsztalosThere is a "reserve fuel" meant only for diversions, and they chose to divert before they hit that level
The issue mostly came after they failed to land 3 times at the diversion airport (due to bad weather and botched attempts), which was what caused the fuel emergency since going around does use a not insignificant amount of fuel
Mentour pilot covers this incident, and goes through a lot of the details about how Fuel is managed in Commercial Aviation
Gamble? Indecision? The tropical thunderstorms in Singapore are usually lightning-filled and rain heavy.
Comment to Support you :)
This incident also reinforces the notion that Singapore Airlines is not as safe as it is made out to be.
That notion was a thing???
777 pilots not competent to switch to tower….
And I can’t even get a ATP.. smh
So who is at fault?
One minute ago???
i like how we've all been asking for louder audio for LITERAL YEARS now and you're just like : "nah, f*ck these morons"
That’s interesting about the climate change listed as a factor. Thx for mentioning it. 👍✌️✈️
Declare an EMERGENCY due to fuel...
Its a devil whrn they hsve to declare msy day to override ATC and land atc wers dillying dsllying crew but if thed been a accident crew would hsve been blamed
Did your voice change or something.
10:46 what kind of landing was that 😂
Constructive criticism: we can hear your mic pops/bangs and they are quite distracting. You might want to filter them in post, especially very low frequencies.
Can't say I've ever noticed so I don't think they can be bad.
It depends on where you listen. On mobile, sure, won't notice. If you have a 2.1 system or bigger, it becomes distracting since you hear more of the spectrum.
Audio levels are way, way too low. If all you’re doing is narrating then you can easily live with much higher volume.
They're absolutely fine. What are you on about?
Good lord. Keep climate change out of analysis
Bad AUDIO my guy. You definitely need to fix this asap
Dunno what your problem is. Absolutely FINE for me at half volume with AirPods.
@@FutureSystem738
So many people moaning about his bad audio but it's clear and also has plenty of volume. I think they just need better phones or headphones😂
Perhaps I am wrong or oblivious to other mitigating factors, but to hand a plane off from area controller to tower controller when there is so much workload during landing and after take off does not make much sense from a safety perspective. This incident amplifies the need to maintain a single controller closer to the destination airport.
Still a great airline but since that flight that kept pax on a burning plane for too long, a few years ago, lost confidence in them. Luckily outcome was ok
Man, you really need to fix your audio.
So many people saying it's fine and some moaning it's not.
I can only deduce those complaining need better phones/headphones.
Climate change is responsible for my cat’s bad behaviour, Donald Trump, milk going sour and COVID 19… apparently 💩
And don't forget Brexit.
@nigelbond4056 and there was never bad weather before the industrial revolution! Climate change is mostly a natural phenomenon, the man made element is the noise on top.
@@garthcox4307
Mmmmm well now garth, that's not true at all.
LOUD NOISES!
Wtf?😂 are you ok?!😂😂😂
at least use the pmdg
To bring climate change into this when the specific issues involved incompetence on the part of ATC and some poor decision making is like the re-arranging of deck chairs on the sinking Titanic.
Oh no, please not the climate hysteria speculation on this channel...I know it is a quote, but it spoiled the experience.
Exactly, such propoganda.
There is no such thing as climate change or emergency. There are dozens of scientists who will tell you that but they all get cancelled......just like doctors that told you the COVID vaccine was bullshit....
Learn some basic science.
@@cooperised Gest what, I am a scientist. Climate hysteria is based on modeling, i.e. computer games, the polar bear, and the Pacific islands are still there and well, despite modeling and fear-mongering. no increase of tropical storms, or tornadoes, ... on the contrary, Earth has become greener.
@@AJ-qv9yo I don't believe you. If you were a scientist, you'd understand that modelling is absolutely not "computer games". Prediction is always difficult but models can be calibrated and verified using existing data. Worth noting that most models don't predict an increase in the number of tropical storms, but they _do_ predict an increase in rates of rainfall and maximum wind speeds associated with those storms, leading to increased risk of deluge and coastal flooding. They also predict more frequent and deeper droughts.
Talking a note: Don't fly to Asia using a non-American airline...
Don't make claims about climate change that you cannot substantiate.
Long-term data and proxy data shows that the planet is operating well within its historical norms - which is why activists cheery pick their data and which of many thousands of climate models (very fast guesswork based on challengeable assumptions) they choose to promote.
That the planet is warming is undeniable. The only question is why. Is it natural ebb and flow or accentuated by man is the discussion.
@@jamesreynolds5091 Natural ebb and flow when you look at the actual data and ignore ideological and commercial activism.
@@thomasm1964 Some scientist are concerned. Ignore the zealots.
@@thomasm1964
Oh gee, a youtube scientist who happens to be a conspiracy theorist. Very novel.
horrible
What?
3rd world is 3rd world.
And more privilege means more ignorance
@@thedemolitionmuniciple no it means more skill. This all was avoidable. The team in the cockpit didn’t do their best and landed with 800lbs of fuel. Facts hurt the unprepared.
Content brought to you by "3rd world" guy
@@outofturn331 cool. Now what?
@@thereissomecoolstuffif you're cool, I'm good
Very bad presentation.
It's absolutely fine. You don't like it? Then MAKE YOUR FCUKING OWN SUPERIOR CONTENT.
Climate change leave your personal views out of things
It’s actually in the report and all it impacted was the more intense weather patterns. The speculation is that such intense weather will continue to impact flights. Nothing of personal opinion was mentioned.
How is climate change a matter of personal opinion? I'm tired of this "post truth" crap. Climate change is a matter of fact. Learn some basic science.
@@cooperised🐑
@@Julian-xs8nc Choosing to trust the consensus of over 99% of the scientific community - people who devote their lives to trying to understand their chosen aspect of the world as accurately and comprehensively as possible - doesn't make me a sheep, it makes me _normal_. Deciding to reject that consensus without evidence (or by cherry-picking only those
@@cooperised if you think that 99% of the scientific community has consensus over climate change then you are a sheep, as you clearly just watch billionaire owned mainstream sources instead of doing your own research 🐑