The Unlucky 777 | Malaysian Airlines 124
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- Images and Text From ATSB Report Used With Permission From The Australian Transportation Bureau
Donations are never expected but appreciated: paypal.me/miniaircrash
Join My Discord: / discord
777 Image : Laurent ERRERA from L'Union, France - Boeing 777-200ER Malaysia AL (MAS) 9M-MRO - MSN 28420/404
NASA Paper: ntrs.nasa.gov/...
Mid Value Select Paper: es.elfak.ni.ac....
This is the story of Malaysian airlines flight 124. It was 5:03 pm on the first of august 2005, a malaysian airlines boeing 777 was flying from perth australia to kuala lumpur malaysia. As the plane climbed through 38,000 feet the pilots got a low airspeed warning on the Engine indication and crew alerting system or the EICAS. Then they noticed that the slip / skid indicator was deflected all the way to the right. The slip / skid indicator shows the amount of lateral acceleration on the plane, in very simple terms if the plane is skidding through the air the slip / skid indicator will deflect to one side. In the cockpit, things were getting weirder by the second, The primary flight display now told the pilots that they were approaching the overspeed limit and the stall speed limit at the same time! Then things took a turn for the worse, the plane pitched up and started to climb, it climbed all the way from 38,000 feet to 41,000 feet, as they climbed the 777 started shedding some speed, it went from 270 knots to 158 knots. At this point the stick shaker and the stall warning went off telling letting the pilots know that they were dangerously close to a stall.
In response to all of this the pilot disengaged the autopilot and pushed the nose of the plane down in an attempt to pick up some airspeed thereby avoiding the stall. But the 777 had a mind of its own, the nose pitched up again and the plane went into another climb. The crew contacted ATC and requested an immediate descent, they also requested for radar vectors back to perth, they needed to get this plane on the ground as soon as possible. The air traffic controller helped the crew verify a few basic instrument readings like altitude and ground speed, with that they began their descent.
As they passed through 22,000 feet the pilot in command noticed that the primary flight display readouts looked normal, so he turned on the left hand autopilot, as soon as he did that the plane pitched down and banked to the right. He instantly turned the autopilot off. He then turned on the right hand autopilot and something similar happened, with that the pilots decided to hand fly the plane. ON their way back the pilots tried to disconnect the autothrottle, but for some reason it stayed armed.
A while later the pilots were cleared to land on runway 03 at perth, when they were 3000 feet above the ground they got a low airspeed popup , on the Primary flight display, the autothrottle in response to this commanded more power from the engines. This made the landing a bit more difficult, making matters worse for the crew there was some moderate turbulence below 3000 feet, the winds were at 25 knots gusting to 30 knots, As they flew the approach the windshear warning system went off but the crew stuck with the approach. Soon after that the 777 landed safely and all aboard were safe.
The story of flight 124 might not be as flashy or as dramatic as some of the other incidents that weve talked about on this channel, I suggest you watch the video about British airways 888, the 747 that flew through a forest if you want something a bit more dramatic but how this happened is very interesting to me , tiny little things had to go wrong in just the right way for this to happen, Kind of like a final destination movie so let's dive into that.
A huge thank you to the ATSB for granting me permission to use the final report for this video!
Great demonstration of the Swiss cheese model
Are it just out ,the final report
Isn't the report in the freely-accessible public domain?
@@MrNicoJac I would think so - LOL
@@MrNicoJac youre free to replublish the report in its entirety but its copyrighted
Don't worry about dramatic air crashes.
I always like it when at the end I hear "everyone survived".
notice how the horizon is always at eye level as you go up in altitude, this is solid evidence of the earth being a flat plane! the governments of the world want us the people to believe that this earth is a random event, like a big bang!!! but the evidence speaks louder this plane or place we live on was created with intelligence you only need to look around and be able to think for yourself to see the PLANE truth its called an AEROPLANE not and AEROSPHERE, aircraft fly over a FLAT PLANE and not sphere the truth hidden in PLANE SITE!!!
@@seanthompson258
Oh thank you very much for your insights!
Now I understand why, when I am watching TV from far away, it still appears on the same level as I am. If the earth was round, I would have to keep standing to watch a football match, which I am sure you'd quickly understand : it's not very convenient nor comfortable.
Agreed!
@@seanthompson258 If, as you say, this place was created with intelligence, it certainly wouldn't be flat. An odd logical leap.
Flat Earth Society :)
Well handled by the pilots, when one of those things starts making uncomanded manoeuvres it has to be incredibly stressful and scary. Plenty of examples of dead bodies due to lesser systems failures. They deserve credit for their airmanship.
I think pretty much every accident or close call the plane is doing something that they don't want it to whether it is a pilot error or some other failure.
Maybe it isn't as flashy, but that means it is probably less well known and thus less talked about. Which in itself makes it more interesting to me. Also times when nobody dies are never a bad thing.
Very well said! Couldn't tell it better myself!
You it's really good to learn from incidents and update procedures even when no-one got hurt :)
Quite right. Also since incidents where people don't die a horrible death tend to be less well known, it is important to remember this when looking for potential flaws. It doesn't matter if we are talking about planes or flour mills. (both of which are known to explode, hence the example of flour mills as well as planes)
Just because nobody died in a historical example, doesn't mean that will be true the next time it happens.
@@whyjnot420 I agree 100% 👍 I find it kind of .... peculiar, maybe even a bit bizarre, how many people try and raise similar questions when it come to self driving vehicles but oppose the same basic approach when it comes to human drivers.... 🤨
Yes, not EVERY lesson is learned in blood! Well said!
Your videos have gotten significantly better since I started following you. Your narration has gotten much more fluid. Keep up the great work. I really enjoy your work.
0:17 - Man that plane has some powerful thrust reversers if it can fly backwards!!!!
lol i noticed now 😂
Lmao
It’s an illusion 🤫
That's how fuel es created. It departs empty and lands with full tanks.
@@DaveChimny 😂
I'm always happy when there are no fatalities!
Oh, and let me guess : you're always unhappy when there are fatalities?
@@69-avec-ta-soeur Yeah. I tend to not enjoy people dying.
@@rilmar2137 Amazing, revelation of the year.
This type of case study is important to understand. More like this one please.
This was an interesting one for me because it made me think of alll the rushed and half-assed decisions that I made in my career as a software developer. I doubtless introduced many bugs into my code but the consequences were not major. The thought of working on something like flight control s/w feels exhilarating and terrifying in equal measure!
Respect your honesty. I’ve worked for a few global corporations and it’s unreal how low the quality is but how lucky we are not more incidents occur. Even on my lowest jobs, I put effort it - for reasons like this!
As a former web security researcher, I can attest to this. There are countless occasions where someone handles user-supplied data in an improper way and it leads to serious security vulnerabilities. Many programmers either don’t understand or just don’t care enough to do it properly: as long as it works for the intended purpose, nobody pays attention to anything else!
I love how detailed Your videos are, I can see the effort You put in them, and it's so beautiful ❤️ Thanks a lot! Greetings from Poland :)
Zgadzam się z Tobą !
notice how the horizon is always at eye level as you go up in altitude, this is solid evidence of the earth being a flat plane! the governments of the world want us the people to believe that this earth is a random event, like a big bang!!! but the evidence speaks louder this plane or place we live on was created with intelligence you only need to look around and be able to think for yourself to see the PLANE truth its called an AEROPLANE not and AEROSPHERE, aircraft fly over a FLAT PLANE and not sphere the truth hidden in PLANE SITE!!!
are u an avgeek
@@seanthompson258
Lol!
I was on this exact plane the flight prior to this incident. We got home from Perth airport and saw on the news that the plane had to turn back to Perth. The whole flight from KL to Perth felt unusual.
How did it feel unusual? Must be sobering
In what way did it feel unusual?
I know TFC did this just a couple of days ago but this was more detailed. Thanks for this
My pleasure
Indeed
TFC is fancy graphics with copy/paste text from Wikipedia. The technical info and analysis on this channel is much better
@@kingssuck06 It's in a different league isn't it. I watch and enjoy TFC but in the end it's the technical detail that's compelling for me, not the pathos, and this channel excels at that.
I thought the flight channel said wake turbulence started it
Just a general expression of gratitude for a channel that doesn't talk down, talk fast, sensationalise or ever get boring.
I used to work in aerospace and computing, and I appreciate these thoughtful AND CLEAR explanations!
Me: _doing just about anything_
Mini Air Crash Investigation: *releases new video*
Me: "Nevermind then."
Same
notice how the horizon is always at eye level as you go up in altitude, this is solid evidence of the earth being a flat plane! the governments of the world want us the people to believe that this earth is a random event, like a big bang!!! but the evidence speaks louder this plane or place we live on was created with intelligence you only need to look around and be able to think for yourself to see the PLANE truth its called an AEROPLANE not and AEROSPHERE, aircraft fly over a FLAT PLANE and not sphere the truth hidden in PLANE SITE!!!
@@seanthompson258 just go a bit higher than 35k feet
You’re incredibly articulate and have incredible writing/speaking abilities. I have watched you from the beginning of your channel and I realized today that you’ve grown impressively and your content quality is up there with the very best, especially with regards to your awesome analyses and really well thought out analogies that allow the information you’re presenting to be digestible and entertaining.
Sometimes, I wonder if he could do a collab with TheFlightChannel...
Whoever runs TheFlightChannel, knows better about flying and displaying everything but the speaker on this channel knows much better about speaking and being articulate!
notice how the horizon is always at eye level as you go up in altitude, this is solid evidence of the earth being a flat plane! the governments of the world want us the people to believe that this earth is a random event, like a big bang!!! but the evidence speaks louder this plane or place we live on was created with intelligence you only need to look around and be able to think for yourself to see the PLANE truth its called an AEROPLANE not and AEROSPHERE, aircraft fly over a FLAT PLANE and not sphere the truth hidden in PLANE SITE!!!
The thing that irritates me about this is that they had 4 years to replace the initial faulty adiru. That should have been done on a scheduled maintenance, instead it kept getting put off until it compounded into a potentially life threatening issue.
Yes, it is funny how a correctly configured system is defined as one where there are triple backups, but if one backup fails..."Oh that's OK, we don't really care if the system is no longer configured correctly...". "we'll get around to it".
Engineering department can come up will wonderful systems, but at the end, it is the finance department that makes decision. Manufacturers and Operators alike.
Too hard basket. Why do something, when you can do absolutely nothing.
I love how well you explain everything. Having no aviation experience, terms and technology aren’t easily understood without your explanations. Thank you!
The pilots committed to getting that plane on the ground and even a windshear warning could not deter them. Bravo!
Bodily injury and death can be good motivators!
@@gpaull2, true that.
It's quite a risky take though. Many airplanes have exceeded on the runway, skidded off after not taking care of a windshear.
notice how the horizon is always at eye level as you go up in altitude, this is solid evidence of the earth being a flat plane! the governments of the world want us the people to believe that this earth is a random event, like a big bang!!! but the evidence speaks louder this plane or place we live on was created with intelligence you only need to look around and be able to think for yourself to see the PLANE truth its called an AEROPLANE not and AEROSPHERE, aircraft fly over a FLAT PLANE and not sphere the truth hidden in PLANE SITE!!!
@@seanthompson258, seriously? Obviously you haven't looked at commercial airways, how they're not in a straight line, but curved to follow the shape of the 🌎. And why is the horizon curved when hang gliders go high enough?
3:00 It's the Near Misses (in terms of human life) that really count, examining incidents in detail that didn't cause death or even injury helps us avoid incidents that do!
The last time I was this early for one of your videos, aircraft wings were covered in cloth. 🤣
Another great story told, thank you.
The Flight Channel recently covered this incident. I have to say, i gained a lot better understanding of the involved technical systems and responsible faults after watching your video. Like, a whole lot more.
Yea I know I said this on the TFC video but it was apparently this incident that led to the 787 returning to separate IRS switches. The 777 had one single button to turn on the ADIRU and couldn’t be turned off in flight. Because the whole unit was supposed to be fault tolerant there was no need to manually isolate faulty systems. If it had 2 separate IRS switches or even 3 like Airbus they could potentially have switched off the faulty system
Everything can fail. Today engineers thinks its not possible in their designs. Even best world design can fail.
@@norbert.kiszka engineers are acutely aware that no system is perfect.
@@richbiles230872 especially cheapest engineers.
. Thank God the flight crew were able to take control away from the mounting tech failures. Great to have not had a dramatic ending on this one. Thanks for another great review.
I just retired from 10 years as a B777 captain. Nice incident review!
It always makes my day a little brighter to see a new video from this channel!
My father is a software engineer, and had an opportunity to interview for the 777 project. During the interview, he was very concerned to know that the plane would have mechanical backups to the electronic flight system, which the interviewer didn't take kindly to. The interviewer seemed to be under the impression that computer flight control would be flawless and there would be no need for mechanical backups. Dad didn't wind up getting that particular job. :) Fast forward probably 20 years or more, and a guy at my church, growing up, was a 777 pilot for American Airlines; according to him, there are mechanical linkages to the empennage, but I never did learn about whether there was backup mechanical control of the engines.
I sent this video to my Dad in an email to vindicate him for his concern over relying completely on the computer. :)
There is mechanical controls to the stabiliser and one wing spoiler on each wing. On the 787 there is nothing. The biggest issue on this incident was there was no way to manually isolate the faulty accelerometer as the ADIRU just had 1 button to turn on and it was supposed to self manage everything
I wasn’t into learning about aviation until I came across your channel! Now I can’t seem to get enough! 👍👍👍👏👏👏😉
I've seen other videos on this incident, but you always have the in-depth of I love.
This is very interesting, thank you. It is the learning from issues like this that help ensure more serious problems are avoided.
love your work so clear in explaining who was going on to cause the issues
Very interesting. My first guess was a pitot tube occlusion because of the overspeed and stall warnings sounding off at the same time.
The peto tube was my first guess also
Yeah, I was thinking that as well.
If I recall correctly, a pitot tube issue would have caused one or the other false warning, not both at the same time. If the avionics area flashing two contradictory warnings then that usually means the avionics have been compromised,
@@xmlthegreat Oh, I suppose you're right.
@@xmlthegreat : No, there was nothing wrong with the avionics in this case. There was only one false warning. The blocked pitot tube caused a false overspeed warning on the captain's side, but the co-pilot's side was accurate. It correctly showed that the plane was actually going too slow, which is why the stick shaker eventually activated.
Very confusing for the pilot, though, to get an overspeed warning and an underspeed warning (stick shaker) at the same time! ✈ 🚨
My favorite aviation channel.
*I enjoyed this, it's good to hear that pilots and plane recovered and safely landed!!*
The amount of detail in the description is amazing. Good work 🤜🤛
I'm none too sure that I can say what I mean all that well, but after watching a lot of your videos, it seems to me that, in many cases, it's all the small things that lead to a catastrophic result and this video is a good example of that. Something goes wrong. If that's not mitigated, then something else goes wrong, and if this keeps up, a finite series of adverse events sums up to an unavoidable disaster.
Your channel has come along way. You've acquired the knack of explaining things to us folk on the ground.
"some treat it like the check engine light on your car"
is the third category "put a sticker over the light and pretend it doesn't exist until the car breaks down and needs towing"? 😅
I'm generally the first category depending on what my code reader tells me the fault is and ask the shop if it's urgent or can wait till payday
If only cars would come with a manual or even better would use their fancy colour displays to tell what the error actually mean, and the urgency of getting it fixed.
@@LeifNelandDk not sure if this is a sarcastic reply or not 😅 I usually go by "yellow management light means drive with caution and get to a shop asap, red management light means stop immediately and seek help" but I have a little code reader I got off eBay that tells me exactly what code and what part had gone funky which I relay to my shop
@@LuluDrakonite not sarcastic at all.
But I guess they want to avoid liability from saying this could wait a few days and then the engine blowing up.
But at least they should have an option to display what the error means. For instance I once got a code saying misfire on cylinder 3, and by swapping "ignition units", I could determine it indeed was the unit, not the spark plug, and get a new/used one from a chop shop. It would have been nice to get that info on the screen, and not having to get an odbII device and look the code up on the internet.
@@LeifNelandDk ah, the code reader I have connects to my phone so it will tell me the code and the fault like "P0325-Powertrain
CURRENT Knock Sensor 1 Circuit (Bank 1 or Single Sensor)
P0845-Powertrain
Transmission Fluid Pressure Sensor/Switch "B" Circuit"
(Actual codes my car threw hours before it was going into the shop for something unrelated, lol)
So I wrote that down and stuck it to my steering wheel so they could check that out too
@@LeifNelandDk Some do, but the errors aren't always helpful.
A good example of that videos can be interesting, and make you wonder how it's going to end, without crashes, or big bangs. Also, always nice to sometimes hear about incidents where pilots manages to solve the situation enough to land safely.
Very interesting. At least these pilots had the thoughtfulness to disconnect both sides of the autopilot. I remember in a recent video of yours where one side of the autopilot was disconnected and the other one was left engage in that led to the crash I believe. Except for leaving the autopilot on I think these guys did a pretty good job. It's got to be pretty stressful to try to outthink the airplane. I've got enough trouble out thinking my 1973 Ford f-150.
I thought I was having a deja vu while watching this video! I read from the comments that TFC has uploaded a video on this incident too. Great work, love your videos, thanks for the information :D
Nicely explained and yes, we do not need an actual crash for these episodes to be interesting. Thanks Mini
Very interesting presentation, my friend. Fascinating. Thank goodness the pilots were able to get everybody back on the ground safely. 😉👍
Let's get a thanks for the pilots who kept the plane safe and didnt panic
I enjoy your videos quite a bit. and your calm voice too. I have insomnia and leaving your videos playing in a loop all night helps me sleep lol I've already watched em all so i just load up the playlist and let them loop all night :)
I hit the like button before I watch your videos. I appreciate your dedication and research you put into this channel. I love your voice. It is confident and passionate. Keep those videos coming!
This may be my favorite video of yours. So informative and well laid out. Thanks man!
Finally a vid about an incident thats not famous!
Me: doing math for my exam
UA-cam :notification of mini air crash investigation
Me: ok let me see ur video first
Nice one. I really love your work. Detailed analysis as ever. I know I might sound repeatative but I would like to request you to do a video about Aeroflot flight 3352.
"The story of flight 124 might not be as flashy or as dramatic as some of the other incidents that we've talked about on this channel..."
What are you saying? This is one of the most captivating stories you've covered! The way this unfolded, the way that small things came together to make a near catastrophe, the pilots' perfect responses, the investigation and corrective actions... This was high drama, beginning to end!
It was yes . And could ve been much worse than the outcome
Even being to stressed to pay attention to an important switch: At least THESE pilots made the right decision to grab that stick and bring the plane to safe land by themselves instead of frantically turning knobs hoping the plane will do the right / wanted things
One thing I have noticed with several of these videos with pilots not being able to turn systems off is nobody thinks to pull the circuit breaker. Pilots have access to many circuit breakers in the cockpit, I would think some of these systems would be available to disable by simply pulling the breaker. I am an aircraft mechanic and many times that is how you fix a problem on the ramp is just recycle the circuit breaker and voila everything is happy. Especially with air buses.
Some pilots who tried that crashed their plane. Singapore,I think. Sorry,I can't look it up from my old Kindle here.
Thank you for another great video. Didn't realise there have been so many near misses in Australia. Can you do an episode on a 717 200 that landed hard I believe it was a lost hull incident happened in Darwin on February 7 2008. Looks like pilot error. But once again love your videos.
I just scanned the Mid Value Select paper. Smart people work very hard to keep these big crazy complicated planes flying and safe!
I never knew this happened.
Thanks for sharing this.
yay! waited for this vid a lot!!
Wow, that is truly incredible...and to think every single thing had to go wrong...
Oh the median selection, that....well, that's just a neat way of doing that
i Like how the plane looks like it is reversing from 0:08 to 0:24
This is precisely the kind of incident that should remind everyone just why road vehicles should never become fully automated. Any computer, any system or any part is only as good as the human being that made it, or designed it, and we are not perfect, and neither are the things we build. Although over time, aviation and road use has become safer, it is due to many physical things changing, as well as the way we think, whilst we use these machines. Machines fail, humans fail, but there are two things I never want to see. 1) A person stood in court trying to blame a computer inside a car for that car killing someone and 2) A channel in 10 or 20yrs from now, that investigates incidents where someone's car accelerated out of control on a road, due to a technical failure of some imperfect subsystem during the car or truck's design phase, when the auto-throttle wouldn't switch off.
It's a good thing that Boeing used this incident as a learning moment, and no longer has any problems with its software, as it implemented thorough testing procedures to flush out such software bugs. /s
You do great short yet informative videos. I binge watch them while at work. I really appreciate you explaining terms that are used and what not. Keep up the good work
To much reliability on Aircraft is a dangerous thing, if you have ever noticed the modern Air accident's are all on Computer controls Aircraft and no problem solving by crew, mainly because guys loosing their Skills. The 747 Classics, where the safest as there was a controlled decision between crew members, the co-pilot would FLY the Aircraft, and the Captain and Flight Engineer would do try to solve the problem, and keep communication with all Crew Members so the flying pilot would be advisable to know if anything would change on Flight Control's
The moment they got rid of Flight Engineer's there was poor solving situations ie Air France 447
But the incident / accident statistics contradict your assertion that automation compromises safety. Air France 447 was wholly avoidable. The first officers flying at the time (particularly the one in the right hand seat) were not fit to fly. The Airbus flight envelope protection was not to blame. I will concede that these systems are not 100% and there have been very rare incidents where a freakish set of circumstances has exposed a flaw. However, the rise in air safety in terms of fatalities / injuries per mile or cycle is indisputable.
Being philosophy is that the pilots always have ultimate control and can turn off the protection systems and fly the plane like it’s a big Cessna (and the 777 actually handles that way!) Airbus philosophy is that pilots must not have final control and the computer always operates and will not let the pilot override it.
@@EdOeunaAirbus does feature unprotected, direct mode of operation in the event of multiple system failures - the lunatics are not running the asylum.
Also when I read this report it mentioned Boeing never put out an UNRELIABLE AIRSPEED checklist because they thought it would never happen for the 777
It doesn't matter how redundant a system is if it's not maintained. That's how companies which skimp on IT usually find out they have no data backups, because the supposed five layers of redundancy each got defeated by some dumb glitch nobody noticed.
@@GdotWdot software can always go wrong
There is an unreliable airspeed check list now.
@@EdOeuna yes there is now but only after this incident. It was one of the recommendations
You make this feel like I’m talking to a friend across the table.
It is such a coincidence that you and theflightchannel uploaded around the same time. Was it something do with the final report?
Nah just pure coincidence I guess
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation reading from the description and your comment, I thought it was the final report. Btw, very close on hitting a 100k subs. Advanced congrats
WOW YOUR SUB NUMBER IS GOING UP FAST.
CONGRATS MINI AIR CRASH GUY.
2:23 "The pilots tried to disconnect the autothrottle, but for some reason it stayed armed."
Now that's terrifying. What kind of design fault does the 777 have that the pilots can't wrest control of the engines away from a malfunctioning computer?
They could but it involves turning off a separate armed switch which would reactivate the system if the speed was low as a safety system. Under normal circumstances you’d never need to disarm the system but it was easily doable
That was explained at the end of the video. They disconnected it, but never actually turned it completely off, so it automatically reconnected when it sensed a low airspeed as a safety feature.
@@HiddenWindshield some safety feature
@@testaccount4191 Well, normally, it *is* safer. After all, if the speed drops too low, you usually *want* the engines to go faster. That's not applicable in all situations, though, which is why it has an off switch.
@@HiddenWindshield If there is a button to disconnect the autopilot it should stay off until it is switched back on. Yeah sure its makes sense if the pilots had not attempted to turn it off.
I was thinking, I had heard that term before, ADIRU. There was a similar incident with Qantas Flight 72. ADIRU failed, swapped the altitude data for angle of attack data. Apparently, cosmic rays caused it.
Couldn’t be proved it was cosmic rays
@@tomstravels520 There was no conclusive proof for the cause, yes.
Thinking about it, it will be kind of hard to prove that some charged particle hit some transistor inside the processor and changed a 0 into 1. But, cosmic rays can do that.
Not being a pilot, my major interest here is how automation works or doesn't in general. Very good thank you.
Software is made by programmers. Today corporation programmers are mostly cheapest ones. Also, corporations force them to work faster and faster. This never ends well.
In regard to airliner avionics can you substantiate this statement?
@@richbiles230872 Two crashes of 737-900 was a software fault caused by (cheap) programmers.
@@norbert.kiszka no it was not. The primary cause was the dynamic of the relationship that existed between the FAA and the manufacturers. The regulatory regime had been eroded by commercial lobbying pressure allowing too much commercial bias. Yes, cost cutting was a factor, it almost always is but it's a gross oversimplification to argue that it was that factor alone. Consider that in 2017 there was not one single fatality recorded for airline travel (36,000,000 flight cycles). Doesn't that fact alone suggest these systems are effective and safe by the standard of any reasonable definition?
@@richbiles230872 definition is not same thing as statistics. With lack of redundancy, plane can fly many years, but one small problem cause crash. Exactly that happened to 737-900.
@@norbert.kiszka the cause was gross negligence on the part of the manufacturer. It was wholly avoidable.
They build redundancy in aircraft for a reason. I find it hard to believe they are lax on requiring replacement of these parts when they go bad.
An excellent video. 💙 T.E.N.
Hey man, Excellent video!
This can be 2 thing either the internal systems of the plane is buging out or they are in what comercial pilots call a coffin corner where your stall speed is nearing your overspeed limit . Which causes an loss of control of the aircraft
*things my bad
An airplane does not need to crash to make a root cause investigation interesting.
Keep up the good work.
/JD
Extremely well-done!
Awesome video, this is an interesting one for sure!
Great video and story.
Another awesome video. Would you be interested in researching a lightning striking a helicopter and a turbo prop plane where in the case of the plane only because of a bug in the computer it was deemed that it saved the plane and all on board.
I didn't understand a shit you are saying bro
Excellent presentation!
Uhhh... The software's failure to consult and coordinate prior warnings can hardly be considered 'tiny'...
notice how the horizon is always at eye level as you go up in altitude, this is solid evidence of the earth being a flat plane! the governments of the world want us the people to believe that this earth is a random event, like a big bang!!! but the evidence speaks louder this plane or place we live on was created with intelligence you only need to look around and be able to think for yourself to see the PLANE truth its called an AEROPLANE not and AEROSPHERE, aircraft fly over a FLAT PLANE and not sphere the truth hidden in PLANE SITE!!!
I was thinking that. You'd hope someone would have noticed that the check for historical faults was omitted during QA. That should have been in the functional specifications - and tested as working before it got anywhere near an aircraft.
Very odd indeed.
Very competent crew here. Nice to have a happy ending
This reminds me exactly of Qantas Flight 72
In the same part of the world, probably good to do a segment on that flight as well ?
@@5milessep Yea, I would love to see a video on it xD
1:45 the problem with instrument readings told by ATC is they still come from the aircraft, secondary radar is not like primary radar, it sends a request and waits for the answer of the aircraft in the range of the radar. The aircrafts transponders are answering, by sending a signal back to the radar, and telling some data like altitude and air speed. If these data are corrupted in the aircrafts instruments they are also corrupted in the ATCs display.
Simon you are mistaken...Secondary Surveillance Radar is what is normally used, it interogates aircraft transponders and displays all the normal parameters displayed on ATC screen. Primary radar is like your old fashioned blip on screen back to WW2 days...controller works out basic height/ ground speed and direction...if the crew have good weather info from local area and know wind speed and direction...they can work out their approximate airspeed.
@@rayleslie4767 that's what I essentially wrote, but the secondary radar also sends a blimb (which means in this case who is there), however it dont waits for the own signal coming back, but instead on a request of the transponder to send a own signal containing the data. The signal sent by the secondary radar is much weaker than the one of primary radars, so this radars are also cheaper to operate since the energy consumption is significantly lower.
There's a engineering podcast called omega tau, they talk about secondary radars with a guy from a company building this radars more than 2 hours in one episode, it's "Omega tau 266" for this episode.
There is even a standard developed from this company to control the aircraft from the ground in some parameters (like altitude or course), however this technology is not included in the Mode S transponders used today
Didn't I watch this a few days ago? Deja Vu.
That was the flight channel
The aircraft I work have three ADIRUs. The ADIRUs are the heart and soul of so much of the avionics aboard modern large aircraft. There are a series of A-checks (scheduled maintenance tasks) that are done on a two month schedule. Each one has different tasks that are required to be accomplished. The A-checks go in a series that ends up repeating. So, you do an A-1, then the next is an A-2, and so on, until you get to A-6, then the A-7 is the same as an A-1, etc. Four cycles of these lead to a C-check at the 24 month mark, which is much more in-depth. The ADIRUs get tested on the A-3 (A-9) and A-6 (A-12) checks, and the annual cycle is repeated the next year. The tests can seem redundant if there have been no squawks on that bird, but they are there to catch those sort of failures BEFORE they become a problem.
Speaking of unlucky, when Malaysia experienced a double aviation incident in 2014, it wasn't the first time.
Malaysia also experienced the same thing in 1977 when 2 air crashes took placed in the country, almost 3 months apart.
First was on Sep. 27th with Japan Airlines Flight 715 crashing on approach to Kuala Lumpur/Subang from Hong Kong.
Second was on Dec. 4th when Malaysian Airline System Flight 653 was hijacked during the Penang-Subang route before detouring south from its intended destination and crashing just outside Singapore near the Johor Bahru city. (Extra info:- There is actually a novel adaptation based of this particular incident and I studied it in my high school.)
Yup they're quite unlucky to have those incidents.
Well losing control of the plane was already a huge scare. It’s a relief to hear the plane got landed safely.
These videos are very interesting
3:05 STFU! THIS WAS DRAMATIC! Imagine a plane fighting you the whole way!
Damn, how many switches do they have to hit to stop the auto throttle??? One should be enough... basic engineering. That shouldn't be very complicated
the ARM switch was added
due to another incident...why didn't they put a safety there thingy...,
There is one pair of switches to turn off the auto throttle. There is one switch to turn it on without changing FMA modes. There are two switches to disengage it. All very simple.
Thank you again
Funny how a correctly configured system is defined as one where there are triple backups, but if one backup fails..."Oh that's OK, we don't really care if the system is no longer configured correctly...". "we'll get around to it".
This says it all about commercial flying. There is a weird incident in which nobody was injured. It's still investigated dissected and analyzed to death. The pilots should not have been able to maintain good control of the bird but they did. It's why comercial flying is as safe as it is.
I am glad that they made it
Remember Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton? Dinosaur count is alright, there is no dinosaur missing because it reaches the expected value. Sure... but the count stopped when it reached that expected value. Once the expected value limitation to count was suppressed, they found there were many more dinosaurs in the park.
Morale? When designing fail-safe systems, never take anything for granted! Programmers sometimes reach points of programs where they think they have already covered all possible situations, and thus dismiss the opportunity to include an OTHERWISE clause where they could inform the user of an unexpected error, of a seemingly impossible situation. They should always include them!
The same happens with electronic circuits, or with other types of machinery, or with information systems like maintenance manuals or approach charts. Every system, when being developed, should be studied exhaustively from all possible points of view, if lives could depend on it. And once released, designs should be periodically reviewed, just in case.
The robustness of avionics software is very high. The complexity of the entire system is such that perfection is not possible. There's also the cost-benefit commercial reality to be considered; just how expensive do you want your flight?
@@richbiles230872 Apart from a former commercial pilot, I was a systems and applications programmer for 15 years. So I am aware of how much reliability can be attained by avionics (it's common, for example, to have 5 computers with different systems doing the same job and comparing results). Nonetheless, many programs rely on the lack of fault of sensors like angle of attack (AoA), Pitot tube sensors, radioaltimeter antennas, etc., and that lack cannot be assured (I remember a case when a cleaning crew covered such devices with tape and then forgot to remove them after cleaning; others where icing caused multiple sensor malfunction, and corrosion made for faulty RA antennas). And many airplanes lack a quick means to let the pilots effectively control the plane without computer interpretation. It is this last extreme that should be considered vital.
@@wafikiri_ my point was that there are limits, both technical and in terms of cost. Are you suggesting that there are relatively simple solutions that are not being implemented? Please understand that I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative, I'm genuinely interested in understanding your point.
@@richbiles230872 My point: first of all, automated avionics should not just 'see' the actual data and act on it alone, but instead compare that actual data with past, recent data to better detect data anomalies (so no sudden jump in data values pass unnoticed). Second, pilots unable to easily counter automated actions should always have at their disposal a switch or button to effectively disable all automation. Pulling or pushing a control column hard should count as such a switch. In my flying times, autopilots would disconnect upon any action on the control column or yoke. Nowadays not just autopilots but autothrottles, their modes, and their supporting computerized systems should do the same.
Edited to add more (when typing the above I was almost on the brink of falling asleep):
Not only automation should always easily and clearly be able to be switched off by pilots.
The first paragraph describes a rather novel point of view in designing automation. That is part of my opinion that, when designing aids to control people like pilots (but other areas as well) where lives or a great wealth could be at risk, the first planning should consist of a panoramic set of criteria that allows for as many as possible different views (such as challenging whatever kind of assumptions might be given for granted) to contribute to the design and later processes. Working to more and more detail but following and detailing the said plan would render safer results and probably be cheaper in the long run.
An example of the above: a few years ago, a train derailed and almost 200 people perished. The train had just passed the last of seven tunnels and a tight curve followed where the train derailed. The driver should have reduced speed before the curve but he mistook the last tunnel for the previous one. In the news, nobody asked why those two tunnels had not been painted very differently. Had they been, that mistake could have never occurred. A very simple and cheap precaution that had not been thought up. So I blame the engineering teams responsible for designing and keeping safety. They did nothing so simple in any of the decades that the railroad line had been operationg. I doubt they had done it after the accident. Lack of vision because of lack of interest.
It looks like a main problem with plane's computer system. That's a recepy for a disaster but the pilots were very good and avert a disaster . They should be given some kind of award
When he said something about honeywell i thought it was an ad so i skipped ahead but then i realised it wasnt 😂
This was the same video that “The flight Channel “ up loaded on there latest video,
Cheersb
In short, the pilots knew how to fly the airplane and they did just that. In the two 737Max crashes, the pilots knew only how to fly the COMPUTER and the airplanes crashed from minor events....
Finally a case of a pilot who knows how to fly without AP.