I flew with Captain Kevin Sullivan as an FO on the B767back in the late 90's. He was a very good pilot and was actually a Top Gun pilot during the filming of the movie and is in a scene or two (he mentioned to me which one he was by his helmet, but I can't recall). Kevin was definitely one of the Captains I tried to emulate when I eventually became a Captain. Imagine having a very scary situation like this, and your Captain was a top gun fighter pilot! Stellar Job there Capt Sullivan, handled with skill and professionalism! I salute you sir!
I read a book called "No Man's Land" by Captain Sullivan. The aftermath of this incident was tragic. One of the flight attendants was permanently disabled due to the incident and suffers chronic pain. He was never properly compensated. Captain Sullivan returned to flying after treatment for PTSD, but never felt he could trust the airplane again, and was always on edge. He had to stop flying.
An interesting point about the AIDRS at this time was that the inputs of every AIDIRU was crosschecked after a certain number of sensor readouts (I can't remember how many exactly but we are talking about split seconds here). But there was a bug within the system (as explained by the air crash investigation episode, I think): When the validation was complete the next dataset of the newly validated AIDIRU was accepted without crosschecking. In both of these dives this bug occured and transmitted the recovery command and following Airbus logic did not allow the pilot to override the system. These false datasets were only accepted for split seconds each and then corrected. After the second dive the system even realized that one AIDIRU was faulty and did not accept any further readouts for the rest of the flight. That is the difference between the 737 MCAS and this incident: Airbus relies a lot on sensors and systems but they crosscheck every bit of information. In this case there was a bug introduced in an earlier version that made this incident occur. The 737 MAX did not have any crosschecks and did not correct false readouts. It relied on the pilots to switch the MCAS system off although the pilots were never even informed about the system.
Correct, why the engineer never put this "crosscheck" in the plane, e.g : airspeed >= 280, altitude >38000, and plane suddenly nosing down rapidly, if the sensor is right they will calculated every possibility, like : checking TCAS (is this traffic with another plane?), checking nosing down (is there a storm cloud? is there pilot changing altitude?), checking engine failure? checking etc.. etc.. etc.. in seconds, and the computer not interupting pilot to recovering his / her plane in first place.
Regardless of issues with the AIDIRU, the flight control software should not accept inputs that are wildly beyond normal functioning parameters. The faulty AIDIRU should have been flagged, disregarded, and a specific alert/warning provided to the crew, within seconds (if not milliseconds). "Crosschecking" shouldn't factor into this for data which is clearly inaccurate or corrupt. I mean, if the electronic speedometer on an average car reads 600 km/h you instantly know that's incorrect. It was these 2 faults combined which caused this incident, the failed AIDIRU _and_ the software which accepted numbers that were obviously out-of-range (not to mention _acting_ on that false information in an extreme way).
I strongly and respectfully disagree sir. Ultimately and unfortunately In the case of the Maxx 8 lion air and Ethiopian airline. The planes did successfully (and unfortunately) disable the mcas permanently. Also all the other systems too. Rip.
The problem with the Boeing 737 MAX was that MCAS was relying on single sensor for AoA and speed input, where Airbus uses three sensors. There's no redundancy built into the 737 MAX. This is an incredibly stupid and dangerous design.
QUESTION - Since they didn't conclude the cause of the miscommunication, we're left to wonder. My concern is this, with an ever-increasing number of complicated communication systems acting simultaneously: satellite com, radio freq, isn't it a given that at some point plane com systems might be disrupted? Since they're already incredible sophisticated, how do you ADD failsafes? I don't see why a plane should ever nosedive without the pilot, because that means certain death if it doesn't level before hitting the ground. Thankfully, these level headed pilots agreed to land sooner than later. I can't imagine experiencing a sudden drop once, let alone 3 times. Not sure I could fly again after that.
Consider that this happened with no distractions; cross-traffic, bad weather, pedestrians, animals and more that self-driving cars are expected to deal with. This was a relatively simple hardware issue, what if the 'smart car' simply gets convinced that it knows better than the driver? What if the smart car get talked into doing something it shouldn't? Is the Tesla "Three Rules Ready"? Self-driving anything is a bad idea, outside of a robotic warehouse. If your sense of self-worth is so damn inflated you NEED a self driving car, hire a GD full-time driver and be done with it. Lots of people could use part-time jobs, driving around rich a**holes.
Top pilots don't yell. They have a brief, calm and civilised discussion, probably over a sip of tea, decide the plane has to land asap, and proceed. 🤔😨🥶
The captain actually even had to let go the stick as his counter-intuitive move, since he said the aircraft did not respond his input of pulling back the stick (to go up). Great as he was former USAF fighter pilots, then moved to Australia. Sully even praised him to save everyone’s onboard from would’ve been fatal disaster. From Sully (Sulenberger) to Sully (Sullivan). He and his badly injured flt attendant never fly again.
That's not what the ATSB stated. The ATSB stated that the captains stick inputs (including relaxing input) did nothing the regain control and that control was regained only when the corrupt data was no longer affecting the computers (which took about 2 sec). The ATSB and Airbus did analysis which showed that the events which played out was close to being as bad as they could have been. i.e. a crash was very unlikely. They even did simulations which showed if it occurred at low altitude it is very unlikely to have caused a crash and that recovery was very simple
@@Jamenator1 well Airbus would say that. They've been lying about their "brilliantly safe" FCS for decades. Including to smear pilots who become passengers when the FCS crashes the plane.
The captain was a former US Navy pilot. What's left out here but covered on Smithsonian's Air Disasters was the landing. In order to bring the plane down quickly and safely, the Captain relied on his Top Gun training and pulled a maneuver that landed the aircraft safely. What he did was thought impossible for a large passenger aircraft to do.
Too bad they were quite dicky with the employees on this flight. They gave them very little to no compensation and didn't provide support for the trauma the staff went through.
Why? Because one guy who saved a plane has the last name? 🤔 Or you have no idea what the last name is of Captain Sully who landed in the Hudson River? Ftr, it's Sullenberger -- not Sullivan.
But the MAX's weren't the first to do this... they were just closer to the ground and crews did not respond with appropriate NON-MCAS training or approved MCAS training. I do agree, timing is ironic...
No 'u' in Qantas - it used to be an acronym (Queensland And Northern Territory Air Service). Also given the massive scrutiny on the 737 Max, it'll probably end up safer than most planes on launch. Full recertification with multiple international agencies, and mandatory flight simulator training are both likey outcomes.
Chris Leyland you clearly haven’t looked at the material facts. Let me guess, you believe the rubbish spouted by the pro Boeing dummies saying that the crews weren’t trained as well? The Ethiopian crew were trained effectively and the trim stab cut off didn’t work, they had no control of the aircraft when they should have, they then re engaged it to get at least some control before the next input. The lion air crew had no chance given no one was told of said system nor did they know what to do in such a scenario. Let’s not forget that this one system relied on only one sensor with no back up systems. Less integral systems usually have 3+ backups, this vital one had none of that. And worse of all, this was all known during the testing. There is a reason the planes been grounded for a year and now has cast huge doubts over the FAA’s ability to regulate effectively. The EASA and CAA etc won’t be taking their word for it. KLM with their dream liners reported quality wasn’t great and the Air force had to halt deliveries all together. Not to mention that most of the management has now been replaced. This was a massive scandal and for you to downplay it and assign blame on the heroic crews who fought to the end to save their passengers is shameful to say the least.
@@Horizon301. no those pilots weren't trained properly. Yes they fought until the end but that doesn't make them excellent pilots. How do explain the incidents where the pilots recovered from the same thing happening to them? You're a Airbus fanboy? All manufacturers have had problems with certain models of aircraft. And no I'm not an all Boeing fan either. I'm a fan of all manufacturers because they keep each other striving to be the best. You idiots who think one manufacturer is way better than the other! Stupidity at its finest!
@@wyomingadventures you dimwit, no max pilots were trained properly Lion, Ethiopian, German, alien.... Etc. You know why? Bc none of them were told about this damn system in the firstplace thanks to greedy boeing officials who wants to keep it hidden to save training costs so that airlines choose them over airbus, the truth is there were no prior training not even a proper notification to them that this shit mcas existed and even if they did switch it off, mcas cycles on again and overrides the pilots prior input, this was murder yet here you are putting the blame on the pilots? How do you sleep at night? And tell me, what are the flight numbers of the other MCAS cases on the Max that you mentioned? Either tell that or i call you out as a troll.
@A Frustrated Gamer I think the Airbus should also listen to the pilots talk to further help judge the situation. That's the future. Pilot - "Why are you diving?" Plane - "My computer is telling me this.." Pilot - "Don't listen to it." Plane - "verifying concern with ground crew, permission for captain to take over?" Ground crew- "permission granted. Pilots you now have control of your plane."
I watched another documentary on this crash where they were interviewing the captain and he was formerly a fighter pilot and in their training they were advised to let go of the stick if it was unresponsive, so that's what he did and that's how he regained control :)
@@helenamondragon8817 The documentary was talking rubbish and was twisting the captains words, relaxing the stick did nothing to regain control. ATSB report states that, during the 2 seconds where the computers were using corrupt data, the captain's stick inputs did nothing and could have done nothing to regain control. The report states the only effect of the relaxed stick input was to slow the recovery once the aircraft started responding, thereby lessening the G-forces the passengers experienced and that the captains stick inputs were appropriate. Out of interest the report also stated that this was very close to being the worst case scenario and that it could not have caused a crash
@Cindy Tartt well, as a Tourist in Australia I almost feel confident in your airline. It’s almost crashresistant. You make everything badass: your planes and your pilots. You know that some flaws will almost immediately be identified. It’s so reassuring to be in your airline. :)
I seen this on air emergencies, this pilot is a real hero, the people in the cabin got really messed up, one ladys head went thru the roof of the pastic ceiling, but the pilot really did his thing and saved all the souls on board
This was an incredible compilation. That’s Captain 👨🏼✈️Joe. Thanks to the professional nature of the captain that landed the plane ✈️ safely on the ground
"...although a definitive conclusion could not be reached,..." Anyway, it is worrying that computers and electronic systems can, without prior warning, take control of parts of the flight, causing an eventual accident. How to imagine a large aircraft being piloted by only 1 pilot, as the aviation industry wants, if with three pilots, in some cases, it becomes difficult to solve a problem in flight.
It is Airbus philosophy that the AIRCRAFT is correct and plilts molitor the aircraft performance, but Boeing still believes that the PILOTS should have the power to override automation
@@watershed44 which I would like to add to your comment, Pilots generally can do, if protocol and procedure are correctly implemented. in the MAX disasters, the pilots did NOT use their training properly, either the older Memory items, or the newer MCAS training procedures.
1 female passenger had a foot ripped off and needed extreme surgery on her spine witch had to be done from the front, so all her guts had to be taken out and put back in....
No, planes don't have minds of their own! Think about it!! Obviously someone hacked into the plane's computer system and tried to crash the aircraft! It was a computer hack!
ATCO here , this channel is very important to me . Experience and notions that really help me to proceed with some “unusual “ events in my job. I am new at work and have these knowledge it’s really nice! congratulations ! Awesome job you do here. Excuse my rusty english.
I've always wondered what happened to the plane I was on when I was a kid. It was a Thai Airways flying from Bangkok to Phuket. We taxied to the runway and it was when the engines started revving to begin the take off that everything shut down. All the lights went out, the engines died. Then they turned everything on again, tried again, and as soon as the engines powered up, everything shut down again. I started crying, people were mumbling. Smoke started coming out from the opening above the carry on storage. And then a fellow passenger told us we were going to change planes. but we went back to the gate. Since I started watching this channel I've been wondering if there is any way to find out what happened. What if that happened while we were flying... scary.
I only know it was the first or second week of January 2001. More likely the last few days of the first week as we left on the 31st of Dec, toured the north for a few days and then travelled down. It must've been an A330 or similar 'cause that's what they're using now for the same route... but it was almost 20 years ago so... dunno.
Beautiful video and well done. This could have gone so terribly wrong that it's scary. Thankfully it landed safely and the crew did an excellent job. Hopefully everyone recovered from their injuries on this flight
I was stationed at the Naval Station Exmouth, Western Australia. I did many a MAC flight out on that airstrip, so seeing this video made me both happy and homesick at the same time. If your recreation is exact, the area has grown in the 27 years since I lived there. Makes me proud. And I am so relieved that everyone survived the flight.
I love your work man 🤩 There all the explications in your videos, so many details, nothing miss 👌 Keep up the great work 😃 (Sorry for bad grammar I'm french 😅)
Another awesome vid from TheFlightChannel 👍👍 thanx!! This weird extreme dive thing happened to me on a flight from Miami to Albuquerque back in 2000 on an America West flight. While over the gulf of Mexico we dove hard and everything not bucket down slammed into the ceiling, hard, and stayed there for a few seconds. Back when I'd screens popped down from the ceiling they all got splashed with beverages and a number of them started sparking and catching on fire. We ultimately emergency landed in Atlanta. More than a few were carried off on stretchers. The airline gave those of us who needed to continue on to our original destinations, as much booze as we wanted. So I slept like a baby in first class all the way to Monterrey 👍 But, yeah. Scary.
Notification: you have a new TFC video. Me: drops everything I'm doing, hangs do not disturb sign on door, anf hunkers in to enjoy latest new episode. Happy happy! Your videos just keep getting better and better! I am one happy viewer!💖💖
@@theflightchannel oh, very much so! I consider it a major way to learn about the what, how, why, and what can be done differently. I'm a massive avgeek, thanks to my dad, who is retired Navy AMHC. Hope you don't mind I'm a girl, lol!
I absolutely love your work! Thank you for sharing your gift with us. When life gets very tough I watch your videos to get me through. I'm very grateful. By chance, what is the name of the music landing from your last video, Warsaw belly landing. That music is so inspiring and I've been searching everywhere for it. It would make my year to be able to hear it in full 🙏
Do you have an android phone? (if you do, hold the home button and ask the google assistant "What is this song called?" and then play the part of the video in which the song appears from a separate device, like a computer or another phone. The name will appear when it listens to a bit of the song.)
@@karvalakki4428 thank you so much for the Shazam. That was a great idea! The song is called Boundary by Kevin Graham. It is the most epic theme, like The Dark Night meets Inception. So grateful to you Karva and others who responded. You made my year.
The approach to "Learmonth" is actually the 28 Broome approach. When we had QF 44 (another A330) divert into Broome, it was after midnight, and used the 10 approach.
I'm no expert on "real-time" systems but I am an IT professional and my understanding is, that on multiple redundant systems like this they operate on a quorum basis. In a case like this, the 2 functioning units should override the malfunctioning one. To me, this represents a major design failing, I wouldn't want to operate this on even non-real-time systems. However, I look forward to being corrected on this view.
Actually, the systems eventually, after many automatic checks, also "found out" that one of the ADIRU's was faulty and the aircraft then stopped supplying information from it and that is the reason why there were no more problems until they landed.
The COU corrupted the data and it was processed as valid. The FCPC takes valid data from all 3 AOA’s then checks them against the median. If they are consistent it takes the average of 1 and 2 and that is the figure it uses as a final computation. If it is inconsistent it memories the previous value for 1.2 seconds. However there were many data spikes and one occured just as the 1.2 seconds was ending and it was then processed as being correct until other values were processed
Sadly this captain never flew again, he said he could not, he is a hero! there is a really good note on this incident on 60 minutes Australia, with the story of the people involved. So glad this man was a fighter pilot in the US air force, had been a Air Asia or Adam air pilot, this story would not have had a happy ending
When I first started reading about computers and software having more and more control over commercial airplanes, I said to myself, "It is only a matter of time before a glitch or computer malfunction crashes a plane." Yes, mechanical and structural failures are going to happen - metal fatigues, moving parts wear out, there are flaws in manufacturing, pilots can make fatal errors - but I would never say, "I'm going to stake the lives of all the people on this plane on the 100% fail-safe functioning of a computer." Here was a case where the computer almost crashed the plane, and of course now we have the 2 Max-MCAS crashes. How many more crashes or near-crashes are we going to have before we stop relying on fragile sensors and buggy software, and go back to having expert, rigorously-trained pilots?
I have never liked the idea of software and microcircuitry making decisions without a human who can monitor *and override* them. Maybe planes need the big red button to cut out all the automatic intervention when it obviously makes incorrect decisions.
Well the MCAS was pure stupid programming from a human with no checks in place to see the obvious flaw that had been programmed into the MCAS with no safety's in place as it was missing 4 safety's that the tanker variant of the Boeing planes has, witch was use both AOA sensors, limit trim movements amount per activation and max trim setting (it can no longer go to max trim down any more) and last one was pulling back auto disabled MCAS, this has now been corrected basically now if the autopilot won't engage MCAS won't activate as well (as autopilot and now MCAS requires both AOA sensors to be in agreement for it to function)
Ah yes, lets go back to the days before 2008 where plane crashes and incidents due to pilot error were much higher than they are now. Most modern plane crashes these days are caused by the pilots themselves being untrained (2 MCAS crashes) or just general pilot error like pakistan 8303. Try flying the concorde where your panel is made up of tens of different tools you have to monitor at the same time unlike modern airliners
@@ilovesteveclark6084 The short answer is yes. The pilot disengaged the auto-pilot and that allowed him to fly the plane correctly. When the auto-pilot was re-engaged, it controlled the plane based on the bad data. The auto pilot correctly responded to incorrect control inputs. If I interpret correctly, the source of the bad data was not positively identified. If someone who has read the accident report can correct or elucidate my observation, please do so.
All that going up and down business made sense to me when I realized there is a giant kangaroo painted on the side of the plane... I'm glad everyone survived, feel for those who were injured. I can't imagine the fear everyone went through.
I love airplanes, they are a awesome machine and forever getting better. I've all ways watched air investigation shows and understand there issues. A big thank you to the ATSB for making aviation great. From Australia we all have pride of the Qantas plane it's all ways clean, smooth ride, beautiful flight attendant girls and the safest plane that fly's.
The captain did the same technique of releasing the joystick, like with a military fighter airplane, and the a330 stabilized again. Sorry for bad english
Were we watching the same video?!? Every time the joystick was released (control returned to software) it eventually lead to erratic flight conditions - _which were only resolved when manual control resumed_ (using the joystick). Yes, at one point it appeared to self-stabilise, but that didn't last for long.
This is why you should wear your seatbelt while in your seat, even if the light isn't on. It's rare, but something like this or clear air turbulence could send your skull straight into the ceiling.
This was 12 years ago. And the good thing about Airbus cockpits is that basically the whole fleet instantly benefits from errors found in the aviation systems in particular conditions such as the one mentioned here.
I’m surprised the Captain did not declare a mayday after the first ‘joy dive’ - any nutty airplane is worth declaring - Airbus or Dumbus - the sad bit was that Qantas never reasonably compensated any of its crew for their brave role and physical injuries sustained - very Australian indeed. Amazing video as always, TFC 👌🏾
People are always saying that technology is always accurate and humans create errors. My response: How can technology always be accurate if humans designed the technology. So if humans aren't accurate than the technology That they design will not be accurate either.
"The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake, or distorted information". "But that ADIRU unit, she's a bitch! Can't work with her...she crazy!"
@Gizmonic Man BINGO friend. Stanley Kubrick gave us a preview of such AI type systems, in 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968! The HAL 9000 was a killing machine. If you haven't watched this movie you definitely should it holds up very well and is insightful.
Tech will never be "always" accurate, that's not the goal. The goal is to be safer than humans. Self driving cars will still kill humans. But far less. That's what matters.
Another outstanding video, and once again, thank you for posting. I'm just wondering why that aircraft is still in service when there hasn't been a definitive answer as to exactly what happened. Apparently the powers-that-be decided to return the aircraft to service after some repairs were performed based on speculation. I don't know about you all, but that's pretty scary to me.
But nothing happened to this plane since. This incident won't happen again with that particular A-330, you can bet they changed everything that was faulty ASAP.
The aircraft isn't really faulty right from the start it is because of the sudden surge of cosmic rays that made the computer suddenly acted that way it is commonly called "Bit Flipping"
As someone who is not in the field it's nerve-wracking to see all the mechanical and technological intricacies that are involved in an aircraft. Scary to see how one minor glitch in any of these systems can be potentially disastrous.
GOOGLE ! seriously,,, put all your ADs either at the beginning or at the end ! sheesh ! interrupted 3 times during this vid ....(Great vid btw Flight Channel !)
Ron Luczak Very valid point. I watch a lot of clips and the repetition of ads drives me crazy. The silly fools don’t realise that they are turning me off the product completely.
You know that it is not Google that determines where the ads are placed right, it is the content creator that decides where to put ads and in the case it was TFC.
@@infiniteleong9789 Absolutely. And because he makes such great video's for us FOR FREE, he has the right to earn some money from us watching those (short!) ads!
So I work on this stuff for a living. And I'm trying to understand how the IRU would swap places with the data for Altitude (Label 324 reverse octal (00101011)) and Pitch (Label 361 reverse octal (10001111)) as this would be more than a single bit flopping. In the label (first lower 8 bits in a the 32 bit word) And usually these things are re-encoded each time. I will say that the software for an IRU is almost always level A and would have had every line of code tested and no dead code is allowed. Perhaps they had an indexing system to data points for encoding and these two data points where right next to each other in the array or in some offset where a single bit flip could change the access location between these two. (For example 111 (Altitude) and 110 (Pitch))
Yeah, that also boggles my mind. Even though I'm not knowledgable about Airbus' software, I don't know how the flipped bit didn't get overwritten immediately after next cycle of data.
Im sure without knowing your probably right. You obviously seem to have the deepest understanding of how things work . Ill buy you and your theory, fellow engineer
What really interested me about this besides the cause is, after the second dive the computer (for some reason) decided the information it was receiving was not reliable and ignored further complaints. Allowing the captain to bring it down and land safely. It would've been impossible to land had it not done this as a dive sequence would've kicked in while too close to the ground.
Airbus got away with it obviously. Had the uncommanded maneuver and loss of control happened at take off, the results would have been the same as with the 737 MAX. Boeing has now been deservedly vilified (and well beyond), to the point of near bankruptcy for their errors; but at least the investigations have resulted in revealing the cause. It is not comforting to think that Airbus still does not know why these two incidents occurred with their 330 aircraft. Technology, and specifically “fly by wire”, can be considered a wonderful thing; but the loss of the system or its parts results in the aircraft itself becoming the only pilot. The crew and passengers are then at the mercy of a faulty computer. There are no cables, pulleys, or push/pull rods to save you. Likewise, the pilots trained in the last 15 years (as opposed to those trained only a few years before) may not have the acquired knowledge or manual skills to efficiently fly modern aircraft should the electronics fail. Perhaps a redundant, albeit archaic system, of pure mechanical contrivance be considered?
Edsmaureen there has never been an airbus flight where the computers have all been disabled and the plane is unflyable. And even if they did the rudder and horizontal stabiliser are mechanically connected to the pedals and trim wheel so it’s still possible to control even without sidestick
@Kathy Sharp They do crosschecks however not for every datapoint so the faulty information got processed and the plane entered a dive which was corrected by the crosscheck 2 seconds later. So the plane would not have crashed. However if one of the pilots gives a wrong input and everyone dies onboard that will not be corrected on a boeing 737. But it will be on an airbus. As pilot error is more likely than computer errors i prefer this method more.
He didn't pull back on his stick Captian Kevin Sullivan actually used his navy training which told him. to neutralise controls, so he let go of his side stick
For the record on the first pitch down nose dive the plane didn't respond to the captain's input at all he said in an interview that he learnt from his training to leave the plane do its thing so he pulled his hand away from the stick and the plane leveled off by itself
Ah, Qantas... the world’s safest airline with only 21 fatalities in over 100 years of service! They also haven’t had a crash that resulted in a fatality in over 70 years. It’s really quite impressive.
What a complete blessing that they were even able to land the plane safely..... Much honor and respect to the crew!!! To the flight attendants, and passengers..... I couldn't even imagine when that plane took a dive twice..... My anxiety would've reached the max and they would've had to sedate me to calm me down!! And too think....they had to get on another plane to reach their destination.... I would've been traumatized😱😱 I now get upset once someone says that flying is the safest way to travel😒😒 There's NOTHING SAFE about something you're trying to control that goes outta control!! Fastest yes, but safest..... I think not!!
This is probably one of the most terrifying incidents I’ve seen since there’s no solution or even adequate explanation of the cause. A horrifying prospect putting your life in the hands of badly written software.
All aircraft should have manual backup instruments which rely on fly-by-wire technology. It is software error. Automation is good but there should be an override button so that the aircraft can be flown by hand according to VFR rules. Manual yokes should be present even if the aircraft is flown by stick.
Only possible on pre 777 planes (or older Airbus planes) witch have direct hydraulic connected pipes to the sticks Generally fly by electric is safe as long as there is redundancy in place and its generally a lot easier to do it with power then hydraulic systems the computer systems (3 of them) was not correctly cross checking the data between the 3 computers to verify that the data from computer 1 was correct as it was only the computer 1 on the left side that was providing faulty data , the copilot side computer 2 was working correctly but somehow was not been cross checked for errors when computer 1 was reporting high pitch angle and accepted it as valid when it was very clearly invalid sure they corrected this issue later on or at least made sure that sudden pitch down events that was producing negative G could no longer happen, as the computer was basically thinking it was say at pitch 50 (and stalling) when it should be at 30 so computer said well set trim down 20 with zero smoothing witch resulting in normally impossible instant pitch down event to happen (as Airbus systems typically smooth out all inputs for smooth flying)
@@leexgx Flying manually and not 'by-wire' is not really related to hydraulics. 737Max was hydraulic, but implemented the ideea of FBW. You could have electric actuators and motors which are fed data through 2 busses, one is assisted by the computer, and one comes directly from the controls. A mix between hydraulics and electric provides redundancy in another department: control systems, as you can run the plane even if the pumps are broken or if the wires are cut.
@@nottoday3817 It is definitely a very technical issue which requires engineering solution. Perhaps a specific alarm like Analogue-Digital disconnect may help. And a yoke is better in emergency situation as it provides visual input which can be correlated with attitude indicator. Pilots may be able to diagnose faster rather than confirming the QRH so that they can Aviate-Navigate-Communicate better and land the aircraft. Ultimately every technology has pros and cons.
This exact scenario is why I never leave my seat when I’m on a plane. I’m buckled in for the entire flight. Not risking standing up and being thrown around the second it drops too much.
This must have been terrifying for the passengers, in fact for everyone. Computers will go wrong at some point but when it sends your plane on a descent toward the ground its extremely worrying
Another fabulous! Video. Anyone who puts a thumbs down on ANY VIDEO'S need to take lessons on what it takes to make such detailed realistic video's and get to steppin!!. Keep up the great work. Will highly recommend your channel to many interested. Best regards from 🇨🇦 Ontario Canada.
Thank God the pilot and copilot kept calm under pressure and everyone survived. Personally I don't want to fly, unless necessary. To many variables in flying. You don't know the planes history of maintenance. You don't know about the pilots competence. Your flying in a cyndrilical tube, what can possibly go wrong?
![Boeing 737 Cannot Land Anywhere | All Engines Flameout [With Real Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CD3liu46BsM/mqdefault.jpg)
I flew with Captain Kevin Sullivan as an FO on the B767back in the late 90's. He was a very good pilot and was actually a Top Gun pilot during the filming of the movie and is in a scene or two (he mentioned to me which one he was by his helmet, but I can't recall).
Kevin was definitely one of the Captains I tried to emulate when I eventually became a Captain.
Imagine having a very scary situation like this, and your Captain was a top gun fighter pilot!
Stellar Job there Capt Sullivan, handled with skill and professionalism! I salute you sir!
Ex F14 Tomcat & Mirage III pilot...
Whoa 😮🤯😮😮😮😮😲😲
Shut up
@@ilaydaaaaucrrr what the fuck
Whoa 😮🤯😮😮😮😮😲😲Whoa 😮🤯😮😮😮😮😲😲
Pilot pulls back on the stick
"I'm sorry Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that"
OMG HAHAHAAHAHA!!!!!
Except the Airbus computer would say it in French, of course...
HAL
Exactly
kevin*
I read a book called "No Man's Land" by Captain Sullivan. The aftermath of this incident was tragic. One of the flight attendants was permanently disabled due to the incident and suffers chronic pain. He was never properly compensated.
Captain Sullivan returned to flying after treatment for PTSD, but never felt he could trust the airplane again, and was always on edge. He had to stop flying.
Oh:(
Oh wow! thank you for that info.
Will get this book! Thanks for sharing this info.
Very sad.
@churchie anand and you beat me to it.
Yeah why the video ends with computer technicalities while completely ignoring the victims of the incident
**stall and overspeed warning at the same time**
*logic has left the chat*
nob0dy27 ikr hahahahaha
Remember a stall can occur at any speed, not just low speed.
It is actually possible: it's called "Coffin corner" and it's an extremely dangerous situation, very difficult to recover from
AD Electronic Teardowns yes, true. but as far as I know the stall warning in planes go off on Low speeds because they can't detect stall otherwise.
@@nob0dy27_ Here's a good page that talks about stalls and causes: www.thebalancecareers.com/what-is-an-aircraft-stall-282603
Captain: *pulls up*
The plane: "hOW aBoUT i dONt"
Ok
@Kaden CURTIS Sorry... should I remove it?
@@cedricye1767 go to r/darkhumor Its a better place for this meme
looks like someone have Reddit boys...
@@cedricye1767 No it's fine, ppl joke about disasters and death all the time it's actually a coping mechanism sometimes.
6:39 that’s why you must always keep your seatbelts fastened even when The sign is turned off
An interesting point about the AIDRS at this time was that the inputs of every AIDIRU was crosschecked after a certain number of sensor readouts (I can't remember how many exactly but we are talking about split seconds here). But there was a bug within the system (as explained by the air crash investigation episode, I think):
When the validation was complete the next dataset of the newly validated AIDIRU was accepted without crosschecking. In both of these dives this bug occured and transmitted the recovery command and following Airbus logic did not allow the pilot to override the system. These false datasets were only accepted for split seconds each and then corrected. After the second dive the system even realized that one AIDIRU was faulty and did not accept any further readouts for the rest of the flight.
That is the difference between the 737 MCAS and this incident: Airbus relies a lot on sensors and systems but they crosscheck every bit of information. In this case there was a bug introduced in an earlier version that made this incident occur.
The 737 MAX did not have any crosschecks and did not correct false readouts. It relied on the pilots to switch the MCAS system off although the pilots were never even informed about the system.
Correct, why the engineer never put this "crosscheck" in the plane,
e.g : airspeed >= 280, altitude >38000, and plane suddenly nosing down rapidly, if the sensor is right they will calculated every possibility, like : checking TCAS (is this traffic with another plane?), checking nosing down (is there a storm cloud? is there pilot changing altitude?), checking engine failure? checking etc.. etc.. etc.. in seconds, and the computer not interupting pilot to recovering his / her plane in first place.
Regardless of issues with the AIDIRU, the flight control software should not accept inputs that are wildly beyond normal functioning parameters. The faulty AIDIRU should have been flagged, disregarded, and a specific alert/warning provided to the crew, within seconds (if not milliseconds). "Crosschecking" shouldn't factor into this for data which is clearly inaccurate or corrupt. I mean, if the electronic speedometer on an average car reads 600 km/h you instantly know that's incorrect. It was these 2 faults combined which caused this incident, the failed AIDIRU _and_ the software which accepted numbers that were obviously out-of-range (not to mention _acting_ on that false information in an extreme way).
I strongly and respectfully disagree sir. Ultimately and unfortunately In the case of the Maxx 8 lion air and Ethiopian airline. The planes did successfully (and unfortunately) disable the mcas permanently. Also all the other systems too. Rip.
The problem with the Boeing 737 MAX was that MCAS was relying on single sensor for AoA and speed input, where Airbus uses three sensors. There's no redundancy built into the 737 MAX. This is an incredibly stupid and dangerous design.
QUESTION - Since they didn't conclude the cause of the miscommunication, we're left to wonder. My concern is this, with an ever-increasing number of complicated communication systems acting simultaneously: satellite com, radio freq, isn't it a given that at some point plane com systems might be disrupted? Since they're already incredible sophisticated, how do you ADD failsafes? I don't see why a plane should ever nosedive without the pilot, because that means certain death if it doesn't level before hitting the ground. Thankfully, these level headed pilots agreed to land sooner than later. I can't imagine experiencing a sudden drop once, let alone 3 times. Not sure I could fly again after that.
Makes you wonder what self driving cars will do when their electronics go haywire at some point.
There's a video of a tesla switching to kill humans mode.
@@RunninQHsRock They already do that.
Consider that this happened with no distractions; cross-traffic, bad weather, pedestrians, animals and more that self-driving cars are expected to deal with.
This was a relatively simple hardware issue, what if the 'smart car' simply gets convinced that it knows better than the driver?
What if the smart car get talked into doing something it shouldn't?
Is the Tesla "Three Rules Ready"?
Self-driving anything is a bad idea, outside of a robotic warehouse.
If your sense of self-worth is so damn inflated you NEED a self driving car, hire a GD full-time driver and be done with it.
Lots of people could use part-time jobs, driving around rich a**holes.
BUT our PC's never crash... they are 100% reliable!!!! LOL
Exactly.
Why does a captain named Sullivan have to be in so many emergencies??
And moreover those all land up safely
Next flight, over the PA: "Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. This is captain Sully..."
I suddenly feel afraid and yet safe all at the same time.
And always in an Airbus plane.
Sully was Sullenberger, not Sullivan lol
Over the PA: hello, this is your captain Sullekopolis, but you can call me sully
Me: get me off this plane
After a brief discussion.....yeah, three people yelling for 2 seconds, “Land the f@cking thing!,,”
😂
"Put the bloody bastard on the ground, and try to do so in one piece for Gods sake!"
The Emperor 😂
Top pilots don't yell. They have a brief, calm and civilised discussion, probably over a sip of tea, decide the plane has to land asap, and proceed. 🤔😨🥶
@@thecockerel86 yeah but these are Aussies, swearing is almost a part of our professional speak
The captain actually even had to let go the stick as his counter-intuitive move, since he said the aircraft did not respond his input of pulling back the stick (to go up). Great as he was former USAF fighter pilots, then moved to Australia. Sully even praised him to save everyone’s onboard from would’ve been fatal disaster. From Sully (Sulenberger) to Sully (Sullivan). He and his badly injured flt attendant never fly again.
That's not what the ATSB stated. The ATSB stated that the captains stick inputs (including relaxing input) did nothing the regain control and that control was regained only when the corrupt data was no longer affecting the computers (which took about 2 sec). The ATSB and Airbus did analysis which showed that the events which played out was close to being as bad as they could have been. i.e. a crash was very unlikely. They even did simulations which showed if it occurred at low altitude it is very unlikely to have caused a crash and that recovery was very simple
@@Jamenator1 well Airbus would say that. They've been lying about their "brilliantly safe" FCS for decades. Including to smear pilots who become passengers when the FCS crashes the plane.
@@richardmartin8998 Read the ATSB report, it explains the reasoning quite clearly why it wouldn't have caused a crash.
The captain was a former US Navy pilot. What's left out here but covered on Smithsonian's Air Disasters was the landing. In order to bring the plane down quickly and safely, the Captain relied on his Top Gun training and pulled a maneuver that landed the aircraft safely. What he did was thought impossible for a large passenger aircraft to do.
He actually let go and then pulled back again. It’s in the report
Captain: Why wont the aircraft pull up!.
A330: I want be 737-Max8.
Oh, i get what u mean
2008: A330 MCAS
2018: B737 MCAS
true lol
I see Qantas - I know everyone survived :D
*Qantas
@@vojta4045 true, fixed that
@@user-wp5ih3sh8t 👍
Too bad they were quite dicky with the employees on this flight. They gave them very little to no compensation and didn't provide support for the trauma the staff went through.
Me too 👍👍👍👍👍👍
Best sentence
“Everyone survived “
صُهيب المجمعي not for an arab
General of your mom well I am glad that everyone survived
@@mappingtheshit got the whole squad laughing
Not counting the broken bones
@@mappingtheshit nobody cares about Arabs.
A330: wow this is like the scariest thing I could have done to these guys
Max8: ...hold my beer
Max8: hold my engine
MAX8: Hold my MCAS
Hold my yoke
Hold my bladder.
Max 8: hold my nose trim selector
So...in a nutshell, if your plane is going down, you REALLY want your captain to have the surname Sullivan. That's about the long and short of it.
Why? Because one guy who saved a plane has the last name? 🤔 Or you have no idea what the last name is of Captain Sully who landed in the Hudson River? Ftr, it's Sullenberger -- not Sullivan.
The timing of this episode fits well with Quantas recently toying with the idea of adding 737 Maxes to their fleet.
But the MAX's weren't the first to do this... they were just closer to the ground and crews did not respond with appropriate NON-MCAS training or approved MCAS training. I do agree, timing is ironic...
No 'u' in Qantas - it used to be an acronym (Queensland And Northern Territory Air Service).
Also given the massive scrutiny on the 737 Max, it'll probably end up safer than most planes on launch. Full recertification with multiple international agencies, and mandatory flight simulator training are both likey outcomes.
Chris Leyland you clearly haven’t looked at the material facts. Let me guess, you believe the rubbish spouted by the pro Boeing dummies saying that the crews weren’t trained as well? The Ethiopian crew were trained effectively and the trim stab cut off didn’t work, they had no control of the aircraft when they should have, they then re engaged it to get at least some control before the next input. The lion air crew had no chance given no one was told of said system nor did they know what to do in such a scenario. Let’s not forget that this one system relied on only one sensor with no back up systems. Less integral systems usually have 3+ backups, this vital one had none of that. And worse of all, this was all known during the testing. There is a reason the planes been grounded for a year and now has cast huge doubts over the FAA’s ability to regulate effectively. The EASA and CAA etc won’t be taking their word for it. KLM with their dream liners reported quality wasn’t great and the Air force had to halt deliveries all together. Not to mention that most of the management has now been replaced. This was a massive scandal and for you to downplay it and assign blame on the heroic crews who fought to the end to save their passengers is shameful to say the least.
@@Horizon301. no those pilots weren't trained properly. Yes they fought until the end but that doesn't make them excellent pilots. How do explain the incidents where the pilots recovered from the same thing happening to them? You're a Airbus fanboy? All manufacturers have had problems with certain models of aircraft. And no I'm not an all Boeing fan either. I'm a fan of all manufacturers because they keep each other striving to be the best. You idiots who think one manufacturer is way better than the other! Stupidity at its finest!
@@wyomingadventures you dimwit, no max pilots were trained properly Lion, Ethiopian, German, alien.... Etc. You know why? Bc none of them were told about this damn system in the firstplace thanks to greedy boeing officials who wants to keep it hidden to save training costs so that airlines choose them over airbus, the truth is there were no prior training not even a proper notification to them that this shit mcas existed and even if they did switch it off, mcas cycles on again and overrides the pilots prior input, this was murder yet here you are putting the blame on the pilots?
How do you sleep at night?
And tell me, what are the flight numbers of the other MCAS cases on the Max that you mentioned? Either tell that or i call you out as a troll.
Captain pulls back.
Qantas - "chill out, I'll do it when I'm ready."
Everyone survives.
Could have been worse, could have been a 737 Max.
Not Qantas, Airbus A330.
thecockerel
Not The Airbus A330.
The Software.
@@airforce66 Actually wasn't it a sensor / hardware fault?
Deevo037
The Sensor Runs On A Software.
One of my favorite channels about flying. Great work.
Somebody forgot to switch off his smartphone
Ex0rdin smartphones don’t cause planes to crash they only can interfere with ATC transmissions
@@K4Ediamond woah, the joke went over your head at Mach 2!
Tanmay Chat ?
Tanmay Chat oh it’s a joke I see
That was my thoughts too! lol Yes, jokingly, but I was gonna say that too. :)
The pilots and passengers are damn lucky the airplane finally responded to the stick
@A Frustrated Gamer I think the Airbus should also listen to the pilots talk to further help judge the situation. That's the future.
Pilot - "Why are you diving?"
Plane - "My computer is telling me this.."
Pilot - "Don't listen to it."
Plane - "verifying concern with ground crew, permission for captain to take over?"
Ground crew- "permission granted. Pilots you now have control of your plane."
I watched another documentary on this crash where they were interviewing the captain and he was formerly a fighter pilot and in their training they were advised to let go of the stick if it was unresponsive, so that's what he did and that's how he regained control :)
@@helenamondragon8817 The documentary was talking rubbish and was twisting the captains words, relaxing the stick did nothing to regain control. ATSB report states that, during the 2 seconds where the computers were using corrupt data, the captain's stick inputs did nothing and could have done nothing to regain control. The report states the only effect of the relaxed stick input was to slow the recovery once the aircraft started responding, thereby lessening the G-forces the passengers experienced and that the captains stick inputs were appropriate. Out of interest the report also stated that this was very close to being the worst case scenario and that it could not have caused a crash
It was Sully, he would have rescued the passengers even if the stick didn't respond. He is a hero
A_erospace and you’re a dumb moron.
That must have been terrifying for the passengers and crew.
Nice work FlightChannel
@Cindy Tartt How does the captain know what the passengers are doing? Oh wait they don't. So how would he know there peeing and barfing etc.
Whole special on it with interviews. Came here after to see TFC's take on it
ua-cam.com/video/0cS1SMptlnQ/v-deo.html
pretty worrying for the crew coming in to land - 400 ft dive from 300 ft would not end well!
@Cindy Tartt well, as a Tourist in Australia I almost feel confident in your airline. It’s almost crashresistant. You make everything badass: your planes and your pilots. You know that some flaws will almost immediately be identified. It’s so reassuring to be in your airline. :)
I seen this on air emergencies, this pilot is a real hero, the people in the cabin got really messed up, one ladys head went thru the roof of the pastic ceiling, but the pilot really did his thing and saved all the souls on board
“Captain Sullivan”
“Captain Sullenberger”
*_Coincidence?_*
A lucky coincidence, that all passengers survived in both cases.
"Coincidence?" I think not!
Sullenberger congratulated Sullivan!
*i think not*
engine did not explode, don't be silly
This was an incredible compilation. That’s Captain 👨🏼✈️Joe. Thanks to the professional nature of the captain that landed the plane ✈️ safely on the ground
Experience matters. Now if it had been Lion Air.
Salute to the Flight crew!
Glad they were able to overcome the malfunction and land the plane safely
"...although a definitive conclusion could not be reached,..."
Anyway, it is worrying that computers and electronic systems can, without prior warning, take control of parts of the flight, causing an eventual accident.
How to imagine a large aircraft being piloted by only 1 pilot, as the aviation industry wants, if with three pilots, in some cases, it becomes difficult to solve a problem in flight.
It is Airbus philosophy that the AIRCRAFT is correct and plilts molitor the aircraft performance, but Boeing still believes that the PILOTS should have the power to override automation
guess what computer put 2 planes in a nose dive without recovery, still generates problems to this day and isn't airbus, wanna guess?
@Lobo das Estepes
Still the pilot if needed should be able to disable any automated systems entirely if need be so he can manually control the plane.
@@watershed44 which I would like to add to your comment, Pilots generally can do, if protocol and procedure are correctly implemented. in the MAX disasters, the pilots did NOT use their training properly, either the older Memory items, or the newer MCAS training procedures.
El Hombre Reviewer imagine if this event happened below 10k feet. Just like the Max.
A330neo wouldn’t be a thing.
“And Sullivan is the captain”
Me : Then everyone survives - for sure! 😁
That 'Sull' name seems to have a weight on piloting, true
@@cfo875 Yeah 😌
I think that's a different name you're thinking of
Are we not going to talk about the fact that it said “the flight attendants were SLAMMED into the ceiling”!?
1 female passenger had a foot ripped off and needed extreme surgery on her spine witch had to be done from the front, so all her guts had to be taken out and put back in....
@@h.r.hufnstuf4171 wtf. source on a foot being ripped off?
@@kracked7637 watch the documentary about it. Her foot was facing backwards and hanging on by a piece of skin
@@kracked7637 peoples heads went through the ceiling. Kids too. Many injured
@@h.r.hufnstuf4171 I think you need to brush up on your understanding of anatomy 🤔
This should serve as a reminder to us all: Always put your tray up and your seat in it's full upright position.
The best is: EVERYONE SURVIVED.
Thank you for the video. You made it very, very well.
Airbus made it easy to crash a plane, you have emergency and takeover manually and the plane won't let you help save it
No, planes don't have minds of their own! Think about it!! Obviously someone hacked into the plane's computer system and tried to crash the aircraft! It was a computer hack!
A330: Lemme give these passengers a thrilling zero-g experience
ATCO here , this channel is very important to me . Experience and notions that really help me to proceed with some “unusual “ events in my job. I am new at work and have these knowledge it’s really nice! congratulations ! Awesome job you do here. Excuse my rusty english.
I've always wondered what happened to the plane I was on when I was a kid. It was a Thai Airways flying from Bangkok to Phuket. We taxied to the runway and it was when the engines started revving to begin the take off that everything shut down. All the lights went out, the engines died. Then they turned everything on again, tried again, and as soon as the engines powered up, everything shut down again. I started crying, people were mumbling. Smoke started coming out from the opening above the carry on storage. And then a fellow passenger told us we were going to change planes. but we went back to the gate. Since I started watching this channel I've been wondering if there is any way to find out what happened. What if that happened while we were flying... scary.
Can you speak English or are you Indian or something
I think you should ask google for some help
Mr MEMé are you Indian or something
I only know it was the first or second week of January 2001. More likely the last few days of the first week as we left on the 31st of Dec, toured the north for a few days and then travelled down. It must've been an A330 or similar 'cause that's what they're using now for the same route... but it was almost 20 years ago so... dunno.
@A Frustrated Gamer Interesting
@@angeloB737 what u mean by indians or something ?? if somebody difficult to speak so u declare him indian ? shut ur fking mouth
Beautiful video and well done. This could have gone so terribly wrong that it's scary. Thankfully it landed safely and the crew did an excellent job. Hopefully everyone recovered from their injuries on this flight
Other planes: *pilot screws up, part flies off, etc."
Airbus: "I thought you wanted to do that!"
I was stationed at the Naval Station Exmouth, Western Australia. I did many a MAC flight out on that airstrip, so seeing this video made me both happy and homesick at the same time. If your recreation is exact, the area has grown in the 27 years since I lived there. Makes me proud. And I am so relieved that everyone survived the flight.
Looks a bit like Broome Airport, wonder if he used that instead of Learmonth.
I love your work man 🤩
There all the explications in your videos, so many details, nothing miss 👌
Keep up the great work 😃
(Sorry for bad grammar I'm french 😅)
You did pretty good for a non native speaker!
Another awesome vid from TheFlightChannel 👍👍 thanx!!
This weird extreme dive thing happened to me on a flight from Miami to Albuquerque back in 2000 on an America West flight. While over the gulf of Mexico we dove hard and everything not bucket down slammed into the ceiling, hard, and stayed there for a few seconds. Back when I'd screens popped down from the ceiling they all got splashed with beverages and a number of them started sparking and catching on fire. We ultimately emergency landed in Atlanta. More than a few were carried off on stretchers. The airline gave those of us who needed to continue on to our original destinations, as much booze as we wanted. So I slept like a baby in first class all the way to Monterrey 👍
But, yeah. Scary.
Sullivan neutralized the controls, he didn't pull up.
Also, small but important, it's a sidestick not a joystick.
Steve Gooden I reported you and your comment for advertising.. enjoy your ban..
didn't see any elevator movement, that's for sure
I reported myself for reading these comments.
Play station in control column
Nope. The FDR showed he pulled back, let go slightly then pulled back further
Its got to be the worst feeling to have your plane do things on its own and ignore your inputs, scary.
Notification: you have a new TFC video.
Me: drops everything I'm doing, hangs do not disturb sign on door, anf hunkers in to enjoy latest new episode. Happy happy!
Your videos just keep getting better and better! I am one happy viewer!💖💖
ecclestonsangel Thanks man, I’m glad you appreciate my content ☺️
@@theflightchannel oh, very much so! I consider it a major way to learn about the what, how, why, and what can be done differently. I'm a massive avgeek, thanks to my dad, who is retired Navy AMHC. Hope you don't mind I'm a girl, lol!
loser.
I absolutely love your work! Thank you for sharing your gift with us. When life gets very tough I watch your videos to get me through. I'm very grateful. By chance, what is the name of the music landing from your last video, Warsaw belly landing. That music is so inspiring and I've been searching everywhere for it. It would make my year to be able to hear it in full 🙏
Do you have an android phone? (if you do, hold the home button and ask the google assistant "What is this song called?" and then play the part of the video in which the song appears from a separate device, like a computer or another phone. The name will appear when it listens to a bit of the song.)
Try shazam
@@karvalakki4428 thank you so much for the Shazam. That was a great idea! The song is called Boundary by Kevin Graham. It is the most epic theme, like The Dark Night meets Inception. So grateful to you Karva and others who responded. You made my year.
In 2nd class, a 7yo playing a "Fighter Pilot" app on a smartphone is giggling and smiling from ear to ear as the jet goes up and down! :o
The approach to "Learmonth" is actually the 28 Broome approach. When we had QF 44 (another A330) divert into Broome, it was after midnight, and used the 10 approach.
I'm no expert on "real-time" systems but I am an IT professional and my understanding is, that on multiple redundant systems like this they operate on a quorum basis. In a case like this, the 2 functioning units should override the malfunctioning one. To me, this represents a major design failing, I wouldn't want to operate this on even non-real-time systems.
However, I look forward to being corrected on this view.
Actually, the systems eventually, after many automatic checks, also "found out" that one of the ADIRU's was faulty and the aircraft then stopped supplying information from it and that is the reason why there were no more problems until they landed.
The COU corrupted the data and it was processed as valid. The FCPC takes valid data from all 3 AOA’s then checks them against the median. If they are consistent it takes the average of 1 and 2 and that is the figure it uses as a final computation. If it is inconsistent it memories the previous value for 1.2 seconds. However there were many data spikes and one occured just as the 1.2 seconds was ending and it was then processed as being correct until other values were processed
Not only that, but the operator should be presented with a warning explaining the discrepancy.
Sadly this captain never flew again, he said he could not, he is a hero! there is a really good note on this incident on 60 minutes Australia, with the story of the people involved. So glad this man was a fighter pilot in the US air force, had been a Air Asia or Adam air pilot, this story would not have had a happy ending
When I first started reading about computers and software having more and more control over commercial airplanes, I said to myself, "It is only a matter of time before a glitch or computer malfunction crashes a plane." Yes, mechanical and structural failures are going to happen - metal fatigues, moving parts wear out, there are flaws in manufacturing, pilots can make fatal errors - but I would never say, "I'm going to stake the lives of all the people on this plane on the 100% fail-safe functioning of a computer." Here was a case where the computer almost crashed the plane, and of course now we have the 2 Max-MCAS crashes. How many more crashes or near-crashes are we going to have before we stop relying on fragile sensors and buggy software, and go back to having expert, rigorously-trained pilots?
I have never liked the idea of software and microcircuitry making decisions without a human who can monitor *and override* them. Maybe planes need the big red button to cut out all the automatic intervention when it obviously makes incorrect decisions.
Well the MCAS was pure stupid programming from a human with no checks in place to see the obvious flaw that had been programmed into the MCAS with no safety's in place
as it was missing 4 safety's that the tanker variant of the Boeing planes has, witch was use both AOA sensors, limit trim movements amount per activation and max trim setting (it can no longer go to max trim down any more) and last one was pulling back auto disabled MCAS, this has now been corrected
basically now if the autopilot won't engage MCAS won't activate as well (as autopilot and now MCAS requires both AOA sensors to be in agreement for it to function)
Ah yes, lets go back to the days before 2008 where plane crashes and incidents due to pilot error were much higher than they are now. Most modern plane crashes these days are caused by the pilots themselves being untrained (2 MCAS crashes) or just general pilot error like pakistan 8303. Try flying the concorde where your panel is made up of tens of different tools you have to monitor at the same time unlike modern airliners
@@maxpenn6374 I thought the pilot did take over the plane manually?
@@ilovesteveclark6084 The short answer is yes. The pilot disengaged the auto-pilot and that allowed him to fly the plane correctly. When the auto-pilot was re-engaged, it controlled the plane based on the bad data. The auto pilot correctly responded to incorrect control inputs. If I interpret correctly, the source of the bad data was not positively identified. If someone who has read the accident report can correct or elucidate my observation, please do so.
All that going up and down business made sense to me when I realized there is a giant kangaroo painted on the side of the plane...
I'm glad everyone survived, feel for those who were injured. I can't imagine the fear everyone went through.
These videos are perfection, this is my fav channel
Whew, my heart was pounding. Praying for them not to crash. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼, great landing, everyone was safe.
Thx so much for making this also good work
I love airplanes, they are a awesome machine and forever getting better. I've all ways watched air investigation shows and understand there issues. A big thank you to the ATSB for making aviation great. From Australia we all have pride of the Qantas plane it's all ways clean, smooth ride, beautiful flight attendant girls and the safest plane that fly's.
Every aircraft needs a Sulli at the controls.
These pilots did an awesome job, some pilots go panic mood when autopilot goes of or needs to be turned off on high altitude.
The captain did the same technique of releasing the joystick, like with a military fighter airplane, and the a330 stabilized again. Sorry for bad english
Tutu 9x technique just for future reference :D
Were we watching the same video?!? Every time the joystick was released (control returned to software) it eventually lead to erratic flight conditions - _which were only resolved when manual control resumed_ (using the joystick). Yes, at one point it appeared to self-stabilise, but that didn't last for long.
@@arlodoodle thanks lol
it was a 737 max not airbus 330
@@adriancoyne851 yes and I am Keanu Reeves
This is why you should wear your seatbelt while in your seat, even if the light isn't on. It's rare, but something like this or clear air turbulence could send your skull straight into the ceiling.
This was 12 years ago. And the good thing about Airbus cockpits is that basically the whole fleet instantly benefits from errors found in the aviation systems in particular conditions such as the one mentioned here.
I’m surprised the Captain did not declare a mayday after the first ‘joy dive’ - any nutty airplane is worth declaring - Airbus or Dumbus - the sad bit was that Qantas never reasonably compensated any of its crew for their brave role and physical injuries sustained - very Australian indeed. Amazing video as always, TFC 👌🏾
Airbus A330: AIDRS failed, entering nose dive...
Boeing 737 Max-8: Hold my beer...
also airbus AIDIRU: ima crosscheck number 1 AIDIRU
number 1 AIDIRU: chill bro it was just a prank
People are always saying that technology is always accurate and humans create errors.
My response: How can technology always be accurate if humans designed the technology. So if humans aren't accurate than the technology That they design will not be accurate either.
make this worse, human even feel the technology never make error.
"The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake, or distorted information".
"But that ADIRU unit, she's a bitch! Can't work with her...she crazy!"
@Gizmonic Man
BINGO friend. Stanley Kubrick gave us a preview of such AI type systems, in 2001: A Space Odyssey back in 1968!
The HAL 9000 was a killing machine. If you haven't watched this movie you definitely should it holds up very well and is insightful.
Tech will never be "always" accurate, that's not the goal. The goal is to be safer than humans.
Self driving cars will still kill humans. But far less. That's what matters.
@jackey64
The movie is but the aspects of future technology is reality today.
Predictive Programming.
Great job! You reached 900K subscribers!
*EVERYONE SURVIVES*. This is the best news. The crew somehow, managed to save everyone in one go. Thank you TFC for letting us know this incident! 😃
Another outstanding video, and once again, thank you for posting. I'm just wondering why that aircraft is still in service when there hasn't been a definitive answer as to exactly what happened. Apparently the powers-that-be decided to return the aircraft to service after some repairs were performed based on speculation. I don't know about you all, but that's pretty scary to me.
But nothing happened to this plane since. This incident won't happen again with that particular A-330, you can bet they changed everything that was faulty ASAP.
The aircraft isn't really faulty right from the start it is because of the sudden surge of cosmic rays that made the computer suddenly acted that way it is commonly called "Bit Flipping"
As someone who is not in the field it's nerve-wracking to see all the mechanical and technological intricacies that are involved in an aircraft. Scary to see how one minor glitch in any of these systems can be potentially disastrous.
4:21
Plane: warn Sound
What i hear : BRUH BRUH BRUH BRUH BRUH BRUH
Captain Sullivan saved that plane... but, Qantas treated him abysmally.
The guy's a true hero.
As a passenger never be on any aircraft without being buckled in your seat. Only exception is a rest room visit and even then all bets are off.
Absolutely. I am always buckled up.
The photos of inside the plane are truly horrifiying, the ceiling broken open by people's heads hitting off of it. It's fantastic nobody died!
GOOGLE ! seriously,,, put all your ADs either at the beginning or at the end ! sheesh ! interrupted 3 times during this vid ....(Great vid btw Flight Channel !)
Yeah that pissed me off too
Ron Luczak Very valid point. I watch a lot of clips and the repetition of ads drives me crazy. The silly fools don’t realise that they are turning me off the product completely.
You know that it is not Google that determines where the ads are placed right, it is the content creator that decides where to put ads and in the case it was TFC.
@@infiniteleong9789 Absolutely. And because he makes such great video's for us FOR FREE, he has the right to earn some money from us watching those (short!) ads!
Little tip, drag video to the end then replay to removes ads. Sometimes it'll give you an ad at the end but its better been interrupted mid video.
We take the pilot's for granted so much without even thinking about it
So I work on this stuff for a living. And I'm trying to understand how the IRU would swap places with the data for Altitude (Label 324 reverse octal (00101011)) and Pitch (Label 361 reverse octal (10001111)) as this would be more than a single bit flopping. In the label (first lower 8 bits in a the 32 bit word) And usually these things are re-encoded each time. I will say that the software for an IRU is almost always level A and would have had every line of code tested and no dead code is allowed.
Perhaps they had an indexing system to data points for encoding and these two data points where right next to each other in the array or in some offset where a single bit flip could change the access location between these two. (For example 111 (Altitude) and 110 (Pitch))
Yeah, that also boggles my mind. Even though I'm not knowledgable about Airbus' software, I don't know how the flipped bit didn't get overwritten immediately after next cycle of data.
Perhaps insultation worn out, which caused electromagnetic field interference?
Im sure without knowing your probably right. You obviously seem to have the deepest understanding of how things work . Ill buy you and your theory, fellow engineer
Isn’t altitude processed by the ADR?
What really interested me about this besides the cause is, after the second dive the computer (for some reason) decided the information it was receiving was not reliable and ignored further complaints. Allowing the captain to bring it down and land safely. It would've been impossible to land had it not done this as a dive sequence would've kicked in while too close to the ground.
Great video. I haven't watched it yet. But I know it'll be great!
Qantas and their impeccable record *touch wood*. Proud to be Aussie 🇦🇺🦘
Airbus got away with it obviously. Had the uncommanded maneuver and loss of control happened at take off, the results would have been the same as with the 737 MAX. Boeing has now been deservedly vilified (and well beyond), to the point of near bankruptcy for their errors; but at least the investigations have resulted in revealing the cause. It is not comforting to think that Airbus still does not know why these two incidents occurred with their 330 aircraft. Technology, and specifically “fly by wire”, can be considered a wonderful thing; but the loss of the system or its parts results in the aircraft itself becoming the only pilot. The crew and passengers are then at the mercy of a faulty computer. There are no cables, pulleys, or push/pull rods to save you. Likewise, the pilots trained in the last 15 years (as opposed to those trained only a few years before) may not have the acquired knowledge or manual skills to efficiently fly modern aircraft should the electronics fail. Perhaps a redundant, albeit archaic system, of pure mechanical contrivance be considered?
Edsmaureen there has never been an airbus flight where the computers have all been disabled and the plane is unflyable. And even if they did the rudder and horizontal stabiliser are mechanically connected to the pedals and trim wheel so it’s still possible to control even without sidestick
Kathy Sharp yeah......you don’t think they updated the systems after this ?
Kathy Sharp you obviously don’t understand how the FCPC processes the AOA data then
@Kathy Sharp They do crosschecks however not for every datapoint so the faulty information got processed and the plane entered a dive which was corrected by the crosscheck 2 seconds later. So the plane would not have crashed. However if one of the pilots gives a wrong input and everyone dies onboard that will not be corrected on a boeing 737. But it will be on an airbus. As pilot error is more likely than computer errors i prefer this method more.
@Kathy Sharp Well luckily it didnt happen 200m above ground :D Glad they fixed the software bug
*In order to stop the descent, the captain tries pulling his **_joystick_*
*TRIGGERED*
He didn't pull back on his stick
Captian Kevin Sullivan actually used his navy training which told him. to neutralise controls, so he let go of his side stick
And then pulled back a second time. Read the report and the FDR graphs
For the record on the first pitch down nose dive the plane didn't respond to the captain's input at all he said in an interview that he learnt from his training to leave the plane do its thing so he pulled his hand away from the stick and the plane leveled off by itself
Not what he said in a documentary. He said he let go then pulled back a second time
Captain is amazing he is doing good job sighs I cant believe he saved 315 passengers and injured thanks to officer and engineer
Ah, Qantas... the world’s safest airline with only 21 fatalities in over 100 years of service! They also haven’t had a crash that resulted in a fatality in over 70 years. It’s really quite impressive.
I come early this time, i was waiting for this video so long
The Flight Chanel keep up with the good work!!!
Nice video TheFlightChannel👍👍. I'm so glad that Qantas plane didn't crash into the Ocean
Outstanding job by the flight crew, so happy everyone made it through this incident. Prayers are sent to those who were injured!
What a complete blessing that they were even able to land the plane safely..... Much honor and respect to the crew!!!
To the flight attendants, and passengers..... I couldn't even imagine when that plane took a dive twice..... My anxiety would've reached the max and they would've had to sedate me to calm me down!! And too think....they had to get on another plane to reach their destination.... I would've been traumatized😱😱
I now get upset once someone says that flying is the safest way to travel😒😒
There's NOTHING SAFE about something you're trying to control that goes outta control!! Fastest yes, but safest..... I think not!!
This is probably one of the most terrifying incidents I’ve seen since there’s no solution or even adequate explanation of the cause. A horrifying prospect putting your life in the hands of badly written software.
Almost all passengers ever: Ugh these seatbelts are so uncomfortable, and I wanna walk around the cabin, stretch my body a bit.
QF72: We 👃 DiViN ToDaY
I love when I see things with qantas 😂 I’m an Australian fan so xD
I recommend reading "No Man's Land", the full story of QF72 written by the Captain, @Kevin Sullivan.
All aircraft should have manual backup instruments which rely on fly-by-wire technology. It is software error. Automation is good but there should be an override button so that the aircraft can be flown by hand according to VFR rules. Manual yokes should be present even if the aircraft is flown by stick.
Only possible on pre 777 planes (or older Airbus planes) witch have direct hydraulic connected pipes to the sticks
Generally fly by electric is safe as long as there is redundancy in place and its generally a lot easier to do it with power then hydraulic systems
the computer systems (3 of them) was not correctly cross checking the data between the 3 computers to verify that the data from computer 1 was correct as it was only the computer 1 on the left side that was providing faulty data , the copilot side computer 2 was working correctly but somehow was not been cross checked for errors when computer 1 was reporting high pitch angle and accepted it as valid when it was very clearly invalid
sure they corrected this issue later on or at least made sure that sudden pitch down events that was producing negative G could no longer happen, as the computer was basically thinking it was say at pitch 50 (and stalling) when it should be at 30 so computer said well set trim down 20 with zero smoothing witch resulting in normally impossible instant pitch down event to happen (as Airbus systems typically smooth out all inputs for smooth flying)
@@leexgx Flying manually and not 'by-wire' is not really related to hydraulics. 737Max was hydraulic, but implemented the ideea of FBW. You could have electric actuators and motors which are fed data through 2 busses, one is assisted by the computer, and one comes directly from the controls.
A mix between hydraulics and electric provides redundancy in another department: control systems, as you can run the plane even if the pumps are broken or if the wires are cut.
@@nottoday3817 It is definitely a very technical issue which requires engineering solution. Perhaps a specific alarm like Analogue-Digital disconnect may help. And a yoke is better in emergency situation as it provides visual input which can be correlated with attitude indicator. Pilots may be able to diagnose faster rather than confirming the QRH so that they can Aviate-Navigate-Communicate better and land the aircraft. Ultimately every technology has pros and cons.
Manual override on the stick you mean
This exact scenario is why I never leave my seat when I’m on a plane. I’m buckled in for the entire flight. Not risking standing up and being thrown around the second it drops too much.
Becca A you mean you go to the toilet in your own seat?
“Highly unlikely” does not = “impossible” though...
I’ve been waiting for this for a while! Thanks! :D
Pilot: Pulls plane up.
-MCAS- A330 Computers: I have to stop you right here.
This must have been terrifying for the passengers, in fact for everyone. Computers will go wrong at some point but when it sends your plane on a descent toward the ground its extremely worrying
I still think Fuzzy the air host got a raw deal and lousy compensation from Qantas.
Another fabulous! Video. Anyone who puts a thumbs down on ANY VIDEO'S need to take lessons on what it takes to make such detailed realistic video's and get to steppin!!. Keep up the great work. Will highly recommend your channel to many interested.
Best regards from 🇨🇦 Ontario Canada.
It's so rare to see a plane landing on this channel!
Almost one million subs!!!
Great Job TFC!!!!!!
Thank God the pilot and copilot kept calm under pressure and everyone survived. Personally I don't want to fly, unless necessary. To many variables in flying. You don't know the planes history of maintenance. You don't know about the pilots competence. Your flying in a cyndrilical tube, what can possibly go wrong?
True but you’re more likely to die in a car accident