I found myself saying “go around” multiple times aloud as you talked of their altitude dropping and long before they reached 100ft AGL. I don't know what the additional range of descent is on any CRJ between setting TOGA mode and the engines spooling up, but dropping that far with no runway in sight is criminally negligent. No one judges you for going around. The second you know your approach isn't stabilised that call needs to be made because the aircraft will only stay ahead of you the rest of the descent. I understand it was a mistake, but it's one that both pilots had ample warning signs that should have set off alarms in their head saying ‘this isn't working, let's go around and try again, if only to be on the safe side’.
I am very curious to know what the training is for a go around, 500ft and a glide slope warning, under IFR, with no runway in site sounds very much like a TOGA to me?
@@repatch43 Upon approaching minimums at 200ft knowing they're off the glide slope that should have been the minimum decision altitude. TOGA can be set at 100ft minimums but that's a go around I'd expect if the approach suddenly becomes unstable, possibly due to windshear. Decision altitude is 100ft but you shouldn't be continuing to that altitude during a non-stabilised approach. The rate of descent plays an important part in this as well, as that will have had an impact on how much further the aircraft would descend below minimums after adding maximum thrust. My lack of knowledge of the CRJ100 makes it impossible for me to say what rate the engines spooling up and how much further it would descend in that time. The BEA report into the accident has a lot of details that explain a little more, such as the fact they had not expected the fog in Brest until a notification at the time of their approach, though it's unclear what information they left Nantes with as the record of that was lost in the fire on board. The cloud base had also dropped below 100ft. It doesn't explain why the captain chose to continue a non-stabilised approach that far down. There is interesting information regarding balked landing procedures as well and the risk or more altitude loss than with a standard go-around. BEA investigation reports are generally quite a good read as they are very thorough. There's the point of the localizer and glide information being on the same screen but being on two instruments where the combination of both would likely have allowed the crew to detect the non-capture of the localizer sooner. There's also a little about crew resource management not being as good as it should have been.
I'm no pilot, but I know that it's worth listening to intuition. If something feels "off" it's usually because your subconscious has picked up on something your conscious mind hasn't noticed, your ego would prefer to ignore or your higher brain functions are too busy to acknowledge. There is no shame in deciding it's safer to try again and the only people who need to get in trouble are any idiots taking the piss out of what is a sensible, mature and safety-minded decision. That's how people end up piling airliners into housing estates attempting to "rescue" a unsatisfactory approach.
Thanks again for another informative video. There is one issue which was not explored, however - exactly WHY did the rescue services not accept that this was a serious incident? And, was there an investigation into why the rescue services failed in their duty? Was there some weird culture of disbelief? Were any individuals FROM the resuce services disciplined over this issue? Or given the sack? If not, why not? I know that if I have been one of the survivors of this crash I'd want to tell the rescue services EXACTLY what I thought of their shameful negligence, and I'd be seeking to prosecute them, getting the press and media involved to embarrass the hell out them.
Maybe there was a history of people calling in fake disasters? I would think emergency services are required to take every call seriously (unless it's a Karen calling 911 because Burger King was out of fries.)
Tim.. if I was the family of the one person who was killed I'd definitely want to know why emergency services did not take this seriously.. Great comment. ...
Human mistakes. Tired pilots. Trust in too much in autopilot? Forgetting to apply approaching mode? Too tired pilots!! Thank You so much!! It's always interesting to follow!
I'm from India and frequently travel to Nepal. The aviation history in Nepal is littered with so many crashes primarily attributed to the mountainous terrain. In fact recently there was a crash on the sector between Jomsom (JMO) and Pokhara (PKR) which is being defined as a controlled descent into terrain where the pilot loses their bearings during the flight. Why don't you make some videos about the crashes in Nepal. I've hardly seen anyone covering these.
„Attributed to“ mountainous terrain, really? I mean, I do believe the presence of mountains played a role in those accidents, but I still wouldn’t blame the mountains!
I wonder what would be involved in collision checking a plane’s 3d vector against a digital topographical map. How fine would the resolution have to be in order to maintain an acceptable deviation from charted minimums? Deviation would only be acceptable in favor of more clearance, but to what magnitude? What file size would be reasonable for a system to handle? Could only data relevant to the flight plan be stored, or could intelligent compression and storage allow massive maps to be handled? How would the interface need to be designed to minimize complacency, but also not be a nuisance?
A point of clarification: ILS does not employ VOR, but instead, a Localizer (they are *wildly different* technologies), so selecting VOR mode for an ILS signal will do absolutely nothing. In fact, Localizers and VORs aren't even on the same radio frequencies. Instead, the Navigation radio is tuned to the runway's ILS frequency, and either the LOC (localalizer) or APP (approach) mode must be selected. In addition, the Final Approach Course vector must be set so that it tracks the extended centerline of the runway when LOC or APP engages. The difference between LOC and APP is that APP locks onto both the Localizer and Glideslope signals, whereas LOC locks on to the Localizer signal only. All of that is moot anyway, because APP was never selected when they were starting their final approach. Complicating the matter was that both pilots were tired, and had lost situational awareness. Agreed, the outcome could have much worse...
How is localizer, from the perspective of the aircraft systems, much different to a VOR? the frequencies are almost the same afaik (like 109.9 Mhz vs 113.15 Mhz for 2 random examples), the receivers are the same at least on light aircraft, you set a course and it tells you how far you're off course. Isn't the main difference that a Localizer isn't omnidirectional, like a VO(mnidirectional)R? Meaning only the runway course works. Possibly it's also more precise due to the antenna configuration etc, but I would assume that for the aircraft systems, they look very similar? Some aircraft also have VOR/LOC as one toggle.
Selecting TOGA power at 100 feet is too little, too late. It takes many seconds for the engines to spool up to make enough power to achieve positive rate (climb). You can pull this off in most prop planes, but not jets. Bravo to the local citizens that rushed to their aid. Heroes, all.
Seeing as the cloud base was at 100 feet, it sounded like that was below minimums in the first place. Doesn't sound like it should have even been attempted...certainly on the first "glideslope" alert, they should have realized they had an unstable config and done the MA.
Bull Shit, If the engines are spooled up, as they should be for any stable approach the engine response is immediate. That is the reason the engines remain spooled up until power is reduced for the touchdown. In IMC conditions all airlines require the approach be stable at 1000’ AGL. If not stable it calls for a go around.
I’m the idiot who ignores the flight attendant’s initial safety announcement, “knowing” that, in the event of a situation such as this, we’re all dead, regardless. Thanks for proving me wrong. I’ll TRY to pay closer attention next time 👍 Great video.
Hmm. That's an annoying point, b/c it means I may have to call 911 AND provide first aid in an emergency. 😠 That's awkward. 911 asks a lot of questions.
@@grmpEqweer Just let them know plane crash at location, big fire, a lot of passengers, some wounded badly, do you want me to send you a video of the plane burning and passengers dying or is it OK with you if I keep on CPR and kiss of life? Then put the phone on loudspeaker and put it down next to you (unless you need it as torchlight or to google CPR) and do the most important bits. Aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order!
@@advorak8529 It'd most likely be car crashes with me, so it's call, figure out exit, start CPR if needed, or tourniquet, or gauze... We just do compression-only CPR these days, it's effective.
The sad thing is this same story happens time and again. Whether it is arrogance and ego, ignorance and incompetence, corporate pressure, fatigue, or something combination thereof, they aren't ready but they continue the approach anyway, and... disaster. They could have told the controller "give us delay 10, we aren't ready," set everything up in an orderly fashion, and all would have been good...
The urge to 'get home' is a massively strong part of the human psyche, and already 'being late' just reinforces it. The glide slope warning, in IFR, with no runway in sigth, at 500ft probably should have triggered a TOGA, I wonder what the criteria were for that airline?
I'm just seeing a LOT of "contributing factors" but it all amounts to one degree or another to "Get-there-itis"... What's imperative to any and all pilots or aspiring aviators is "You can ALWAYS just take the Go-Around." Generally, nobody's going to bat an eye, preferring to help you NOT crash the plane and create a PR disaster on top of a mass-casualty disaster FIRST, WORST, and FOREMOST... Even if there are questions to be asked or answered, it's not so difficult to explain, "The glide-slope wasn't stable." ... "I couldn't find the runway." ... "I didn't feel right for as low as we were." ... or plainly... "I'd rather burn a little gas than kill everybody. I'd do it again, too." The worst you'll probably EVER face for a "frivolous go around" is getting bitched at by the chief pilot... or some "airport safety head"... whatever or whomever. You take your figurative "lumps" and just be thankful you could see to it, EVERYBODY got to go home that night or day in one piece. Look, I ride a motorcycle. I get asked regularly about still doing my "parking lot drills" in spite of 30 years and a million miles in a dozen countries on the road since I was 15 and got the license. I'm still in damn decent health for all the gnarly sh*t I've seen and all the close calls I've had. It's still FUN AS HELL to ride. I'm NOT the one who's crammed his motorcycles into trucks, under cars, launched himself over hoods, sent himself to the hospital, or is permanently trapped in a brace, with a cane or crutches, or in a wheelchair. I shut my mouth, AND PRACTICE... I also PUT MY JUDGMENT BEFORE MY SKILLS, so it doesn't matter if I can do a U-turn on crossing staircases with a Harley Fatboy. I have the good SENSE to keep myself from being put into a position where that's the best way to get home safely. "The greatest pilot uses his sound judgment and planning so he doesn't NEED to rely upon some excellent flying skills or airmanship to make it back to the ground in one piece." ;o)
I think it definitely was a miracle that all but one survived. However, this crash is a clear example of how not doing one thing can cause have serious consequences. Good on those who helped the survivors after the crash. Thanks for the episode. Stay safe.
I can't count any more how many times it has been said: It would not have happened if they had executed a go-round. In time. Like when the first "Glideslope!" warning sounded.
Glide slope warning is not necessarily a reason for a go-around. It's quite okay to get that when intercepting the glide slope from above or below. SINK RATE is much more serious, and should lead to immediate action. Putting the plane in a bank without arresting the descend or even climbing is a very weird thing to do imho.
I wish you’d covered more in this video: this one seemed a bit rushed with a number of mistakes and unanswered / unexplored questions, like why the emergency services thought this was a joke.
Without getting any circumstances around the situation on the ground when the plane stopped, no basis for guessing how hard it was to evacuate before the fire broke out. The survival rate does suggest that the fire did not engulf the wreck right away, but only after the passengers had started fleeing.
@@repatch43 I don't know whether there was fog, and what the RVR was, but yes you can do the approach if you're qualified, in the right airplane, doing a cat III ILS approach. It's minimum conditions but still allowable. What should not have happened is turning instead of climbing or even just reducing the descend when you hear SINK RATE!
Nothing said about it being a Low Viz approach. CatII has 100ft Cat 3a less than 100ft or 3B zero. However for all low viz approaches you should be fully stabilised and configured by 1000ft at the absolute minimum or go around.
Yes, miracle the people survived. However, is there not something called decision attitude at which you have the runway in sight or you go around - I don't think that would have been 100 feet?
I rate the landing of the person that did the simulator video a 5/10. Way too short, before the aiming point. The chief pilot should have a word with them! :P
The wings being sheared off absorbed a lot of energy and allowed the fuselage to come to rest in one piece. Where it could burn to the ground. Yes, certainly a miracle, only 1 fatality.
1) your model is a 700/900, the 100/200 have a side APU exhaust... minor. 2) High mounted engines, when they gave it TOGA thrust, their gonna want to push the nose down, not what you want at 100ft!
Pushing the nose down to provide TOGA.... for better airflow into the engine? I don't think that their AOA would've been too high in a normal descend with flaps out... The engines will probably try to push the nose down a bit so not sure why they would want to push it down?
@@crazymonkeyVII mounted high up on the body, pitches nose down, engines under wings, tends to pitch nose up when the engines are pushed to full power.
@@stephenbritton9297 ah yeah that's what I thought you meant, but you wrote it in a way that seemed to imply that they (the pilots, not the engines) would want to push the nose down 😀
this is the type of crash I expected most people to survive because it is similar enough to a normal landing. perhaps not as many but I would expect atleast 30-50% survived. if you didn't tell me how many did
I appreciate the full explanation. I'm not a pilot but from a lot of incidents there does appear to be an over reliance on technology. Which I get in today's complex flying. I have just watched a Mentor Pilot video about a different incident but with similar false reliance. Great video.
Great video as always, just a few points…. HDG wont keep the aircraft on the Runway heading unless that is what is set in the MCP. HDG will hold the aircraft on the heading selected in the MCP . The pilots using VS mode doesn’t prove they knew they were in heading mode, you can be on the localiser ( LOC ) and still be using the vertical speed mode to get yourself in a position to capture the glide slope. You need to have captured the localiser before you capture the glide slope to ensure you are not descending when you are not within the protected area afforded by the localiser. VOR and Localiser are also totally different, not to be confused. Why on earth they didn’t go around at the latest by 1000ft AGL is a mystery to me, lack of briefing or not!
I can't avoid thinking that although what was left of the crash does talk of a miracle of sorts seems to glide swiftly over the fact that the emergency services came late (3:30 - "...their calls were not taken seriously by the people in charge of the emergency services") surely contributed to the thorough destruction of whatever was left during the evacuation. Why were they "late"? I can't imagine a reason that can actually justify this. As a headline "The Miracle in Brest" sounds a lot better than "Emergency services didn't believe there was a crash". The miracle was that almost no one was actually stuck inside the plane (I wonder how the only death actually died), this could have been a massacre in which the emergency services would be at least partly to blame. Then again, why weren't the pilots more concerned with the loss of altitude? This was their forth trip of the day, landing a plane in the middle of the night, in the middle of a storm and if this was not enough changing, last minute, from go-around to landing. Ground control, on the other hand, wasn't stellar either.
These guys were operating their aircraft. They were not flying it. Their CRM was bad too. The Luck out in Brest ? Kinda the same thing ? These operators were very lucky - if both survived ?
As an aside- the French government announced fairly recently that they were effectively going to ban all short domestic flights that could just as easily be made by train or bus (and France does have a fantastic network of high speed rail) in the interests of reducing carbon emissions. This flight from Nantes to Brest would be one such, it is very short, only about 150 miles, and once you factor in time getting to the airport and going through the airport it may even be quicker to do it by rail!
I don't see why they would have to ban the flights. If the train is quicker overall and cheaper, you would expect the planes to be empty. Then the airlines would just stop flying those routes.
@@NSDflug Some people are so delusional and clueless! Getting packed into a tiny regional jet like sardines is more comfortable than a mordern european high speed train? The latter is more comparable to business class on a 787/A350 in terms of comfort/noise / room.
Unfamiliar Airline? I seem to recall the mid-air collison involving this outfit during an unauthorised flyby of SS France on the same route which DID NOT result in a `Miracle`! Your channel continues to improve from mediocre beginnings (random Plane spotter vids) to a comprehensive recreation and analysis that can be understood by we mere `Groundhuggers` - More PLEASE!
Yet another flight where if the PiC had said "this has got away from me" or "I'm not ready", "Let's wait 5 mins and get ourselves sorted out", then this wouldnt have happened.
If only there was some sort of stick or wheel or yoke that could be used by the pilots to fly the plane. Had there been such a device, the pilots could have turned off the automation and used their hands to guide the plane back onto the ILS or a missed approach.
If they'd have hit that what looks to be a farmhouse, that would have been game over, unfortunately it was for one, but for so many to survive was incredible.
If the pilots had called the go around when they first noticed they were off to the left of the beam, they wouldn't have crashed. The fact that they tried to continue an unstable approach is what lead to the death and complete loss of the aircraft, and i hope that it was addressed in the report and that the pilots were given remedial training in the area
SINK RATE!!!! That's one step below PULL UP! How any pilot cannot instinctively pull up and instead put it in a bank is a ridiculous mystery to me. Forgetting to arm the approach mode is a human, understandable mistake. Banking instead of reducing a descent or initiating a climb in response to SINK RATE! is just insane! I wouldn't call a fatal accident like this a miracle. Especially one that was so avoidable.
I'm not sure that's a miracle, one person still died. But the call for go around must have slowed the descent rate significantly and the rest was due to a decently engineered hull that can withstand large impact forces.
I don't think so. Planes are designed not to fall apart in the air in turbulence, they don't really have a crash structure like cars do. Would be to heavy if they were designed that way.
Perhaps looking out through the cockpit window and failing to see the runway could have been a clue that they needed to go around. This was pilot error.
I noticed the quality of your videos dropping: Like just having a random video of a plane landing that is unconnected to the story or narration. Just an observation. Affected me enough to write about it.
Good afternoon! Ilove your channel and videos, and i am subscribed for few years. I have a question: is it possible to make some agreement with you, that i will take your videos and translate to russian? I have access to music studio, so i sound quality will be fine. I want to do it os sort of collaboration, i do not pretend onn any copyrights or something like that. All original sources would be shown. And if there will be some income or monetisation, i just ask some percent from that, and you get rest. Hope, you will be interested to do that. And yes, i am from Sweden, so no problems with monetisation.
Sink Rate should scare the pilots enough to offer some power and reassess when the immediate concern is dealt with. That said, I can’t talk. Last checks before take off being hatches and harnesses on that day. 200ft .. Hatch flies open 🙈🙈🙈
I get hooked on accident investigations having done many in the oil industry. Much like the modern oil industry I see a trend that the pilots are slaves to and overwhelmed by the many options of automation they have at their disposal. It appears they would be better off to just fly the airplane with assist systems rather than automation systems.
Okay... Hopefully you (at Mini Air Crash Investigations) will see and notice this... I've recently run across the "First ever oceanic ditching of an Airliner with 100% survival" and supposedly, this involved Pan Am flight 6 Captained by Richard(?) Ogg, on October 16, 1956... AND I have questions, maybe you're equipped (if that's the right term) to answer in your inimitable storytelling style... It seems Captain Ogg, chose to contact and then circle USGS Pontchartrain somewhere between California and Hawaii (as that was the "station" of the "Weather-ship" at the time) rather than head directly to California to ditch as close to land as possible (if not make the airport)... AND this only seems dubious since he "Chose to circle the Pontchartrain in 8 mile circles UNTIL DAWN..." I'm thinking my time sense in reading what I've found so far is "off" somewhere... BUT I'd LOVE to hear more about this one... OR even the 1955 crash that killed four (4) about a year before, upon which Captain Ogg was cognizant at the time he was working out his "crisis management" efforts. Anyways, it WOULD give you "adequate reason" to present us with some of those glorious pictures you're so capable of finding for things like the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser to help illustrate the fine details of mechanical and aviation perspectives and principles... not just "antique plane porn" (I promise???) haha In any case, AS ALWAYS this was a fantastic presentation, full of the interesting bits of related historical note. I certainly think it looks like a miracle that more than a 1 in 4 or 5 survived, let alone that only one (1) died for the scene and aftermath of the plane. Prop's to those who stepped up to help, too. GREAT episode, thanks... AND of course, KEEP doing what you do. Love that I found this channel and "gave you a shot". Y'all never disappoint! ;o)
It's nice to have automation but it's your job as i pilot to monitor all this stuff. The only way to do that properly is follow standard procedures AND in your mindset do the whole flight raw data. Meaning, monitoring the selected frequencies, courses, heading, altitudes while monitoring the instruments, and anunciators. I have seen to much going wrong just by relying on automation without monitoring it. Regarding your last question. It seems they made a 'normal' landing just a the wrong place. So they crashed after landing, resulting in far lower speed, no altitude loss and the aircraft is mostly destroyed due to fire when wings broke of and fuel started to ignite. They're indeed lucky
I've noticed this across a couple of the videos - The term "it was too little, too late" is used incorrectly, or at least not in the way that most people use it. If the pilots engaged TOGA, it is not "too little", practically by definition. It is just "too late". The "too little" part implies that the effort would be still insufficient to avoid the problem even IF there was more time. It's really unfair to the pilots to use that phrase when they ran out of time after realizing the mistake.
I agree with your point but based on a different reasoning: Too little implies to me that if they had done more at that specific point in time they would've made it. Apart from selecting TOGA power and maybe flaring a bit there's nothing you're gonna do at/below 100ft to avoid a crash...
5:48. No, it's not okay. It would only take you two seconds to explain those abbreviations. Why make your viewers feel stupid? You don't sound like you care if they even understand you, like you want to be all powerful. Signed, Unsubscribed .
I just saw something about an Ansett New Zealand Flight 703 which crashed in 1995. Might be worth a video :D en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansett_New_Zealand_Flight_703
Another thing that helped absorb the impact is the well known fact that Brest is quite soft and bouncy.
great comment
oh gosh ☹
Heh
Lmao
I regret that I laughed at this one.
"The weather in Brest was not the best." Tell me you planned that, ha. Enjoyed the vid as always 😉✌️.
Most survived the crash in France by the seat of their pants.
I found myself saying “go around” multiple times aloud as you talked of their altitude dropping and long before they reached 100ft AGL. I don't know what the additional range of descent is on any CRJ between setting TOGA mode and the engines spooling up, but dropping that far with no runway in sight is criminally negligent. No one judges you for going around. The second you know your approach isn't stabilised that call needs to be made because the aircraft will only stay ahead of you the rest of the descent. I understand it was a mistake, but it's one that both pilots had ample warning signs that should have set off alarms in their head saying ‘this isn't working, let's go around and try again, if only to be on the safe side’.
I am very curious to know what the training is for a go around, 500ft and a glide slope warning, under IFR, with no runway in site sounds very much like a TOGA to me?
@@repatch43 Upon approaching minimums at 200ft knowing they're off the glide slope that should have been the minimum decision altitude. TOGA can be set at 100ft minimums but that's a go around I'd expect if the approach suddenly becomes unstable, possibly due to windshear. Decision altitude is 100ft but you shouldn't be continuing to that altitude during a non-stabilised approach. The rate of descent plays an important part in this as well, as that will have had an impact on how much further the aircraft would descend below minimums after adding maximum thrust. My lack of knowledge of the CRJ100 makes it impossible for me to say what rate the engines spooling up and how much further it would descend in that time.
The BEA report into the accident has a lot of details that explain a little more, such as the fact they had not expected the fog in Brest until a notification at the time of their approach, though it's unclear what information they left Nantes with as the record of that was lost in the fire on board. The cloud base had also dropped below 100ft. It doesn't explain why the captain chose to continue a non-stabilised approach that far down. There is interesting information regarding balked landing procedures as well and the risk or more altitude loss than with a standard go-around. BEA investigation reports are generally quite a good read as they are very thorough. There's the point of the localizer and glide information being on the same screen but being on two instruments where the combination of both would likely have allowed the crew to detect the non-capture of the localizer sooner. There's also a little about crew resource management not being as good as it should have been.
100% agree, why oh why didn’t they go around long before….1000ft agl minimum!
Indeed. It was obviously an unstable approach. As soon as the GPWS said too low terrain and glideslope, as it was below 500ft, Go around.
I'm no pilot, but I know that it's worth listening to intuition. If something feels "off" it's usually because your subconscious has picked up on something your conscious mind hasn't noticed, your ego would prefer to ignore or your higher brain functions are too busy to acknowledge.
There is no shame in deciding it's safer to try again and the only people who need to get in trouble are any idiots taking the piss out of what is a sensible, mature and safety-minded decision. That's how people end up piling airliners into housing estates attempting to "rescue" a unsatisfactory approach.
Thanks again for another informative video. There is one issue which was not explored, however - exactly WHY did the rescue services not accept that this was a serious incident? And, was there an investigation into why the rescue services failed in their duty? Was there some weird culture of disbelief? Were any individuals FROM the resuce services disciplined over this issue? Or given the sack? If not, why not?
I know that if I have been one of the survivors of this crash I'd want to tell the rescue services EXACTLY what I thought of their shameful negligence, and I'd be seeking to prosecute them, getting the press and media involved to embarrass the hell out them.
Maybe there was a history of people calling in fake disasters? I would think emergency services are required to take every call seriously (unless it's a Karen calling 911 because Burger King was out of fries.)
Tim.. if I was the family of the one person who was killed I'd definitely want to know why emergency services did not take this seriously..
Great comment. ...
Human mistakes. Tired pilots. Trust in too much in autopilot? Forgetting to apply approaching mode? Too tired pilots!! Thank You so much!! It's always interesting to follow!
I'm from India and frequently travel to Nepal. The aviation history in Nepal is littered with so many crashes primarily attributed to the mountainous terrain. In fact recently there was a crash on the sector between Jomsom (JMO) and Pokhara (PKR) which is being defined as a controlled descent into terrain where the pilot loses their bearings during the flight. Why don't you make some videos about the crashes in Nepal. I've hardly seen anyone covering these.
Good call. I am sure he will. Big world. Lots of mistakes. Go well sir.
„Attributed to“ mountainous terrain, really? I mean, I do believe the presence of mountains played a role in those accidents, but I still wouldn’t blame the mountains!
I wonder what would be involved in collision checking a plane’s 3d vector against a digital topographical map. How fine would the resolution have to be in order to maintain an acceptable deviation from charted minimums? Deviation would only be acceptable in favor of more clearance, but to what magnitude? What file size would be reasonable for a system to handle? Could only data relevant to the flight plan be stored, or could intelligent compression and storage allow massive maps to be handled? How would the interface need to be designed to minimize complacency, but also not be a nuisance?
@@carmenrepucci I think there's a system for this, the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System. See ua-cam.com/video/4qsFI9l0bJk/v-deo.html
is it the mountainous terrain though? or is it the pilots?
A point of clarification: ILS does not employ VOR, but instead, a Localizer (they are *wildly different* technologies), so selecting VOR mode for an ILS signal will do absolutely nothing. In fact, Localizers and VORs aren't even on the same radio frequencies.
Instead, the Navigation radio is tuned to the runway's ILS frequency, and either the LOC (localalizer) or APP (approach) mode must be selected. In addition, the Final Approach Course vector must be set so that it tracks the extended centerline of the runway when LOC or APP engages. The difference between LOC and APP is that APP locks onto both the Localizer and Glideslope signals, whereas LOC locks on to the Localizer signal only.
All of that is moot anyway, because APP was never selected when they were starting their final approach. Complicating the matter was that both pilots were tired, and had lost situational awareness. Agreed, the outcome could have much worse...
How is localizer, from the perspective of the aircraft systems, much different to a VOR? the frequencies are almost the same afaik (like 109.9 Mhz vs 113.15 Mhz for 2 random examples), the receivers are the same at least on light aircraft, you set a course and it tells you how far you're off course. Isn't the main difference that a Localizer isn't omnidirectional, like a VO(mnidirectional)R? Meaning only the runway course works. Possibly it's also more precise due to the antenna configuration etc, but I would assume that for the aircraft systems, they look very similar? Some aircraft also have VOR/LOC as one toggle.
If you don’t select ILS the glideslope would also not be tuned to the correct frequency
Selecting TOGA power at 100 feet is too little, too late. It takes many seconds for the engines to spool up to make enough power to achieve positive rate (climb). You can pull this off in most prop planes, but not jets. Bravo to the local citizens that rushed to their aid. Heroes, all.
Seeing as the cloud base was at 100 feet, it sounded like that was below minimums in the first place. Doesn't sound like it should have even been attempted...certainly on the first "glideslope" alert, they should have realized they had an unstable config and done the MA.
Yes. He said the elevators are slow to respond at low speed when in fact it is the engines that take time to spool up.
Bull Shit, If the engines are spooled up, as they should be for any stable approach the engine response is immediate. That is the reason the engines remain spooled up until power is reduced for the touchdown. In IMC conditions all airlines require the approach be stable at 1000’ AGL. If not stable it calls for a go around.
I’m the idiot who ignores the flight attendant’s initial safety announcement, “knowing” that, in the event of a situation such as this, we’re all dead, regardless. Thanks for proving me wrong. I’ll TRY to pay closer attention next time 👍
Great video.
Thank goodness for the locals that helped. Over here everyone would have gotten their phones out to record instead.
Hmm. That's an annoying point, b/c it means I may have to call 911 AND provide first aid in an emergency. 😠 That's awkward. 911 asks a lot of questions.
in portrait format, too.
@@grmpEqweer Just let them know plane crash at location, big fire, a lot of passengers, some wounded badly, do you want me to send you a video of the plane burning and passengers dying or is it OK with you if I keep on CPR and kiss of life?
Then put the phone on loudspeaker and put it down next to you (unless you need it as torchlight or to google CPR) and do the most important bits. Aviate, navigate, communicate, in that order!
@@advorak8529
It'd most likely be car crashes with me, so it's call, figure out exit, start CPR if needed, or tourniquet, or gauze...
We just do compression-only CPR these days, it's effective.
@@advorak8529
Reminds me, headlamp goes back in car...
The sad thing is this same story happens time and again. Whether it is arrogance and ego, ignorance and incompetence, corporate pressure, fatigue, or something combination thereof, they aren't ready but they continue the approach anyway, and... disaster. They could have told the controller "give us delay 10, we aren't ready," set everything up in an orderly fashion, and all would have been good...
The urge to 'get home' is a massively strong part of the human psyche, and already 'being late' just reinforces it.
The glide slope warning, in IFR, with no runway in sigth, at 500ft probably should have triggered a TOGA, I wonder what the criteria were for that airline?
Couldn't have said it better
A common factor is low ceilings. Plain and simple, 100 feet is too low. Decision altitude needs to be higher in inclement weather IMO.
I'm just seeing a LOT of "contributing factors" but it all amounts to one degree or another to "Get-there-itis"... What's imperative to any and all pilots or aspiring aviators is "You can ALWAYS just take the Go-Around." Generally, nobody's going to bat an eye, preferring to help you NOT crash the plane and create a PR disaster on top of a mass-casualty disaster FIRST, WORST, and FOREMOST... Even if there are questions to be asked or answered, it's not so difficult to explain, "The glide-slope wasn't stable." ... "I couldn't find the runway." ... "I didn't feel right for as low as we were." ... or plainly... "I'd rather burn a little gas than kill everybody. I'd do it again, too."
The worst you'll probably EVER face for a "frivolous go around" is getting bitched at by the chief pilot... or some "airport safety head"... whatever or whomever. You take your figurative "lumps" and just be thankful you could see to it, EVERYBODY got to go home that night or day in one piece.
Look, I ride a motorcycle. I get asked regularly about still doing my "parking lot drills" in spite of 30 years and a million miles in a dozen countries on the road since I was 15 and got the license. I'm still in damn decent health for all the gnarly sh*t I've seen and all the close calls I've had. It's still FUN AS HELL to ride. I'm NOT the one who's crammed his motorcycles into trucks, under cars, launched himself over hoods, sent himself to the hospital, or is permanently trapped in a brace, with a cane or crutches, or in a wheelchair. I shut my mouth, AND PRACTICE... I also PUT MY JUDGMENT BEFORE MY SKILLS, so it doesn't matter if I can do a U-turn on crossing staircases with a Harley Fatboy. I have the good SENSE to keep myself from being put into a position where that's the best way to get home safely.
"The greatest pilot uses his sound judgment and planning so he doesn't NEED to rely upon some excellent flying skills or airmanship to make it back to the ground in one piece." ;o)
100% agree.
I think it definitely was a miracle that all but one survived. However, this crash is a clear example of how not doing one thing can cause have serious consequences. Good on those who helped the survivors after the crash. Thanks for the episode. Stay safe.
I can't count any more how many times it has been said: It would not have happened if they had executed a go-round. In time. Like when the first "Glideslope!" warning sounded.
Glide slope warning is not necessarily a reason for a go-around. It's quite okay to get that when intercepting the glide slope from above or below. SINK RATE is much more serious, and should lead to immediate action. Putting the plane in a bank without arresting the descend or even climbing is a very weird thing to do imho.
Hi👋 I would say this landing it is definitely a miracle! Great video, Great channel☘️.
At least they finally got to see Brest.
The weather at Brest was not the best
Any crash you walk away from is a miracle.
Exactly!!
I wish you’d covered more in this video: this one seemed a bit rushed with a number of mistakes and unanswered / unexplored questions, like why the emergency services thought this was a joke.
Without getting any circumstances around the situation on the ground when the plane stopped, no basis for guessing how hard it was to evacuate before the fire broke out. The survival rate does suggest that the fire did not engulf the wreck right away, but only after the passengers had started fleeing.
Down to 100ft, without the runway in sight!?! Insanity!!
Since they knew the ceiling was 100ft I can only assume that it was permitted under IFR for that airline?
@@repatch43 A CAT III ILS approach has minimums at a 100 ft... with a visibility of 700ft
@@crazymonkeyVII So with the fog they had, and a ceiling of 100ft, should this approach even ever have happened?
@@repatch43 I don't know whether there was fog, and what the RVR was, but yes you can do the approach if you're qualified, in the right airplane, doing a cat III ILS approach. It's minimum conditions but still allowable. What should not have happened is turning instead of climbing or even just reducing the descend when you hear SINK RATE!
Nothing said about it being a Low Viz approach. CatII has 100ft Cat 3a less than 100ft or 3B zero. However for all low viz approaches you should be fully stabilised and configured by 1000ft at the absolute minimum or go around.
another miraculous flight from the most miraculous airline
Yes, miracle the people survived. However, is there not something called decision attitude at which you have the runway in sight or you go around - I don't think that would have been 100 feet?
I rate the landing of the person that did the simulator video a 5/10. Way too short, before the aiming point. The chief pilot should have a word with them! :P
The wings being sheared off absorbed a lot of energy and allowed the fuselage to come to rest in one piece. Where it could burn to the ground.
Yes, certainly a miracle, only 1 fatality.
1) your model is a 700/900, the 100/200 have a side APU exhaust... minor. 2) High mounted engines, when they gave it TOGA thrust, their gonna want to push the nose down, not what you want at 100ft!
Pushing the nose down to provide TOGA.... for better airflow into the engine? I don't think that their AOA would've been too high in a normal descend with flaps out... The engines will probably try to push the nose down a bit so not sure why they would want to push it down?
@@crazymonkeyVII mounted high up on the body, pitches nose down, engines under wings, tends to pitch nose up when the engines are pushed to full power.
@@stephenbritton9297 ah yeah that's what I thought you meant, but you wrote it in a way that seemed to imply that they (the pilots, not the engines) would want to push the nose down 😀
this is the type of crash I expected most people to survive because it is similar enough to a normal landing. perhaps not as many but I would expect atleast 30-50% survived. if you didn't tell me how many did
I appreciate the full explanation. I'm not a pilot but from a lot of incidents there does appear to be an over reliance on technology. Which I get in today's complex flying. I have just watched a Mentor Pilot video about a different incident but with similar false reliance. Great video.
Great video as always, just a few points….
HDG wont keep the aircraft on the Runway heading unless that is what is set in the MCP. HDG will hold the aircraft on the heading selected in the MCP .
The pilots using VS mode doesn’t prove they knew they were in heading mode, you can be on the localiser ( LOC ) and still be using the vertical speed mode to get yourself in a position to capture the glide slope. You need to have captured the localiser before you capture the glide slope to ensure you are not descending when you are not within the protected area afforded by the localiser.
VOR and Localiser are also totally different, not to be confused.
Why on earth they didn’t go around at the latest by 1000ft AGL is a mystery to me, lack of briefing or not!
MINI!!!!
MEGA!
Excellent video!
I can't avoid thinking that although what was left of the crash does talk of a miracle of sorts seems to glide swiftly over the fact that the emergency services came late (3:30 - "...their calls were not taken seriously by the people in charge of the emergency services") surely contributed to the thorough destruction of whatever was left during the evacuation. Why were they "late"? I can't imagine a reason that can actually justify this. As a headline "The Miracle in Brest" sounds a lot better than "Emergency services didn't believe there was a crash".
The miracle was that almost no one was actually stuck inside the plane (I wonder how the only death actually died), this could have been a massacre in which the emergency services would be at least partly to blame.
Then again, why weren't the pilots more concerned with the loss of altitude? This was their forth trip of the day, landing a plane in the middle of the night, in the middle of a storm and if this was not enough changing, last minute, from go-around to landing. Ground control, on the other hand, wasn't stellar either.
Almost 200k subs!
These guys were operating their aircraft. They were not flying it. Their CRM was bad too. The Luck out in Brest ? Kinda the same thing ? These operators were very lucky - if both survived ?
As an aside- the French government announced fairly recently that they were effectively going to ban all short domestic flights that could just as easily be made by train or bus (and France does have a fantastic network of high speed rail) in the interests of reducing carbon emissions. This flight from Nantes to Brest would be one such, it is very short, only about 150 miles, and once you factor in time getting to the airport and going through the airport it may even be quicker to do it by rail!
Maybe some people want to travel more elegant. Train is like animal transport
I don't see why they would have to ban the flights. If the train is quicker overall and cheaper, you would expect the planes to be empty. Then the airlines would just stop flying those routes.
@@NSDflug Some people are so delusional and clueless! Getting packed into a tiny regional jet like sardines is more comfortable than a mordern european high speed train? The latter is more comparable to business class on a 787/A350 in terms of comfort/noise / room.
Indeed, flights from Nantes to Brest are madness
Unfamiliar Airline? I seem to recall the mid-air collison involving this outfit during an unauthorised flyby of SS France on the same route which DID NOT result in a `Miracle`! Your channel continues to improve from mediocre beginnings (random Plane spotter vids) to a comprehensive recreation and analysis that can be understood by we mere `Groundhuggers` - More PLEASE!
Yet another flight where if the PiC had said "this has got away from me" or "I'm not ready", "Let's wait 5 mins and get ourselves sorted out", then this wouldnt have happened.
Amazing how many accidents are due to the pilots not sticking to the glide slope when landing.
If only there was some sort of stick or wheel or yoke that could be used by the pilots to fly the plane. Had there been such a device, the pilots could have turned off the automation and used their hands to guide the plane back onto the ILS or a missed approach.
If they'd have hit that what looks to be a farmhouse, that would have been game over, unfortunately it was for one, but for so many to survive was incredible.
If the pilots had called the go around when they first noticed they were off to the left of the beam, they wouldn't have crashed. The fact that they tried to continue an unstable approach is what lead to the death and complete loss of the aircraft, and i hope that it was addressed in the report and that the pilots were given remedial training in the area
Fatigue and spotty CRM. I wouldn't call a "miracle." I'd call it a SNAFU with a helping of dumb luck for all but one.
The French….hmmmm…remember Concorde? One death? Air accident…mayday? I’m a pilot and I called TOGA long before they did.
looking at the debris i would think no one made it...
SINK RATE!!!! That's one step below PULL UP! How any pilot cannot instinctively pull up and instead put it in a bank is a ridiculous mystery to me. Forgetting to arm the approach mode is a human, understandable mistake. Banking instead of reducing a descent or initiating a climb in response to SINK RATE! is just insane! I wouldn't call a fatal accident like this a miracle. Especially one that was so avoidable.
I'm not sure that's a miracle, one person still died.
But the call for go around must have slowed the descent rate significantly and the rest was due to a decently engineered hull that can withstand large impact forces.
I don't think so. Planes are designed not to fall apart in the air in turbulence, they don't really have a crash structure like cars do. Would be to heavy if they were designed that way.
@@jasperaj1 Besides, a fender bender in the air tends to be way more deadly than between cars.
@@jasperaj1 they are designed to withstand a certain landing load as well of course. What good is a plane that can fly but not land in turbulence
@@Jet-Pack yes sure 😉 however not crash loads.
It's a miracle... Many should have been died from the incident
tell that to the family of the captain that died...
It's amazing that more people were NOT killed in this crash. But I don't think "miracle" describes this incident properly.
Most planes today will auto arm the app mode if the plane has a certain flap setting and under a certain altitude
16 July 1983 helicopter crash, UK Penzance to St Marys Isles of Scilly would be interesting to have you Vid this.
No accident that results in a death is a miracle, in my opinion.
Perhaps looking out through the cockpit window and failing to see the runway could have been a clue that they needed to go around. This was pilot error.
I noticed the quality of your videos dropping: Like just having a random video of a plane landing that is unconnected to the story or narration. Just an observation. Affected me enough to write about it.
As it's not clear what the captain was thinking are we to assume he was the one fatality?
Yes, that is correct
@@thomasbrabbs wow, it's like he was punished for causing this incident while everyone else survived.
It worries me to think that a false sense of familiarity can sometimes be preferred to complying with rigid landing procedure.
Air France pilots worry me nowadays.
Garlic crazed
They were not Air France pilots.
Good afternoon!
Ilove your channel and videos, and i am subscribed for few years. I have a question: is it possible to make some agreement with you, that i will take your videos and translate to russian? I have access to music studio, so i sound quality will be fine. I want to do it os sort of collaboration, i do not pretend onn any copyrights or something like that. All original sources would be shown. And if there will be some income or monetisation, i just ask some percent from that, and you get rest.
Hope, you will be interested to do that. And yes, i am from Sweden, so no problems with monetisation.
Sink Rate should scare the pilots enough to offer some power and reassess when the immediate concern is dealt with. That said, I can’t talk. Last checks before take off being hatches and harnesses on that day. 200ft .. Hatch flies open 🙈🙈🙈
RIP The Captain
Well, it was a miracle except for the fatality and the family, if any. 💁🏼♂️
But it was fortunate that more weren't killed.
Thanks MICI.
I get hooked on accident investigations having done many in the oil industry. Much like the modern oil industry I see a trend that the pilots are slaves to and overwhelmed by the many options of automation they have at their disposal. It appears they would be better off to just fly the airplane with assist systems rather than automation systems.
Why does it say "glide slope" as the warning when not in approach mode? I meab how would it even know that it's supposed to follow a glideslope?
Oh dear, I live in Brest and travel with BritAir....
Yes, because you started off with the miracle..
Did the pilots not respect the minimum decision altitude? How can you only take action at 100ft?
The problem was no one was flying the airplane. Fact is a go around from 100’ is no problem if there were competent trained pilots.
See our Breast, see our Breast, put your pilots to the test
Okay... Hopefully you (at Mini Air Crash Investigations) will see and notice this...
I've recently run across the "First ever oceanic ditching of an Airliner with 100% survival" and supposedly, this involved Pan Am flight 6 Captained by Richard(?) Ogg, on October 16, 1956... AND I have questions, maybe you're equipped (if that's the right term) to answer in your inimitable storytelling style... It seems Captain Ogg, chose to contact and then circle USGS Pontchartrain somewhere between California and Hawaii (as that was the "station" of the "Weather-ship" at the time) rather than head directly to California to ditch as close to land as possible (if not make the airport)... AND this only seems dubious since he "Chose to circle the Pontchartrain in 8 mile circles UNTIL DAWN..."
I'm thinking my time sense in reading what I've found so far is "off" somewhere... BUT I'd LOVE to hear more about this one... OR even the 1955 crash that killed four (4) about a year before, upon which Captain Ogg was cognizant at the time he was working out his "crisis management" efforts.
Anyways, it WOULD give you "adequate reason" to present us with some of those glorious pictures you're so capable of finding for things like the Boeing 377 Stratocruiser to help illustrate the fine details of mechanical and aviation perspectives and principles... not just "antique plane porn" (I promise???) haha
In any case, AS ALWAYS this was a fantastic presentation, full of the interesting bits of related historical note. I certainly think it looks like a miracle that more than a 1 in 4 or 5 survived, let alone that only one (1) died for the scene and aftermath of the plane. Prop's to those who stepped up to help, too. GREAT episode, thanks... AND of course, KEEP doing what you do. Love that I found this channel and "gave you a shot". Y'all never disappoint! ;o)
It's nice to have automation but it's your job as i pilot to monitor all this stuff.
The only way to do that properly is follow standard procedures AND in your mindset do the whole flight raw data.
Meaning, monitoring the selected frequencies, courses, heading, altitudes while monitoring the instruments, and anunciators.
I have seen to much going wrong just by relying on automation without monitoring it.
Regarding your last question. It seems they made a 'normal' landing just a the wrong place.
So they crashed after landing, resulting in far lower speed, no altitude loss and the aircraft is mostly destroyed due to fire when wings broke of and fuel started to ignite. They're indeed lucky
So with flights being 99% automated, pilots can't even handle a simple landing now? What a joke.
I've noticed this across a couple of the videos - The term "it was too little, too late" is used incorrectly, or at least not in the way that most people use it. If the pilots engaged TOGA, it is not "too little", practically by definition. It is just "too late". The "too little" part implies that the effort would be still insufficient to avoid the problem even IF there was more time. It's really unfair to the pilots to use that phrase when they ran out of time after realizing the mistake.
I agree with your point but based on a different reasoning: Too little implies to me that if they had done more at that specific point in time they would've made it. Apart from selecting TOGA power and maybe flaring a bit there's nothing you're gonna do at/below 100ft to avoid a crash...
Another sad case of pilots operating on autopilot.
The weather in Brest wasnt the best...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
The visual should match the narration
Approach into Brest is not Best. I saw what you did there🌚
tedious, repetitive, fatigue, bad juju. flying bus-drivers. stuff happens. good vid.
So if they did not take off in France, where did they take off? 🤨😉
In Nantes, of course
Throw the 2 Pilots in jail for murder!! They obviously had no idea what they were doing
Well, the one casuality was the captain, so I'd say he was already punished.
Its a shitty miracle if someone died.
I have miracles n brests
Anyone knows what flight simulator this dude uses?
I would like more information about the lack of response from emergency services. I hope the people responsible were seriously disciplined.
Too much reliance on automation, not enough old fashioned stick n’ rudder airmanship.
First
@Räche SD 💀💀
@Räche SD 🤝🤣🤣
YOOOOOOOOOOOO WASSUPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
5:48. No, it's not okay. It would only take you two seconds to explain those abbreviations. Why make your viewers feel stupid? You don't sound like you care if they even understand you, like you want to be all powerful. Signed, Unsubscribed .
Show us! Eexplain in two seconds what a FMS, a VOR, a Heading Mode and an ILS is and how they work.
I just saw something about an Ansett New Zealand Flight 703 which crashed in 1995. Might be worth a video :D
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansett_New_Zealand_Flight_703
Brest tricked the pilots to touch down early for the Breast xd
LMAO "BREST"
Who cares about the weather when you're near Brest!! 😂
Great video. I doubt the family of the one victim considered it to be much of a miracle. 🫤
The weather at Brest was not the best