Cockpit Crisis Unveiled | Qantas Airlines Boeing 747
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Sydney Australia, this Qantas Boeing 747 was on its way to Argentina, on its climb to 32,000 ft smoke started to fill the cockpit. The flight crew of four people now had to act fast because if I fire was to become established, it is unlikely that the crew will be able to extinguish it. Using the final report, this video will show you how this happened and what happens next, to find out stay tuned.
Final Report: www.atsb.gov.au...
I hope you enjoyed this one!
* With regards to one point on the Flight Level explanation, I used the term transition level to to encompass both transition level and transition altitude, I did this to try to keep the explanation as simple as possible. As @LionToon1000 rightly points out ' Climbing and switching to flight levels -> Transition Altitude. Descending and switching to altitude -> Transition Level. In Europe the transition altitude can usually be found on departure charts, whereas the transition level varies and is communicated by ATC via ATIS'. Hopefully this clears that up, if needed :D
As a Non Aviator this was something (VITAL!)) I had never considered, so cheers for the enlightenment on getting all Aircraft in the same regime! Well done to CON(VICT) AIR!!!! Strange no route cause was established?
What do you film these in?
Transition layer, altitude and level
In Australia, there is a system of altimetry in place that separates aircraft using QNH from those using 1013.2 hPa as a pressure reference. The transition altitude, which is always set at 10,000 ft, and the transition level, typically FL110 but occasionally reaching FL125 depending on the QNH, serve as the boundary between these two groups of aircraft.
For all operations below the transition altitude, the altimeter reference will be either the current local QNH of a station within 100 nm of the aircraft or the forecast area QNH if the current local QNH is not known. This information can be obtained from various sources including reporting stations, ATIS, TAF, ARFOR, AERIS, or ATS. Flights cruising at or below the transition altitude must change their altimeter setting when advised of a change by ATS. Pilots of aircraft not using radio can set their altimeter to the aerodrome elevation before takeoff to obtain the local QNH.
However, when cruising in the standard pressure region, the altimeter must be set to 1013.2 hPa. It is important to switch between QNH and 1013.2 hPa while in the Standard Pressure Region, either during the climb after passing 10,000 ft or during descent to an altitude within the Altimeter Setting Region before entering the Transition Layer. Cruising within the transition layer is not permitted.
Positions to change between QNH and 1013.2 hPa
Download Printable Version
The transition layer
Flight Level Availability
FL125 Not available when area QNH is below 963 hPa
FL120 Not available when area QNH is below 980 hPa
FL115 Not available when area QNH is below 997 hPa
FL110 Not available when area QNH is below 1013 hPa
What is Area QNH?
Area QNH is a forecast value that is applicable for a three-hour period and is typically used for the entire Area QNH zone (AQZ). If necessary, the Area QNH zone may be divided to meet the following standards:
Area QNH forecasts should be within ± 5 hPa of the actual QNH at any low-level point (below 1000 ft above mean sea level) within or on the boundary of the relevant area during the forecast’s period of validity
The Area QNH should not differ from an adjacent Area QNH by more than 5 hPa.
What is Local QNH?
Local QNH is used as follows, whether provided by air traffic services, automated weather stations, or an aerodrome forecast (TAF), or by setting the altimeter subscale to indicate the airfield elevation above mean sea level.
Altimetry Phraseology
Heights measured from a QNH or Area QNH datum should be fully expressed, for example: 3000 ft as “three thousand” and 1800 ft as “one thousand eight hundred,” adding “on (QNH)” if necessary.
Expressions of height measured from the 1013.2 hPa datum must always include the words “flight level.”
Using hand signals when the FOs mic went down was great, they kept communicating even when it was near impossible, small details like this make me appreciate how mad this would’ve been, through all the chaos of a cockpit filling with smoke etc, having to use oxygen, being stressed to the max, they continued aviating, navigating, and finding ways to communicate!
Qantas seem to be leagues ahead with their CRM, any time I learn about a Qantas incident I’m always blown away by how well their crews work together and how amazing their CRM is.
A good example of why they must keep a minimum of TWO pilots, regardless of the level of automation!
And we will.
Who told you otherwise?
They are doing studies on weather it would be feasible to go down to one pilot on short hauls.@@MrStian78
@@MrStian78 Airbus' Attempts at Union busting told me otherwise.
@@MrStian78Its pretty clear that they are trying to minimize the number of pilots in commercial aircraft. Make no mistake. If they could eliminate the pilots, they would in a heartbeat. Don't you see that?
Qantas really do seem to have a hand at CRM and safety training. The crew did a great job landing safely. Great content, I really like how your videos are presented. I enjoy the MSFS2020 footage as well, as it's not as common in my feed.
Thanks.
Not only this flight, but several others. Quantas crm seems to be unparalleled.
@@phoenix211245 I don't think that CRM is necessary in Australia. Being open and outspoken, without falling out, is just the normal way of life for most people.
@@wilsjane At that level, it's not about being open and outspoken, it's about each member of the crew doing their jobs exactly as needed, and precise, timely communication. You have to really train for that.
Yeah Qantas flight crews seems to be exceptionally strong. In every incident I've seen with them I have been impressed.
I love these incidents! Not as dramatic as the standard incidents people repeat over and over, but an insight into how flight crews act and react to potential emergencies. Showing that actions taken lead to follow up issues (oxygen low etc…) Really fantastic video, very interesting.
Thank you Josh, it always interests me exploring behaviours of people under stress. It’s probably why air accident investigations interest me so much!
I knew a Qantas 747 pilot with I lived in Aussie , I used to play flight sim and he gave me advice for my ultimate goal to land and take off from Archifield airport in Brisbane with a 747SP- He was bang on with advice . Qantas pilots well trained legends !
Very interesting event. The pilots acted very quickly and professionally- you can see how devastating the situation of smoke/fire can be from your previous Asiana Flight 991 video. Excellent video, thanks again!
I was under the impression, Qantas has the greatest safety record in aviation. Not only never having a crash but never injuring a passenger!
none since 1951 evidently. 8 crashes before that
In the jet age, yes. That line does get trotted out but it's only in the jet age, ie since the 1950's. Though if Vanessa Hudson doesn't turn things around and stop the management perks instead of quality brand, maintenance and customer service we could yet have another one!
There have been injuries on qantas flights. Early 2000's from memory. Between Singapore and Perth on an A330. Also a 747 over ran runway at Manilla, injuries again, but no deaths.
Qantas has an appalling safety record, no longer can it be trusted so many mechanical problem because they've outsourced parts and labour to oversees companies, never had this this problem when things was done in Australia by Australians
So do I 😂, Though had a couple of near misses🥵
(Technicaly those are 'near hits' -- George Carlin)
And this is why we need pilots. They are checked by evolution to do well over a wider range of experiences than any AI we can make now or for the foreseeable future...
yes
An AI pilot wouldn't require oxygen to function, then again a real pilot cannot have an electronic malfunction.
There will never be an AI pilot. Why do you even think in that direction.
@@MrStian78 There are plenty of drones out there already. It is thought the B21 Bomber will be capable of unmanned missions.
Why do you believe AI flights are impossible?
@@MrStian78 ...... Auto-pilot (which can now do landings)........ there will always be a person, corporation, department or countries that can be bought to introduce a one pilot rule. Once in it will be hard to curtail until an event happens that the op then makes a video on
A very detailed video. The crew handled the situation calmly and professionally, and I presume it was helpful to have extra personnel in the cockpit.
Since when Qantas has B747-8I? A ce tripped with fume happen sometimes and if I remember properly their is an handle in upper panel to remove fume from cockpit
I just discovered this channel and it’s great. I have to admit that your explanation of flight level was totally incomprehensible to me 😮
I must say, there are some negative Nancys out there, but Qantas really IS top of their game. Everything is just smooth and professional and time and time again the lovely Australian mentality avoids carnage and disasters.
I think it is more Qantas as a full fare carrier delivering a low budget service and its high fare charges. Lots of love on the pilots, crew and safety. But yes there are people that will complain offshoring engineering crew decreases safety......
@@josephphillips9243 When you don't exactly get to see behind the curtains, or "under the hood", it gets easy to bitch and whine about costs versus returns. The fact remains, that this level of CRM and professional conduct is NOT simply because "Aussie's must be made different". It's training and practice and drills. ALL of those things cost time and money. It's still a business, meant to make profit...
SO when you're next debating whether to take the "low budget service for a high budget ticket" versus the next carrier promising "first class experience on business class ticket prices", you're better off questioning WHAT exactly they're stripping budget out of and where they cut the corners to afford Champagne instead of whining about where Qantas has pissed away the income. They're record holds (so far) that it's not just getting piped off to faceless stockholders in New York just to screw everyone. You don't keep crews solid and safety standards by flittering cash into a CEO's bonus, either. ;o)
@@josephphillips9243 so are you saying the Pilots professionalism is more akin to a LCC , like Jetstar? Which Airline in your ( authoritative?) opinion, has the most superior level of CRM and superior Pilots?? Perhaps you can also contribute your knowledge by means of an Op-ED in a renowned aviation journal ?. 🤔
@@paulsz6194 Mate, relax. You've gone all angry Maori warrior for no reason. I praised the Qantas pilots and crew. Please calm down and re-read without all the emotion. Don't carry that anger around in your daily life.
@@josephphillips9243 I think comparing me to a Maori warrior is a bit over the top. Yes you did mentioned lots of love to the crew, but I thought you were comparing their job performance to a LCC . Qantas , like a lot of other airlines, is taking advantage of the situation we find themselves in, so they jack up pricing, but level of service does not go up with it.
I've never heard this one. I thank you for the video and explanation, FL and the weather radar. Gosh I know so many people (non-pilots) IRL that would almost certainly take the position 'No more smoke its gone lets continue to our layover in Argentina'. Well done, very professional, nice resource management. How much oxygen do they have in minutes?
Good video. It's good see how crews work together to solve the problems. Question for anyone that knows: Is the oxygen supply for the crew broken down to 1 container per mask or is there one big tank for the 4 of them? And, I think I said this when I first subscribed, thank you, thank you, for not having any music during your narration. Makes listening to the information much easier.
Oxy generators are not standard across aircraft. Some use sodium hyperoxide to generate oxygen from solid chemicals in place. This is then piped around the aircraft others use multiple pressure tanks to do the same thing. It stands to reason that the supply for the technical aircrew is different from the supply the cabin but that the cabin supply can be switched over to the aircrew / cockpit. Most aircraft of any size also have small carry around bottles as a last resort for the flight attendants (there are not enough for all flight attendants ) . In the worst case, the technical crew could hoe into these.
The big advantage with the chemical system is that you don't have pressure tanks which have to be depressured of O2 and tested every few years.
why depict a 747-8 ??
Climbing and switching to flight levels -> Transition Altitude. Descending and switching to altitude -> Transition Level. In Europe the transition altitude can usually be found on departure charts, whereas the transition level varies and is communicated by ATC via ATIS
Perfect, thank you for the explanation. I tried to find a balance to keep it to the point and as short as possible, so I used 'transition level' as an encompassing term for both. I have added your comment into the pinned one!
@@CuriousPilot90 Thx mate, great video by the way :))
NOT getting to the exact cause is unacceptable. If it was the panel,then a quick internal examination of the unit would confirm that.
Chances are ,someone did that. It SHOULD be in the report.
LOVE the "matter of fact" way these are presented. LOVE the way details get handled in cases of "repetitive ambiguities" that don't necessarily warrant a disclaimer or exposition in every episode for fan's who have probably seen it and heard it before...
AND this is worth the moment to point out that this EFIS panel was installed "brand new"... and still burned out... quite literally in this case. Just a public notice (of sorts) to all the tinkers, DIY types, and other hobbyist technicians out there. Aviation parts HAVE to be "certified" by law. There was a BIG-TIME international overhaul and audit of aircraft parts back in the 90's over all the dubious practices of aviation and avionics components and systems suppliers in the industry, to bring the supplies up to standards and to do the best about eliminating "Counterfeits" among the supplies IN CIRCULATION... It went as far as finding Counterfeit parts and components in the avionics of Air Force One! So this was world-wide trouble already...
SO the point is, that EVEN WITH all that regulation and trackable parts suppliers, Quantas managed to get a part that was "bad" fresh out of the cellophane. If that can happen to an aviation operator in the 2000's, DO NOT THINK FOR A MOMENT that it's not possible to happen to you. I'm not trying to bust any ballz here. It's just a fact that's worth pointing out with a clear example... Maybe the next time you "fix" something with a replacement part and find trouble almost instantly, you, too, can be saved just a little time and frustration by considering you MIGHT have gotten a bad part "right out of the cellophane", too.
It's just one of those little things that CAN lead to oversights and lots more trouble than it should... haha ;o)
Smoke in the cockpit, very high on a pilot's ick meter.
Doubly so when you consider that fires caused other 747s ended up crashing with no survivors like TWA 006, SAA 295 or UPS 006.
0:38 That correct projection of the flight path will blow flat-earthers' mind.
lol I was about to make the same comment.
I always look forward to your videos.
Always well researched and well scripted.
Gonna watch this later on, send the missus out and settle down with some tea and biccies
great work, as always :)
Thanks Yuki, UA-cam’s new handles are not too clear, is Yuki correct? 😬 I should have probably asked long ago.
@@CuriousPilot90 aww that's sweet of you to ask 😊 it's Mina, that's my nickname in real life 😉 Yuki is just an anime character I liked at the time this account was created (long, long ago)
Great channel and content,. i wouldn't be happy with the "fix" of this electrical problem, this part of the instramentation failed intermittently before they changed it out, then the replacement emits smoke and they change it again !,. not finding any signs or evidence of fire, ! well something was hot as hell or burning/smouldering,.thats a big worry on my mind,.as the old saying goes "theres no smoke without fire"
Thanks for another well-pesented and informative video. It's a good job that there were 4 flight crew in the cockpit - I wonder what might have happened had this been a more modern aircraft on a shorter flight with ony 2 pilots? I suspect it may not have turned out so well...
That was very interesting and neatly fact based. I've subscribed as I'm sure your content is going to be worthwhile. Thank you.
Great to hear, thanks.
Having issues? If fire is the most dangerous occurence on an aircraft why did they not issue a Pan, Pan, Pan immediately?
Aviate, navigate, communicate. In that order.
They made the right calls.
Your videos are full of excellent knowledge. Thanks.
This was post-Swiss Air so the fear of fire was probably amplified, which if course was the correct response.
Thanks for posting another good video. I get tired of watching non-aviation people posting aviation videos and not really knowing the subject, just posted it for clicks. Then when you point out errors they get defensive...
Seems the O2 required for dispatch would have been 30-45 minutes - I don't recall the actual value - but that they were low on oxygen on approach seemed like something to look into.
Sounds to me as a highly skilled crew and a exceptional competent Capt.
I was on a Singapore Airlines Flight on route from Perth to Tokyo via Singapore (or the other way round) about 20 years ago that had an emergency landing in night travel. There is no information on the Singapore Flight Investigation System
Very Professional handling of situation ❤
Probably a "knock off" Chinese made EFIS panel.
Really? Just goes to show how little you know about Qantas Maitenance. They Don’t susbstitute parts with " Aftermarket "ones ... It’s always the genuine, OE part.
👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Thank you!
..'there are many pilots, air traffic controllers down there....' hahahahhaha
Thank you for this video...one of the main reasons i watch this xhannel is bcs im curious to unserstand what could have been done better, how they manage crises.. good to see positive outcome for this incident.
Can't you just make a "soft" landing when over your maximum landing weight? The weather seems to be at ease at the airport.
This is the third time I see pilots wanting to first dump fuel while there's smoke on board, effectively extending flight time. Nothing learned, nothing gained from Swissair 111.
Really excellent video !
Its an incerdible thing but qantas has still yet to loose a single passenger due to a crash- since 1958/ jet age start.
deeply impressive me thinks
This is why I’m not a pilot. I’d be close to hysterical in that situation. Such professionalism from the flight crew.
Great detail thanks.
1. However why would the pilots not have sufficient oxygen/ air capacity. Survival of the Pilots is fundamental.
2. Playing swappies with Electronic Modules always bothers me it rarely establishes what the actual issue is.
3. Voice Communication between the Pilots is fundamental. Many of their systems have tripple systems running at once. A contact microphone pushed against his mask or similar would possibly give some backup for voice comms.
Given the failure of the Left EFIS Control Panel, the Right Autopilot probably would have been used. I'm surprised there was no EFIS control via the Left CDU. It bypasses the EFIS control panel if the panel fails. On many 747-400's you can turn off the Left Radar via the the Left CDU.
Did they use the Smoke Evac handle on the overhead panel?
The ^Longreach^ aircraft is quite an old plane. I traveled to Osaka, Japan 30 years ago, upon her.
I guess Rain man wasn't wrong
Capacitors on the board. I would bet on finding bulging surface mounts.
Could I gently suggest that the obsession of dumping fuel until they were below MLW was misplaced? Given what else was going on and the disasterous possible consequences, a reasonable landing above MLW will not result in the wheels falling off. The aircraft will subsequently have to be removed from the line for extensive checks, but this should not be a crew consideration in these circumstances.
H
Hi, I've been binge watching your channel and find them most informative. Would you be able to do a video of Garuda Indonesia flight GA200 which crashed on landing at Yogyakarta airport on 7 March 2007? I lost a couple of work mates in the crash. Cheers.
This is why planes should have a backup cockpit at the back so if the main one goes on fire they can still fly the plane from the back
Hello. I was looking for any information about an incident that my dad was involved in back in 1976 (he's certain about the date). It was a flight from Copenhagen to New York, the airline was Pan American, and they were flying a 747. The incident was some kind of engine malfunction and they were forced to divert to Heathrow and land there. Are incidents of this kind documented? Where can I look? Wikipedia is not a good enough source on this one.
But why? The panel was replaced (faulty for new I take it?), and it smoked. Why? Shoving in yet another panel, that 'seems' to be OK?, does not get to the root of the problem. Also, what other damage did the heating/smoking panel do to the wiring system on the plane?, as heat does not treat electronics and wiring very well. What made the original panel faulty?, the panel itself?, or something else?
There is always a 'cause' with failed electronics, and not necessary one, that is staring you in the face, and 60% of the time, has nothing to do with what you are looking at either, more so after a replacement of same component.
Good actions of the crew saved this flight, but I'd be more wary, that this is now the 'third' panel in it's place ;)
Have had the pleasure of jump seat 747-3 Argentina to sydney
Why would the weather radar have to be turned off? I can see why the radio waves coming from the nose could cause other problems at the airport, but they shouldn't pose a hazard to ground personnel (because it is non-ionizing radiation). Am I missing something?
As an armchair pilot, it seems that immediate descent would be a priority.
The Swiss Air accident by Halifax was just the opposite. They should've headed straight for landing but did checklists, orbited to dump fuel, and crashed into the Atlantic.
That said, later the safety board said from their declaration of pan pan to the crash, they never would've made it anyway. Sad, bad situation.
They didn't have a fire extinguisher? Could not determine the cause of the smoke and replaced the same part and placed the aircraft in service as if nothing happened?😮
There’s no such thing as maximum landing weight, except for the aircraft having to go through extensive checks after an overweight landing. No issue in a real emergency.
How can a engineer not find the source of burning electronics for heaven's sake? Did they then scrap the entire panel? I think we can guess the disturbing answer to that....
Maintenance engineers are not allowed to open up components like this. It would have been sent to an authorised workshop. Different approvals are required for component overhaul. What was the disturbing answer you had in mind?
Given the amount of smoke generated by the panel, I would certainly want to scrap the panel. All *five* circuit boards inside were probably fried.
sounds like it wasn't installed correctly. a loose or poor connection in any electrical product passing reasonably current can quickly heat up to the point of burning.
I know there were economic and practicality factors at play, but I so wish more airlines had opted for the Boeing 747-8i. It’s a beautiful bird! And as far as aesthetics go, in my opinion Boeing perfected the type with this variant.
agree 100% btw QANTAS never operated the 747-8i
Very interesting somewhat concerning that in this scenario ground engineering crew could not identify the fault or do anything extra to replicate and diagnose, swapping a component out, is nothing more than a Band-Aid approach, it could have happened again if that unit was not the entire fault. I hope the engineering crew took the aircraft up fully operational in the air before they passed if of back for duty.
Excellent video as usual , unfortunately the accuracy in this documentary is not 100% factual since Qantas never operated the B747-800 which is the aircraft depicted in this video , the correct model was B747-400 VH-OEI as QF17
Good grief that was a very long flight they had to take. All the way around the bottom of the earth.
No wonder they have the 'no smoking' rule on aircraft. When they get to low enough altitude, then they would most likely need to open up some windows. At least some heads should have been rolling for that sort of incident. That shouldn't be allowed to occur at all.
I saw your video on how to become a pilot. I want to become a fighter pilot myself. Im 15, and i am all ready learning some stuff about planes and fighters. I live in norway, and i hope you can help me by giving me informasion on the tests you have to take, and what type of questions you get on them. I am not surenifni will make it, since you dont get a second chance, i need all the help, and you could benthe guy😁👍
Very good.
Im struggling to understand why the issue was not definatively determined.
Quantas is badass airline. Not even emirates is as safe.
By the way, Emirates is just as safe. I’ve flown as pilots for both airlines
@@peterchin8385 thank you for your opinion, dear pilot. I appreciate it.
To be honest what concerns me about my upcoming flight with an Airbus A380 is that quanta’s has had a Burn in its engines. Can Emirates deal with it similarly competently ?
Far too slow turnaround back to Sydney. Should have been immediate, no crew consultation necessary imo….
why are you using feet, when Australia use meter ???
No they don’t
@@kickedinthecalfbyacow7549 YES, they do and you don't know what you taking about, Australia went metric in 1970, so don't talk rubbish..
So why does the pressure need to be set to the pressure at the airport before landing? And if it’s different at every airport how can the altitude be accurate way up in the sky?
Altitude onboard an aircraft is measured by pressure gauges except very close to the ground. Near airports this needs to be re-set because of local weather that may bias that pressure and hence altitude reading. A few hundred feet difference in altitude reading due to a low-pressure thunderstorm can be very critical when so close to the ground.
Far up in the sky accurate altitude from the ground is largely irrelevant rather relative altitude is more important for ATC clearance to avoid other airplanes.
E.g. even though the altimeter may read 35000ft the actual altitude near the location of the airplane could be 35400ft. However because all other planes have the same offset a plane crossing at 'flight level 360' will still be well clear of your plane because it will be flying at 36400ft.
In Australia below 10000ft the altimeter is set to QNH for departure and climb ,this is the airport or local area pressure and gives an accurate altitude over the ground . Over 10000ft known as the transition altitude the altimeter is set to the standard 1013hpa . What is important here is traffic separation not a totally accurate altitude over the ground. On descent the altimeter is reset to QNH at flight level 110 (roughly 11000ft) back to the airport QNH. In the USA with its higher terrain the transition altitude is 18000ft
Why does this 747 use 787 exhaust nacelles? I'm sure the Qantas 747's I flew in had straight exhaust nacelles.
because this is a B747-8i or 747-800 which QF never operated , the correct variant should have been the 747-438
U mean case closed? dont know why got smoke??
Fiuu ! 😥 Boy ! Thank GOODNESS a happy ending ! 🤗🤗
Unlike former Swiss Air Flight... 🔥😮💀
I saw this happen while playing baseball!
4:50-4:56 Just above the aircraft in the 'gray' area of clouds, I see two faces. One rather large, oblong, a bit masculine, and just below that face, a smaller one, head pointed down to it's right, looking a bit female. PLEASE tell me someone else sees this, and I'm not loosing my marbles!
Your brain is working just fine, displaying an evolutionary trick: it is better to see a face where there actually is none than missing the face of an aggressor (I.e. enemy or predator animal). Gongrats, you'd likely have survived back then! 😊
Well spotted! Your marbles have not escaped. Yet.
Great news! Thanks, Mandy. The word "yet" worries me- lol.@@mandywalkden-brown7250
one time I was on an aeroplane and sat by the window and looked outside and saw clouds.
A 747-8? If only. Qantas Airways only operated 747-238B (VH-EBA to EBP with PW JT9D-7F engines, VH-EBQ to EBS with RR RB211-524D4 engines), -338B (VH-EBT to EBY, all RR engines), -438B, (VH-OJA TO OJU with RR RB211-524 G2's), -438ER'S (VH-OEE TO OEJ with GE CF6-C2B6), two SP38's VH-EAA and EAB with RR RB211-524D4'S) plus three aircraft ex-Asiana and Malaysian (VH-OEB, C and D with GE CF6-C2B6 engines). VH-OYY? Yeah nah...
747 - ???
With all due respect - as an Australian and aviation enthusiast - it is QANTAS Airways (not Airlines) Limited.
It’s transition altitude, not transition level. Transition level occurs on arrival.
Transition altitude is the highest altitude, transition level is the lowest flight level doesn’t matter if you are departing or arriving
If it's Boeing I aint going.
That looks like a 747-8? QANTAS don’t have a 747-8
I came here for an insight into the incident and not a flight lesson. Why use so much time to explain pressure settings and flightlevels?
Please use Farenhite
Fahrenheit?
Omg 99 percent of the world uses Celsius , don't tell me you still use imperial measurement as well .
more like Farenshite.
As much as we all joke (I'm looking at you above or below this comment), I will try to remember to include the equivalent Fahrenheit in the edit. :D
@@CuriousPilot90 There we go, everyone wins 😅👍
Dude you so technical it becomes boring to listen to you. Simplify your narration... Not everyone is a pilot.
Please don't! I'm not a pilot, yet the technical details are what's interesting to me.
I, on the other hand, appreciate it quite a lot.
Too much unnecessary babble.
Disagree. I'e seen several of this guy's videos and find them quite well done.
By the time the pilots got to the breakers the breaker had already tripped, it sounds like the plane took care of the incident by itself. Perhaps we could do without the melodramatic smoke pouring out of the cockpit thumbnail pic?
Qantas a crap airline now
bullshit!
So which airline should we fly now? Your Airline? 🤣
@@paulsz6194 fly any airline you like dick
Fly into heaven with Your Airlines and have a Meet&Greet with Petrus! 😂
This is why I’m not a pilot. I’d be close to hysterical in that situation. Such professionalism from the flight crew.