WHY did This Airplane MISS the RUNWAY? | Qantas flight 001
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 тра 2024
- Go to nordvpn.com/pilot or use code pilot to get a 2-year plan plus a bonus gift with a huge discount!
On the 23 September 1999 a Qantas Boeing 747 with flight number Qantas 1 suffer a violent runway excursion in Don Mueang International Airport, Bangkok. The Aircraft landed during heavy rain on runway 26R and in this video I will give you 6 different reasons that led up to this accident.
As Always I would love to hear what you think about the video, after you have watched it.
f you want to support the work I do on the channel, join my Patreon crew and get awesome perks and help me move the channel forward! 👇
👉🏻 / mentourpilot
Get the Mentour Aviation app and discuss what You think about this! Download the app for FREE using the link below 👇
📲
📲 Join the Mentour Pilot Discord server here! 👉🏻 / discord
I have also created an Amazon page with Aviation books, material and flight simulator stuff that I think you will enjoy!
👉🏻 www.amazon.com/shop/mentourpilot
Follow my life on instagram and get awesome pictures from the cockpit!
📲 / mentour_pilot
To find the right HEADSET for YOU, check out BOSE Aviation 👉🏻 boseaviation-emea.aero/headsets
Artwork in the studio 👉🏻 aeroprints.de/?lang=en
Get some Awesome Mentour Pilot merch 👉🏻 mentour-crew.creator-spring.c...
Below you will find the links to videos and sources used in this episode. Enjoy checking them out!
Grooved Runway: @ Agência Brasil
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runway#...
Grooved Runway 2: @ sciencedirect.com
ars.els-cdn.com/content/image...
Sloped: @ sciencedirect.com
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Sloped 2: @ Marion Engineering Department
www.cityofmarion.org/home/sho...
Cabin Floor Lighting: @ STGAerospace
/ 457477925024649
Slide 1: @ EAM
mk0runwaygirl0t0gjwt.kinstacd...
Slide 2: @ Matus Duda / Getty Images
ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/di...
Slide 3: @ EAM
mk0runwaygirl0t0gjwt.kinstacd...
Crash Site 1: @ u/theducks / LucEz
imgur.com/a/LucEz
Crash Site 2: @ u/theducks / LucEz
imgur.com/a/LucEz
Crash Site 3: @ u/theducks / LucEz
imgur.com/a/LucEz
Crash Site 4: @ u/theducks / LucEz
imgur.com/a/LucEz
Crash Site 5: @ u/theducks / LucEz
imgur.com/a/LucEz
Boeing 767: @ Aero Icarus
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...
Boeing 747: @ AirlineGeeks | William Derrickson
airlinegeeks.com/2020/07/22/q...
GAXNQG4FZSKO8GDP
00:00 - Intro
00:55 - Chapter 1: Flight Overview
02:55 - Chapter 2: Taxi, Takeoff & Cruise
04:02 - Chapter 3: Top Of Descent
05:57 - Chapter 4: The Weather Situation
08:52 - Chapter 5: Three’s A Crowd
10:48 - Chapter 6: Aircraft Won’t Slow Down?
12:49 - Chapter 7: Racing Past The Threshold
15:30 - Chapter 8: Three Down, One To Go
17:08 - Chapter 9: Water Skis Required
20:04 - Chapter 10: Coming To A Halt
22:23 - Chapter 11: What Happened In The Cabin?
23:58 - Chapter 12: All Hands On Deck!
25:36 - Chapter 13: Flashing Lights
26:52 - Chapter 14: Anxious Passengers
28:31 - Chapter 15: Precautionary Disembarkation
30:30 - Chapter 16: Looking For Answers
31:19 - Critical Analysis: Point 1 - The Captain
32:34 - Critical Analysis: Point 2 - Landing Configuration
34:21 - Critical Analysis: Point 3 - Speed On Final
35:22 - Critical Analysis: Point 4 - Reversal Of Go-around
36:13 - Critical Analysis: Point 5 - Communication After Crash
37:12 - Critical Analysis: Point 6 - Decision Not To Evacuate
Check out this video next: I still can’t believe these pilots did this! 😥
ua-cam.com/video/DCMmCekKO_c/v-deo.html
Can you please also cover the QF72 incident in future?
@@prabuddhabose9045 it’s in the pipeline… with a bit of a surprise in it. 😉
@@MentourPilot thank you so much. Will be eagerly waiting for it.
What happens if a pilot or captain gets heart attack or any medical emergency in mid air ?? Recently it happened to a Bangladeshi airlines captain . A video about this will be very appreciated
@@olivercook5922 i believe he has already done a video on this
I was aboard this flight. I have flown extensively and several times previously on the same flight into Don Meung. I also had some flying experience being a qualified glider pilot and instructor at that time. I only mention this because the totality of this experience helped inform my concerns as we landed that night. In a widow seat, I had a good view of the ground which although generally dark did permit me to observe the piano keys as we crossed the threshold and confirmed in my mind that the approach was high and faster than normal. I was also aware of the weather and witnessed the dramatic electrical storms as we approached BKK - not unusual for that time of year. Things happened quickly after this. There was a heavy touch down and I remember being puzzled as to why thrust reversers had not been deployed. Seconds later there was pandemonium in the cabin as the undercariage collapsed and the vibration was alarming. Overhead lockers sprang open emptying their contents; ceiling panels and oxygen masks fell down - the noise was incredible but curiously - and this really surprised me - there was absolutely no panic that I detected amonst passenges, certainly not within the section in which I was located. I think everyone was stunned. It seemed to take forever before we came to a standstill and the vibration and noise ceased - to be replaced with almost total silence. It was bizarre! My immediate concern was for fire and I couldn't understand why the cabin crew appeared to be confused. Of course, we learnt later that there was no communication with the flightdeck because the links had been severred. It seemed to take an age before emergency services arrived - I can't remember exactly how long but it was at least 15-20 minutes after we came to a halt. Not an experience I would wish to repeat but one which could easily have had a far worse ending. It took many days before we could be reunited with our luggage due to difficulties raising the aircraft (and permitting access to the holds) in the waterlogged airfield. To their credit, Qantas did their best to minimise the inevitable disruption this caused.
Thank you very much for sharing your story! The horrible long time which the emergency services needed to arrive at the scene is indeed stunning and could have let to a disaster. That´s not the way you would expect at a major International Airport of the size of Bankok.
How did it feel to sit there like a duck waiting to go up in flames after the plane came to a stop? I would have been furious with those people and I may have deployed the door and slides myself after checking no fire.
@@NicolaW72 a great amount of luck was involved in this accident.. one ruptured tank and it could have ended in a fireball and a super desaster
As a glider pilot you have no idea what a higher than normal approach is. Especially if you aren’t even instrument rated which obviously you’re not.
@@sqwk2559 Why such an aggressive comment? He said he could see the piano bars and had flown extensively, including multiple times at this airport. Here you have someone spending a significant amount of time typing out a first-hand experience report of this accident and all they get from you is dismissal and contempt. Out of your comment and his, only one brings something useful and interesting to this conversation while the other is just complete angry trash.
A family member was on that flight. They got given a free round the world first class ticket.
Bit different to a C5!
We’re they situated in first class on that flight?
Hi Dave!
That moment when you find one of your favorite UA-camrs on the comments of a video from another one of your favorite UA-camrs
"got given?"
Slid onto the golf course at Don Muang, and since that day any approach shot you hit over the green next to where the plane went off the runway is fondly referred to as an "Australian approach."
Haha
😂😂😂
LOLz
Fun fact about this flight: The aircraft was initially declared a write-off, but because Qantas wanted to preserve their reputation of having no Hull-loss accidents since the start of the jet age, they repaired it anyway.
It was technically declared a hull loss, meaning repairs would exceed the actual value of the aircraft. In other word, it would be best in the interest of finances to simply scrap it and buy a new one.
But Qantas basically shrugged and decided to repair it anyway!
The repairs apparently turned out less than buying a new one
@@kimtatami6559 did they? Or was that a requirement for them to say so as to keep their record?
Qantas had it repaired at a cost of $100 million - a big price for you reputation.
@@NicEvans20 pity their current reputation damage won't be so cheap to fix
Thanks for the info on the price though :) btw, do you know how much it would have cost them to buy a new plane of that type? I have no idea, so don't know if $100 million is cheap or expensive, suspecting it's expensive
I love this channel.
No use of a computer voice, his real voice - perfectly understandable.
Plus,he clearly knows what he is talking about.
I refuse to watch such channels that use a false voice.
Haha. That seems like a low bar :)
I want to like this comment, but it’s currently sitting on 69. So I won’t. I got manners and shit.
Those horrible computer voices??? OH JELL NO!!
@@vtauoyctynwbrooylm6008 But no pie charts. Needs more pie charts.
I'm an engineer and a pilot. I really appreciate your detailed and technical explanations. These topics demand detail and tech.
Thanks Dick! I do what I can to cover as much detail as possible
Another engineer here who seconds that observation. Health issues have kept me from working in recent years, and, damn, how I miss rational, factual, technical discussions such as this. Please keep posting Petter. My sanity may depend on it!!
Aren't they test pilot qualifications?
I have no technical qualifications, and even to me this video is a tour de force. The story is spellbinding, and your communication power is at a higher level than even your earlier shorter videos. You're in a class way above other aviation channels I've watched. Absolutely brilliant - thanks!
What is surprising to me in this case is that one can actually cancel a go around call after it has been made. One of things you see in a lot of safety trainings in general is that once a critical call has been made, you see it through to completion and only then you evaluate and make the follow up decision. The thinking behind this is to avoid exactly the sort of confusion that happened in this cockpit.
About the only time you go against it is if the critical call proves impossible. Case in point, Ameristar Charters Flight 9363 (also covered on this channel) rejected takeoff after the V1 takeoff decision point because the aircraft wasn't rotating at all when the pilot flying tried to take off. But that sort of situation is very rare and not what happened in _this_ video.
Yeah pretty sure that's not standard procedure. Might have been the weather (not wanting to have to divert after a 2nd attempt), the experience of "being able to easily save a new recruit's botched landing" etc
Definitely not how it's supposed to go.
@@LuLeBe its completely up to the pilots discretion, and while it doesnt Happen often it can and has happened.
@@Kratos-eg7ez From my understanding ANY of the crew can call for a go around. Usually it's considered best practice to accept this call and ask questions later. The notion of the captain, unilaterally cancelling the go around was totally out of order. Especially since he wasn't even the Pilot in Control at that moment. If he really wanted to abort the go around he should have made a clear "I have controlls" and executed his intended plan.
Yeah, was a complete kokup
That Qantas really did learn from this can be seen with the QF32 incident involving its first A380 having an uncontained engine failure out of SIN many years later. The QF1 was a case study in what NOT to do. The QF32 one was a model of what to do. As usual the ATSB reports of both are meticulous, objective, and immensely valuable resources.
This incident probably saved Qantas from future catastrophes due to complacency. It was a much needed wake up call to get their shit in order to maintain their near perfect flight record.
I was surprised when I heard Qantas too
I think Qantas has only had two incidents or three maybe since war time. It is still an immensely safe airline. I love hearing about how Qantas pilots deal with these incidents, usually with professionalism and safety in mind (not saying other pilots don't but there is just something awe inspiring about them)
@@gingergamer3270 Qantas has had more than two or three since WW2 (Google is your friend here). Also, the airlines that eventually comprised its domestic arm have had a few hull losses, e.g. VH-TFB and VH-TQQ are just two that come to mind.
CRM is badly needed for these pilots. The communication between pilots are lacking. Still, why did the main pilot changed his mind on the go-around, but didn't tell his co-pilot???
Qantas repaired this plane so as not to have an international hull loss even though it was uneconomical.
I was actually onboard that flight with my parents on Qantas staff travel as my dad was a engineer, now retired I remember looking out the window and seeing flames when we crashed through the perimeter fence it was scary as hell I was only 16 at the time now I am a engineer with QF, I remember the ceiling came crashing down in business class, we ended up on a golf course
I believe that's a hole in one! 😁
@@EastWestMangi um
This video carried a lot of relevance for me as I was involved in the maintenance of this aircraft after it was repaired. I fully endorse the message about a rational analysis of such incidents. It’s a pity so many seek to blame rather than understand. Excellent work!
Repairing the aircraft would have been an astronomical task.
@MSM LIARS I was not talking of any action a regulatory authority might take but was speaking out against those who think that baying for blood is the only answer, I stand by my statement.
I've aquaplaned on a motorcycle before (new road surface + recent heavy rain) and it was terrifying. For it to happen in an aircraft seems all the more horrendous.
It's happened to me in a car, heavy rain and discovering what you thought was solid ground was actually a huge shallow puddle! That feeling of utter helplessness as you just have to abandon any steering or braking and just ride it out. Luckily I was pointing in the right direction when I hit it! The idea of a 747 aquaplaning is... yeah.
@@PartanBree Yeesh! It's horrible, isn't it?! Suddenly being just a passenger in a vehicle you were driving just a moment ago.
Me, I'd rather aquaplane in an aircraft than on a motorcycle. At least the plane isn't going to topple over because of a lack of control and it has at least minimal crumple zones
@@PartanBree i saw some accidents due to aquaplaning. People just drive faster, than the physics can do. If you drive on heavy rain, like the street is dry, you will crash eventually.
once i drove with 120km/h in heavy rain (which was already quite fast for the road condition) and then i got overtaken by a mercedes with >160km/h. 500 meter further down he catched some severe aquaplaning, touched the left road barrier and then hit another car into the back on the right hand lane. Oh and the best part, he tried do remove his guilt and sued the state, that the highway was in bad condition. In the end, he made the result even worse for him.
Another time i also saw another driver flybe me (i was driving like 100km/h due to heavy rain) and 20km further i saw this car again, in a road barrier ...
My car hydro planed one rainy dark night. It surprised me as it never happened before. I tried to turn and steer. The car kept going. Its the most insecure feeling when brakes don't work. Nothing seems to apply as normal.
Whenever you mention the issue of people taking their luggage with them during an evacuation, please consider taking a moment to repeat one critical piece of information: you WILL get your stuff later in circumstances like this. This is almost never explicitly said in passenger safety brochures, by flight attendants and in fact by aviation youtubers. I feel like it would do a lot towards making evacuations safer if people weren't left wondering what's going to happen with their luggage, which might contain items that are essential to their job or very expensive to replace. Sure, "your life is more expensive to replace" and so on and so on, but this is evidently not what people consider in the heat of the moment, in a stressful situation, as they're evaluating the decision to leave their stuff behind with absolutely zero information on what's going to happen to this stuff, how and when. In fact, this might be something that warrants a whole video dedicated to the problem.
Yes. This would be a useful topic for a video.
People are too bloody selfish and entitled in general and hence will do what they think is ok for them. It's best to assume a certain percentage will be troublesome and have procedures in place to manage such situations.
@@alphalunamare They are and they do, but I don't think it's relevant here at all. And my point was mostly about providing information to people who are not "entitled" or "troublesome". The issue is that most people (basically anyone who's not professional military or emergency response personnel) are completely unprepared for real emergency situations with real danger. A hard emergency landing with injuries, smoke, visible damage and so on, let alone a real crash landing, and subsequent evacuation, will put most people into a state of panic that precludes any clear, logical thinking and decision-making. They'll instead try to apply whatever preexisting behaviors seem to fit the situation, and if the sequence of actions for "getting the hell out of there" nevertheless always included the "take my stuff" step every single time in their life before that crash because it has never been in *real* danger, they'll proceed to take this step without stopping to think or even being able to do so when prompted and adjust their actions.
I remember a story of a partial building collapse after a gas explosion, where a bunch of people tried to close the doors to their apartments, but couldn't do that because the door frames were warped as the building shifted. Instead of just getting the hell out of there, they kept trying, because every single time they left their place in their lives, they did have to close the door - and this time, they were scared shitless and unable to think, too.
@@alphalunamare, yeah! They should have someone going around punching them! Always have the most violent guy of the cabin crew ready for that. But seriously, if people are not instructed properly, they will simply freeze and do nothing. Can't take their stuff, can't leave it behind. Oh what a joy to see those suckers burn to death, looking like deers in the headlights, making a final mad dash for the door after everyone else has already left and then collapsing.
I want to add that this was an international flight. It was landing in a foreign country. Many of these passengers probably had their money, credit cards, IDs, PASSPORTS, and medication in their purse or carryon bag. This had to weigh in the back of their minds, as they sat there for all that time. "Oh my God, we crashed in a foreign airport. What am I going to do? What if the plane burns up with my stuff? How am I going to get home? Or even prove who I am?" In an emergency situation that much time sitting there with no information is an eternity to play the "what if" game in my mind. I'm willing to cut the passengers a little slack in this case.
I remember this incident really well. Qantas at this time had been transformed from being government owned to being privatised. There was a lot of politics floating around at the time with concerns that a privately operated Qantas was not a safe Qantas. This accident was described by Qantas management at the time as a "minor incident" and they strenuously denied that the landing procedures implemented by Qantas (reduced flap angle and idle reverse thrust) were done without consulting Boeing or that they were a cost saving measure. Qantas management went to the extent of instructing ground crew to remove one of the easy accessible flight data recorders from the aircraft and have it sent back to Sydney without notifying safety investigators. A major effort was put in by the management of Qantas to "manage" the message in Australia at least. We were never told how close we were to having major fatalities as a result of this accident.
You cannot possibly know that
I remember the original news reports, and you're right, Four Corners, 60 minutes, Channel 9, 10, 7, SBS, or the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) had nothing else to say except that it was a "minor" accident. At least initially. I forgot how long it took for the news to report on, and I'm paraphrasing, only using breaks and idle thrusters, as slowing down methods. I also left Australia in 2001 so I will admit I don't know what else was reported after I left.
@@travissanchez4305 That's because Australian news media is the worst in the world and are nothing but lapdogs of the LNP and corporations. Even though it was Labor who privatised QANTAS the Howard LNP government was trying to privatise anything and everything they could in the late 90s and any negative coverage of QANTAS would have made that harder. And of course Murdoch, Packer, ABC, 7, 10 and Fairfax all went along with the government's and QANTAS' lies.
And of course QANTAS is a major advertiser with a huge media budget.
@@idekav. Did you even watch the video? Flaps 25, which was a major contributor to the accident, was not pilot error: it was precisely what the airline had trained him to do.
Nah Qantas was privatised between 1992-1995. Different timing
Every time you say "went completely normal, nothing out of the ordinary" gives it a spooky "the normal day, like everyday" touch to it which makes it even more spookier xD
But I love your accident/incident analysis :)
Great video, as always. When the aircraft was finally put back into service it became known amongst Qantas crews as "the golf buggy", due to where it came to rest!
Wow. Talk about multiple high value learning experiences
Bangkok has been my base for nearly four years. Not Don Mueang, but the new airport at Suvarnabhumi. The rainshowers can be incredibly intense, and the streets can be converted to canals in minutes. The runways aren't much better because the drainage canals can be overwhelmed. Aquaplaning is a real threat. So is the reduced visibility from the cockpit, especially at night, when the water drops on the windshield make all kind of reflections.
The runways at Don Mueang are very close to each other. Fun fact: Royal Thai Air Force has a golf course between the runways!
The runways at Suvarnabhumi are almost 2 km apart and can have different weather. On one occasion, I landed on runway 19L in light winds and good visibility while a heavy rainshower was flooding runway 19R. Two minutes later, the rainshower had moved over to our side, and the visibility dropped to 300 meters. We barely managed to find our way to the parking area.
Thank you very much for this informations!
Very good information.
Do the Royal Thai Air Force have any rules about accidental putting due to jet wash? :-D
I like how many pilots watch this channel.
I think some US airports are big enough for different weather issues. Denver comes to mind as its huge, And my last trip through DFW I swear we taxied for like 20 minutes I do not mean stop and waits but actually rolling.
@ Fly with Magnar _"The runways at Don Mueang are very close to each other."_
How close? I believe the runways at SFO (San Francisco International) are only about 750 feet apart (229 m).
I started flying my all time favourite aeroplane, the 747-400 for Qantas (including this particular aircraft) as an experienced FO in early ‘95, coming from the 767. We were trained for and always used Flaps 30, full reverse.
Then a certain management pilot decided that money could be saved by making flaps 25, idle reverse the default, as opposed to an optional landing configuration. (Of course, what airline doesn’t want to save money?) This change was simply promulgated by internal memo, with no consultation that I am aware of with line pilots, and no simulator practice or training.
After 3 months of using the new procedure I was very unhappy- and had noticed that despite only 6 knots higher Vref speed for flaps 25, typically on the line I was seeing much more than that on final approach, very often double, (ie: 12 knots extra compared to flaps 30) with inconsistent touch down distances. Speed control was MUCH more difficult, especially of course when you’re tired- which is most of the time on long haul. I was also very concerned about the “muscle memory” associated with constantly using idle reverse.
I then researched thoroughly and wrote a lengthy letter to management with links to other airline’s incidents stating basically that :
1. flaps 25 should not be DEFAULT, just optional, in good (dry) conditions with long runways.
2. Idle reverse should be the same, ie: optional in good conditions, and definitely not a default. I also pointed out at length the muscle memory issue with this idle reverse policy.
By doing that, the pilot flying (and/or captain) has to make AND justify a pro-active decision to use flaps 25/idle reverse.
There were other points raised in my letter but basically I said that the end result of this new policy could sooner or later be a runway overrun. That was LONG before the Qantas 1 event.
What would an experienced “line” FO know?
I didn’t even get a reply to my letter!
I was even criticised by one MANAGEMENT captain when I elected to use flaps 30/full reverse on a rather short runway (Melbourne runway 27) after flying all night. (I told him politely where to go, and proceeded to land with flaps 30 and full reverse.)
When I subsequently heard of the prang I was devastated, and felt a little like the Morton Thoikol engineers who said not to launch Challenger in 1986. Yes, the pilots stuffed up, but we are all human- they were lead down the path by a flawed management policy, which after Bangkok was later reviewed to basically exactly as I had suggested in my earlier correspondence.
BTW the aeroplane was repaired and flew just like new after getting back in the sky.
PS did they change the procedure after the crash? And PS flew just like new? Glad to hear that, because buying a new one would have been cheaper than what they spent on repairs to avoid a hull loss
@@charleskennedy1712 1. Yes procedures were thankfully changed back after the Bangkok event.
2. It was NOT cheaper to replace than repair. That’s a myth that keeps on reappearing, and is total 100% BS.
As a passenger, thanks for making the efforts 🙏🏽
@cas curse "Yes, but it took YEARS before anything bad happened. And even with the cost of repairs -- and people -- we're still net-positive with this thing" -- Yes, bean counters actually think like that. If there weren't a report and directives, they'd still be doing this shit, because it does save money.
You’re a great pilot. Im a mig 21 pilot, it fells Like flying a toilet with wings but its fun.. my back hurts..
I literally just got on the plane at Don Meaun airport. And I just stared at the runway and can confirm that the runway surface is now grooved. Thank god haha
People always get hurt in emergency evacuations, the captain’s reluctance was well-founded
Fantastic video, learned a bit more today!
Excellent! That’s a good day then.
@@MentourPilot if you were to land a a380 with no flaps what would be the landing speed
I learnt alot more thank thought when I started watching. I hope this information ends up in a course for beginner pilots. Thanks again
@@basicvideos505 bruh... you can't... you'll kill everyone on-board...
Other thing I’d like to add. Other channels might focus on the rain, the high speed or the aborted TOGA, but few I suspect would detail the previous flight had a go around. Also, the detail regarding evacuation - I wouldn’t have thought of only emergency lighting and the cabin crew manning emergency exits and the impact both had on passengers. This is the detail, not excessive aviation data but aspects all can relate to, which makes the videos so compelling.
That makes me so happy to hear. Thank you
@Mike S not on the evacuation checklist.
The APU is not a common memory list item
The previous flight's go around had no bearing. You must fly your own flight. Too many procedural mistakes ending with the worst mistake that you can ever make.... to abort your go-around .... and at that.... to do it half assed!
"Did they go aroud?" "Yes." "Ah, I'll have one too."
I would argue that the previous flights choice could have you mentally prepared to do the same. You hope not to, but are aware it might be needed.
Thus you can be organized to make the safe choices.
It doesn't mean you should or must go around. Maybe the prior flight struggled to stabilize their approach. Maybe they saw a flock of birds passing by.
But being aware of the runway condition is not a bad thing.
And the captain might not have changed his mind mid landing to force the plane down.
As a point of interest, there was a pax in 4E (P-class) who asked a cabin crew member if he could sit at the window for the landing to take photos. As the front wheels came up through the floor it probably saved his life. I flew on OJH for many years after the incident and we studied the incident in emergency procedures training, with the view of how the crew responded, what can we learn.
Not long after the crash, a Qantas engineer I knew at the time told me that he'd listened to the cockpit voice recorder and mentioned that the pilot's wife who was in the cockpit for the flight was having a domestic argument with the pilot throughout the flight. When the plane was sliding the rice fields, he said all you could hear on the recording was her screaming. Assuming that what he said about the pilot and his wife fighting throughout the flight was correct, I think that this wouldn't have helped the pilot make good decisions during the botched go round.
Man, this was way more in depth than I expected, but I was ever on edge as ever more more details were revealed.
Super well done!
Thank you!
If I had been an evacuated passenger sent out to walk in the darkness without instruction, I'm sure that I would have instinctively walked towards lights.
Agreed, unless I was clearly and loudly told to do something else.
Especially since it was raining, got to get out of the rain. :)
Also the risk of approaching emergency vehicles hitting wandering passengers on a dark rainy night is very high.
I would have looked for the bar.
@@eugeniustheodidactus8890 Scotch an water is a catalyst - It cannot put anything into one which was not there already.
A long time ago myself and some others had the chance to go down the slide of a aircraft, One of the others sprained an ankle despite having plenty of time to position himself on the slide and doing it in broad daylight.
This is why using the slide is the last resort.
As I child, I always just imagined it had to be SO MUCH FUN! Just like going down any other slide - fun and exciting and a real rush!
....Somehow, I don't think my child self realized *why* they were only ever supposed to be used for emergencies.
I am surprised that there were no recommandations to the airport/tower: they didn't relay all info to the pilots, like not mentioning that the previous plane did a go around or the new weather info. Was that not a factor?
I think the weather update is probably a bigger miss. I agree, surprising there weren't recommendations on these things, emergency vehicles too, given the delay
Excellent as usual! One minor correction: the preceding aircraft that went around, QANTAS 15, was a 747-338 Classic not a 737-800 as stated. QANTAS has never had a hull loss and didn’t want this aircraft to become their first. QANTAS spent a fortune repairing the aircraft and returning it to service in order to retain their ‘perfect’ record. It’s ironic that QANTAS policy prior to 1996 was use of Flap 30 and full reverse… resulting in a lower VRef speed and shortest possible landing distances but was abandoned without risk assessment in an attempt to reduce maintenance costs.
I believe Qantas was being semi-privatised at the time so they wanted to cut costs everywhere. Especially as there was a private non-budget competitor in the market at the time. A huge amount of people lost jobs and a lot of facilities were closed.
Qantas has had many hull loses, just none previously in the jet era. This was their first and was an economic loss, no question.
This crew have my absolute sympathy, this was a perfect storm of events that piled one on top of another. The policy regarding reverse thrust and flap setting could always be disregarded when circumstances required.
@@phillarnach9484 You’re totally correct regarding QANTAS never experiencing a _jet_ equipped hull loss. The flap and reverser config was always ultimately in the Captain’s hands. From memory (reading the ATSB report long ago after my boss was on this flight) the other flight crew couldn’t (or could barely) remember having experienced 744 landings where they actually observed flap 30 or above idle reverse employed. This is one reason why Boeing disapproved the new QANTAS policy-crew might ‘forget’ or overlook full flap and reverse as configuration option when they most needed it.
@@phillarnach9484 sympathy? it could have ended in one aviations greatest desaster.. a properly executed go a round or even wait for better weather in a holding pattern would have been the correct thing to do. Also the airports should temporarily close in such events to take the pressure of the crews (delays)
I was wondering if the plane was a right-off. Thanks for clarifying this.
It is called the Kangaroo route because when it started with much shorter range flying boats there were about eight stops for fuel.
Over the years the stopover has been either at Singapore, KL or Bangkok. Assume this is for cost purposes unless there are political reasons? Anyone know?
@@andrewgray996 The only political decisions would be with respect to the IATA Freedoms of the Air rules.
QANTAS has operated this route in recent decades via SIN-BAH, SIN, BKK, HKG and DXB. There has not been an operation via KUL though.
@@andrewgray996 It's likely because Singapore & Bangkok have been the most economically viable options for Qantas' routes - they have ticked a lot of boxes over the years in terms of their location (midpoint to Europe), logistics & infrastructure (large international passenger & cargo hub airports with extensive facilities), revenue potential (give Qantas access to the huge SE Asian passenger & freight markets), and more.
And while there's always _some_ political considerations in a major business strategy it's probably not in the way you're thinking... more incidental, like a local govt funding the expansion of their airport facilities to accept A380s & retain business. These days a far bigger factor in Qantas strategy would be the other airlines they code-share with & their hub airports too.
I went Heathrow to Sydney christmas day 76 thru Bahrain and KUL.
Pilot spent 15,881 hours flying... That equals 661 days. That's almost 2 years that the pilot spent in the air. But had only around 30 days flying the big guy.
Fun fact... most of these long haul guys have lots of hours but very little actual flying experience... the guy who flies short hauls 3 or 4 times per day has much more actual flying experience than the guys doing those long flights from ie Vienna to Bangkok.
Because the actual flying is usually only a few minutes per leg, and consists of take off and landing... and even with landing a lot of them (depends on the airline also) rely heavily on autopilot and only do the very last part on the glide slope to touchdown.
Which imo is a systemic problem, as it robs them of valuable real flying experience, that could be needed in critical situations. The rest of those 10+ hour flights they push a button and turn a knob every now and then, to change heading, altitude or whatever. Ie when last time I flew to Bangkok we had to divert and lost an hour or so, because something was going on and we couldn't fly over Iran.
They are still bus drivers no matter how many boring hours they put in. Having the choice I would always be sure to fly with a former military pilot having training in immense pressure and never loosing his cool however pressed.
Every time we get on a plane we're putting our lives in the hands of people with a million things to think about. Those things mainly have to do with our safety. Thankyou for explaining some of that to us.
What I find odd is that every landing I have been on (as a passenger) since the mid-70s, the reverse thrusters had been used - even on good-weather days. I thought it was standard procedure to use reverse thrusters on landings - as if it was 100% standard operating procedure. It's stunning to me they "forgot" to use them in heavy rain/wet runway. Mind blown!
I concur with you!!!!
1962 ?
As a young boy this was " bitch-in "
@@leannemacdonald5478 1962... what? What does 1962 have to do with this?
I’ve been on loads of flights where reverse thrust isn’t used (idle reverse is selected). Saves fuel and engine wear. But as pointed out in this thread, idle reverse should be the exception, not the standard. Lack of muscle memory is the danger, as we see in this incident
The mere fact that you cannot communicate on such a large aircraft should in itself weigh strongly towards evacuating. I think holding off was a mistake. Sure, luckily it turned out okay this time, but there could easily have been a fire growing somewhere. The crew should understand that not being able to communicate means there COULD be something bad going on, and the response in that case would be slowed, which poses additional danger.
Good point.
To be fair the Captain did send a crew member down to check on the situation. He didn’t make that decision blindly.
He held his nerve, backed his judgement and everything worked out without any passengers being injured. (Apart from a bruise or two)
@@keithminchin1817 what nerve? The entire situation was caused by indecisiveness.
I wouldn't have waited and evacuated myself. Mostly because I always wanted to try one of those slides. Also because you never know when fire. People think I want to sit there because of the leg room. I'm just waiting for an excuse to use the slide.
I was already cheated out of the opportunity once. The engine fire had gone out before we made it back to the ground. That was the DC-9. 747 even on its belly is much higher up. Particularly if you use the upper deck slide. 🤙
@@jtjames79 The incident was exacerbated by faulty (lax) QF rules. Idle RT was criticized at the time for trying the save fuel, same with go around - saving fuel. QF management at least partly at fault.
@@jgarbo3541 fuel saving was not the only consideration, Qantas was experiencing accelerated brake wear of the carbon brakes on the 747-438 that was attributed to brake segment chatter which was in turn caused by low brake temperatures. When the auto brakes system kicks in it will back the brake pressure off if the thrust reversers are above idle due to auto brakes using using inertial deceleration data from the aircraft’s inertial reference system. The use of idle reverse would bring the brakes up to temperature quicker and would prevent this.
I remember the first time I went to Thailand, and god damn the rain on the landing was a whole other level from what I've experienced, the pilot took 3 attempts to land, was some scary shit
Here is what impressed me: 1-the speaker is very clear in his narrative, 2-how an accident often is the result of several little decisions, 3-the intelligence of the people commenting in this posting unlike many other UA-cam postings where the comments are just rude or even stupid. Thank you to all.
Can we all just appreciate the effort that goes into making these amazing videos while still being a pilot at the same time. Great channel great content and great guy big love
Indeed.
agreed
Yeah he’s okay…I suppose! …Actually, I am a big fan of his. Wonderful videos…all of them.
Agreed
A layman's analysis: "The pilots didn't slow down enough, didn't have enough friction as a backwards force vector."
A pilot's analysis: "Yes, but there were many things that caused this issue. We have to investigate all root causes."
Glad to see that the industry doesn't focus on retribution or blame, just making aviation safer. Thanks as always, I click on these videos so fast :)
I _really_ appreciate Mentour bringing this point over and over again in every video he makes. This is an amazing series about how every incident or accident results in overall safer aviation for everyone.
Yes, but we can. The pilot and captain were bloody useless. Wouldn't trust them with my car in the rain let alone an enormous whale of an aircraft.
@@markholbrook7482 If we stop at blaming the pilot, without addressing root causes for the pilot's actions, then other pilots can't learn from the experience. Root cause analysis benefits everyone, blame benefits no one.
@@markholbrook7482 instead of saying quantas 15 aborted landing
They informed that a350 landed
Then they would have thought we can land too
I love the way you explain things, you never get personal or put blame - a sign of a real team player and trainer. Thanks and keep up your good work. Who ever has you as a instructor is lucky 👍🏻
Just wanted to say a big bravo for this series. Have made my way through the whole playlist and now the repeats are just as gripping. Absolutely fantastic stuff ☺️
You're a star! I've never seen anything so technical but also so "philosophical" (if you allow me that word) about the aviation world, explained so clearly
Thank you!
Excellent video.
Just a couple of thoughts as (sadly!) now an ex 744 pilot after 24 years on the old girl….
To get reverse idle you still need to select reverse ( i.e. lift the reverse levers up) so the reverse sleeves will still move but the engines remain at idle. If you pull the reverse levers more you can select either partial (first detent) or fully back for full reverse.
They briefed for reverse idle but in the confusion of the landing they did not ( I believe) select reverse.
Forgetting to select reverse is a common mistake in moments of stress especially on a rejected take off.
As pointed out previously, you highlighted the Autothrottle disconnect switches not the TOGA switches. We had an SOP of pointing at the autothrottle disconnect switch to confirm that we had the correct switch prior to disconnecting the autothrottle for landing, as we had a number of incidents where pilots would press the TOGA switches by mistake!
Just wondering what is the forced retirement age for airline pilots now a days ? Is it different depending on what country you fly for like Quantas would be based on Australia ;
So, the 744 is what? Not quite a 747? Anyway, their training, as was yours, is supposed to prepare you for such situations. No excuse.
@@wintersbattleofbands1144 The 744 is a 747-400 and has the typical winglets and probably better avionics than the previous series.
@@wintersbattleofbands1144 Just to add to what Ross said that is the ICAO type code assigned to the Boeing 747-400 specifically. The 747 is an aircraft family and the ICAO aircraft type codes uniquely identify a given aircraft type. This type code combined with equipment codes that provide some information on the avionics installed on the aircraft are used for example on flight plans to inform ATC of the technical capabilities and performance limitations of a given aircraft. The equipment in question here mostly relates to the key electronics installed on the aircraft particularly radios such as the transponder and electronic navigation receivers such as VNAV, ILS, etc.
@@harsep No idea about what it's like at Quantas ...
But at Qantas (without the "U"), 65 for international operations, but that doesn't apply to domestic operations. There was a court case about it this year when Qantas terminated the employment of an A330 captain because he turned 65.
Reverting from “go-around” to “landing” decision is probably the main sponsor of almost all overruns. Second reason is reverting from “landing” to “go-around” decision after reversers activation.
Unexpected reverting of decisions, especially during execution of the previous decision, especially multiplied by bad communication between the crew is definitely not the best way to fly safe.
It usually looks like the PIC frequently hesitate between two possible solutions, unable to make the decision. And I believe that this is some kind of partial incapacitation.
The best decision is the one you stick to .....
im confused, by go-around are you/is he saying that the plane should have ascended back into the air even though it had already touched down?
@@chrisshergie1030 Well, yes. Planes don't have 0 speed the moment they touch down, nor do they get glued to the surface during the touch down. They had quite a lot of speed and runway ahead of them when the go-around was called, so it's not unreasonable to be able to accelerate back up enough to just... fly away. Go-around is "we need another approach" but that does not exclude cases where your plane has already touched the runway. Obviously though, only in cases where a go-around is actually viable and doable - like here. They didn't really do much braking yet, and per narration it touched down after the call just because of inertia and continuous slowing down for landing.
@@tipakA i just thought it was odd but ok…woulda been hella confusing for the passengers if that woulda happened
@@chrisshergie1030 That's why there are PAs :)
On the other hand, bunch of confused passengers is still better than bunch of injured or worse passengers
Just a small correction, the preceding aircraft, QF15 was not a Qantas 737. It was a B747-300. That model carries a Flight Engineer who monitors all aspects of the aircraft systems and pilot actions.
Yes, indeed, not a 737. Qantas narrowbodies are only for their domestic routes. In the 1970s, their fleet was ONLY 747 until the 767s joined the fleet. The 737s only joined after Aust Airlines merged with them (domestic)
I remember doing a case study on this crash for my crew resources management unit at university over here in Perth, Western Australia. Very interesting topic when considering cockpit gradient and the importance of the working relationship between captain on co-pilot during a flight, even if it is the first time working together etc.
I've worked as a medical technician and had to have lower rank than doctors but when one was making a fatal mistake I had to step up to the plate. I quietly told him on the side and he corrected the error. Nobody knew not even the patient. I never said anything to anybody but the patient survived. The Dr. Kept his job.
@@sharoncassell9358 I was helping out in helicopter workshop in Australia sweeping floors tidying up But one day noticed the engineer had not finished tightening the main rotor bolts and wire locked the fitting. But he released it for flying the next morning I followed out to his car and told him he may have made a mistake expecting he would say what f---k do you know. He took it well and went back finished the job and thank me.
One of the things I like about your videos is the complete lack of fluff. To quote a long-time ago TV show, "Just the facts, ma'am." If the discovery channel folks were doing this episode, it would have run 2 hours what with all their 4-minute commercial breaks and then 1-minute recaps after said breaks. Thank you for all the great info.
The Air Crash Investigation series in Nat geo was one of my favorites , the quality of information in your videos are pretty much in the same level. Great work..
Petter you're seriously such an amazing teacher! So much detail, explanation, reason and understanding here for us to all appreciate 🙏 🙌 Thank you for the brilliant work you and your team put into these videos. Best Aviation UA-cam channel......ever!!! 🤗🔥
I'm not a pilot, I just love to fly, and find the whole experience amazing. Thank you so much for describing what happens in these accidents in layman's terms. It doesn't put me off flying at all! (Maybe I'm nuts? LOL).
Thank you! Welcome to the channel
What makes u not afraid of flying, I'm curious
@@simplytine2939 You are safer in an airplane than you are in a car
@@hannankruger4315well if you crash a car you got a highher chance of living, its just that when flying you will most likely die, even if the chances of dying are extremely low
I heard what you said, but I must admit that I still have trouble imagining someone pursuading my mum to leave her precious handbag behind. The video was well worth waiting an extra day for. 👍
I recently flew with my Mother's ashes. I have to be honest; they'd have gone with me! Probably not the handbag though🙂
@@MargieM10 I'm so sorry for your loss.
Hope it's a Birkin bag worth more than the aircraft!
@@rockyBalboa6699 more like - "worth more than co-passenger's life" potentially
@@nameunknown007, what if those carrying nothing went first and those carrying their stuff went last?
Petter, you're such a good teacher. I am not in the aviation field and I can follow along on your videos, getting the point of what you're saying, each and every time. Really well-done, and I appreciate all the effort you so clearly put in to the making of these videos.
Cheers!
I cant help but appreciate the effort and attention to details that have been brought up in production of this documentary. Being an engineer myself, albeit in automotive, the actions vs consequences are very2 important in any industry, by which from watching your videos, I've learnt a lot to be honest and also making me a better person, more attentive and hopefully a better professional-oriented engineer. I'm very happy to become your subscriber and enjoy every submission you made. May you blessed with good health and always stay stress-free. Thanks MP
Entertaining and educational as usual. You are providing a valuable service, Petter, far above the B-actor reenactment crap from the big networks.
That's because those networks focus on entertaining, rather than teaching, sadly.
@@Bogeyatyour6YT I like your user name ... it immediately triggered a thought that I'd want to be aware of Humphrey Bogart behind me ... :D
A great video, and one which brings back memories. I worked in Flight Controls at Boeing for 20+ years and had some involvement in the investigation of this and some similar incidents. Failing to retard throttle number one on landing was surprisingly common; we never figured out exactly why.
Incidentally, the paddles highlighted as the TOGA switches are actually the Autothrottle Disconnect switches. The TOGA paddles are forward of the handles on throttles 2 and 3.
Thank you!
I had a truck I drove for a while that if you didn't hold your right leg in a slightly unusual position, there was a pretty good chance you'd catch the brake pedal with the corner of your boot when you pressed the throttle. I'm guessing there was a similar reason for missing throttle #1.
What exactly do the TOGA paddles do? If you've already pushed the throttles all the way forward, what else is there to do but pull the yoke back? (And surely the TOGA paddles don't do *_that_* for you!)
@@Milesco In fact, the TOGA paddles will engage the autopilot and put it in to TOGA mode, which will in fact pull the yoke back! Inadvertent operation of those paddles was another problem I worked on, adding guards around them.
BTW, at Boeing Commercial we always said "Wheel" instead of "Yoke".
Whoops!
this channel is better than the high budget air crash investigations docos i've watched on tv. the expertise and layout is one thing, but i love that you don't even lose much of the visual advantage because there's the 3d animations. they're not like the dramatisation or actual footage of aircraft flying, but they're still engrossing and help put yourself in the position of the aircraft involved.
Petter from time to time you say " and this is a very interesting one" what isn't man. You are a gem
I've been on this particular flight many times. Thank you for such a detailed study. Once on QF1 taking off from Bangkok, halfway down the runway, there was a lot of noise and commotion and the pruser called the Captain to break. The plane stopped SO quickly. Turns out a woman in a few seats from me had choked on the penauts they had given and died. The Ambulance was called and doctors attended and brought her around. It was quite an experience.
Doesn't sound right Ken.
wait did she die or did they revive her
Not sure why I find air accident videos so relaxing.
One of the better, thorough and well researched Aviation Accident Reports then I’ve seen in a long time. Nice job Mentor
This same aircraft was repaired & a couple of years later was flown to a Central Western Town In Queensland in the Town where Qantas flew for the 1st time. The Towns name is LONGREACH. This was the name of Qantas's 1st Boeing 747, now a part of the museum
They repaired the aircraft not because it was economic (would have been more economic to buy another one) because QF did not want a hull loss, their first ever
I always like an accident where there is enough good and bad decisions by everyone to make a full and complete report with little to no injuries. The pilots had some blame, the airport had some blame, and the manufacturer had some blame in this accident, however, in the end the only ones really injured was the aircraft and the ground. Everyone else walked away. Excellent video!
Excellent deconstruct as always. I Thoroughly enjoy your clear presentations. Though I’m not a pilot, I’m boggled why reverse thrust is completely not even considered immediately knowing well ahead that the runway was under heavy rain, especially flying such a large and heavy aircraft. Even in driving school it was drilled into our heads that water and aqua planing can reduce traction significantly at speed.
Indeed one would expect any driver to be aware of the dangers of aquaplaning, they're a risk for pretty much all motor vehicles.
Airplanes are pretty sensitive to it because they have very simple thread patterns (with a few rare exceptions) though the weight normally compensates (which is also why trucks are less sensitive to aquaplaning than cars).
This is very visible on modern F1 tyres.
A plausible reason for the FO not activating the thrust reversers was given in the video. Do you not agree with the reasoning there?
They got busy and forgot or the copilot thought the pilot did it and the pilot thought that he did it. deployed the thrust reversers.
This easily now the best site for excellent, objective and thorough explanations of airplane accidents.
I love that even though I have absolutely no education in anything airplains.. im still able to follow these videos, yet I would imagine they are detailed they can help experience piolts. Perfect mix of education and entertainment. Great job.
After watching countless air disaster shows, this seems like the ones we all have been waiting for. I can’t ever go back to that ever again!!
To appreciate the scale of the 'repairs' see the photo series linked above 'Crash Site 1-5'. This was a massively expensive re-build and logistic effort to get this seriously damaged aircraft flying again. It flew for another 12 years after the Bangkok crash, and was scrapped in 2014. Most observers note that the cost of putting this otherwise written off air frame back in the air probably exceeded its then value. Two reasons are usually cited: to preserve Qantas reputation of never having a hull loss (PR) and and for insurance reasons. It would be interesting to know if the insurers paid the full costs - this would be a give-away as to the motives for undertaking these extensive works.
Yes, I heard of that as well.
Qantas have had hull loss accidents, the last was in 1951.
@@781David It is jet hulls they have not lost.
@@catprog True, but many people commenting on the Qantas hull loss reputation choose not to make this important distinction.
Whenever I read a statement saying Qantas has never lost a hull, it immediately sews doubt in my mind regarding the commentator's post due to this inaccuracy, i.e. "If they've got this bit wrong that I know about, then what other bits that I don't know about have they got wrong?"
As an Australian, I clearly remember this accident. The local MSM were totally blaming the pilots for the accident. Not once was it mentioned that there were any failures with anything else. Thank you for clarifying.
I love this channel - so informative and a long time ago I even had a flying lesson in a motorised glider at Manston Airport in SE England, and I was handed the controls at 1,800 feet over Richborough Power Station, near Ramsgate.
I was completely surprised at the responsiveness of the aircraft, when my instructor told me to make a "slight" light left turn - operating the pedals and the yoke in tandem. The plane started going into a very steep bank - falling out of the sky rather like a WW11 Messerschmidt I'd seen in WW11 documentaries.
I used an expletive beginning with the letter "S." My instructor, who was sitting behind me, barked into my headphones laughingly saying, "That it is not good to start swearing when hooked up to the radio - the control tower can hear you!"
He then told me to "level up" - while telling me how to do just that! Upon landing preparation he took control and asked me if he could switch off the engine on approach? I replied that I liked the sound of the engine running and the sight of the propeller turning!
He later said that I was a "natural!" I'd handled the aircraft and corrected my mistake calmly and with competence! Alas, the costs of further training were beyond my means!
Just saying I have control when changing the thrust to Idle may have helped a lot
Only if he actually took control. Which he didn't. He should have verified TOGA was set and gone through with his initial call of going around. Hell, even without verification of TOGA they'd probably be able to get the thing into the air...
Actually that would be an extremely dangerous statement to make, unless he was going to actually take FULL flying control of the aircraft! The first officer was still flying the aircraft for all practical purposes, and the captain just intervened with the power. He should have, of course, verbalized what he was doing, but I suppose that is easy to say in hindsight, when you’re relaxing in your armchair and not under pressure!
Pretty dumb-ass thing for the captain to do, especially as he failed to set no.1 to idle too. He took responsibility to opt for landing when he covered the pilots hand. It was up to him to ensure that all 4 were in the idle position
@@markholbrook7482 you failed to learn from the video.
@@markholbrook7482 failing to retard #1 in emergency on the 747 was surprisingly commonplace. It was drilled into me in training when I flew 747, ‘always make sure you retard 1’, it must have had something to do with the throttle lever layout.
Thank you again for pointing out how many small, seemingly less important items can pile up into something much more serious.
this reminded me of those safety class exercises which give you a series of choices, and then assume you have made the worse of the options each time as the exercise proceeds. presumably to show you how a series of small mistakes can pile up on you.
We didn't see your swiss cheese graphic
I have no interest in flying in particular but am obsessed with your videos! You do an amazing job picking apart the nuts and bolts of these scenarios
I don't know how to fly a plane, but I love airplanes. I learn a lot with your videos. Impeccable explanation even for us, no professionals. Thanks for this excellent video.
Finally! A new video...
Haha! I released one last week as well, albeit not many people watched it.
Thanks Denys!
We need a collab of you both
@@MentourPilot for me it was the TikTok thumbnail… lol
@@random_guy1882 Pm n opponent ln
@@MentourPilot Compare 1930s Nazi Germany Vs 2020s Communist China IN YOUR NEXT VIDEO Project.
Class complete! Very detailed and easily understandable by the not so technical viewer!
CLASS complete “check”!
I’m so glad you liked it!
You are a good story teller
I love your content! Discovered this channel yesterday and have been watching almost with non-stop until now :) I am already scared of what I will do once I run out of videos to watch 😱
I'm not a pilot and it's not real likely that I'll ever become one. However, I love listening to and learning from these videos. I feel like it puts me a step ahead as even a passenger. There's the added benefit of getting quite a lot of entertainment from the stories, sometimes putting me on the edge of my seat.
I sure appreciate these videos.
Hi, can you do an in depth analysis of Singapore Airlines flight 006 that tried to take off on a closed runway. This new series of yours is very insightful and interesting.
Added to the list!
@@MentourPilot 1999 Providence Near Miss. It's a less well known incident, yet seems particularly terrifying.
I was actually thinking about this - how some incidents have similar themes Singapore 006 and fairly recent Air Canada at SFO both mistook taxiway as a main runway. Likewise latest Quantas video reminds me of when China Airlines plane overshot at the old Kai Tak in Hong Kong…. Problem there was there wasn’t 100+m of ground beyond the runway, just Hong Kong bay !
Absolutely fantastic! I hope viewers at Mentour Pilot appreciate skillsets (& raw talents) required to produce these videos in what appears to be “one take”! Clearly announcing voluminous broadcast material is talent typically seen among better/best ‘old school’ newscasters who came through “rip & read” schools of real time breaking news announcing. I don't know how many languages Mentour Pilot is fluent in? Well done. When flying & flight safety is your life’s passion, while evidentally multiple talents exist: I only hope the company fortunate to have Mentour Pilot appreciates exemplary team members with career avenues which reward and make best use of multiple skillsets combined with intellect, humility & professional dedication.
Thank you so much for your kind feedback! It’s very nice to hear.
No. They'll probably complain that he spends too much time on it & not enough flying overtime...
Your videos are so much more informative and make me understand aviation so much more than any aviation tv programme (e.g. aircrash investigation). Besides your report is really neutral, whereas the 'regular' tv/internet shows always look for the guildy person/people. Thanks for the efforts!
I would like to say thank you for taking the time to make and share these videos. I'm not a frequent flyer but have traveled from Atlanta to Germany, as well as several flights across the United States. I've learned a lot from this program basically because regular TV isn't very intelligent most times. God bless you and your family
This is so well explained and frightening to know how easily mis communication between colleagues and the unspoken pecking-order of status and authority do so often lead to misunderstandings that are so dangerous. It truly is a case of your life in their hands. Incidentally Mentour Pilot has superb command of English when one thinks it is not his native language - he is so easy to listen to and never boring.
Very well put together, thank you! As an exercise, my first 'view' of this was audio only and the reverberating ping was the perfect indicator of key points - as such, you have made the presentation very accessible, well done! Thanks again \m/
I love these videos, I think I've binged 3 today already. Great content, great explanations, great visuals, amazing job 👍
Fantastiskt informativa och intressanta klipp. Tack så mycket, Petter🙂
The production value of this is just insane! Let’s get this man 1m subscribers
Wow, never heard of this incident before! Thanks for sharing!
Hope you found it interesting!
Great analysis. Minor point that was slightly confused at 16:18 is the auto brake disengages (from 4 to Disarm) at the advancement of the thrust levers from idle.
I’m glad at my airline (I don’t fly the 747) we regularly practice rejected landings in the sim, normally with main gear touchdown and associated “takeoff configuration warning” alarm going off which can be quite distracting (this is due to the flaps not being in a takeoff setting with aircraft on the ground).
Interestingly we don’t push the TOGA button until much later in the process, initial actions are apply full thrust, disconnect auto throttle , maintain attitude, above Vref pitch to 15deg (as req). Then only when safely climbing away with full thrust do we push the TOGA switch and enter the loop for a normal go around.
You explain your stories in such detail and in a way I can understand as all of these problems n procedures from a pilot can be mind blowing!!!!
Really good analysis once again - but I must make two corrections. Firstly, QF15 that evening was a B747-300, not a B737 or a B767; I know, ‘cos I was on it! I had a left-hand side forward window seat, so could see what was happening outside. We entered a microburst as the aircraft was just about “over the fence” and powered up into our go-around before crossing the end of the runway. We headed out into the Gulf of Thailand, then came around for the long haul north-east (reciprocal course 030M) before turning onto RWY 21R and safely landing about 10 minutes later. Secondly, your graphic shows TG turning short left-base onto 21L - I can’t comment; but QF15, and I understand QF1, followed the standard pattern for BKK, which is a long left downwind from the Gulf and then turning left base for a long Finals onto either 21L or 21R. Starting in early 1993 up until I retired at the end of 2017, I had mad nearly 70 visits to BKK from either Sydney or Melbourne on either Qantas or Thai Airways, and we always followed the same long left downwind and left base to line up with the runways, whether at Don Muang (the “old” BKK) or at Suvarnaphumi (the “new” BKK).
So who is right? Mentour Pilot acknowledge you but made no comments. Could you be mistaken for not knowing the differences between a 747 and a 737? Just curious as to who is right. Mentour Pilot could easily get into this discrepency in infomation.
Thanks for this. To my knowledge, Qantas doesn't operate 737 aircraft into Bangkok. I was guessing maybe an A330 but you answered my question. The only international Qantas flight on a 737 I've been on was to Queenstown.
@@harsep for goodness sake, he was on the plane. I can't imagine anyone not knowing the difference between a 747 and a 737. Qantas doesn't fly the 737 to Asia as far as I know, certainly not to Bangkok.
@@theharper1 back in the late ‘90’s, Qantas operated B767’s Sydney-Jakarta-Singapore-Hong Kong-Sydney (I have been on them all), as well as Sydney to Taipei and return (these also). In 1999 QF15 was Sydney-Bangkok-Frankfurt or Rome, - B747-400’s to Frankfurt, but the older B747-300’s to Rome (range and passenger loading considerations), later via Singapore. There were actually quite a few B767 international flights around Asia-Pacific.
@@harsep I was lower deck window seat at the front of Business Class, just behind the front left-hand door on this exact QF15 flight. I am an aviation nerd from way-back; yes, it was definitely a B747-300 Melbourne-Bangkok-Rome (I believe, but can’t be sure) that night. Furthermore, our Captain was a female, one of Qantas’ earlier female B747 captains. Back in those days, QF15 was Melbourne-Bangkok-Frankfurt and / or Rome (I believe on alternate days).
I used to fly up to 14 times a year; the only dodgy landing I ever had was at Glasgow, where we went around. It's so interesting to hear exactly what goes on up front in an incident. Thank you for your excellent vids.
This video is a great example of why I have not bothered with TV in over a decade! An excellent video explained in a way that allows non aviation viewers to understand whats happening. Keep up the excellent work !
Same here.
Another gripping episode. Actually gave me more chills thinking about other terrible catastrophes that could have occurred as my imagination went into overdrive. Yes it is sad when one gross mistake ends a career. I have seen instances of that in many fields. As you mentioned though, their negligence was not excusable. Factory workers can face termination of employment if they are using PED, when on duty, due to potential dangers to themselves and those around them. The same holds true for pilots.
Wow. That is my favourite series. I love how you explain every aspect of different accidents. And tbh every week I am waiting for another episode of that series. Love it, love it love it. And thank you for your work as a teacher, because that is exacly what you are doing in this series. I am not a pilot but just a humble aviation enthusiasts, but I am learning so many interesting things from your videos. Great work and please keep going to do that and learn from you and your experience.
Mentour pilot, another great video. I am not in aviation but I have learned so much about what happens and why when I am a customer flying. I have amazing respect for the all the professionals on the plane for life safety. CRM and communication pointed out in this video can be used in so many different types of professions that you critical thinking. Thank you again. CLASS complete.
Wow. I am so stoked to have found ur channel bud. In my opinion you make the BEST videos I’ve come across on UA-cam on all things aviation.
This kind of stuff interests the heck outta me.
Thank you for the content man. I liked and subscribed after the first video I saw.
I’m now binging all ur videos.
You just gained a supporter my friend.
I like how you pronounce words occasionally. In this episode, which was well done by the way, you referenced the plane and how it experienced “aquaplan” when it is actually pronounced “aquaplane”. I have read the full cockpit transcript on this accident and the first officers wife who was seated in the jump seat was screaming as her husband messed up and over ran the runway. I have flown QF1 many times on that sector. Love your content!
I have trouble with his dropping of the third syllable in incapacitation. (I.e. it's not incapcitation.)
There's a difrence between pronuncing things wrong and having a different accent.
Class complete! Eight videos in my UA-cam queue this morning; yours is the first I choose to watch. Really well done!
Class complete. Thanks for doing these videos. I really appreciate how you explain things so we can understand them, very patiently and well spoken. Your experience as a pilot really helps the information move smoothly and we can tell that flying is something you love and are very good at.
I'm no pilot but I have binge watched air accident videos for 6 years, and I think you do a great job!