To be fair, this was 30 years ago. We have not even had a major plane crash in the USA in over a decade. It has gotten much safer and the pilots trained way more than they used to be.
A stark reminder for people that train and certify professionals of all types, if you let someone "just barely pass" you could be signing a death sentence.
@@juhapehkonen7347 it was wrong in regards that the engine was working normally. But if the engine had actually failed then it was the correct procedure. Since ATC had only the information that the engine had failed they were more correct than the captain when they asked if the prop was feathered as that’s the correct thing to do when an engine fails.
@@hb1338 yeah, like I mentioned to the previous person, that was the original mistake. But if the aircraft did have an engine failure, then feathering the prop would’ve been the proper step to take. The pilot not only failed to diagnose the problem correctly by doing stuff he wasn’t supposed to. But he also failed at acting correctly on the supposed failure he had. So the ATC actually knew better than the pilot in dealing with that emergency.
IKR?! I was thinking, wow, I did not know ATC had any knowledge of how planes work! At least he offered some aid. And whatever happened to CRM?! It's only been in existence for decades!!!
Seems to me the Captain should never have been given his forth stripe. Even a "newbie" pilot knows if you have an engine failure on a prop plane you "feather" the prop, not run it on flight idle.
@@marcuswarfield9119 The manual said to run the engine if oil pressure was at a certain level or above. There was nothing wrong with the engine, did you not watch the video to the end?
There's a reason why landing and taking off are the two most dangerous times during a flight. There's a lot of things going on all at once and it can go wrong in a short amount of time.
Years ago, flying an Embraer 120 Brasilia (similar size and a competitor to the Saab 340), I had a similar situation on a cloudy, rainy night. Following the EMB-120 Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) we verified that the oil pressure on engine #1 was indeed quite low, and at the particular oil pressure reading we observed, the QRH directed that the engine be operated at a very low power setting (at or near idle). My training never covered flying an approach with one engine at idle, only with one engine inoperative and feathered. I was very surprised at the amount of rudder that was required to maintain coordinated flight v/s the amount of rudder that would have been required if the prop was feathered. The amount of power on the good engine was considerably higher than I expected to fly down the approach. I decided that if we had to conduct a missed approach, I would bring up the power on both engines because I felt that the airplane wouldn't climb acceptably with engine #1 at idle. We had an uneventful approach and landing. After that experience, I decided that if I had oil pressure so low as to require operation at idle on a future flight, I'd go ahead and feather the engine (and leave it running, which is possible on both the Saab and the Embraer because they're free turbine engines). That way I'd be complying with the QRH to operate at or near idle, yet would have a much more manageable amount of drag on that engine. And, that engine would already be running, ready to come out of feather and spool up rapidly if needed. In short, flying an approach with an engine at idle is MUCH more challenging than flying with one engine feathered. Especially on a go-around, which might be impossible with one at idle. Pilots weren't trained for this at that point in time, and I don't know if turboprop pilots are trained in this today since I've taught in jets for many years now. Also, I've always taught pilots to turn the autopilot off very early on the approach so they have plenty of time to trim up the rudder for coordinated flight on the approach. Autopilots in these airplanes can't trim the rudder; they only operate the ailerons and elevator, which can cause issues when the autopilot is turned off.
What I wonder about is: why did you (and the pilot of the accident aircraft) not just use the second engine during the critical landing phase? Leaving it running at flight idle it should be easy to spool it up just before landing, to have a "normal landing experience" and still having saved the engine from a lot of wear.
@@Rob2 I imagine it's better to have a consistent experience than one where maybe all the sudden the bad engine drops thrust right before touch down or something.
I think I would have rolled the dice with this plane and spooled up the RH engine again for the go-around, and kept it running as long as the oil pressure was within limits.
@@adotintheshark4848 He'd already made up his mind that #2 engine might be damaged. He never reconsidered that decision and he wasn't trained enough to weigh the risks of running up the engine vs trying to land/go around with it on idle.
I was looking for something to watch one night so I ran through the list of videos and picked from a couple of years ago. It is so amazing to see the difference in quality that just a few years makes!!! Thank you for all of your wonderful, and informative videos!!!
U think it bad back then, now they don’t even care about the experience part anymore but only care if u a certain race gets the job. Just look around. We have a Supreme Court judge who can’t even identify what a women is and needs a biologist to tell us.
I got hooked on The Flight Channel a few years ago and now several times a year I will come here and watch it for DAYS. Your videos are so well done, factual, and very respectful. I can't imagine the amount of time and research that goes into each one. Thank you so much for this! I'm just a regular person; not a pilot or ATC.
Once on final approach, I think I would have used the engine at idle. They had sufficient oil pressure and should have been using it anyway. I flew the SF340A for a US regional airline. It's still my favorite airplane. You'd really have to work hard to have something like this happen.
@Dr. Seuss - I'm no pilot, just a guy that watches aviation videos. I'm confused by much of this incident scenario. Would I be correct in saying that the pilot essentially flew the plane on final as if both engines were at correct power? Aside from merely retarding the right engine (incorrectly) to flight idle. Is it safe to say that this pilot retarded the right engine, causing thrust asymmetry unnecessarily, but made little or no compensation for this asymmetry? Also, in a more basic sense - how should the right engine be configured in this scenario assuming the propeller were properly feathered? Is it supposed to stay running? Is it supposed to be cut-off completely?
Quite disturbingly, the FO seemingly didn't notice anything amiss either - or even if otherwise, he did nothing about it. I can understand hierarchical mindsets in Asian flight decks but this is Dutch!
Looking from record on how plane crash with direct impact like that mostly resulting everyone died, i am surprised only 3 people perished, i guess there was no fire that could create an explosion or fatal smoke inhales.. What i want to say is that's one hell of tanky plane..
These stories, where it's completely the fault of an incompetent pilot who's allowed to continue flying, are so aggravating. Why wasn't he suspended and sent for re-training when he got his first failed test result, much less two?? He did not belong in the cockpit, period, and the airline is responsible for keeping him there. I hope those families got some settlements. It doesn't bring their loved ones back, but it hopefully puts a bite into the airline to do it right next time, get rid of incompetents who can be put on baggage handling.
I was gonna say similar. I'm not a qualified pilot. Why did they not retake and retake the engine out check rides until he passed AND understood the reasons why? Also are lowly rated, poor performing pilots given an automatic seat on smaller aircraft. The flight hours seem very low for that age anyhow. If they had been landing from the other direction could they have hit terminals, hangars or fuel? I'm surprised with KLM. I don't remember this one. As said here what was lucky was the overall loss of life. Sad for the captain just the same.
You don't know and worse, you are guessing. There is no record of how the captain's failures were handled or even how soon before the crash they occurred.
@@hb1338 Huh? Did you watch the video, pay attention to the details? "training records revealed that he had failed two engine-out checks, and on his most recent one had been given a 'standard minus,' the lowest passing grade." No, we don't know exactly what happened with the pilot after his two failed tests and receiving the lowest passing grade on the most recent one. The two most probable outcomes were, he was sent for retraining before returning to flying, or he wasn't. If he had been suspended/sent for retraining, then he sure didn't learn much, did he? Shame on him and the airline. If he hadn't, and returned immediately to flying, then shame on the airline. I'm no expert but I know enough that there are procedures and checklists for every event throughout a flight, from takeoff to landing, normal or not. Both the video and article I found stated clearly that the pilot did not follow procedure, did not complete the necessary checklist, and inadequately estimated key events and plane performance during the flight up to the crash. Between his tests and the outcome of this flight, he was clearly incompetent and a liability. No guessing there, it's about as clear as it gets.
This was so needless and avoidable...KLM has a great safety record (overall, excepting Tenerife) and an excellent level of pilot training but in this case it seems that further training was not provided when the pilot just scraped through some of his assessments with a "Standard[-]".
I love the phrase: 'KLM has a great safety record, excepting Tenerife'. 45 years later, the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster remains the deadliest accident in aviation history, with a staggering 583 fatalities! Stating "KLM have a great safety record apart from that mishap in Tenerife", is akin to approaching the newly-widowed Jackie Kennedy right after JFK's assassination and saying: "So apart from the small matter of your husband's head being blown off, how was your trip to Dallas?!" 🙄🙄🙄
I am a retired Airline Pilot of 50+ years background. Yes, (Old School, as in we FLEW THE DAMN THINGS and knew our craft!). Although this accident occurred 30 some years ago, it is somewhat indicative of where and what our industry has become. Pilots have less and less real pilot skills and think set and it's become painfully obvious. This accident should have never occurred. All airline pilots train in their career how to fly their aircraft with an engine out, make a missed approach, and successfully land the aircraft. This is practiced constantly in simulators and sometimes in the real aircraft, it should have been second nature. It is part of normal checkride curriculum established by the FAA. In viewing this incident, I can put the blame squarely in three places: 1. The Captain flying the aircraft certainly didn't know how to keep the thing straight with reduced power on an engine. This is just a real basic skill that should be more than obvious, How Stupid. 2. The First Officer for not intervening and letting some stupid person KILL HIM. Don't be such a dummy. 3. The City Hopper Training Department for letting this pilot through the training system, let alone make him a Captain. He should have been sacked a long time ago. They did not do their job. There is an old saying in aviation that goes some like this: "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect." That about sums up this one perfectly. Captain John, Retired
Though the captain is perished.. i would say , his urgency and lack of training caused this catastrophe. If they had given training with worse scenarios possible , they might have tackled it.
Yes, and remember when KLM caused the worst aviation accident in the history of aviation, in Tenerife, and that was almost 100% horrible CRM, and with KLMs supposedly top pilot at the time. As a 30,000 hour airline pilot today, I refuse to fly with anyone that has an arrogant or overly hostile demeanor, because that is the most dangerous thing in aviation today, not the plane or the skill of the pilot, but the lack of CRM. CRM matters. You get what you pay for. You would never want a $10,000 a year brain surgeon doing surgery on you. With aviation it is very similar.
Great work TFC ! Really appreciate your weekly contribution to Aviation safety - the way we're taught practical principles of Flight, in an artful way. Bravo !
As with the old saying 'the guy who graduates bottom of his class in med school still gets to call himself Doctor', so the same applies to pilots. Of course it's sod's law that the guy who fails two engine outs and barely scrapes through another experiences a (assumed) engine problem that he's not competent in dealing with safely.
That saying is ridiculous. The guy who graduates at the bottom of his class should be able to call himself doctor having met the requirements to do so. Theoretically, if you shouldn't be a doctor, you won't graduate. Any exceptions, like here, are because the bar wasn't set high enough, not because he barely cleared it. (I think doctors have to do more than get a degree, actually, but the point is that passing the requirements is passing the requirements.)
That's stupid. In every group of persons, there will be a last one. If you take the 10 most intelligent persons in the world, the 10th is the last one. Does it mean he's not intelligent ?
@@booli8542 hes simply saying the drs and pilots at the top of their class are obviously better... hence why theyre at the top... not all Drs and pilots are equal... no one is.. there will always be those at the top of their professional field and idk about you but id rather have the top heart surgeon operate on my heart than the bottom heart surgeon that barely passed... its common sense. yes, they're all Drs but that doesnt mean they are all equally great. some are better than others. id much rather be in a plane with a pilot that scored perfectly than a pilot that barely passed... thats simply what the OP is saying
@@booli8542 it means hes not as intelligent as the Drs above him, yes... hence why hes at the bottom... not all drs are created equal...not all of them are equally as competent... thats just a fact of life
I use this analogy often with drivers. Just because you have a driver's license does NOT make you a good driver, in fact there's a better chance you are mediocre than good.
Anyone who drives a car with an oil-pressure gauge knows that pressure varies with RPM, since the pump is driven by the engine. I hope the investigation took a hard look at certification procedures.
Great video as always. That pilot should have never been allowed to fly the aircraft... When the pressure checklist literally "passed", why reduce that engine to flight idle?
@@SimonTekConley Some people will comment anything, just to see their username on a screen. Also, there is this trend where the more meaningless a comment is, the more "likes" it gets, and people validate their lives with those reactions from strangers.
The quality of training provided by an airline is subject to check in exactly the same way that pilots are checked. We don't know what percentage of City Hopper pilots failed their engine-out check - that would help us to understand better whether the deficiencies were in the pilot or the training, or both.
Simmer here, but after some funny experiments with King Air 350 I may tip some crew errors: 1. Never fall below minimum maneuvreable speed on single engine - this kill you. 2. Never use max flaps in same situation - AC became very hard to control. 3. Never add full power on good engine in case of goaround - build speed, shallow climb and slowly throttle up. Speed is most important. Otherwise you got spin and crash. 4. If you have problem with engine finish it and follow 1 engine procedure, additional workload never helps.
A few years before I had obtained my ATP in the US, had moved back to the Netherlands and was trying to get a job with the airlines in the Netherlands. The general consensus in Dutch commercial aviation is that the US pilots training is very inadequate compared to the Dutch training. Single engine full stall and full spin recovery training was not done in the Netherlands as it was considered too dangerous, while as a multi-CFII I had done hundreds of them with my students for the private license in the US. Stall training in a twin was also only done until the 'first buffet' or stall warning and then recovery was initiated. Single engine-out emergency landings were trained only to a minimum altitude of 1000 feet instead of 50 or lower feet above the ground as in the US. Ofcourse the people that had the biggest mouth about bad training in the US had paid around 150.000 - 300.000 for their pilots training compared to around 20.000 in the US and had never been there let alone did any training there.
Losing 3 people is tragic and very sad, but I’m glad it wasn’t worse. Frankly, given the specs of the aircraft just prior to the crash, I’m surprised, yet gratified, so few perished.
is it possible for us to get a video someday on Luxair Flight 9642? i really enjoy how you present your videos and it would be nice to see one on that incident
Is it just me or others also feel sad for the aircrafts that are destroyed in avoidable accidents, in addition of course, to the people that perished? She looked so proper and beautiful 😥
I would say that most of us here love and appreciate the amazing engineering and artful design that goes into all aircraft. Loss of life is always terrible in an airplane crash, but the loss of a remarkable aircraft is also terrible.
not just you....I love machines, and cringed when the oil pressure dropped and the captain did not shut down the engine completely and feather....and then flub the landing, destroying a perfectly good plane....the only good thing is that 3 people are now in a better place....course that captain is prolly scheduled for a do-over in the next life...
It's unfortunate passengers can't ask for the pilots test scores before deciding to get on an aircraft piloted by individuals with skill sets that are subpar. Like getting accepted to Princeton with an SAT score of 450.
How tragic - an entirely avoidable accident. I'll never understand how mechanically "numb" people are cleared to operate complex vehicles. My first thought would be: Do we see oil leaking (easy visual check) ? Oil gauge reads ok ? If No & Yes, warning sensor is defective, continue flight. Second thought: why idle engine (& cause power imbalance) when you could apply its power & monitor oil pressure with gauge ? Those are automatic common sense checks that would also apply to Automobiles & Trucks too.
It’s not that simple. You don’t want to run an engine that gives problems. You don’t want to continue a flight when there are powerplant problems. That way of thinking, like you do with cars, doesn’t translate to airplanes. Sensors, gauges can give faulty readings, you don’t want to make a small malfunction into a real emergency. That is why there are checklists.
@@unknownlastname5609 Sure. But when he notices he cant control the plane then why doesnt he try to engage the engine again at least? Its better to take a chance at damaging the engine not in use anyway than to crash.....
@@unknownlastname5609 Watch again. Their checklist said: if gauge reads over 30psi continue operation. Theirs read 30, then 50 psi. So, they ignored the official checklist. So no, youre wrong Bro. They were NOT mechanically inclined - which is why they didnt think: probably the Pressure sensor is bad, engine is fine (as Oil Pressure Gauge confirmed). If oil was leaking, BOTH oil light + Gauge would show failing pressure. Please watch & GRASP relevant aspects of video BEFORE you comment.
As a professional pilot I try not to blame the pilots, but in this case the Captain’s incompetence is evident. I’m surprised he passed the check ride at ATP standards. On top of that he was evidently frozen on the controls, not just because he didn’t apply the right amount of rudder to compensate for the asymmetric thrust, but also because he could have recovered the airplane at the last minute by applying thrust to the right engine that was still running ad idle.
Forgive my Monday morning quarterbacking, but in the final approach before touchdown, I would have put number 2 engine back on line to stabilize the landing...risk damaging the engine to get last minute landing symmetry. Since when is protecting the engine more important than the safety of the plane. No.2 engine prop wasn't feathered, causing drag, and not providing any useful thrust. Why weren't their redundant oil pressure sending units on this aircraft? The oil pressure in no. 2 engine was actually normal and a backup system would have challenged the assumption it was not. Low oil pressure and high oil temperature go hand in hand. Were those two parameters compared against each other?
because he didn't follow checklist but acted on assumptions, which is why he failed his tests probably. the gauge was reading a pressure over 30 psi, so the engine should have been used as normal, not even a pan call would be necessary
@@unknownlastname5609 No. 2 engine wasn't faulty, only falsely assumed to be.Lack of opposing rudder input was mentioned several times. This should have been cited as the main cause of the crash landing. Pilot error, obviously, but what about the co pilot? How could he not have been unaware of the Captain's lack of countervailing rudder action?
Low oil pressure and high temp don't go hand in hand. That's an assumption. If you are dealing with faulty instruments or gauges then they won't correlate, so you have no idea which one is right and which is wrong.
There are some professions that require an inherent, intuitive capability to do the right thing when confronted with unexpected difficulty. Airline piloting is one of them.
This is why I'm always a bit on edge flying these puddle jumpers as I know the pilots are usually inexperienced up and comers or marginally competent hang arounds who failed to move on to the bigs. I see the Captain was one of the three fatalities so he paid the price for his poor performance.
@@colin8007 City hopper is just the name of the local service (a subsidiary of KLM). It has nothing to do with the type of plane, they fly jets as well.
It's not a puddle jumper. It holds 34 pax actually. They're decent aircraft! Some of the pilots I flew with on the Saabs were retired from the likes of BA, or come from a military background (retirement is earlier in many big airlines or even the military, so some who want to continue flying come from there). Yes, there are a lot of pilots who start out on smaller regional aircraft, but it's not always the case. Even so, they're still well-trained for the most part.
people...a small regional prop jet is often colloquially referred to as a puddle jumper. no, it is not technically a puddle jumper. who cares? semantics!
please note that "finals" is slang and not proper for airmanship terms it is "Final Approach". Finals is not allowed per ICAO rules for radio communication and is used by UK spotters and considered not professional
Don’t train legs the day before practicing 1 engine go-arounds! It’s a stupid amount of rudder pressure required to track straight! My leg would eventually be shaking trying to hold it.
You will never find the aircraft at fault. Always the pilot. It's always pilot error. However, if the aircraft was at fault, it would ruin the airline or manufacturer, so it's best for everyone that the pilot is found to be at fault.
I have no idea why these people would ruin our Swedish pride like that. Was the Capt new to multi engine planes? Where was the FO during this? Why did they invent their own checklists? Was assymetric thrust something they never even read about? Soooo many questions, and a perfectly lovely plane made in Sweden was demolished, and three people were killed for no reason.
@@deepthinker999 I don't think stupidity should come with a death sentence, nor should two other people perish because of that. Nothing about this crash makes sense. I'd really want to know why that Capt had zero clues.
After watching TFC many videos, I have start sending when things go haywire in cockpit and I can predict the outcome (disaster) before NTSB being their investigation. Thanks TFC for educating me!
We just assume all pilots are proficient at their job, but it makes sense that someone has to be last in the class. It’s kinda frightening to think that a passengers life is at the mercy of luck. You either board a plane with a pilot who did well, or you don’t.
Although having dual engines is considered the best redundancy, in smaller aircraft the survival rate of engine outs is not that much different than single engine aircraft. Why? Because the flight characteristics of dual engine aircraft with a one of the engines out is significantly different than normal flight. At least one autopilot maker has introduced a model to compensate for that. Large aircraft don't really share this issue, since pilot training for engine outs is so much better. Jet twin engine aircraft virtually became the standard after they became approved for overseas crossings. That is a function of the amazing reliability of those engines. In general, twins (vs. 3 or 4 engine aircraft) are the most fuel efficient.
In the GA world twin engine aircraft have an accident rate nearly double that of single engine planes. Almost all of this is due to engine failure and inadequate training in asymmetric operation. A failure on a single means you have to land very soon afterwards but at least the plane will behave as expected. Flying a twin on one engine is always very different from normal.
Thanks, OK , seems like lots of mistakes/errors. The Captain perished in the crash, and 2 others, which seems amazing so many survived. Excellent video as always.
This was a bit frustrating to watch. The pilot may have been used to making up his own methods to deal with things rather than following safety checklists.
Pilot was completely incompetent. He did not follow procedures and attempted to land aircraft by the seat of his pants. This resulted in an expected catastrophe. No excuse for this accident.
There's something about the final stages of the animation that seems not quite correct. If the fuel-laden aircraft crashed at that speed and at that angle, there's no way that there'd have been only 3 fatalities
KLM Cityhopper Flight 433 (KL433 / KLC433) --- DEP: Amsterdam, Netherlands (AMS / EHAM) ARR: Cardiff, UK (CWL / EGFF) --- 1990 Saab 340B *PH-KSH* _City of Hamburg_ --- 4 April 1994 Anachronism: the KLM Embraer E170s seen in the beginning were introduced to service in 2004. The KLM livery would also feature a bigger dark blue cheatline in 1994.
Im not a pilot, so can someone explain this to me? Multi engine planes have flown, and landed, on one engine since they started adding more than one engine to a plane. Why did this guy have a problem? Was it because he didn't shut the engine off? My understanding is you have to move the rudder to one side to conteract the one running engine from turning the plane. Did the pilot forget to move the rudder?
You’re absolutely right. Multiengine airplanes can keep flying if one engine goes out. Multiengine pilots are well-trained in how to fly an airplane on one engine. The rudder is applied to counter the torque or “yaw” placed on the plane by the operating engine. Ex: If the right engine is out, the pilot applies the left rudder to compensate for the drag of the stalled engine. If the stalled engine has a propeller as this aircraft did the pilot needs to “feather” the propeller blades, meaning to turn the blades to near-parallel with the airflow to reduce drag. This incompetent Captain did neither of those things. The tower even asked the Captain if he’d feathered the engine but he responded with something irrelevant. The problem was with a broken switch that gave the crew incorrect information. However, the plane still performed normally within the parameters given in the manual. The crew knew the engine had enough oil pressure to maintain flight, but they ignored what the plane was doing and focused on what the alert was saying. While pilots are trained to trust their instruments, they have to trust the aircraft’s performance even more. What happened here was tantamount to having your car’s speedometer malfunction and show 0 mph, but you’re still cruising down the highway maintaining speed. In that situation, you would quickly reach the logical conclusion that the car is fine and the speedometer is malfunctioning. Both pilots ignored the fact that the plane was fine without considering that an instrument alert was malfunctioning. It seems basic to ascertain what was really going on, so how could this crash happen? The video gives two clues: 1) The Captain was inept and never should’ve been flying ANY airplane, much less a commercial airliner. (That’s on you, KLM!) 2) There was no indication of CRM (Crew Resource Management) in which the crew members are supposed to reason together to figure out a problem rather than have the Captain call all the shots. The First Officer did little to aid the Captain in this situation so he is just as responsible for this crash as the Captain is. Sorry this is long but I wanted to make sure you understood what happened here. I hope this helps.
Thanks everyone. Now I just have to figure out why I , a person who cant even fly a plane in a computer game, knew about moving the rudder to compensate for only having one engine, but this pilot didn't.
1:44 in and I am already disgusted and shaking my head! I've said it for years, the airline industry has no respect for human life and are blinded by profit to their ultimate responsibility: SAFE Flights for ALL involved! There is simply too much inherent risk involved should the slightest item be skirted (e.g. Maintenance, Training) yet here we are time and time again...lost a plane? Hundreds of innocent souls lost? The industries response can be boiled down to "Wow, that sucks....next" and on and on it goes! smh!
Part of this is the worlds demand for low cost flight. Airline margins are thin so corners are cut where they can be and sometimes the bare minimum training is the go to choice. I recently found out that in America most airlines don't pay the cabin crew until the doors are shut. All the work they do to board and settle the passengers in is unpaid. The flight crew doesn't get paid until the aircraft is pushed back. All the pre-flight planning and cockpit check lists prior to push back is unpaid.
Bro, wth are you talking about? Check out the drastic improvement to safety records of airlines over the past few decades. I fly for a major airline in the US and we don’t do anything unsafe in my cockpit.
@@cgirl111 That has its positives and creates a negative which is less experience dealing with an emergency situation and what to do when. I know what you might say but muscle memory has its place in flying.
So did the pilot just throw the aircraft manual out the window? Idling the engine instead of feathering the prop? Allowing the aircraft to pull right into the idled engine without opposite rudder control and ailerons? At least he had the decency to die instead of having to answer for these basic pilot correctable issues. Sorry for the loss of the passengers. What is the first world coming to?
I’m not a pilot but i have flown in many simulators before and it was obvious what was going to happen… at that point just get the right engine to max power even though if you damage it but at least you gain some speed and altitude.
@@unknownlastname5609 from my understanding of the situation, he was too slow + had tail wind which makes it even more difficult… by pulling left engine at max throttle and almost no airspeed there was not much he could do, as i said if he had used the right engine i think we would have had a chance to go around. I’m not an expert but i think thats how physics work, right?
@@emiliopecharich gear up, faulty engine not feathered will give you a higher vmc speed. Since he aggressively added power left, there was not enough speed for directional control. Basics of ME flying.
why don't I receive any notifications from you when you upload new videos? in the middle of the night I always watch your videos. Your work is really good. One of my favorite channels on youtube since the Carona Virus outbreak 2 years ago and now.
I've been in much worse situations and we landed fine in all 3 cases. One plane I was on was hit by lightning nothing happened. Another one was hit by a windshield that was caught by surprise and there was no warning given and we landed perfectly with a sudden go around. Those 2 situations were on Southwest Airlines airlines based at Dallas love field. On Aero Mexico, we were flying and we hit severe trebulance so much that the overhead compartments for luggage opened and all the luggage fell out and hit the ceiling as we fell 10000' from the turbulence. We hit another big pocket of turbulence again and we went 10K feet straight down as carry on luggage from the overhead compartments stuck to the aircraft ceiling. We were all screaming. We leveled out and had smooth flying after the turbulence was done. We landed safely and no one got hit by falling carry on luggage as we leveled out in a perfect flight. 👍🏽 I've only had good luck thanks be to God for the safe flights and I've been flying since I was 4 months old. I don't remember not flying. I don't have any first memory of flying since it's really normal for my family to fly. I still have my flyer miles and I haven't flown since 2008. I bet I have a free flight coming up. 👍🏽😁
@@ndmz903 We did descend 10000' at 1st. We hit another wave and descended 10000' lower. It's amazing there were no other aircraft below us on the same traffic route is yours.✝️🙏🏼🙏🏾🙏🏽🙏🏿
Looking from record on how plane crash with direct impact like that mostly resulting everyone died, i am surprised only 3 people perished, i guess there was no fire that could create an explosion or fatal smoke inhales.. What i want to say is that's one hell of tanky plane..
After watching many of these excellent videos I wonder if these guys know how to fly airplanes! As soon as the on screen text stated that power had been pulled back I literally said out loud that of course oil pressure would show decrease. And how does the FO have so many hours in a commercial aircraft? How many hours are required in Europe for the equivalent of an ATP rating? Disasters waiting to happen.
You have neglected the possibility that the pilot flew well on his check flights and then regressed as time passed. In such circumstances there would be no need to change the certification standard, but there might be a need to test pilots more frequently.
Totally avoidable accident due to really bad pilot training. Only the very best of pilots should be pilots .I am sorry for the deaths of the passengers and pilot however if the pilot had family I feel sorry for them too...they have to live with this. All we can say is that luckily this was a low capacity aircraft and not a 747 or large aircraft. Thank you TFC...another excellent offering.
Despite the inadequate flying by the captain, that plane did everything it could to stay airborne. Even good planes can't keep fling with idiots at the controls.
It's deeply troubling to know that there are pilots in command of commercial aircraft with this level of incompetence.
Well there's one less now.
Well, one less one.
Agreed
To be fair, this was 30 years ago. We have not even had a major plane crash in the USA in over a decade. It has gotten much safer and the pilots trained way more than they used to be.
Yeah, and there always has been. Lots of lessons learned over the years.
A stark reminder for people that train and certify professionals of all types, if you let someone "just barely pass" you could be signing a death sentence.
Very true. My Doctor once said to me, “What do you call someone who graduated last in the class at medical school?” His answer “Doctor”.
@@flyguy5941 the other joke is what do you call a medical student who failed medical school? A Dentist.
Or several hundred...
Someone has to graduate in the bottom 10%. If only that weren't so and we took the best and brightest.
True!
The fact that ATC had better knowledge than the captain when they asked him if he feathered the prop is already telling.
Feathering the prop would have been wrong as well. The engine was still able to produce power and the engine oil pressure was within required limits.
@@juhapehkonen7347 it was wrong in regards that the engine was working normally. But if the engine had actually failed then it was the correct procedure. Since ATC had only the information that the engine had failed they were more correct than the captain when they asked if the prop was feathered as that’s the correct thing to do when an engine fails.
@@Hartbreak1 The crew failed to check correctly on the condition of the engine that had a warning. That is an awful mistake to make.
@@hb1338 yeah, like I mentioned to the previous person, that was the original mistake. But if the aircraft did have an engine failure, then feathering the prop would’ve been the proper step to take. The pilot not only failed to diagnose the problem correctly by doing stuff he wasn’t supposed to. But he also failed at acting correctly on the supposed failure he had. So the ATC actually knew better than the pilot in dealing with that emergency.
IKR?! I was thinking, wow, I did not know ATC had any knowledge of how planes work! At least he offered some aid. And whatever happened to CRM?! It's only been in existence for decades!!!
Seems to me the Captain should never have been given his forth stripe. Even a "newbie" pilot knows if you have an engine failure on a prop plane you "feather" the prop, not run it on flight idle.
Never mind that. The captain should have followed the procedure in the manual, which said nothing about reducing thrust.
@@oneanddone7992 facts
ATC even asked if they "feathered the prop ......" crazy !
@@marcuswarfield9119 The manual said to run the engine if oil pressure was at a certain level or above. There was nothing wrong with the engine, did you not watch the video to the end?
There was no engine failure, there was a switch/sensor failure.
I hope the creator of TFC and anyone seeing this is having a blessed day.
Thank you! I hope you have a blessed day as well
I cannot imagine being that close to the runway and still crashing. Terrifying.
Sadly that also happened in Montreal as well. It was a Metroliner that flipped over right before they could land.
There's a reason why landing and taking off are the two most dangerous times during a flight. There's a lot of things going on all at once and it can go wrong in a short amount of time.
@@Kaytoun what Kaytoun said.
@@C-Midori
Do you know which flight / airline that was? Can't find it
@@royfokerpoker1802 I think it was Propair Flight 420.
Years ago, flying an Embraer 120 Brasilia (similar size and a competitor to the Saab 340), I had a similar situation on a cloudy, rainy night. Following the EMB-120 Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) we verified that the oil pressure on engine #1 was indeed quite low, and at the particular oil pressure reading we observed, the QRH directed that the engine be operated at a very low power setting (at or near idle). My training never covered flying an approach with one engine at idle, only with one engine inoperative and feathered. I was very surprised at the amount of rudder that was required to maintain coordinated flight v/s the amount of rudder that would have been required if the prop was feathered. The amount of power on the good engine was considerably higher than I expected to fly down the approach. I decided that if we had to conduct a missed approach, I would bring up the power on both engines because I felt that the airplane wouldn't climb acceptably with engine #1 at idle. We had an uneventful approach and landing.
After that experience, I decided that if I had oil pressure so low as to require operation at idle on a future flight, I'd go ahead and feather the engine (and leave it running, which is possible on both the Saab and the Embraer because they're free turbine engines). That way I'd be complying with the QRH to operate at or near idle, yet would have a much more manageable amount of drag on that engine. And, that engine would already be running, ready to come out of feather and spool up rapidly if needed.
In short, flying an approach with an engine at idle is MUCH more challenging than flying with one engine feathered. Especially on a go-around, which might be impossible with one at idle. Pilots weren't trained for this at that point in time, and I don't know if turboprop pilots are trained in this today since I've taught in jets for many years now. Also, I've always taught pilots to turn the autopilot off very early on the approach so they have plenty of time to trim up the rudder for coordinated flight on the approach. Autopilots in these airplanes can't trim the rudder; they only operate the ailerons and elevator, which can cause issues when the autopilot is turned off.
What I wonder about is: why did you (and the pilot of the accident aircraft) not just use the second engine during the critical landing phase?
Leaving it running at flight idle it should be easy to spool it up just before landing, to have a "normal landing experience" and still having saved the engine from a lot of wear.
Brilliantlty stated. Thanks!
@@Rob2 I imagine it's better to have a consistent experience than one where maybe all the sudden the bad engine drops thrust right before touch down or something.
I think I would have rolled the dice with this plane and spooled up the RH engine again for the go-around, and kept it running as long as the oil pressure was within limits.
@@adotintheshark4848 He'd already made up his mind that #2 engine might be damaged. He never reconsidered that decision and he wasn't trained enough to weigh the risks of running up the engine vs trying to land/go around with it on idle.
I was looking for something to watch one night so I ran through the list of videos and picked from a couple of years ago.
It is so amazing to see the difference in quality that just a few years makes!!!
Thank you for all of your wonderful, and informative videos!!!
This seems like something that an experienced pilot would know.
An inexperienced pilot would know. This isn’t a complex problem they experienced.
U think it bad back then, now they don’t even care about the experience part anymore but only care if u a certain race gets the job. Just look around. We have a Supreme Court judge who can’t even identify what a women is and needs a biologist to tell us.
@@Happyheartmatt right? Seems to me the issue is competency not experience
*Should* know
@@ashleys9892 One would hope that competence and experience are quite closely related.
I got hooked on The Flight Channel a few years ago and now several times a year I will come here and watch it for DAYS. Your videos are so well done, factual, and very respectful. I can't imagine the amount of time and research that goes into each one. Thank you so much for this! I'm just a regular person; not a pilot or ATC.
Well, the incompetent captain bit the dust there. I'm sorry for the two passengers who lost their lives for an unskilled captain
Once on final approach, I think I would have used the engine at idle. They had sufficient oil pressure and should have been using it anyway. I flew the SF340A for a US regional airline. It's still my favorite airplane. You'd really have to work hard to have something like this happen.
Not a pilot, but I was thinking the exact same thing in reference to using the engine at idle. Especially when landing more than anything.
@Dr. Seuss - I'm no pilot, just a guy that watches aviation videos. I'm confused by much of this incident scenario. Would I be correct in saying that the pilot essentially flew the plane on final as if both engines were at correct power? Aside from merely retarding the right engine (incorrectly) to flight idle. Is it safe to say that this pilot retarded the right engine, causing thrust asymmetry unnecessarily, but made little or no compensation for this asymmetry? Also, in a more basic sense - how should the right engine be configured in this scenario assuming the propeller were properly feathered? Is it supposed to stay running? Is it supposed to be cut-off completely?
Quite disturbingly, the FO seemingly didn't notice anything amiss either - or even if otherwise, he did nothing about it. I can understand hierarchical mindsets in Asian flight decks but this is Dutch!
@@SKYCLIPPER True, all he needed was a dead foot!
Looking from record on how plane crash with direct impact like that mostly resulting everyone died, i am surprised only 3 people perished, i guess there was no fire that could create an explosion or fatal smoke inhales..
What i want to say is that's one hell of tanky plane..
The checklists are presumably written by the experts and should be followed explicitly, not ignored.
These stories, where it's completely the fault of an incompetent pilot who's allowed to continue flying, are so aggravating. Why wasn't he suspended and sent for re-training when he got his first failed test result, much less two?? He did not belong in the cockpit, period, and the airline is responsible for keeping him there. I hope those families got some settlements. It doesn't bring their loved ones back, but it hopefully puts a bite into the airline to do it right next time, get rid of incompetents who can be put on baggage handling.
I was gonna say similar. I'm not a qualified pilot.
Why did they not retake and retake the engine out check rides until he passed AND understood the reasons why?
Also are lowly rated, poor performing pilots given an automatic seat on smaller aircraft. The flight hours seem very low for that age anyhow.
If they had been landing from the other direction could they have hit terminals, hangars or fuel?
I'm surprised with KLM.
I don't remember this one.
As said here what was lucky was the overall loss of life. Sad for the captain just the same.
Exactly!
You don't know and worse, you are guessing. There is no record of how the captain's failures were handled or even how soon before the crash they occurred.
@@hb1338 Huh? Did you watch the video, pay attention to the details? "training records revealed that he had failed two engine-out checks, and on his most recent one had been given a 'standard minus,' the lowest passing grade." No, we don't know exactly what happened with the pilot after his two failed tests and receiving the lowest passing grade on the most recent one. The two most probable outcomes were, he was sent for retraining before returning to flying, or he wasn't. If he had been suspended/sent for retraining, then he sure didn't learn much, did he? Shame on him and the airline. If he hadn't, and returned immediately to flying, then shame on the airline. I'm no expert but I know enough that there are procedures and checklists for every event throughout a flight, from takeoff to landing, normal or not. Both the video and article I found stated clearly that the pilot did not follow procedure, did not complete the necessary checklist, and inadequately estimated key events and plane performance during the flight up to the crash. Between his tests and the outcome of this flight, he was clearly incompetent and a liability. No guessing there, it's about as clear as it gets.
Bill K
A failed check-ride always required re-training based upon the check airman's write-up.
This was so needless and avoidable...KLM has a great safety record (overall, excepting Tenerife) and an excellent level of pilot training but in this case it seems that further training was not provided when the pilot just scraped through some of his assessments with a "Standard[-]".
The pilots were not Dutch
@@nobody5865 ?? So? The airline is. They train them on their planes.
I love the phrase: 'KLM has a great safety record, excepting Tenerife'.
45 years later, the 1977 Tenerife airport disaster remains the deadliest accident in aviation history, with a staggering 583 fatalities!
Stating "KLM have a great safety record apart from that mishap in Tenerife", is akin to approaching the newly-widowed Jackie Kennedy right after JFK's assassination and saying:
"So apart from the small matter of your husband's head being blown off, how was your trip to Dallas?!" 🙄🙄🙄
@@ditzygypsy That's true
True
I am a retired Airline Pilot of 50+ years background. Yes, (Old School, as in we FLEW THE DAMN THINGS and knew our craft!). Although this accident occurred 30 some years ago, it is somewhat indicative of where and what our industry has become. Pilots have less and less real pilot skills and think set and it's become painfully obvious. This accident should have never occurred. All airline pilots train in their career how to fly their aircraft with an engine out, make a missed approach, and successfully land the aircraft. This is practiced constantly in simulators and sometimes in the real aircraft, it should have been second nature. It is part of normal checkride curriculum established by the FAA.
In viewing this incident, I can put the blame squarely in three places:
1. The Captain flying the aircraft certainly didn't know how to keep the thing straight with reduced power on an engine. This is just a real basic skill that should be more than obvious, How Stupid.
2. The First Officer for not intervening and letting some stupid person KILL HIM. Don't be such a dummy.
3. The City Hopper Training Department for letting this pilot through the training system, let alone make him a Captain. He should have been sacked a long time ago. They did not do their job.
There is an old saying in aviation that goes some like this: "Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect." That about sums up this one perfectly.
Captain John, Retired
Though the captain is perished.. i would say , his urgency and lack of training caused this catastrophe. If they had given training with worse scenarios possible , they might have tackled it.
Yes, and remember when KLM caused the worst aviation accident in the history of aviation, in Tenerife, and that was almost 100% horrible CRM, and with KLMs supposedly top pilot at the time. As a 30,000 hour airline pilot today, I refuse to fly with anyone that has an arrogant or overly hostile demeanor, because that is the most dangerous thing in aviation today, not the plane or the skill of the pilot, but the lack of CRM. CRM matters. You get what you pay for. You would never want a $10,000 a year brain surgeon doing surgery on you. With aviation it is very similar.
John those were the days also when passengers had respect for others on the plane!
@@dickbeale9731 Geez that would be awful to sit next to a narcisstic pilot for a long flight! Never thought of that before!
@@dickbeale9731 What is a CRM?
Great work TFC !
Really appreciate your weekly contribution to Aviation safety - the way we're taught practical principles of Flight, in an artful way.
Bravo !
As with the old saying 'the guy who graduates bottom of his class in med school still gets to call himself Doctor', so the same applies to pilots. Of course it's sod's law that the guy who fails two engine outs and barely scrapes through another experiences a (assumed) engine problem that he's not competent in dealing with safely.
That saying is ridiculous. The guy who graduates at the bottom of his class should be able to call himself doctor having met the requirements to do so. Theoretically, if you shouldn't be a doctor, you won't graduate. Any exceptions, like here, are because the bar wasn't set high enough, not because he barely cleared it.
(I think doctors have to do more than get a degree, actually, but the point is that passing the requirements is passing the requirements.)
That's stupid.
In every group of persons, there will be a last one.
If you take the 10 most intelligent persons in the world, the 10th is the last one. Does it mean he's not intelligent ?
@@booli8542 hes simply saying the drs and pilots at the top of their class are obviously better... hence why theyre at the top... not all Drs and pilots are equal... no one is.. there will always be those at the top of their professional field and idk about you but id rather have the top heart surgeon operate on my heart than the bottom heart surgeon that barely passed... its common sense. yes, they're all Drs but that doesnt mean they are all equally great. some are better than others. id much rather be in a plane with a pilot that scored perfectly than a pilot that barely passed... thats simply what the OP is saying
@@booli8542 it means hes not as intelligent as the Drs above him, yes... hence why hes at the bottom... not all drs are created equal...not all of them are equally as competent... thats just a fact of life
I use this analogy often with drivers. Just because you have a driver's license does NOT make you a good driver, in fact there's a better chance you are mediocre than good.
Anyone who drives a car with an oil-pressure gauge knows that pressure varies with RPM, since the pump is driven by the engine. I hope the investigation took a hard look at certification procedures.
For the airplane?
Nope, most of my relatives and friends drive without even knowing that engines have oil pumps.
Nope, most cars have oil pumps reaching their maximum supply pressure at idle RPM. You won't see oil pressure fluctuations at low RPM !
Many vehicles these days don't come with a RPM gage. If it's not a stick shift, arguably the only point of one is shits and giggles.
Great video as always. That pilot should have never been allowed to fly the aircraft... When the pressure checklist literally "passed", why reduce that engine to flight idle?
He reduced it to flight idle before the check list procedure was carried out. That alone is a serious error.
and keep it there?
KLM pilots are overall well trained which is why i’m surprised to see this captain making so many wrong decisions
Whenever you read the pilot has failed checks or tests you know something bad is about to happen
Also, whenever you watch a channel that only covers flight-related incidents...
@@martinc.720 lol
@@martinc.720 i was like, umm, everything on this channel, is about bad stuff that happens
@@SimonTekConley Some people will comment anything, just to see their username on a screen. Also, there is this trend where the more meaningless a comment is, the more "likes" it gets, and people validate their lives with those reactions from strangers.
@@martinc.720 like you just did?
The 340/2000 were both great aircraft with damn near impeccable safety records!
Many of these crashes are determined to be pilot error, but many seen like poor training.
amen wonder if they did blood work post mortum???
yeah its a shame, but they have to put the blame on someone i guess
The airlines have shared responsibility since they hire the pilots then fail to protect the public from the ill-trained ones
You will never find the aircraft at fault, it's simpler and easier to blame the pilot then actually do the engineering to prevent these faults.
The quality of training provided by an airline is subject to check in exactly the same way that pilots are checked. We don't know what percentage of City Hopper pilots failed their engine-out check - that would help us to understand better whether the deficiencies were in the pilot or the training, or both.
Simmer here, but after some funny experiments with King Air 350 I may tip some crew errors: 1. Never fall below minimum maneuvreable speed on single engine - this kill you. 2. Never use max flaps in same situation - AC became very hard to control. 3. Never add full power on good engine in case of goaround - build speed, shallow climb and slowly throttle up. Speed is most important. Otherwise you got spin and crash. 4. If you have problem with engine finish it and follow 1 engine procedure, additional workload never helps.
yep, an 8yo child with some FS2000 experience would have handled this better
A few years before I had obtained my ATP in the US, had moved back to the Netherlands and was trying to get a job with the airlines in the Netherlands.
The general consensus in Dutch commercial aviation is that the US pilots training is very inadequate compared to the Dutch training.
Single engine full stall and full spin recovery training was not done in the Netherlands as it was considered too dangerous, while as a multi-CFII I had done hundreds of them with my students for the private license in the US.
Stall training in a twin was also only done until the 'first buffet' or stall warning and then recovery was initiated.
Single engine-out emergency landings were trained only to a minimum altitude of 1000 feet instead of 50 or lower feet above the ground as in the US.
Ofcourse the people that had the biggest mouth about bad training in the US had paid around 150.000 - 300.000 for their pilots training compared to around 20.000 in the US and had never been there let alone did any training there.
Of course. The pilot that failed 2 engine outs gets an engine out.
No engine failure occurred, that is the irony.
@@phillarnach9484 his stupidity cost him his life, what a fine
Other pilots get it too but they survive and not immortalized in YT videos
Losing 3 people is tragic and very sad, but I’m glad it wasn’t worse. Frankly, given the specs of the aircraft just prior to the crash, I’m surprised, yet gratified, so few perished.
Matt Leblancs character said it best "and the monkey flips the switch"
It's too bad that anyone was injured and 3 people died. I hope this was used as a teaching example for other pilots.
Super disturbing. The captain was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties. It's so shocking how he was allowed to get a pilot license.
is it possible for us to get a video someday on Luxair Flight 9642?
i really enjoy how you present your videos and it would be nice to see one on that incident
Is it just me or others also feel sad for the aircrafts that are destroyed in avoidable accidents, in addition of course, to the people that perished? She looked so proper and beautiful 😥
I would say that most of us here love and appreciate the amazing engineering and artful design that goes into all aircraft. Loss of life is always terrible in an airplane crash, but the loss of a remarkable aircraft is also terrible.
not just you....I love machines, and cringed when the oil pressure dropped and the captain did not shut down the engine completely and feather....and then flub the landing, destroying a perfectly good plane....the only good thing is that 3 people are now in a better place....course that captain is prolly scheduled for a do-over in the next life...
It's unfortunate passengers can't ask for the pilots test scores before deciding to get on an aircraft piloted by individuals with skill sets that are subpar. Like getting accepted to Princeton with an SAT score of 450.
In a perfect world passengers shouldn't deal with questions like that. The company should've done that before a pilot sits down on the left seat.
I agree with you!!
How tragic - an entirely avoidable accident.
I'll never understand how mechanically "numb" people are cleared to operate complex vehicles.
My first thought would be:
Do we see oil leaking (easy visual check) ?
Oil gauge reads ok ?
If No & Yes, warning sensor is defective, continue flight.
Second thought: why idle engine (& cause power imbalance) when you could apply its power & monitor oil pressure with gauge ?
Those are automatic common sense checks that would also apply to Automobiles & Trucks too.
It’s not that simple. You don’t want to run an engine that gives problems. You don’t want to continue a flight when there are powerplant problems. That way of thinking, like you do with cars, doesn’t translate to airplanes. Sensors, gauges can give faulty readings, you don’t want to make a small malfunction into a real emergency. That is why there are checklists.
@@unknownlastname5609 Sure. But when he notices he cant control the plane then why doesnt he try to engage the engine again at least? Its better to take a chance at damaging the engine not in use anyway than to crash.....
@@martinsvensson6884 proper procedure is reduce n1 and level. But i agree
@@unknownlastname5609
Watch again.
Their checklist said: if gauge reads over 30psi continue operation.
Theirs read 30, then 50 psi.
So, they ignored the official checklist.
So no, youre wrong Bro.
They were NOT mechanically inclined - which is why they didnt think: probably the Pressure sensor is bad, engine is fine (as Oil Pressure Gauge confirmed).
If oil was leaking, BOTH oil light + Gauge would show failing pressure.
Please watch & GRASP relevant aspects of video BEFORE you comment.
They took a small malfunction and made a real emergency!
“Inadequate use of flight controls”
That’s the cutest way of saying “the guy in the cockpit had no fracking clues what he was doing” I’ve ever read..
While it's tragic 3 people died, it's amazing that 21 did not.
I think it would be nice if you put in the description of every video the date it happened.
Agreed, Blade.
Date is always mentioned at the beginning of every video.
As a professional pilot I try not to blame the pilots, but in this case the Captain’s incompetence is evident. I’m surprised he passed the check ride at ATP standards. On top of that he was evidently frozen on the controls, not just because he didn’t apply the right amount of rudder to compensate for the asymmetric thrust, but also because he could have recovered the airplane at the last minute by applying thrust to the right engine that was still running ad idle.
Forgive my Monday morning quarterbacking, but in the final approach before touchdown, I would have put number 2 engine back on line to stabilize the landing...risk damaging the engine to get last minute landing symmetry. Since when is protecting the engine more important than the safety of the plane. No.2 engine prop wasn't feathered, causing drag, and not providing any useful thrust. Why weren't their redundant oil pressure sending units on this aircraft? The oil pressure in no. 2 engine was actually normal and a backup system would have challenged the assumption it was not. Low oil pressure and high oil temperature go hand in hand. Were those two parameters compared against each other?
For multi certification you need to fly approaches on 1 engine. There is no need to use a faulty engine and even get in more trouble.
because he didn't follow checklist but acted on assumptions, which is why he failed his tests probably. the gauge was reading a pressure over 30 psi, so the engine should have been used as normal, not even a pan call would be necessary
@@unknownlastname5609 No. 2 engine wasn't faulty, only falsely assumed to be.Lack of opposing rudder input was mentioned several times. This should have been cited as the main cause of the crash landing. Pilot error, obviously, but what about the co pilot? How could he not have been unaware of the Captain's lack of countervailing rudder action?
Low oil pressure and high temp don't go hand in hand. That's an assumption. If you are dealing with faulty instruments or gauges then they won't correlate, so you have no idea which one is right and which is wrong.
There are some professions that require an inherent, intuitive capability to do the right thing when confronted with unexpected difficulty. Airline piloting is one of them.
This is why I'm always a bit on edge flying these puddle jumpers as I know the pilots are usually inexperienced up and comers or marginally competent hang arounds who failed to move on to the bigs. I see the Captain was one of the three fatalities so he paid the price for his poor performance.
A SAAB 340 is hardly a “puddle jumper” in the traditional aviation vernacular.
@@Mikere5 the plane livery literally says city hopper. city hopper, puddle jumper...semantics
@@colin8007 City hopper is just the name of the local service (a subsidiary of KLM). It has nothing to do with the type of plane, they fly jets as well.
It's not a puddle jumper. It holds 34 pax actually. They're decent aircraft!
Some of the pilots I flew with on the Saabs were retired from the likes of BA, or come from a military background (retirement is earlier in many big airlines or even the military, so some who want to continue flying come from there).
Yes, there are a lot of pilots who start out on smaller regional aircraft, but it's not always the case. Even so, they're still well-trained for the most part.
people...a small regional prop jet is often colloquially referred to as a puddle jumper. no, it is not technically a puddle jumper. who cares? semantics!
please note that "finals" is slang and not proper for airmanship terms it is "Final Approach". Finals is not allowed per ICAO rules for radio communication and is used by UK spotters and considered not professional
I can’t imagine the horror the passengers were experiencing before impact- knowing they are going down. So sad 😞
The Captain "had failed 2 engine-out checks" tells you all you need to know.
I love that airport. It’s worth visiting just for the facility.😻
Don’t train legs the day before practicing 1 engine go-arounds! It’s a stupid amount of rudder pressure required to track straight! My leg would eventually be shaking trying to hold it.
Yeah, I always had to work the trim for that plane.
Great work as always! Am I going on a trip in two months? Yes. Am I scared of flying? Yes. Will I stop watching these videos? Absolutely not. 😌
U will be fine on Airbus
I think
I myself enjoy flying to the Max! ✈
Your videos are amazing....so detailed...must take SO much time and effort.....thank you! 🙏😍🇬🇧
Just feels rather infuriating to think of a relatively experienced pilot simply neglecting to use an entire axis of primary flight controls...
It’s also infuriating that a “D-” pilot was allowed to fly commercial airliners.
You will never find the aircraft at fault. Always the pilot. It's always pilot error. However, if the aircraft was at fault, it would ruin the airline or manufacturer, so it's best for everyone that the pilot is found to be at fault.
The song at the end really hits me its so beautiful
Getting a D- on a school exam is one thing. But a pilot allowed to fly after getting a Standard minus rating, the lowest score, boggles the mind.
Glad there were survivors 🙌🏽
I have no idea why these people would ruin our Swedish pride like that. Was the Capt new to multi engine planes? Where was the FO during this? Why did they invent their own checklists? Was assymetric thrust something they never even read about? Soooo many questions, and a perfectly lovely plane made in Sweden was demolished, and three people were killed for no reason.
However (1) of the three fatalities was the pilot, so some of the justice did prevail.
@@deepthinker999 Justice??????? No, justice would be the airline getting sued. It is their responsibility to train their pilots properly
@@deepthinker999 I don't think stupidity should come with a death sentence, nor should two other people perish because of that. Nothing about this crash makes sense. I'd really want to know why that Capt had zero clues.
It seems a common theme that sub par pilots fail to use their rudders appropo.
After watching TFC many videos, I have start sending when things go haywire in cockpit and I can predict the outcome (disaster) before NTSB being their investigation. Thanks TFC for educating me!
Yes, but it's never the cockpit design and engineering at fault.
We just assume all pilots are proficient at their job, but it makes sense that someone has to be last in the class. It’s kinda frightening to think that a passengers life is at the mercy of luck. You either board a plane with a pilot who did well, or you don’t.
I agree, it’s kind of scary~
The odds are in your favour, mostly, it's just awful bad luck if you get two bad pilots at the same time, in the same cockpit.
Although having dual engines is considered the best redundancy, in smaller aircraft the survival rate of engine outs is not that much different than single engine aircraft. Why? Because the flight characteristics of dual engine aircraft with a one of the engines out is significantly different than normal flight. At least one autopilot maker has introduced a model to compensate for that.
Large aircraft don't really share this issue, since pilot training for engine outs is so much better. Jet twin engine aircraft virtually became the standard after they became approved for overseas crossings. That is a function of the amazing reliability of those engines. In general, twins (vs. 3 or 4 engine aircraft) are the most fuel efficient.
ZZZ
In the GA world twin engine aircraft have an accident rate nearly double that of single engine planes. Almost all of this is due to engine failure and inadequate training in asymmetric operation. A failure on a single means you have to land very soon afterwards but at least the plane will behave as expected. Flying a twin on one engine is always very different from normal.
@@hb1338 And of course a twin engine aircraft has double the chance of a failing engine...
This is why you follow the checklist.
Thanks, OK , seems like lots of mistakes/errors. The Captain perished in the crash, and 2 others, which seems amazing so many survived.
Excellent video as always.
It sounds like this pilot wasn't qualified to drive a tram.
I wouldn't trust him pushing a pram.
I wouldn't trust him
Jumping a DAM
But, would you trust him
Petting a LAMB?
This was a bit frustrating to watch. The pilot may have been used to making up his own methods to deal with things rather than following safety checklists.
when TheFlightChannel uploads, it is always a good day ❤️
Pilot was completely incompetent. He did not follow procedures and attempted to land aircraft by the seat of his pants. This resulted in an expected catastrophe. No excuse for this accident.
Well this one hits close to home. I used to be a FA on a SAAB. My husband flew the SAAB as well.
It seems like this was the pilot's first flight in a dual propeller airplane.
I liked the original music that was played with these amazing videos way better. It was so dramatic, and fit perfectly.
wow. can't believe only 3 people died
Cool channel!
Crazy pilot.
now THAT was a sad one, but it could have ended worse !
There's something about the final stages of the animation that seems not quite correct. If the fuel-laden aircraft crashed at that speed and at that angle, there's no way that there'd have been only 3 fatalities
KLM Cityhopper Flight 433 (KL433 / KLC433)
---
DEP: Amsterdam, Netherlands (AMS / EHAM)
ARR: Cardiff, UK (CWL / EGFF)
---
1990 Saab 340B *PH-KSH* _City of Hamburg_
---
4 April 1994
Anachronism: the KLM Embraer E170s seen in the beginning were introduced to service in 2004. The KLM livery would also feature a bigger dark blue cheatline in 1994.
Wow talk about choking under pressure.
Excellent presentation -- as always from you!! Thanks!! 👍✈✈👍
Another fantastic video. Thank you!!! 🖤🖤🖤
Im not a pilot, so can someone explain this to me?
Multi engine planes have flown, and landed, on one engine since they started adding more than one engine to a plane.
Why did this guy have a problem?
Was it because he didn't shut the engine off?
My understanding is you have to move the rudder to one side to conteract the one running engine from turning the plane.
Did the pilot forget to move the rudder?
Yes. That is exactly what he did.
@@mbvoelker8448 -what, he forgot to move the rudder to compensate?
You’re absolutely right. Multiengine airplanes can keep flying if one engine goes out. Multiengine pilots are well-trained in how to fly an airplane on one engine. The rudder is applied to counter the torque or “yaw” placed on the plane by the operating engine. Ex: If the right engine is out, the pilot applies the left rudder to compensate for the drag of the stalled engine. If the stalled engine has a propeller as this aircraft did the pilot needs to “feather” the propeller blades, meaning to turn the blades to near-parallel with the airflow to reduce drag. This incompetent Captain did neither of those things. The tower even asked the Captain if he’d feathered the engine but he responded with something irrelevant.
The problem was with a broken switch that gave the crew incorrect information. However, the plane still performed normally within the parameters given in the manual. The crew knew the engine had enough oil pressure to maintain flight, but they ignored what the plane was doing and focused on what the alert was saying. While pilots are trained to trust their instruments, they have to trust the aircraft’s performance even more. What happened here was tantamount to having your car’s speedometer malfunction and show 0 mph, but you’re still cruising down the highway maintaining speed. In that situation, you would quickly reach the logical conclusion that the car is fine and the speedometer is malfunctioning.
Both pilots ignored the fact that the plane was fine without considering that an instrument alert was malfunctioning. It seems basic to ascertain what was really going on, so how could this crash happen? The video gives two clues: 1) The Captain was inept and never should’ve been flying ANY airplane, much less a commercial airliner. (That’s on you, KLM!) 2) There was no indication of CRM (Crew Resource Management) in which the crew members are supposed to reason together to figure out a problem rather than have the Captain call all the shots. The First Officer did little to aid the Captain in this situation so he is just as responsible for this crash as the Captain is.
Sorry this is long but I wanted to make sure you understood what happened here. I hope this helps.
@@MrYfrank14 Yes.
Thanks everyone.
Now I just have to figure out why I , a person who cant even fly a plane in a computer game, knew about moving the rudder to compensate for only having one engine, but this pilot didn't.
Can you tell me what the music you have at the end of the video and what simulator you used? My husband loves this stuff.
1:44 in and I am already disgusted and shaking my head! I've said it for years, the airline industry has no respect for human life and are blinded by profit to their ultimate responsibility: SAFE Flights for ALL involved! There is simply too much inherent risk involved should the slightest item be skirted (e.g. Maintenance, Training) yet here we are time and time again...lost a plane? Hundreds of innocent souls lost? The industries response can be boiled down to "Wow, that sucks....next" and on and on it goes! smh!
Part of this is the worlds demand for low cost flight. Airline margins are thin so corners are cut where they can be and sometimes the bare minimum training is the go to choice. I recently found out that in America most airlines don't pay the cabin crew until the doors are shut. All the work they do to board and settle the passengers in is unpaid. The flight crew doesn't get paid until the aircraft is pushed back. All the pre-flight planning and cockpit check lists prior to push back is unpaid.
@@cgirl111 I personally would prefer to pay a little more for a flight than be dead but that's just me.
Bro, wth are you talking about? Check out the drastic improvement to safety records of airlines over the past few decades. I fly for a major airline in the US and we don’t do anything unsafe in my cockpit.
@@michaele8347 In my opinion the drastic improvement in airline safety is due to taking the human pilot out of the equation more and more.
@@cgirl111
That has its positives and creates a negative which is less experience dealing with an emergency situation and what to do when. I know what you might say but muscle memory has its place in flying.
That only three died is amazing.... level of crew mismanagement is shocking....
So did the pilot just throw the aircraft manual out the window? Idling the engine instead of feathering the prop? Allowing the aircraft to pull right into the idled engine without opposite rudder control and ailerons? At least he had the decency to die instead of having to answer for these basic pilot correctable issues. Sorry for the loss of the passengers. What is the first world coming to?
nice video. but i do hope they put a voice on the commentary.
I’m not a pilot but i have flown in many simulators before and it was obvious what was going to happen… at that point just get the right engine to max power even though if you damage it but at least you gain some speed and altitude.
There was no situation where they needed 2 engines for speed and alt. There was just loss of directional control and bad Single engine flying.
@@unknownlastname5609 from my understanding of the situation, he was too slow + had tail wind which makes it even more difficult… by pulling left engine at max throttle and almost no airspeed there was not much he could do, as i said if he had used the right engine i think we would have had a chance to go around. I’m not an expert but i think thats how physics work, right?
@@emiliopecharich gear up, faulty engine not feathered will give you a higher vmc speed. Since he aggressively added power left, there was not enough speed for directional control. Basics of ME flying.
@@emiliopecharich yes true. But you don't need engine 2 for a go around in that situation. Reduce power on 1 and level to regain directional control.
@@unknownlastname5609 thank you for the explanation! It’s never late to learn something new.
did the pilot get any remedial training after getting the lowest score on single-engine operation?
I believe he was subsequently assigned only to aircraft with fail proof engines....
This is horrendous and absolutely heartbreaking 😰💔🙏
RIP to the 3 people who lost their lives onboard flight 433
why don't I receive any notifications from you when you upload new videos?
in the middle of the night I always watch your videos. Your work is really good. One of my favorite channels on youtube since the Carona Virus outbreak 2 years ago and now.
yes
You’re basically giving your life to 2 random strangers. (Unless ur a retired/off-duty pilot)
No different to entering a subway, bus or taxi. Only that in those the fall height is typically closer to zero.
Your videos are totally awesome.
I've been in much worse situations and we landed fine in all 3 cases. One plane I was on was hit by lightning nothing happened. Another one was hit by a windshield that was caught by surprise and there was no warning given and we landed perfectly with a sudden go around. Those 2 situations were on Southwest Airlines airlines based at Dallas love field. On Aero Mexico, we were flying and we hit severe trebulance so much that the overhead compartments for luggage opened and all the luggage fell out and hit the ceiling as we fell 10000' from the turbulence. We hit another big pocket of turbulence again and we went 10K feet straight down as carry on luggage from the overhead compartments stuck to the aircraft ceiling. We were all screaming. We leveled out and had smooth flying after the turbulence was done. We landed safely and no one got hit by falling carry on luggage as we leveled out in a perfect flight. 👍🏽 I've only had good luck thanks be to God for the safe flights and I've been flying since I was 4 months old. I don't remember not flying. I don't have any first memory of flying since it's really normal for my family to fly. I still have my flyer miles and I haven't flown since 2008. I bet I have a free flight coming up. 👍🏽😁
10,000 feet??? I'm sorry but I dont think you descent 20,000 feet in total due to turbelence
@@ndmz903 We did descend 10000' at 1st. We hit another wave and descended 10000' lower. It's amazing there were no other aircraft below us on the same traffic route is yours.✝️🙏🏼🙏🏾🙏🏽🙏🏿
Summed up, the captain flew a perfectly good plane into the ground.
Looking from record on how plane crash with direct impact like that mostly resulting everyone died, i am surprised only 3 people perished, i guess there was no fire that could create an explosion or fatal smoke inhales..
What i want to say is that's one hell of tanky plane..
After watching many of these excellent videos I wonder if these guys know how to fly airplanes! As soon as the on screen text stated that power had been pulled back I literally said out loud that of course oil pressure would show decrease. And how does the FO have so many hours in a commercial aircraft? How many hours are required in Europe for the equivalent of an ATP rating? Disasters waiting to happen.
It’s eerie how similar how that el Al cargo flight and this klm flight were… expect the klm one made it almost
The bottom line is, you never know who is in charge of the flight your in. I only fly when I'm at the controls........on my own.
That would be nice 👍🏻
The certification standard needs to be raised. No excuse that with 2 pilots they cannot control the airplane.
You have neglected the possibility that the pilot flew well on his check flights and then regressed as time passed. In such circumstances there would be no need to change the certification standard, but there might be a need to test pilots more frequently.
Totally avoidable accident due to really bad pilot training. Only the very best of pilots should be pilots .I am sorry for the deaths of the passengers and pilot however if the pilot had family I feel sorry for them too...they have to live with this. All we can say is that luckily this was a low capacity aircraft and not a 747 or large aircraft.
Thank you TFC...another excellent offering.
You should start having these videos narrated. Other YT channels that used to just use text are now using narration
He's done narration on a few videos, but most of us prefer just the text. It's different and more solemn.
Captain really thought he had plot armor doing so many mistakes like that
Despite the inadequate flying by the captain, that plane did everything it could to stay airborne. Even good planes can't keep fling with idiots at the controls.